HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/09/20 - Agenda Packet - (2) • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:00 p.m.
(Mike S.) SIGN PERMIT DRC2005-00700 - NATIONAL SIGN (on behalf of HOWSER
EWING COMPANIES): A proposal to amend an existing Uniform Sign Program
(USP#140) in conjunction with the construction of a commercial building of 8,350
square feet for a retail use, a dental office, and a restaurant in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Mayten Street - APN: 0229-011-84.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant
regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public
testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:10 p.m. -
(Mike S./Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2004-01051 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS (for KIWANIS CAL-NEV-HA
FOUNDATION/PETE HORTON)-A request to construct a two-story office building
of about 12,300 square feet in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located on
the west side of Red Oak Street, north of Civic Center Drive-APN: 0208-062-15.
7:30 p.m.
(Donald/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM17303 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide
11.70 acres of land into 6 parcels for industrial and commercial purposes in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) within the Haven Avenue Overlay District,
located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street-APN: 0210-391-
01 through 08 and 0210-381-22 and 23. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2005-00458 and Minor Exception DRC2005-00741. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2005-00458 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a
• master plan for an office and commercial center consisting of a 113-room hotel,
one restaurant pad building totaling 7,600 square feet, two three-story office
buildings totaling 146,896 square feet, and two commercial buildings totaling
DRC AGENDA
September 6, 2005
Page 2
21,200 square feet on 11.70 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea
6) within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northwest corner of
Haven Avenue and 4th Street - APN: 0210-391-01 through 08 and 0210-381-22
and 23. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17303 and Minor Exception
DRC2005-00741. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
8:00 p.m.
(Lou/Shelley) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00122 - WILLIAM D. AND PAMELA G.
RICE - A request to develop a two-story single-family home, with detached RV
garage, on .62 acre of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling
units per acre), located on south side of Vicara Drive, west of Carnelian Street -
APN: 1061-231-34.
8:10 P.M.
(Emily/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPSUBTT16788
-JONG -A request to subdivide 1.11 gross acres of land into 6 lots in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner
of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 0207-262-05. Related Files:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2004-01178 - BAHMAN SEPHERNIA-A request to develop six town homes
• with adjoining walls on .83 acre of land in the Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre), located at 8631 Arrow Route. APN:0207-262-05.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 15, 2005, at least 72 hours prior
to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
S
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith September 6, 2005
SIGN PERMIT DRC2005-00700- NATIONAL SIGN (on behalf of HOWSER EWING COMPANIES):
A proposal to amend an existing Uniform Sign Program (USP#140) in conjunction with the
construction of a commercial building of 8,350 square feet for a retail use, a dental office, and a
restaurant in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Mayten Street - APN: 0229-011-84.
Oral presentation to be given by the staff planner.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
Members Present:
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
•
7:10 p.m. Michael Smith September 20, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01051 -WILLIAMS
ARCHITECTS [for KIWANIS CAL-NEV-HA FOUNDATION /PETE HORTON] - A request to
construct a two-story office building of about 12,300 square feet in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7), located on the west side of Red Oak Street, north of Civic Center Drive -
APN: 0208-062-15.
Design Parameters: The project site is located at the west side of Red Oak Street about 200 feet
north of Civic Center Drive. The site is located in an office/professional complex (Office Tennis
Executive Center) that is subdivided into 15 parcels of which 12 are fully improved with office
buildings. The property to the north is a vacant parcel that was approved for development earlier
this year (related file: DRC2003-01236). To the south is an office building, while to the west is a
recreational/landscaped area that is for the use of the office complex tenants. The properties to the
east are vacant. Vegetation on the site is limited to low grasses. The property is generally level;the
existing topography slopes from about 1,179 feet on the north side of the lot to about 1,175 feet on
the south side.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story office building. Consistent with several of the
other buildings in the complex, the proposed building will be situated close to the street with its
required parking located 'behind' it. Primary access to the property will be provided to Red Oak
Street via a driveway that will be shared with the property to the south. Secondary access to the
• subject site will be available from the north once the property there is developed, and its
corresponding driveway paved.
The proposed building will serve as the local headquarters for Kiwanis International. There is no
consistent architectural theme within the complex. As a result,the building employs an architectural
design that is distinct from it neighbors. The primary entrance will be defined by a metal canopy.
Other features of the building include articulated wall planes and parapets on all elevations, tower
elements on the east and west elevations,and the liberal application of glass,especially on the west
elevation around the primary entrance of the building. Horizontal trim elements and well-defined
score lines blended with arched window surrounds further enhance the building. The building
incorporates two primary building materials/finishes — plaster and stone veneer. Three different
plaster colors will be utilized on all elevations.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. At the two tower elements, eliminate the stucco panels beneath the arches and replace with
more storefront glass (see attached).
2. Use the large cornice design for entire building to eliminate flat parapet walls.
3. Increase size of poles supporting the southwest corner of the metal canopy at the building's
• entrance to be proportionate to the canopy mass. Suggest 24-inch square or round. Also,
instead of bare metal poles, use a finish and a material that matches the walls of the building.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2004-01051 —WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS
September 20, 2005
. Page 2
Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. Decorative paving should be provided in the plaza area immediately in front of the building's
entrance.
2. Re-locate the trash enclosure to the southwest corner of the project site.
3. The planter walls should be finished with decorative block or a stone veneer to match the
building.
4. The access doors on the north elevation should be painted to match the adjacent wall plane.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. The canopy trees for maximum shade shall be provided in the parking lot. One tree per every
three parking stalls shall be provided. Use a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees along
the streetscape for year round interest.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project, incorporating the above-noted
revisions.
• Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Michael Smith
Members Present:
•
7 ARK S&
F ✓fs� } � f"1'
•,x 2 t ' x � #(�' 4`� f ,t, .t LL �` s S;.} 4 �_ z x i as
.w.at^s�' e iLl i fl v u j <t i.3c da r t +#a a 77�a F t r h L tF J t'Y ad,�'r
��x �, �
� t t���w'''.�
'n�yi$y$rin'+ Row. x�&S t r r &n n •� � {4uxC
},t'Nj^rta 4
�, It �' 'i�''a afin tin ze 'Ff. r to Fr
' -b i tr < bY.,t. .+�. n �' YK t -..-'frpy'S } 7• h �`Wk+� ,x fii2�
t r'' E t -. >'ti. s 1
amp I
�� xu` L%+FlS
most
ANSWO "Eras ,t'•
¢� Cr. � � � z5 � -V I+F`.0 n i r }2� - � °tt Y x ,SN,r•Y'�
b' by s� e �''✓Ll `�• »,} �
v6 fyiw.�
,�4 e}�4� ��y d { � a ,. � n ��63"��,q �kw:Y��,'t x ayr b ,{L tl r�e�,���{3`s'• - t t�S rSf'�p''-1)p�i'N �"�
4��j 3"d."a,„ ���' y adz�i'`•�� c> t! Si'�a1 ��yA^z e' r �*' �,'�' 'Yt i �/ lh,' Y 5��+��'
s
I QM a
'rS Ylf igg'� '�t � �r U a -d �.Y jL S YH ?3'r F b A.ai� 4� ~A s.b '�wa~•E _
�`.o-e+e,tt:-�' tT#kv ``rr'��},y, �' �''� tY'• _"� � } ;4ys £1
�Y1V �'ai' "'d s' •i T Y r 1� .
STgf u ` sY r'•LT
sf�,y k,1 ��F(��yj,��� P�' � � z � ' � I � t S�{O �s x r�„�Y j?�♦
IF
At Illy A
Iowa, _ f W :
�Y_: r �. � •• y � '+F'��ay,N x�.''tj �z �R Lv+- � ...--... -
Alp` � } ..
b s� (S'" ya ;t �f'FY' rLL � }��^,%Yi"}f � F/�6F•8' � �' 's�� '�
�„rY t y Jpy.. A x a..s• F
:{{ '±h ,� `�gp �,anyxc 4''YS'�� }_ '�"� %�.'S. f}"+ '.. p'h7'} �4 �7i�_•'{i
p ,yy Y
i A�1 p
a L} wr ��1 �� z '3 Y �✓ }4 � `'rM �a�1 r�'cy.,�y 3x� 9�J� ti t� a�}�
TAW
z.,Y`� '4 '�`�-k• 1.. 4 :n7i,L f�°„�4A�k^� t... ��" A - b�� �yi;X��>9
Dy
a
ry MO fE 35,dt.�}}1�c,, ., "'v agF*•r��g�, x'yl( rr n C1�•�rr', 5a 4 :.a , i S L '� :S
�k.`f,��� � ��dY� �t��Z3.ea"���4.n.'¢ti;`U"$�'.1 45�1���t�U Y�++HS+rA�,*�3 1 -x 2r y��w� � .•
O
.,�. ..Y` ..,�°rw�s.: ..��.✓,r,:f�,-i:,...'"!i.�}..�.f8 `r .t, .:!~<`.�.��
_, 4 & z .,. ,ti„,, s3, iTf'Y f x r t •"r.� r�y ( ag M.
AM
mss - ,
L
�`t",}''
$ m
s - w"` 'tea
. eyie
OF—
'v
y.
r r
5� M
eye- vs^}
yak" � k F { }•,y.� )� . ..
t ti i x °
,t '4
""A R
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Donald Granger September 20, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00458-CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a master plan for an office and commercial center
consisting of a 113 room hotel, one restaurant pad building totaling 7,600 square feet, two
three-story office buildings totaling 146,896 square feet, and two commercial buildings totaling
21,200 square feet on 11.70 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) within the
Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street -
APN: 0210-391-01 through 08 and 0210-381-22 and 23. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM17303 and Minor Exception DRC2005-00741. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17303-CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to subdivide 11.70 acres of land into 6 parcels for industrial and
commercial purposes in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) within the Haven Avenue Overlay
District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street - APN: 0210-391-01
through 08 and 0210-381-22 and 23. Related Files: Development Review DRC2005-00458 and
Minor Exception DRC2005-00741. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
Design Parameters: The project site is located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th
• Street, a major gateway into Rancho Cucamonga. The project site is located within the Haven
Overlay District, which strives for high employment density and an office park atmosphere for office
and professional land uses. Site planning must incorporate elements of a pedestrian-oriented,
campus-like setting with intensified landscaping. Paseos, esplanades and courtyards that feature
pedestrian connections are required.
The Haven Avenue Overlay District requires exemplary, sophisticated urban office architecture.
Architecture that makes strong use of glass, rich materials(granite,travertine,etc.), metal, recesses,
openings, portals is highly sought after, and vertical and horizontal articulation in the wall planes is
required. Wood framed structures and low, lineal buildings in the Haven Overlay District are
discouraged. The corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue has been identified as an "urban center"
and a major gateway into the City.
Consistent with the concept of an urban center, the applicant is proposing to construct two,
three-story office buildings atthe corner,and one single-story commercial building and one two-story
commercial building. The Master Plan includes the conceptual location of a 113-room (Building F)
hotel and a freestanding 7,600 square foot, sit-down restaurant(Building C). The project does not
include architectural review of the hotel and restaurant at this time, since specific hotel and
restaurant tenants have not been identified. Design Review for these two buildings will be required
once a tenant has been selected.
The two, three-story office buildings (Buildings A and B) have highly visible frontage on Haven
Avenue and 4th Street. The footprints of Buildings A and B are identical and are comprised of a
stacked stone base, concrete tilt-up walls, and generous of amounts of tinted vision glass and
anodized aluminum panels. Building D is a steel-framed structure, utilizing stacked stone, curtain
• walls with vision glass, and cement plaster exterior. Building E is a wood-framed structure and is
comprised of stacked stone, anodized aluminum panels and smooth, cement plaster exterior. The
applicant has designed the site so that the majority of the parking stalls have been screened by the
buildings and the landscaping from 4th Street and Haven Avenue.
DRC AGENDA
DRC2005-00458 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• September 20, 2005
Page 2
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. As noted above, the project site is located within the Haven Avenue Overlay District and is
identified as gateway and urban center. The site planning and building architecture must be of
the highest quality and sophistication. To meet this goal, staff recommends the following
enhancements:
• Two primary materials are required for all buildings in the Industrial Districts and for
buildings within the Haven Avenue District; the two primary materials must reflect the
highest caliber of sophisticated, urban design. Staff recommends that the stacked stone
be removed from Buildings A, B, D, and E and the freestanding site walls. A richer,
more urban material, such as travertine or granite, should be used.
• All building entrances should make a formal statement and provide a striking focal point,
making use of variation in the architectural wall planes and creative use of pavement
material in the plazas leading to the entrances. The entrance to Buildings A and B
should be modified to include wall planes that extend out from the entrance.
• • The Committee should provide direction and input regarding the use of plaster on
Buildings D and E.
• All buildings within the Haven Overlay District must have strong elements that exhibit
office style architecture, even for buildings that are occupied by accessory or support
uses. Building E should be modified to reflect more of an office design and less of a
commercial appearance, using Building D as inspiration. Staff recommends greater
use of steel, glass and concrete, and the elimination of plaster and the wall-mounted
wood trellis.
2. The Haven Overlay District specifically requires plazas area and pedestrian nodes. Plazas are
proposed at the entries of Buildings A and B. The following elements are encouraged:
• Public art
• Substantial use of decorative pavement
• Incorporation of a water feature
• Urban landscape design with terraced planters, vine plantings, benches and grade
changes
• Outdoor furniture and shade areas for employee outdoor eating areas
• Lighted bollards and covered walkways
3. Attached is a Shared Parking Analysis from Walker Parking Consultants. The applicant is
requesting a reduction in the amount of required parking based upon a shared parking
analysis. The Development Code acknowledges that there are opportunities where shared
• parking may be appropriate. The shared parking analysis is based on research studies that
mixed uses can share a pool of parking because of offset peak hour parking demands, and
that actual parking demand can be reduced because some customers will already be present
or "captive" for existing uses (i.e. office worker who walks to the onsite restaurant for lunch).
DRC AGENDA
DRC2005-00458 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• September 20, 2005
Page 3
Thus, the actual parking demand is not the simple sum of all proposed uses, but a calculated
demand based upon peak hour use and captive ratios.
The applicant is requesting a reduction of 139 parking stalls, or a 15 percent reduction of the
Development Code requirement of 919 stalls. The applicant is proposing 780 stalls.
Planning staff is requesting that the Design Review Committee review the shared parking
analysis and provide input and direction regarding the request for the parking stall reduction.
Staff believes shared parking is appropriate for the proposed mix of office, hotel and
restaurant uses.
4. As noted above, the corners of 4th Street and Haven Avenue have been identified as urban
centers and gateways into the City. The project should be modified to make extensive use of
enhanced paving. Staff recommends that following areas be modified with enhanced
pavement:
• Two entries off Haven Avenue and two entries off 4th Street. Enhanced paving
should begin immediately at the edge of the right-of-way and extend deep into the
project site, terminating at a logical point.
• Two entries off Commerce Center Drive.. Enhanced paving should begin
immediately at the edge of right-of-way and extend deep into the project site,
terminating at a logical point.
• • The entire parking area between Buildings A and B, northwest of Building C.
5. In order to enhance pedestrian circulation and provide a connection to public transit facilities,
buildings and retail uses, a defined pedestrian connection should be provided. This
pedestrian connection should extend from the corner of 4`"Street and Haven Avenue through
the entire project connecting to Commerce Center Drive. The pedestrian connection should
be designed around the following guidelines:
• Enhanced pavement that defines a clear path of travel
• Illuminated bollards where the pedestrian path crosses the parking lot
• Use of benches
• Connection to plaza and courtyards
6. Since the project does not include architectural review of the hotel and restaurant at this time,
the project should include completion of the perimeter landscaping along street frontages and
the pads themselves hydro-seeded.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Three drive aisles have parking stalls and/or trash enclosures in the entry throats that disrupt
the view corridors and initial visual impressions of the project. Further, for optimum
circulation and in order to minimize vehicle conflicts, the three drive aisles should be
• redesigned without parking stalls and trash enclosures.
2. A landscape planter with trees and shrubs should be included around the footprint of all
buildings. The following buildings should be modified to include landscape planters:
DRC AGENDA
DRC2005-00458 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• September 20, 2005
Page 4
• Northwest elevation of Building C
• South elevation of Building D
• North elevation of Building E
3. The bus shelters along 4th Street and Haven Avenue should be enhanced in order to
complement the architectural design and materials palette of the proposed Haven Park office
center. Staff recommends the following:
• The bus shelter should be redesigned to be an architectural extension of the office
buildings, utilizing the same materials and architectural features.
• In order to provide shelter in inclement weather and shade in the summer, the
perforated metal roof should be redesigned with a solid roof.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. The project will require review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program.
2. Outdoor furniture shall be provided in the outdoor employee eating area.
• 3. All outdoor furniture (tables, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, etc.) shall be uniform.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the project
in light of the comments outlined above and provide additional input and direction.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
Members Present:
•
WALKER
PARKING CONSULTANTS
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS.
HAVEN PARK OFFICE
CAMPUS.
Prepared for:
The Hileman Company LLC
July 20, 2005
WALKER Walker Parking Consultants
PARKING CONSULTANTS 2550 Hollywood Way.Suite 303
• Burbank,CA 91505
Voice: 818.953.9130 -
Fax: 818.953.9331
w .woIkerporking.com
July 20, 2005
Jack Hileman
The Hileman Company LLC
1 100 Glendon Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Re: Shared Parking Analysis —Haven Park
DearJack:
Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present the following revision of the draft parking study for
the Haven Park mixed-use development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The following report
contains projections of the parking demand that will be generated by the development as well as an
analysis of how the parking supply may be efficiently shared by the different land uses that will make
up the project.
• Should you or anyone from the City of Rancho Cucamonga wish to discuss the content, assumptions,
or findings in the report, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this
very interesting project.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Steffen Turoff
Parking Consultant
Enclosure
•
WALKER
envxwc coNwuwrs
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
HAVEN PARK
OFFICE CAMPUS
Prepared for:
THE HILEMAN
COMPANY LLC
PROJECT NO. 37-7602.00
20 JULY 2005
•
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PnaxuaccoHwmws
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
Project Background ............................................................. 1
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS .................................................. 3
Methodology.....................................................................4
DrivingRatio ...................................................................... 5
CaptiveMarkets................................................................. 5
EffectiveSupply..................................................................7
AnalysisResults................................................................... 8
Conclusion ...................................................................... 15
APPENDIX— Haven Park Site Plan
•
UST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table I:Proposed Land Use Summary
Page 2
Table 2:Shared Parking Analysis Page 10
Table 3:Weekday Parking Demand by Land
Use and Hour Page I 1
Table 4:Comparison of Cily Code and
Walker Bose Rafios Pogo 12
Table 5:Shared Parking Analysis-Walker
Ratios Page 14
Figure I:Shared Parking Example Page 4
•
r
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS rnxKwc CONSULTANTS
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
The Hilemon Company LLC is developing a mixed-use project called EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Haven Park, which will be located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of 4' and Haven in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Walker Parking Consultants projected the demand for parking that will
be generated by each of the different land uses planned for the project
and found that there is an opportunity to share parking among the
them. This sharing of parking is possible because the different land
uses contained in the Haven Park development experience peak
parking demand at different times of the day. We forecast that the
combined peak hour for parking will be at 2:00 PM on a weekday
afternoon.
Using the City's parking requirements and an assumed 100%
occupancy rate for each of the land uses contained in the
development, we calculated that Haven Park will need 783 parking
spaces, just 3 spaces above the 780 spaces that are planned for the
site. The real estate industry standard in the case of most analyses
would be a 95% occupancy rate; the 100% occupancy rate is more
• conservative. The 783-space figure has an effective supply cushion
ranging from 5% to 10% built in to the number (the percentage varies
based on the land use).
Using the parking demand ratios contained in Walker's Shared
Parking Model, we projected that Haven Park will need 758 parking
spaces, 22 spaces less than what is planned for the site. This figure
also has an effective supply cushion of 5% to 10% and, as in the
projection above, we assume a 100% occupancy rate for all the land
uses in the development.
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS _ WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARXQ,*cONSURAMS
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Hileman Company (Hileman) is developing a mixed-use project called
Haven Park. The site for the project is located on the northwest corner of
4' and Haven in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The most recent plan
for the site' includes office, retail, restaurant and a hotel. The square
footages for each building and land use type are shown in Table 1 on the
following page. The site plan is included as Appendix A. It includes 780
parking spaces.'
•
• Per 5-13-05, 5-19-05 and 7-12-05 memos and emails from Hileman Company
LLC to Walker Parking Consultants.
Per 7-13-05 plans by RFA.
3
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CONSULTAWS
20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Summary
Buildina Hotel Retail Restaurant Office Notes -
Lim ited-service
Hotel 113 rooms
Suite Hotel
Both lstand 2nd
12ksf Commercial 12,000 sf - floors are
assumed to
commercial use.
9.2ksf Retail 4,600 sf 4,600 sf See notes 1 and 2
Sit-down 7,600 sf See note 3
Restaurant
Total Office
Office 73,448 sf Space of
146,896 sf
Office 73,448 sf
• Total 113 16,600 12,200 146,896
Notes:
All square foots es are net rentable.
1- Restaurant is expected to be quick service (e.g., Baja Fresh, Quiznos, Starbucks, or similar tenant).
2- Tenant expected to be service retail (dry cleaners, photocopy, express mail, etc.).
3- Res taurantexpected to be high-end, full service (Daily Grill, Houston's, II Fornaio, or similar type of tenant).
Source: Hileman,Company,7-12-2005- I
4
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CONSULTANTS
20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
SHARED PARKING
Most city codes, including Rancho Cucamongo's, are written to ensure ANALYSIS
that enough parking is supplied by any given land use to
accommodate its peak-hour demand. For standalone land uses,
planning for the peak is a necessity. However, in areas where there is
a combination of land uses with different user characteristics, planning
for each use's peak individually may result in an over-supply of
parking. The key idea in shared parking analyses is that different land
uses peak at different times, and do not all need their maximum
parking supply at the same time. Therefore, in mixed-use projects there
is a potential to "share' a pool of parking that is smaller than the
amount that would be required for each land use individually.
Basically, in the case of parking the whole is often less than the sum of
its parts. Because shared parking reductions depend on the specific
mix and size of land uses in a project or area, few codes incorporate
shared parking directly into their requirements.
The classic example of a shared-use situation is a downtown area that
contains offices and evening entertainment (cinemas, restaurants,
nightclubs). The offices will be busy during the day on weekdays,
• while the entertainment uses will peak on weekend evenings. Even on
weekdays, when entertainment uses are busy if not at peak, the fact
that the offices are a daytime use while the entertainment uses are
primarily night-time uses allows many of the same parking spaces to be
used by both sets of venues. It is therefore not necessary to build all
the spaces the office needs during the day and all the spaces the
entertainment uses need at night. Indeed, to do so would result in an
oversupply of parking that creates aesthetic, financial and potentially
safety problems.
As on illustration of the shared parking concept, the parking needs of a
hypothetical office/entertainment area on a July weekday are shown
below. The development contains 20k of restaurant, 20k of nightclub,
1 ,500 cinema seats and 300k of office. The "unadjusted" column
shows the number of spaces needed if the maximum parking for each
of those land uses was supplied. Compared to this total of
approximately 1,900, we determined that the actual peak-hour need
would be only about 1,200 spaces.
•
5
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS r' WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CONSUIPANPS
20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Figure l: Shared Parking Example
2,000
1,800
1,800
1,400
1'200 ■Ofice
11,001)
■anema
�t�igMGub
800 ■Restaurant
600
400
• 200
Shared Parking Shared Parking Unadjusted
2 pm 9 pm
At a development like Haven Park the shared parking savings will be
less considerable than in this example as a percentage of total spaces,
but the principle is the same. The specifics will be discussed below.
METHODOLOGY
Shared-use parking studies are based on industry research regarding
parking generation rates and utilization patterns. Research
organizations like the Urban Land Institute (ULI), Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Eno Foundation for
Transportation have performed wide-scale research on many land uses
to tell us not only how many cars a given land use is likely to generate
at its peak hour, but also what the variation in demand is over the
course of the day, week and year.' Walker has contributed to those
• ' Sources include: Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Second
Edition. Washington DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 1999; Parking
Generation, Third Edition. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation
6
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PANxwG CONSUUAtM
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
research studies, including the recent update of ULI's landmark study of
mixed-use developments entitled Shared Parking, and performed
additional research on our own.
The basic finding of all of these research efforts is an understanding of
the relationship between a unit of land use (1,000 square feet, cinema
seats, hotel rooms, etc.) and peak-hour parking demand. The results
are expressed as ratios of spaces needed per unit of land use. We
refer to these as the "base ratios." They are the basis for city codes as
well as a shared parking analysis.
The industry research is performed on stand-alone suburban
developments so that there are no mitigating factors like transit use,
mixed use, or captive market effects that would vary the results from
one site to the next. However, most sites will have some variation from
the standalone suburban norm. In performing a shared parking
analysis, we account for these variances as described below.
DRIVING RATIO
• Not every person coming to a site will arrive alone in a car. Some
people will carpool, others will be dropped off, use public transit,
bicycle, or walk. The driving ratio is the percentage of people that do
arrive alone in a car. In major cities the driving ratio can be as low as
50%, but in areas like Rancho Cucamonga it tends to be quite high.
For the purposes of our analysis we assume the City's code already
incorporates any relevant driving ratio adjustments, and we therefore
make no further adjustments.
CAPTIVE MARKETS
In a mixed-use area, services like retail shops and restaurants will cater
in part to populations that are already parked for the day in the area.
For example, a restaurant at the base of an office building is likely to
reach capacity at lunch hour, but a significant percentage of the
customers will have walked down to the restaurant from the offices
above rather than driving to the restaurant (as they would if it were a
standalone building at a noticeable distance from their office). Since
the office workers' cars are.already on site for the day, those customers
do not generate parking demand when they stop in at the restaurant.
The same is true for hotel guests. These groups form "captive' markets
for the retail and dining services in their immediate area, and reduce
. Engineers, 2004; Gerald Salzman, "Hotel Parking: How Much Is Enough?"
Urban Land,January 1988; Shared Parking. Washington, DC : ULI-the
Urban Land Institute, 1983 (currently being revised to include new research
by Walker and others); Walker internal research.
7
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PAR%1NG CONSULTANO
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
parking needs. We refer to the percentage of people that do create
parking demand — those coming from off site-as the "non-
captive"ratio.
At Haven Park we do expect to see some captive effects. The office
buildings will generate over 450 employees, and these will be an
important market for the on-site retail and restaurants during the
weekdays. Hotel guests who remain on site during the weekdays will
also be a small captive market. With the number of employees on site
being so much greater than the capacity of the retail or restaurants,
there is potential for very significant captive effects— perhaps as much
as 70% of the retail/restaurant demand. However, we have used
more conservative reductions. From our observations of the
surrounding neighborhood, we do not see a lot of retail and restaurant
development at this time. A lot of office development is expected, and
these campuses may all include on-site restaurant and service retail. If
they don't, however, there will be demand for Haven Park's services
from elsewhere.in the area. With that in mind we conservatively
assume that off site offices will generate a majority of demand. Our
• reductions are 25% for retail and high-end dining, and 35% for fast
food (there are more off-site options for this category(. Expressed as
non-captive ratios, these equal 75% and 65% new demand
generation, respectively. Over time, we expect these will go down a
little as more services are developed in the immediate area.
It is important to reiterate that non-captive ratios and driving ratio are
completely separate factors; a non-captive ratio is not related to transit
service or the population of the municipality in which the development
is located. It instead is a function of the mix of tenants on site and the
land uses in the immediate vicinity. For example, we project that a
4,600 square foot restaurant establishment can only accommodate a
limited number of patrons during the lunch hour. With no adjustments,
we project that such a business, if standing alone with no nearby
development, might generate as much as 15 cars per 1000 sf or
roughly 69 cars. However, in the case of Haven Park, we know that
there is a 147,000 sf of office space located in the same
development, where roughly 500 people will be working on
weekdays. If just one in ten of these office employees visit Haven
Park's fast food restaurant during the lunch hour, which we believe is a
conservative assumption, they would account for more than 70% of the
patrons at the restaurant (a 70% captive ratio or a 30% noncaptive
ratio). In short, the restaurant becomes a service, rather than a
• destination, restaurant. We use a slightly more conservative non-
captive ratio of 65% for the fast-food restaurant and 75% for the more
formal dine-in restaurant. This does not account for other people in the
8
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PAMINGCONSUCLO 5
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Haven Park development, such as hotel guests, who might wish to dine
within the development.
The non-captive factor depends on how many of the people who park
for one land use (such as a stay at an hotel or work at an office)
remain parked while they conduct other business at or nearby the same
location.
Having made adjustments to our base ratios to include these site-
specific adjustments, we then look at the hourly and weekly utilization
patterns for each land use. These create the shared use effect
described above. Haven Park does not have the striking shared use
that an office and entertainment area does, but there is some shared
use between the office, restaurants, and hotel. Specifically, industry
research indicates that business-oriented hotels achieve peak demand
late at night through early morning. During the midday hours on a
weekday 40% of the guests have left with their cars. Thus spaces
open up from hotel guests just as the offices are filling up. The hotel
guests return after the workday when office demand has decreased
• significantly. A smaller shared parking benefit is that 10% of office
workers will leave at the noon hour for lunch just as the restaurant hits it
peak.
EFFECTIVE SUPPLY
The parking demand numbers calculated by the Walker Shared
Parking Model have a "cushion" of excess parking spaces built into the
total. A parking system must always have this cushion so that the
patron is not seeking out the lost few empty parking spaces (which
causes circulation problems) and also to account for the inevitable loss
of some spaces due to misparked cars, construction, broken glass or
other events that may render some spaces unusable.
There are three factors that affect the effective supply adjustment. The
first is the parking facility user type. Unfamiliar users require a greater
cushion, since they will have a harder time navigating the facility to
find parking. A second factor that influences the effective supply
cushion is length of stay, or how long someone leaves his or her car
parked. long-term users, like employees, do not greatly impact
circulation; once they park, their car generally remains parked for 'a
long period of time. This is in contrast to high turnover parking )retail
and restaurant) which does impact circulation, as people are moving
in and out of spaces. A third factor that needs to be taken into
account with regard to effective supply is the efficiency of the layout
design of the parking facility and the extent to which uses are
separated.
9
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS _ WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKW(i CONSUQAMS
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Our analysis of this site and the user groups who will be parking there .
indicates that it is efficiently designed and will be easy for parkers to
find parking near their destinations, with most employee spaces well
separated from parking for restaurant and retail areas. Daily users like
employees tend to park in the same area every day, leave their cars
parked for many hours and don't require much space to "look around."
For hotel guests or restaurant patrons, who visit a location on a less
frequent basis, the effective supply cushion is higher. The ratios used
to project parking demand in this report have an effective supply factor
built in for each user group; our final space counts include this
adjustment, which ranges from between 5% to 10% depending on the
specific land use.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Using these adjustments, we created a shared parking model of the
campus. The model uses City code for its base ratios rather than the
• base ratios that Walker typically uses (the ratios based on industry
research).' Because we want to stay as close to code as possible, we
also have taken no reductions for transit use.
The only adjustments in our model are for captive market effects and
variations in demand over the course of a day. Typically there are
seasonal variations in demand that also create a shared parking effect.
We have not taken any seasonal reductions in this model.
The model results in a peak hour of 2 p.m. At this hour, the offices
and retail will be at their peaks. The restaurants will no longer be at
their peaks, but will still be generating a significant number of cars. At
the noon hour the restaurants are at peak but the office is not, resulting
in slightly lower demand. A summary of the model is shown in Table
2 below. In Table 3, we show the projected parking demand for each
hour throughout the business day, from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Parking
demand is shown for each land use, broken down by employees and
customers/visitors. In both models we assume a peak 100%
occupancy for both the office and hotel uses. However, in real estate,
the industry standard is typically to assume no more than 95%
occupancy for offices when conducting financial or other analyses.
• ' It is our understanding from the client (per their conversations with City staff)
that code is calculated according to rentable square footage.
10
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CONSOQANM
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
In Table 2 on the following page one sees the calculation for the
shared parking demand per land use:
Parking Spaces per Code X Non-Captive Ratio
X Peak Hour Presence Factor
=Shared Parking Demand
Table 3,shows the expected parking demand for all the hours of the
business day, including the 2:00 PM peak.
•
•
tt
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING CONSUQANfS
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Table 2: Shared Parking Analysis—City Code Ratios
Code Non- Shared
Land Base Ratio Require- Captive 2 pm Parking
Use Quantity Code ment Ratio Presence Demand
per
Hotel 113 rms 1 .00 room 115 100% 60% 69
Office 146,896 s.f. 4.00 per ksF 588 100% 100% 588
Retail 16,600 s.f. 4.00 per ksf 67 75% 100% 51
Quick
Service
Rest. 4,600 s.f. 13.33 per ksf 62 65% 90% 37
Fu
Service
Rest. 7,600 s.f. 10.00 Eer ksf 76 75% 65% 38
Total I 908 783
Notes:
1 15 cars per 113 room hotel per the Hileman Company.
All square footages are in net rentable.
Source: Walker Parking Consultonts,2005. .
•
12
rtn o � ornt° � NmoO n
a
0
0
m
0 t0 N (O N N r N N N N N
0
0
N
d (O N V A N r N O
O � �
O C
< O
E
y
d N N M O N r W N O N O N N N
N N r n
O
O d
M L-.
y
r M O O N N O N N O r
O L
W
N N
d
■.00
WO r O O N N W r o 0
rQ a_ M to 0N V r c
O
'IyI M o r ao o N t0 to r N °
N N O N W O N N O N r L
!Si O c
O O
• E
d
o r
Q O O N O to N N
V N M —.- M M (D "N — O N N N r 0
O
O y
O D
O C
f E
CD
QO O Cl) O) .- M N 0 O N
M O
� O y
� O
w �
_ 2 r N (O N Q m M N O) 0
N co N o
ti Q N r N N
-O p O
c O O
p ..
N m _
N
� L
O O to M t0 N
O
G O
° Y
V a o 0 0 3 2 2 3 y 0 ttl c
W to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o E o Q a o
V N o 0 D U
LL. ° E 0 w ° c
O z O U W
Q d U) m
CL
Y ' z
a z o m O ¢ Y m
• d < g 3 a� vdya° oyra° w � W
Z d T N T O T O T O T O
N
W 'c O N O O O m 0 t7 O (U
4 J M
toy E E w E E ° oy E
a Q
0 0 W c S w m w o w � o w 0 a o
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS P LNG CONSMAKIs
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
As the model shows, our calculation projects a demand for 783
parking spaces at the peak hour. Comparing this to the planned
supply of 780 spaces, we project a slight deficit of just 3 spaces at
peak. It is worth reiterating that we expect the non-captive ratios to
drop somewhat over time as additional service retail and restaurant
options become available in the area; this would have the effect of
tipping the small deficit into a surplus of parking spaces.
In addition to the shared parking model based on the Rancho
Cucamonga code, we created a shared parking model using the
some adjustments as above, but starting with the base ratios that
Walker typically uses. The Walker base ratios are based on industry
research, including our own, gathered from land uses across the
country. The differences are as follows:
Table 4: Comparison of City Code and Walker Bose Ratios
Walker Base
• Land Use City Code Ratios .
Hotel 1 .00 per room 1 .25 per room*
Office 4.00 per ksf 3.32 per ksf-
Retoil 4.00 per ksf 6.10 per ksf -
Quick Service Rest. 13.33 per ksf 1175 sF 15.00 per ksf
Full Service Rest. 10.00 per ksf it/100 sf 1 8.00 per ksf
1 quest + .25 employee; employee number maX be hi 2h for limited-service hotel.
Source:Walker Pa,king Consultonts,2005.
As the table shows, Walker uses higher ratios than the City for every
land use except office. In the past we used a ratio of 3 spaces per
1,000 5f for office and have recently brought the ratio up based on
new research, but we have not seen evidence that typical office
developments of the size and tenant type proposed for Haven Park
require more than 3.3 per ksf.5
In some instances we do use higher ratios than the one shown in the table.
Most notably, call centers can generate upwards of 6.0 cars per 1,000
square feet. Smaller office spaces, too, generate more demand per square
fool. The ratio used above is one we have developed specifically for offices
•
14
HAVEN. PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS vnaKwcco+surTUns
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Running the analysis using the Walker Base Ratios shown above, we
arrive at a peak-hour demand for 758 spaces. Table 5 shows the
results of our model.
•
in the size range proposed for Havenpork assuming they are typical offices
and not call centers.
15
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS 45, WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS PARXING CONSMANrS
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
Table 5: Shared Parking Analysis-Walker Ratios
Non- Shared
Land Base Ratio Unadlstd Captive 2 pm Parking.
Use Quantity (Walker) Demand Ratio Presence Demand
per
Hotel 113 rms 1 .25 room 141 100% 60% 85
Office 146,896 s.f. 3.32 per ksf 488 100% 100% 488
Retail 16,600 s.f. 1 6.10 per ksf 102 75% 100% 77
Quick
Service
Rest. 4,600 s.f. 15.00 Per ksf 69 65% 90% 41
Fu
Service
Rest. 7,600 s.f. 1 8.00 per ksf 137 75% 65% 67
Total 937 758
• Notes: .
1 15 cars per 1 13 room hotel per the Hileman Company.
All square foots es are in net rentable.
Hotel and Office Occupancy Rates are assumed to be 100% although real estate industry
standards typically assume 95%.
Source:Walker Parking Consultants,2005.
•
16
HAVEN PARK OFFICE CAMPUS WALKER
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS rnwccaNSaTaas
• 20 JULY 2005 PROJECT#37-7602.00
CONCLUSION
Using City code as the basis of the shared parking analysis, we
project that Haven Park would run a small deficit (approximately 3
spaces) at the peak hour on a weekday. Using industry research as
the basis of the shared parking analysis, we project that the campus
would have a small j22-spaced surplus of parking at peak.
•
•
17
�e
APPENDIX
C�
3NN3AV N3AVH
r u J p / �
� I
a ,
-
L-I—I_L
i
, W
• w
dp
b�� I y
u F
U 0
Y� O
w
g � '
LL O ^N LL LL '
-
ooypy�1011 �
K
p 556 j 0
Maxi
_ I L•
r45`qgU wul axBF
w®®�c $J %$paCa�s � Ir
:LSCS... �
30N3AV L31 30 /
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
. 8:00 p.m. Lou LeBlanc September 20, 2005
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00122 — WILLIAM D. & PAMELA RICE - A request to
develop a two-story single-family home, with detached RV garage, on .62 acre of land in the Very
Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Vicara Drive,
west of Carnelian Street—APN: 1061-231-34.
Design Parameters: The project site is generally rectangular in shape with an overall depth of 302
feet north/south by 90 feet east/west. The surrounding properties are vacant, with the exception of
parcels to the north.
The design of the proposed residence substantially follows the General Design Guidelines, Hillside
Design Guidelines, and their associated Development Standards. The proposed home is of a
contemporary architectural style. The project includes a single-story, detached RV garage in the
rear yard. The proposed design includes multiple steps resulting in up to 3 feet of difference in
finished floor surface from the front to the back of the house.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: None
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
• 1. Add stone veneer to columns flanking RV garage doors to match the garage of the primary
residence.
2. Plant shrubs along the foundation stem walls where the finished floor is more than 2 feet
above the exterior grades to soften the extended wall heights.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with the above listed conditions.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Lou LeBlanc
Members Present:
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 8:10 P.M. Emily Cameron September 6, 20 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16788 — JONG -A
request to subdivide 1.11 gross acres of land into 6 lots in the Medium Residential District (8-14
dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue -
APN: 0207-262-05. Related Files:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01178- BAHMAN
SEPHERNIA -A request to develop six town homes with adjoining walls on .83 net acres of land in
the Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling untis per acre), located at 8631 Arrow Route -
APN: 0207-262-05.
Design Parameters: The most significant design constraint is the small size of the property.
Coupled with the applicant's desire to building detached homes, created numerous design
challenges. The site is currently vacant and is relatively flat with a slight slope to the south. The
project is bordered to the north by Arrow Route, to the south and east by single-family residential
homes and apartments. To the west are town homes. The single-family homes to the south have
fieldstone detail on low walls facing Madrone Avenue.
The project will consist of two floor plans and three elevations ranging in square footage from 1,783
to 1,958. Both floor plans provide a two-car garage and incorporate stacked stone and stucco as
the main materials of the units. The applicant has incorporated wrought iron railing features,window
surrounds, stone chimneys, and decorative rafter tails to the design. The project incorporates an
• entryway sign, barbeque area, a tot lot, and two separate patio/porch areas for each unit. The 6-foot
high property line walls are proposed as split face block.
A tree removal permit has been submitted by the applicant for the removal of 18 trees. A total of 2
Cedar trees are proposed to remain in place. The applicant is proposing a temporary chain link in
place around the 2 Cedar trees until construction is complete.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Provide architectural enhancement to blank wall surfaces, such as introducing windows.
2. Provide articulation (i.e., horizontal movement of wall planes) or architectural enhancement
(e.g., window pop-outs) to avoid the 2-story box-on-box appearance of Side Elevations.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide the following landscape requirements per the Development Code:45 trees per gross
acre, 10 percent 36-inch box, 10 percent 24-inch box, and 80 percent 15-gallon sized trees.
Also provide additional trees in the seating area (noted in the Conceptual Landscape Plan).
• 2. Provide stamped and colored concrete to match the tan exterior color of the units in all areas,
which call out "special accent paving."
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
DRC AGEMDA
DRC2004-01051 —JONG
. September 20, 2005
Page 3
1. Solid side yard gates are required per the sound attenuation study. Solid wood gates are not
allowed. A solid decorative gate, such as solid PVC is required as noise mitigation.
2. Chain link fencing is not allowed. Where this condition exists,the developer should work with
the adjoining property owners to remove chin link, replacing it with a decorative block wall, as
called out on the plans.
3. Curb adjacent sidewalks are not allowed. Revise the curvilinear sidewalk on Arrow Route to
be a minimum of 3 feet from the curb.
4. Illustrate pre-cast concrete bench seating in the decorative concrete area between Unit 5 and
6.
5. Provide a minimum depth of 12-18 inches for the wrought iron fencing (on the front elevation)
to be a useable area for potted plants.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Emily Cameron
• Members Present: