The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010/10/19 - Agenda Packet - (2) -ov DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. . RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER • RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca CONSENT CALENDAR NO ITEMS SUBMITTED. 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. 7:00 p.m. (Tabe/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18782 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITES - A request to create a Tract Map for condominium purposes for an 11.15-acre site within the High (H) Development District (24-31 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan on the south side of Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-422-21, 22 and 25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2010-00361 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A request to construct a multi-family housing development consisting of 192 units on 11.15 acres of land within the Residential High (H) Development District (24-31 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan on the south side of Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-422-21, 22 and 25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 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 I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 6, 2010, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag October 19, 2010 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18782 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITES - A request to create a Tract Map for condominium purposes for an 11.15-acre site within the High (H) Development District (24-31 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the south side of Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-422-21, 22 and 25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration, DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2010-00361 - LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES - A request to construct a multi-family housing development consisting of 192 units on 11.15 acres of land within the Residential High (H) Development District (24-31 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the south side of Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-422-21, 22 and 25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Background: Lewis Apartment Communities has submitted an application to develop a 192 unit market rate rental condominium project. The 11.15-acre project site is located on the south side of Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Avenue and is within the Terra Vista Community Plan. The land use designation for the site is Residential High (H), which has a density range of 24 to 31 units per acre. The Terra Vista Community plan permits the site to be developed at the Medium High (MH) density range (14 to 24 units per acre) with the approval of the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed density is approximately 17.45 units per acre. The multi-family development directly north of the project site was also developed at a reduced density (reduced from High to Medium High Residential). Design Theme: The project is named Santa Barbara and was designed to evoke the Spanish revival architecture and landscape themes found in the City of Santa Barbara. The main drive aisle of the development is named State Street, which is the main commercial street in Santa Barbara. State Street will have enhanced landscaping and seating areas to encourage pedestrian activity and will be anchored by a small park on either end. The buildings facing State Street will have enhanced entrances that will open to themed courtyards. The courtyards will have unique landscape palettes along with tenant amenities that include outdoor fireplaces, barbeques, water features, and enhanced seating areas. The three-story buildings will face the courtyards and are designed using many of the architectural details found in classic Santa Barbara architecture. Unit Breakdown: The development is made up of 192 units in 22 buildings. This includes 16 one-bedroom units (889 square feet), 83 two-bedroom units (1,428 square feet), 26 three-bedroom units (1,678 square feet), and 67 four-bedroom units (1,946 square feet). Each unit has an outdoor deck and a number of the units also include a ground level patio. Recreational Amenities: The project was designed to have recreational amenities that meet the interests of tenants of all ages. The center piece is a 5,500 square foot recreation building that will include meeting rooms, a gym, a communal kitchen, a computer room, and a gathering area with a fireplace. Adjacent to the recreation area is a large pool and spa with multiple outdoor seating areas. There are also two small parks, multiple courtyards with enhanced seating areas and barbeques, a community garden, two children's play areas and a fenced dog run. DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00361 — LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES October 19, 2010 Page 2 Parking: The project provides a total 421 parking spaces. Of these, 344 spaces are provided in enclosed garages (this does not include the 26 tandem garage spaces), 55 are open surface spaces, 21 are parallel drive aisle parking spaces, and 3 are handicap parking spaces. The Planning Department has historically not counted the tandem parking spaces towards the required parking because of the lack of accessibility to the inside parking space. The applicant insists that through their parking management program they will ensure that tenants do not use the inner space for storage or use the guest parking spaces. The majority of enclosed parking spaces are directly accessible to the dwelling units, though 26 units have one detached enclosed parking space in an adjacent building. Not counting the 26 tandem parking spaces, the project is 6 parking spaces deficient of meeting the overall minimum requirement. Number of Bedrooms Number Code Standard Required Total Required Parking Total of Units Covered Spaces Provided • Parking Parking Spaces One Bedroom Units 16 1.5 spaces/unit 16 spaces 24 spaces 168garage+ (1 garage space) spaces Two Bedroom Units 83 1.8 spaces/unit 83 spaces 149 spaces 1400goaraage*+ (1 garage space) spaces Three Bedroom Units 2.0 spaces/unit 52 spaces 52 spaces 52 garage 26 (2 garage spaces) Four Bedroom Units 134 spaces 154 spaces 134 garage+ 2.3 spaces/unit 67 (2 garage spaces) 20 open spaces Guest Parking 192 0.25 spaces/unit 48 42 Garage Spaces not Assigned to a Unit 2 Total Spaces 429 421 Enclosed Garage Spaces' 285 344 Total Open Spaces Provided 79 Total Dedicated Tenant Open Spaces 37 Guest Space Parking Deficiency (-6) *26 tandem spaces not included ANALYSIS: The project meets or exceeds all the minimum development standards of the Terra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code except for parking and the necessity for up to 8-foot high perimeter walls (where retaining walls are necessary). The applicant has filed a Minor Exception for an additional 2 feet of wall height above the maximum 6 feet permitted. The applicant has proposed using gravity retaining walls that will be planted to soften their appearance. The project will be gated and have one point of entry from Church Street. The applicant has used open fencing around a large portion of the project to reduce the feel of a gated community. There are pedestrian access gates on each side of the four sides of the project. Staffs' major concerns with the project are related to parking and the level of architectural details on the buildings. Because of complaints associated with the parking issue related to multi-family developments in the City, the Planning Commission has made it a policy to require parking in access of the minimum. While no hard number or percentage above the minimum has been decided upon, a goal of 20 percent above the minimum seems reasonable. This will help avoid the problem of having to allow on-street parking DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00361 — LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES October 19, 2010 Page 3 surrounding the developments. Presently, no on-street parking is permitted on the streets surrounding the development, which would leave any overflow parking moving to the nearby retail and office uses adjacent to the project site. The project includes a large number of 3 and 4 bedroom units (93 total) that staff is concerned will overwhelm the proposed guest parking. The applicant insists that through their on- site parking permit program and constant monitoring by on-site management, that the provided parking should be adequate. Overall, Staff is pleased with the design of the buildings, but feel additional architectural details are necessary to fully capture the Santa Barbara architectural style. Staff has attached photos of multi-family development in another city which highlight the details used with this architectural style. This includes decorative soffits, wrought iron details, conductor boxes on the downspouts, stucco texture, and trellis structures over the garage doors. 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. The project is currently 6 parking spaces deficient of meeting the minimum guest parking requirement (not counting the 26 tandem parking spaces). It is recommended that the applicant add additional guest parking spaces above the minimum requirement. Secondary Issues: 1. Wrought Iron — Staff has recommended that the applicant add wrought iron grills over all of the small fixed windows. The applicant has added them to a few windows and stated that their architect believes that adding more would detract from the aesthetics of the building. Staff does not agree with this conclusion and feels that additional wrought iron elements should be added. 2. Decorative Soffits — The applicant has proposed very plain radius soffits stating that they are appropriate to the design of the building, and due to the height of the buildings, are not very visible. Staff feels that a more decorative soffit would enhance the overall design of the buildings (see attached photos). 3. Downspout Conductor Boxes — Staff recommends adding conductor boxes to all the downspouts to reinforce the Santa Barbara architectural style and to add an additional architectural detail to the large flat wall planes on the garage side of the buildings (see attached photos). The architect again believes that they would detract from the aesthetics of the building. 4. Garage Trellises — Trellis structures have been used over a large number of the garage doors. Staff feels that they should be added to more or all of the garage doors, especially the garage doors adjacent to a change in wall plane. 5. Stucco Texture — A smooth plaster finish is a hallmark of Santa Barbara (Spanish revival) architecture. Staff understands that a smooth plaster finish is more costly to install and is prone to cracking. Staff has asked the applicant to provide the smoothest texture possible. 6. Pilaster — Staff has requested that the applicant add additional decorative pilasters to both the open fencing and the block walls. The applicant has added a few additional pilasters, though staff still feels that additional pilasters are necessary. Staff recommends adding pilaster • DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00361 — LEWIS APARTMENT COMMUNITIES October 19, 2010 Page 4 approximately every 20 to 30 feet of fence or wall plane. 7. Roof Tile — Spanish tile with mortor lifts are being proposed for the roof of the recreation building only (see photo on page titled — Elevations: Resident Leasing and Amenity). Because of cost constraints, the applicant does not wish to use the mortor lifts on the other buildings in the project. The mortor lifts give the roofs more dimension and are authentic to the architectural style. The • question is whether mortor lifts should be used on all of the buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee consider the issues outlined above and forward the project to the Planning Commission for final review if all issues are resolved. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Members Present: • • .,- •s... •-•4*-4, ",-.4.. ..":".• .:•-f-' - -- '''' - _,.=•-- „...,. - , X ,... k. 0 lifilPt t,s, klitioit - S. \'"4111Killr .,5 N, ii. i-...V '4, • \ , 1 MEM '. ■ ,.. , -,..... '0 0 C.) Ii .„,,,, 0., ... . ,!t....„,,-- - 4 N4m/', -,- . 4,--h -4,- . .,..-- _ . ... ,..„, .......•.... :, - Attachment . _ ..000066 - ; .....2.i..... .....--- - --, '4-f- •• ,, -...i'.-. --,--------'-' .- ,..!--------i. - - .., . . . .0::"•-;" •-7. —...r------- '-,, , 'IMIIIK,'IMOIMMicaiiiing,•••■f t 0 .. liktil ' j .— • ' €-".":,,, ---, cc.- .--- 7.7"313,. i; ' '.... .-,?ifir ..t-, , ali i ,.... alE z,7„w: -, 1r ,,.0,. . n . ---m, rah. ,. - ' .. nliits.f, If . . 1,0‘ . air i 0 itn-t.0„.,.,...ft. _,... . Rag > -............. . ,., -_____ ..... .7... „,...-7.„........ ,. all i --,,,,I........,•• A--1 EP_ .74,1v-%,=,,„ii;-----_ iii.. am,I '-.,- ..,,,,,77.-• -- - _ 0 0 is.,... t. c ,.. CD o .,.... iiir: ...„ .... -1 6- . ..•.1.- . ... MOP --- ,-,..-- 4W.._-,,...„ 4 a t t 41 0 i m.•i........,,,"4.4.,,,..1/4,-,.,\o_ • V. MI . I ar +p Air 10 W., I NI VIII.; _r■._ MOIL I RN NM is ,,,,,t lam- lM IN I 11111 I— ... s: t NSW - .....................6.0..,.. __,.....:._•,:.714":77:.:::."'.. --: - f,. .....■,.....,,,, . ,---- - - _A, .,._ . .. . . _ . . ._......,, , . . ... .. . ,,___,.. _ ...... ... . . __ .._.... ..... . . .__........ ,,,, ____ __ _._. , ___ , . , _ ..... .., _ . .. • r.;:: • } Ar=tl" - 4 I igg 4,4%,,tcri.,A.. ,- 4. .. 1-t,tis -.4.404 = (�r= ; :* - -- re4.1.0eV1-.--+ 1 • if: * fit: A i : 4 1 1 1„yrifir4-, . ,ely te. %si ' - . -• ,-7-f . :', .1 ff.. 447),Ct..A,;),ftlikt. A‘ - _ AL- ' ' ' ,_ 2''--4.q,*'_:.--- '.---.:----'•----'''*--- 1 ' ' % • fek OteC a 0 V‘45 .'. :- ' If ' . - - ', to- 4e -"!ON alit .17,. .li„...,. ,N,,,:jr-:.zaterligil,,7,_ „,,.. ' teNt ..4„ 4,1 ,, ,. .„,,,,,,r,,,,,,,.:E:111:!: Ir. .liz.:..".. .f.ii:41.:ii;1-.-:i.,„_:17',,,,,.:.„ ,..,,,.. ..._.._,,,,..„, ,,....,...,. `e•.pT.:,:.t" u ?": 5?` is-•k�r K _ 6 -I' -,Yom- �.,•.�`_Y._ti- �.� :3��-�-<�� ate.. • • 1 J,, ub _ tir . .. . ,...!.:.::::, •,,,,t- *t..f,'',.: 4-,;• ?,,,,.--.:!.,:',1,4,.. :-:',;',..',,'F-,,. •,, ,-=:,-*4,1---, .,,trglii,,,, ' '• ,::;;„?, -,,,,,,,,,,,•-i,l,i,, 1,-.4..... -,... , i:•7-:...'"-- :4-.1::::-:..i.'-k-r:---:-1-'- -`,'".-'ftr:..4,...- . t,._. .....--,..,r• ---.: ---., , -, - , • --- -: .. -•.- , .„._,....,„..;,:.: 1F"'" ---'- •':• ... . ;:..--: • • .- it. 'I --•*: .,,,,,„- ; :1-....''-.I .s.i ,-.-....,;.: ,.,. -:1 ms_.... 1r32.4. :—1•,71--ii-, -,.:- , .,.. ./- - --:..3-. ' -,E, :;:,.r •-2:-."-tI-, '' '1. _.---- __ 1 4- •.-^' -N: ill ..4 iliA ,, -x‹,..,:w.i . „...,.. loW, 0, 1.44_,„;,;_, -..': al.-.: , ',,Ii.1G`-.7i§-: .- o,. f. M'."_ : • t-C1,77 +f 1""- • ..- -le,;- i .. .:;.-.....,,,.., :r4. N, ..,„ .:-:i'-'.2.:,,. :t.t • 44 *.-- '„g 0' s.:-,, °•.. IF ., : 7 . . ... - •- . .- t.-.,,, 6 • .4.1.. AP .,- .6.• ii. ry.-:.:.--,..t.-: : 1 .,_ • el, . _ : •---„:-.1-. lz,f,c • . : . — . = .. . •"`— ...,_. . „....- - -11.111111111111”: ;'15'''' 4. .'--- .6 '.• ' Vb---: - -..,'!; .•___,•: r...4...: ':',1-, •- . . ....._. — .'.:•:;--.' :,...1,.:;.: . Angri MAE AMIN 1 ater . SAWA spas I am Mat AIAF ..:;!:'-:f.--:• . ,,,,i.„7:„..„.. _Ilk,. . . . ?--:, .„.,. 0',:,E '-',71' We, '--'•- -ii,i.... ...,::: --t. :7f....1'::•;;:-' ',;) ,...„1.1 ,,,, vas Um tag v.:J.__ ... . ,1-.9 t, t ,.:-•: ......: __.. ..-..f.. 7-7-:‘,---,:;;;...:i•',:,.",? ,.... - ':,-..•:•- ,, ... , - - -,... ...... ::;_-',.••:: -, . : 1.. . ,. , -.!‘• .-----,--,.b....w4........., ,----,. :71,7'::,:... • -' -'' T.':(!'-4: , . \ , ,-- .._. .,.. . i:).;;,,,-, f • ,!y, --• • . I. 1 ..--t- 4 .....2 I r " L' n,L'•.:-.: ,.:,:ii.;. ,, ;."-...... ,,, .t •••-•::••••:,,-..-.,.._:-..,-.,:-7°'.L.' ' ....27,:',. '',:''''."L''''-'• ..., .....„ ; •-, ' 7.—L-7,4:=;------i . , , ! •• -,• .---4--.".—! ' L., . ,. 4 -I ,.,.....3,....„, ..., - I- Ii , ' Oil WEED fz: I • a..) J ,.. . . m 4— ... 0 -C3 a) s_ ! co , . , . a i . w.„...,„ .. .. _ I . I 1 I , , ,. . , 1 ,,,, %!:;,i.;,:,.i..,.41:4VZ,..?,:—.•:...,. . 'fir ,�+ + 318, .:, i ., \ . ,‘ ak- Mp}- .. !�j fir_ �;[. rte* w wn F R 9 1 j _i.:, x p�^..,.„. , , - _ .s __, ,v_ , - - ..... 1 .., ---, , , . 5 1 ,....-:"' / 3 Thiri r 4. F A 4,4sfillip■r•-■, 46. , C / w: :i. . , . ,, FF x i IS: 1,.. h • 1 qr...( ''', 4.