Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/11/07 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: November 14, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM ACTION CO~TS TO: FROM: Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVE~ER 7, 1991 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your comments using the blank space provided under each project On the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee and distributed to the Commission and Council. As always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Dinner will be provided between 5:00 p.m. 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. - 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:30 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting, or if you will be late, so that the dinner can be properly ordered and the necessary arrangements made. 6:30 - 7:00 (Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-20 - ALLMARK, INC. - The request to modify parking facilities for an existing multi-family complex through the addition of garages, covered, and open parking spaces on 29.51 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. 7:00 - 7:30 (Steve R.) DESIGN REVIEW 91-09 - ALPHA BETA - The design review of a proposed parapet wall extension and sign relocation for an existing supermarket, located at the southeast corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 202-541-58. DRC AGENDA NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Page 2 7:30 - 8:00 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 SHIBATA - A residential subdivision and Design Review of 17 townhome units on ~.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council RESIDENTIAL CONSEI~T CALENDAR ITEMS AG~DA November 7, 1991 DR ~3280 - LUSK (Steve R.) Committee Action: Review of revised elevation. The Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) requested additional time to review the revisions. Therefore, the project will be scheduled to return to the Design Review Committee as a full item on December 5, 1991. TT 14407 -- LEWIS (Steve R.) Committee Action: Review of overhang detail. The Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) recommended that the eaves be extended to provide an overhang above the entries to comply with the condition of approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Tom November 7, 1991 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-20 - ALLMARK, INC. - The request to modify parking facilities for an existing multi-family complex through the addition of garages, covered, and open parking spaces on 29.51 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. Background: This project was Originally approved and developed as a 328 unit apartment complex consisting of 8-plex and 12-plex building. The complex contains a mix of 80 one-bedroom, 160 two-bedroom, and 88 three- bedroom units. A total of 631 parking spaces exist and are provided through 331 covered and 300 Open parking spaces. On September ~2, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14548 to allow for conversion of the apartments to condominium units- A total of 35 additional parking spaces will be provided for the condominium project resulting in a total of 666 parking spaces. This was broken down into 208 garage, 208 covered, and 250 open parking spaces. The current development review application proposes to revise the number of garage and carport parking spaces- The proposal includes 262 garage, 154 covered, and 250 open parking spaces, resulting in the necessary 666 parking spaces. 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 Conunittee discussion regarding this project: The applicant is proposing garages ranging in size from 2-bay to 11-bay structures- A breezeway is provided mid-point along the 10- and 11-bay garage structures to break up the long row of garage doors. The overall design concept for the garages is consistent with those approved under Tract 14548, except for the breezeway. The side and rear elevations of the garage structures are consistent with those approved with Tract 14548. 3- A single type of garage door design should be provided for each garage structure. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-20 - ALLMARK, INC. NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Page 2 The applicant will be converting several existing carport structures to garages and will also be building several new garage and carport structures. Due to changes in the interior dimension requirements for garage structures (10' x 20'), the applicant may be requesting a Variance for those garages constructed out of existing carports as their interior dimension is 9' x 20'. All new garage structures will meet the revised interior dimension requirement. Design Review Comettee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee reviewed the project but did not recommend approval due to the following comments: The Committee did not support the 9-foot garage width for those garages to be constructed out of existing carports. All garages should be provided a 10-foot width. Provide a decorative material on the rear elevation of the garages consistent with the previous approval (TT 14548). Provide a dormer above the breezeway on the 10 and 11 bay garage structures. 4. The garage door elevations are too busy. Those garage doors with a 16 square pattern should be revised to a 4 square pattern. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Steve R. November 7, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW 91-09 ALPHA BETA - The design review of a proposed parapet wall extension and sign relocation for an existing supermarket, located at the southeast corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 202-541-58. Background: This project was last reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Vallette, Buller) on June 6, 1991, upon referral by staff, as a Consent Calendar item where the Committee made the following comments: The proposed parapet wall and new sign location were not approved. It was the opinion of the Committee that the proposed change in sign location would reduce the visibility of the sign and cause extensive pruning (topping) of the parking lot trees. Although the new corporate colors and logo will not be consistent with the rest of the center, the Con~nittee was willing to recon~nend approval of the new signage if it was installed in the same location as the existing sign. Further, it was felt that the recently approved monument signage on 19th and Carnelian Streets will provide greater visibility for the motorist and the existing wall sign located in front of the main drive aisle provides the best visibility once on-site. Despite the Committee's direction to replace the existing Alpha Beta sign with a new one in the current location, the applicant is proposing a more substantial revision to the building's facade to accommodate the new sign (see attached Exhibit). Staff Coments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Co~nittee discussion regarding this project: Is the proposed parapet element consistent with the overall design of the shopping center? Will the visibility of the sign be improved by the proposed relocation or the increase in the parapet height? Design Review Comettee ACtion: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross ePECIFICATIOHe r~T~L P~lJl' iI-7'.--$n DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-09 - ALPHA BETA NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Page 2 The Committee recommended approval of the new parapet and sign subject to the following conditions: 1. The horizontal line below the "Alpha Beta" text will not be allowed. The parapet shall be constructed of slumpstone to match the building. No painted slumpstone or green trim will be allowed- The applicant also presented a proposal to change the design of the shopping center, which will require a separate Design Review application. Because this Design Review meeting was for the Alpha Beta parapet and monument sign only, the Committee took no action on the proposal but did offer the following advice: The existing architectural style Of the shopping center, which utilizes slumpstone, heavy wood beams, and mission tile is fine. It should not be modified in an attempt to mimic the new mission style shopping centers being constructed in town. 2. A increase in the lighting for the parking lot and the walkways could improve the look of the center. 3. Painting various wood elements a lighter color may improve the center's image, although a green accent trim is discouraged. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Steve R. November 7, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA A residential subdivision and Design Review of 17 townhome units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Background: The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) first reviewed this project on September 5, 1991 and made the following comments: 1. The northerly building must meet the required 20-foot setback. 2. Additional parking spaces should be provided on-site because parking is not permitted on 19th Street. 3. The trash enclosure in the recreation area should be r~located elsewhere on the site, possibly south of the drive aisle near the easterly property line. The trash enclosure should be decorative and should include an overhead trellis structure. An arbor or other shade structure should be provided in the recreation area. In addition, pool fencing should be adequately set back from the drive aisle to insure that it does not become a primary visual element. A fenced or walled enclosure should be provided for the pool equipment, and an Outdoor shower should also be provided. If the northerly three-unit buildings are combined into one six-unit buildings, a significant landscaping planter should still be provided between the two halves of the building at the end of the central drive aisle to make the building appear as two and to soften its impact. The proposed cabana structures between the three-unit buildings on the eastern side of the drive aisle should be replaced with trees due to the limited separation between the buildings. To mitigate the amount of hardscape along the drive aisles, the size of the landscape planters between garage doors should be increased as much as possible. Significant shrubs and trees should be planted to soften the drive aisle- 8- Members of the Design Review Conunittee stated that they were pleased with the proposed architecture- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS · T 15247 - SHIBATA NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Page 2 Due to the substantial difference between the previous site plan and the one which was presented at the meeting, and the extent of the design comments, the Committee stated that the project would have to return to the Design Review Committee as a full item to allow for additional review of the project- Since that time, the plans were revised to reflect a majority of the Committee's comments. A revised site plan was reviewed by the Committee as a Consent Calendar item at the following meeting, where the Committee stated that the site plan was "too tight" and did not provide a "large open lawn area." However, a week later, the Committee informally reviewed another revision of the site plan for the project and stated that it appeared to have adequate common open space. At this time, the Design Review Committee should review the revised development package for any final design concerns which might have been affected by the site plan changes. Staff ~ents: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The trash enclosure must be at least 5 feet from the property line. Landscaping should be provided between the enclosure and the adjacent walk to soften the look of the structure. The tot lot is only 3 feet from the property line where a perimeter wall will be constructed. A landscape planter should be provided as a separation between the tot lot and the perimeter wall. Landscape planters between garage doors have been reduced in size, rather than enlarged, contrary to the Committee's previous direction. The private yards for lots 13 and 16 should have a wall and gate to match the rest of the yards in the tract. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Interlocking concrete pavers should be provided where enhanced paving is proposed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ~ 15247 - SHIBATA NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Page 3 Desi~nReviewco-~ittee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Committee stated that the project's design does not justify the higher densities allowed by the Optional Development Standards. The Committee was concerned that the project was "too tight" and may have to be reduced in density to achieve a better site design. The Committee did not recommend approval of the project, but stated that it could be scheduled for review by the full Planning Commission if he did not want to revise the proposal.