Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/02/07 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 7, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tri-Communities Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette STAFF PRESENT: Nannette Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Olen Jones, Senior Redevelopment Agency Analyst; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner ***** CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-20 - SYCAMORE VILLAGE - Preliminary review of the development of 16.94 acres for a mixed office/commercial master plan, consisting of 11 office/retail buildings totaling 173,450 square feet with Phase 1 development consisting of 6 two-story office/retail buildings totaling 113,450 square feet on 3.21 acres of land in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 1 of the foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Baker Avenue and Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41, Tree Removal application pending. ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Larry Wolff and David Dean, Wolff, Lang Christopher Architects; Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates; Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group, Inc; Randall Ismay, WLC Landscape Consultants, Inc. OWNER/APPLICANT Matthew Jordan and Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Ltd, Partnership; Edward Hopson, representing Arroyo De Los Osos The purpose of the workshop was to allow the applicants the continued opportunity to address design issues specified by staff and the Planning Commission in past workshops and/or Design Review Committee meetings. This workshop, as with the two previous meetings on the project, had been specifically requested by the development team to expedite processing by receiving feedback on the major design issues, with the understanding that the project has not been formally accepted as complete for processing. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, opened with a brief overview of the issues for tonight'e discussion and a synopsis of previous workshop recommendations. The Commissioners briefly reviewed the project, emphasizing the concerns mentioned in the staff comments prepared for the workshop. Larry Wolff, Wolff Lang Christopher Architects, expressed his concern for getting into the formal development review process as soon as possible, stressing how items from past staff incompleteness letters have been addressed. Randall Ismay, WLC Landscape Consultants, Inc., presented a brief overview of the proposed Tree Perpetuation plan for this project. He stressed that the plan allows for flexibility regarding individual tree health if drastic changes occur during any phase of development on-site. He stated that the program included input from the City's arboricultural consultant, Stephen Holcomb of Golden Coast Environmental Services, Inc. Commissioner Chitiea stressed that it is imperative for the City's hired arborist to formally review and comment on Mr. Ismay's tree perpetuation plan. Also, she asked for specific documentation where this type of concept has been undertaken and any results or conclusions on its effectiveness. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that the arborist provide deep watering and aeration plans to aid in the preservation of existing trees and perpetuation of future trees within the project. Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group, indicated that such details are readily available at his office and he would be glad to incorporate them in the new submittal package. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, confirmed that it is common practice for the City to condition a project to follow the recommendations of the arborist during grading and construction to insure individual trees' health will not be altered. Typically, monitoring starts at the rough grading stage, with provisions to include barriers around all trees marked for preservation. Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Limited, noted the possibility for a development agreement as a possible option to insure the validity of the tree perpetuation program and any other necessary agreements. Chairman McNiel recommended that staff contract with the City's arborist to review the prepared tree pmrpmtuation plan. At this time, he was willing to support the plan in concept provided the backing evidence positively expressed the perpetuation concept would work, as determined by the City's arborist, staff, and the Commission. Commissioner Melcher suggested that a maintenance manual be included as part of the perpetuation document to further insure that tree care will be properly managed. Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 7, 1991 Mr. Wolff summarized the situation with the placement of Building "G." He stated that by moving the building forward, away from the base of Red Hill, on-site circulation and tree preservation problems would be created. He confirmed that the retaining wall behind the building had been lowered in height (from approximately 13 feet to 10 feet). He said in exchange a greater area of the hill behind Building "G" would be graded, but frequent undulations, less steep slopes, and more natural appearing contour grading would occur. Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates, explained the contour grading concept. He stated that instead of an approximate 2 to 1 slope throughout the graded area, slopes now range from 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 with frequent undulations and opportunities for native planting. The negative trade off was in that a large area of the hillside would need to be graded with a higher daylight line. Commissioner Chitlea asked if a concept of terraced retaining walls with frequent landscape areas between slopes had been explored. Mr. Guerra stated that it had been considered but would require an enormous amount of recontouring of the hillside. Mr. Ryan summarized the crib wall concept, including the landscape palette for the wall. He said vines and other species, as recommended by the City's Xeriscape Ordinance, would be utilized. Also, Mr. Ryan explained the procedure of applying acids to the crib wall blocks to give a more natural color and appearance. He indicated planter pockets will be used in specific areas at the base of the crib wall where there is a greater distance between the wall and Building "G." Commissioner Chitlea questioned if Buildings "J" and "K" could be elongated, hence narrowing the buildings in width, in order to reduce the amount of grading. Mr. Wolff stated that this was possible. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the back buildings could incorporate a smaller footprint, but include more stories. Mr. Wolff stated that the development team originally looked at the possibility of Building "G" being three stories with a smaller footprint, but its viability for office use at this location would be questionable. Mr. Crean mentioned that the development team was concerned that the Sycamore Inn would be "lost" if larger, taller buildings were encroaching on the Inn. It was the idea from day one to focus on the Sycamore Inn as the "jewel" of the site. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, summarized the grading issues and asked the Commission if the concept of contour grading, albeit grading for a larger surface area, was preferable over the original concept of less grading area with steeper, "engineered" slopes. Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 7, 1991 Commissioner Melcher voiced concern over the contour grading concept and felt that sight line studies were needed to indicate how much of the hill (in vertical height as well as area) would be modified. He calculated that a 67-foot difference between first floor pad height and daylight in the first concept and was concerned that the contouring concept would raise the daylight line much higher. Commissioner Chitlea indicated that her preference (pending the requested site line study) would be to have a more naturalized, contoured slope condition at the expense of a larger graded area. Chairman McNiel stated that if the contour grading concept were to be used, it would be extremely important to maintain an authentic look. Commissioner Vallette felt the contour grading concept would be preferable, provided the requested information indicates no sight line issues. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with the crib wall concept; however, he strongly urged the development team to carefully select a landscape palette that can withstand the hot, arid, inland valley climate. He felt maintenance of the landscaping within the crib wall would be the key to its success. Chairman McNiel asked what type of a landscape palette will be used in the transitional zone, between the top of the crib wall and the natural portion of Red Hill. Mr. Ryan indicated that native irregularly spaced oaks with a matting of evergreen shrubs with horizontal undulation will be utilized in the transition zone. Mr. Kroutil recommended that an "active" approach be incorporated into the plaza areas behind Building "G," "J," and "K" by using employee lunch/plaza areas with planter pockets in front of the crib wall to facilitate a more "human" scale within these areas. Chairman McNiel stated his preference for a crib wall, as opposed to a large, unbroken solid masonry wall. Although favoring the crib wall concept, Commissioner Tolstoy again expressed his concern for the long life success of any landscaping within the crib wall. He could think of no situation in San Bernardino County where a crib wall has been used with successful landscape treatment. Commissioner Vallette agreed with the previous comments of Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy. Commissioner Melcher stated that the land plan layout must first be acceptable before specific heights and graded areas can be formally determined. However, if the sight lines and site plan are proven acceptable for further processing, then he thought he could possibly accept the crib wall concept. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 7, 1991 Chairman McNiel reinforced to the development team that the proposed amount of building area and cut/fill quantities had not been formally approved at this time and that further site plan/grading modifications may be needed as the project goes through the formal development review process. Mr. Hayes introduced the parking lot configuration issue to the Con~nissioners for discussion. Commissioner Melcher felt that in this situation where the parking lot configuration is driven by the driveway location for the site (at its present location, but slightly modified), the Sycamore Inn was the "loser." He indicated his preference would be for the main driveway to be located between the "village" (Buildings "A" through "E") and the Inn so that vehicles turn left to go to the village and turn right to go to the Inn. By doing this, he thought the Sycamore Inn would become more of a focal point because of the relationship with the driveway and the existing plotting of the Inn. Mr. Guerra briefly highlighted the parameters behind deriving the proposed driveway locations and configurations. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, indicated to Commissioner Melcher that the proposed design was found to be the most acceptable of all the proposed alternatives. Commissioner Melcher requested that the parking spaces in front of the Sycamore Inn be relocated to enhance the setting. Mr. Crean acknowledged Commissioner Melcher's concern but stated that parking in front of the Inn was necessary to the owner to facilitate more business. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that an informal parking situation adjacent to the Inn or any other non-traditional solution would be acceptable. Mr. Kroutil briefly summarized the primary points of the meeting: (1) The tree perpetuation plan, in concept, may be acceptable if the requested technical information and long-term guarantees can be provided~ (2) Grading behind the project, into Red Hill, with the crib wall concept can continue to be explored by the applicant, but sight line and massing studies and a careful selection of landscaping will require further review of the Commission~ and (3) Finally, the parking situation in front of the Sycamore Inn should be re- thought and a more informal and spacious concept derived that favors enhancement of the Inn as a focal point. , , , , II. and III. FIRE STATIONS NO. 2 AND 3 ARCHITECT/ John Holman, Max Medina, Rey Reyes and Larry Wolff, ENGINEER Wolff Lang Christopher Architects$ Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 7, 1991 II. FIRE STATION NO. 3 (West side of Rochester, south of Southern Pacific Railroad) - Preliminary review and discussion of project concept and architectural design theme. The Planning Commission discussed various issues regarding the proposed architectural concept and provided direction to the architect about areas of concern, those requiring additional study and/or possible redesign. These areas included, but are not limited to, the following: Concern with the choice of building materials used to achieve an authentic design 2. Providing a wood veneer rather than stucco or masonry block Expanded use of the trellis/porch element adjacent to the station dormitory 4. Lower overall height of the stone wainscot 5. Lower overall window height at the station dormitory 6. Providing a variety of window patterns Window design and placement to be sensitive to the sill treatment~ a substantial sill provided to break up the elevation Improving carport and service station building elevations for consistency with the primary facility$ providing gable roof, stone wainscot, window sills, etc. III. FIRE STATION NO. 4, PHASE II (Southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard) - Review of Phase II of the project, consisting of the maintenance facility and training tower, approved in concept under Phase I which is now under construction. The Planning Commission reviewed the architectural concept for the District Maintenance Center and Training Tower. The Commission thought the architectural style inventive, gave conceptual approval of the design concept, and suggested the architect submit plans for Design Review. , , , , ADJOURNMENT 11:45 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 7, 1991