Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/02/20 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY FEBRUARY 20, 1996 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Larry Henderson Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN 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. 5:00 p.m. (Steve) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE - Review of the Uniform Sign Program and Design Guidelines for the proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed Phase One consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential, Office) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151- 18 and 24. 6:10 p.m. (Brent) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 34 single family homes on 9.47 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest comer of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0227-522-05, 07, and 08 Related File: Conditional Use Permit 95-38 and PAR 94-04. DRC AGENDA February 20, 1996 Page 2 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, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist Hfor the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a trite, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 8, 1996 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes February 20, 1996 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 -TERRA VISTA PROMENADE - Review of the Uniform Sign Program and Design Guidelines for the proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed Phase One consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential, Office) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Background: This application was approved by the City Council on October 4, 1995. Conditions of Approval requiring that a Uniform Sign Program be prepared for review and approval of the Planning Commission and the Design Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits were included in the Resolution approved by the City Council. Design Parameters: The site has been rough graded and cleared of all vegetation in preparation for Phase One development of the Home Depot. The balance of the site has also been rough graded in preparation for future development of the balance of the shopping center. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Uniform Sign Program 1. Three different types of monument signs are proposed at this time to identify the shopping center and major tenants within the project. In addition, it is possible that all pad tenants may be able to have an individual tenant monument sign as currently written. Given the master Site Plan as currently shown,it is possible that up to 13 monument signs could be placed along the frontage of Foothill Boulevard, which is approximately 2,080 feet, and up to three along Rochester Avenue, which has a frontage of slightly over 1,000 feet. Staff feels that this number of monument signs is excessive and should be reduced. 2. As currently written, the Sign Program would allow certain major tenants to have more than three signs per business in certain situations. The City's Sign Ordinance only allows a maximum of three signs per business. It should be included in the program that no tenant shall be allowed to have more than three signs. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE February 20, 1996 Page 2 3. No specific size restriction has been placed on wall signs, as currently written. Staff feels that a maximum square footage of letter height restriction should be applied to the sign program. 4. The sign type "A-3" monument sign should be designed to be more compatible with other proposed project monument signs throughout the project, including, but not limited to, monument sign form, letter colors and styles, and lighting. 5. Sign cabinets should not be allowed; all letters should be individually cut letters for all wall signs. 6. As proposed, major users would be allowed to have one sign per entrance facing Foothill Boulevard, as long as the total number of signs does not exceed three per business. Staff would recommend that no tenant be allowed to have more than one sign per building face, regardless of the number of entrances along Foothill Boulevard. 7. The Committee should consider the proposed colors for wall signs. The applicant proposes to allow anchor tenants and restaurants to have any recognized corporate color for their sign and major users and shop tenants to have up to three letter colors within their sign (excluding logo colors). Design Guidelines 1. Corrugated metal roofing should be eliminated as a proposed accent roofing material within the project. 2. The conceptual design of the tower focal point between Majors 5 and 6 should be modified as directed by the Planning Commission during the development review process. 3. Additional information is needed regarding the public art program and how it will compliment the design theme of the shopping center. 4. Details of other design elements, such as bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc., should be contained within the design guidelines. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend the modifications requested by staff and have them incorporated into the Uniform Sign Program text for further review and consideration of the Planning Commission. In addition, the Committee should direct the applicant to modify the Design Guidelines supplement as recommended by staff and incorporate any further information or revisions as requested by the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE February 20, 1996 Page 3 The Design Review Committee recommended that the following modifications be made to the Uniform Sign Program and Design Guidelines: Uniform Siu Program: 1. The program should be modified to match the sign program for the Terra Vista Town Center in terms of monument sign numbers and minimum distance between monument signs. 2. A monument sign design for a single tenant should be designed and incorporated into the sign program text. This sign type should be similar in size, lettering and material use with the monument sign type "A-2." 3. The monument sign type at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten should be an "A-2." 4. The monument sign type "A-2" may be eliminated at the intersection of Rochester and Poplar. However, in all other locations where an "A-2" is proposed, the sign monuments should be constructed even if the lettering is not applied to the signs. 5. Shop tenants should be limited to a primary sign letter color of red; no corporate colors (if other than red) may be used as the primary sign color. Design Guidelines 1. All references to corrugated metal roofing should be eliminated. 2. The proposed design of the planter pots, waste receptacles, and benches should be modified to be more compatible with the architecture of the shopping center. 3. The structure at the focal point of the shopping center (between Majors 5 and 6) should be modified to be a taller, airy clock tower element as previously recommended by the Planning Commission. 4. A more detailed rendering and description of the proposed promenade wood trellis structure should be provided. The Committee expressed concern that the structure may appear flimsy with the proposed wood member sizes. 5. All architectural elements at the intersection of Foothill and Rochester should tie into the citrus theme, as previously required by the Planning Commission. These elements include the terraced water feature, the plaque and the artwork. The Design Review Committee should review the final design of these elements. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE February 20, 1996 Page 4 6. The Committee requested that the applicant provide further information to justify how the proposed slate stone material is consistent with the proposed architecture and in context with the historical citrus nature of the site. The Committee suggested that a natural river rock material may be more in context with the theme of the shopping center. 7. The Committee expressed concern that the Activity Center and water feature were being designed and developed in phases. The Committee noted that the design needs to be integrated completely and should relate to the on-site development as well as the comer. The Committee recommended that all of the proposed revisions be incorporated into the documents for review and approval of the Planning Division. Once these items are addressed and incorporated into the appropriate documents, then the Uniform Sign Program may be scheduled for the Planning Commission and the Design Guidelines again scheduled for review of the Design Review Committee. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 p.m. Brent LeCount February 20, 1996 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 34 single family homes on 9.47 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-522-05, 07, and 08 Related File: Conditional Use Permit 95-38 and PAR 94-04. Design Parameters: The site is surrounded to the north and west by one-story single family homes in Tentative Tract 13052, as well as a developed, one-half acre residential lot to the north. The site contains several mature trees; those along Etiwanda Avenue are required to be preserved by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site lies within the Community Service District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which allows"residential uses permitted in the Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) District." This site was formerly approved for two-story condominiums (Tentative Tract 13886) and a small shopping center (Conditional Use Permit 88-01). The Community Service District requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to development of the site and the applicant has filed a Conditional Use Permit for the project. There are four mature Pepper trees along Etiwanda Avenue where the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires preservation of these trees. The project will call for the removal of two mature Palm trees along Etiwanda Avenue and possible removal of one Eucalyptus tree along Base Line Road for which Tree Removal Permit 96-05 has been filed. The corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue is designated as a Community Entry to the Etiwanda District which requires a special landscape theme. Pre-Application Review: On December 28, 1994, the Planning Commission considered a Pre-Application Review for a 70- unit single family residential proposal by Lewis Homes. The Commission was supportive of an all residential development concept for the site but felt that the small lot size (around 5,000 sq.ft.) and orientation of lots away from Etiwanda Avenue did not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant has responded to this direction with the current 34 home project which is proposed to be developed with larger lots (10,000 sq.ft. average) at a density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre under the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium Residential District. Staff has asked the applicant not to provide lots fronting Etiwanda Avenue in the vicinity of the right-tum lane. While this is contrary to the Planning Commission's previous direction, it is staff's opinion that driveways in the right-turn lane would create safety hazard and interrupt traffic flow. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. DRC COMMENTS TT 15632 & CUP 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES February 20, 1996 Page 2 Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. A. Site Plan -The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires the following elements: 1. "At least 50 percent of all garages within single family tracts shall be detached, side-on, or set behind the front part of the dwelling." This is intended to avoid the visual impact of multiple garages facing the street and to help preserve and reinforce the character of Etiwanda. Two of the proposed homes (6 percent) are designed with detached garages, the remainder of the homes are designed with garages either in front of or parallel to the front of the homes. 2. "At least 50 percent of dwellings shall not be plotted parallel to the street frontage." Approximately twelve (35 percent) of the proposed homes are not plotted parallel to their respective street frontage by virtue of their proximity to cul-de-sacs or knuckles. The remaining 22 lots are plotted parallel to their street frontage. However, if the project were redesigned such that 50 percent of the garages were side-on, detached, or set behind the front part of the homes, the intent of non-parallel plotting would be met. This would also lead to greater variety in front yard setbacks and a more dynamic overall design. 3. "Two-story structures should not be planned for comer parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used." The proposed comer lots at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and "A" Street (lots 1 and 17) would have two-story homes with minimum required setbacks from Etiwanda Avenue. While two-story homes are appropriate for these lots given existing two-story home on existing lot directly to the north,the homes should be setback further from Etiwanda Avenue. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Landscaping - The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires Community Entry landscape and design treatment for the northwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road. The Conceptual Landscape Plan indicates acceptable tree planting at this location. The Community Entry statement should be augmented by appropriate shrubs and ground cover, as well as fieldstone wall treatment. 2. Architecture - The front elevations of the proposed homes incorporate a mixture of wood siding, stucco, and fieldstone in a manner compatible with the Etiwanda area. However, the side and rear elevations are primarily stucco covered, single plane walls with far less attention to detail and architectural quality. Consistent quality architectural treatment should be applied to all elevations. DRC COMMENTS TT 15732 & CUP 95-38 - LEWIS HOMES February 20, 1996 Page ') Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Construct decorative block wall along interior tract perimeter. There is existing wood fencing along the north and west property lines separating the site from the adjacent developed lots to the north and west. The Planning Commission placed a condition of approval on a previous mixed use project on the subject site (Tentative Tract 13886 and Conditional Use Permit 88- 01) which required the developer to make a good faith effort to resolve the interfacing of walls along the north and west boundaries of the property by replacing the existing wood fence with a decorative wall. It may require removal of an existing retaining wall which may be structurally inadequate to support additional load. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the Site Plan, Elevations, and Landscape Plan in light of the identified issues and recommended approval of the application to the Planning Commission with conditions to address any outstanding concerns. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent LeCount The Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee recommended that the item be brought back before the Committee with the following changes for further consideration: 1. Redesign the homes so that the garages are not the dominant feature fronting the street. Provide deeper, more dramatic garage setbacks for Plan 441. Move garage at least 12 feet behind front part of home. The Committee is open to the use of other methods of de-emphasizing the garages for the remaining homes. 2. Re-plot homes with side-on garages (Plan 268) to respect the required 25-foot minimum front setback. Use retaining walls at the toe of slope, if necessary, to provide additional room in the rear yard area to accommodate moving the homes back from the front property lines. The Committee does not object to an 18-inch architectural projection into the front setback. 3. Replace existing wood fencing along the north and west property lines with new wood fencing. The Committee strongly recommends that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss this issue with adjacent property owners. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS February 20, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary At