Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/01/03 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 3, 2006 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 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. • (Doug/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17423 - CIP REAL ESTATE - A request to subdivide 5.61 net acres of land into a single parcel for 26 condominium units in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway - APN: 0210-081-017. Related file: Development Review DRC2005-00585. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00585 - CIP REAL ESTATE - The design review of 9 professional office buildings (including 2 existing buildings) on 5.61 net acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway - APN: 0210-081-017. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17423. 7:20 p.m. (Larry/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT17382 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC - A request to subdivide 20.54 acres of land into 156 condominium units, comprised of 79 numbered lots and 9lettered lots for streets and open space in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street - APN: 0209-092-04. Related files: Development Review DRC2004-01270 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-01280. (Continued from December 20, 2005, meeting) • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01270 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC - A request to develop 156 dwelling units comprised of 78 single-family detached homes and 78 attached condominium units in a gated community on 20.54 acres of land in DRC ACTION AGENDA January 3, 2006 Page 2 the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street - APN: 0209-092-04. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17382 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-01280. (Continued from December 20, 2005, meeting) 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 The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn January 3, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17423 - CIP REAL ESTATE - A request to subdivide 5.61 net acres of land into a single parcel for 26 condominium units in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway - APN: 0210-081-017. Related file: Development Review DRC2005-00585. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00585 - CIP REAL ESTATE - The design review of 9 professional office buildings (including 2 existing buildings) on 5.61 net acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway - APN: 0210-081-017. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17423. Design Parameters: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway. The site is part of The Gateway master plan (see attached) and is developed with two existing professional office buildings. A portion of the parcel to the north is undeveloped. The proposed project would create a new master plan. Although The Gateway master plan expired, it is useful for comparison. The Gateway master plan was "intended to encourage the development of a prestigious office park and business environment' and assures that "a cohesive integrated development program can be achieved through the design control of • the site plan, architecture, landscaping and project implementation." Many of these design controls should be continued for consistency because portions of the master plan have already been implemented. The master plan had strong identity and pedestrian orientation wherein buildings were 'blustered around plaza areas which are interconnected by walks or arcades." Further, the master plan emphasized only multi-story buildings facing Haven Avenue. The master plan called for "sophisticated style" architecture that avoids trendy themes or elements. The primary architectural elements, as evident in the existing buildings, "will be expressed through the use of steel, glass and concrete, in conjunction with curtain wall, poured in place and concrete tilt-up construction techniques." Main building entrances will project a formal entrance statement through the use of landscape plazas, architectural articulation of building form, and more formalized landscape planting. The master plan was approved with a three-story office building in addition to the two existing office buildings; whereas, the proposed project features seven new buildings (four 1-story and three 2-story). To the north is vacant land, and across the street of Winston Avenue is a vacant parcel; to the south of Trademark parkway is vacant land; and to the west across Haven Avenue is an office building and vacant land. The undeveloped portion of the site presently drains from the north to the south. With the exception of the existing street trees along Haven Avenue, there are no other existing trees on the undeveloped portion of the site. There are no mature trees on the vacant portion of the subject site. The project is a single-phase development. The project is to develop four single-story professional office buildings, and three two-story office buildings which will front along Haven Avenue. The two existing professional office buildings will have a free standing architectural • enhancement element that will reflect the proposed architectural style of the proposed buildings. The square footage of the buildings will range from 4,040 to 9,228 square feet. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM17423 AND DRC2005-00585—CIP REAL ESTATE January 3, 2006 • Page 2 . ` The exterior of the existing buildings will be enhanced to match the materials of the proposed buildings. The existing glazing will be replaced with a blue reflective color and metal accent awning, and a stone work will clad the proposed free standing concrete panels. The proposed buildings will have the same materials. 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. Site Plan — Only three out of the seven new buildings are clustered around plazas, and only one successfully. The proposed Site Plan has scattered freestanding pads surrounded, and separated by, parking. 2. All of the buildings need a substantial amount of second primary building material, particularly Buildings 3 through 5 which will be visually prominent along Haven Avenue. 3. The following enhancements are recommendations to improve the following buildings: Buildings 1 and 2: • a. Add a cornice element overhang on the existing building as depicted on Buildings 3 through 5. Buildings 3 through 5: a. The primary material should cover the entire fagade were the sections of the buildings are depicted with the metal canopy element. This is especially important were the metal canopy is over the primary entry of the buildings. b. The applicant must clarify what areas of the glazing is vision or spandrel. C. The subtle recesses of the building are negligible and need to be at least two to three feet in depth. They are too small in relation to the mass and size of the buildings. d. Between Buildings 4 and 5, an artistic element feature should be installed on the west end as visible from Haven Avenue. This should be incorporated as a strong and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian plaza area. e. All of the sides of the tower like elements should be glazed. This will strengthen the professional office look and, in the spirit of the Planning Commission's instruction, obtain a significant amount of glazing on professional office buildings along the Haven Avenue overly corridor. Building 6 through 9: • a. Delete the stone material on the tower like element and replace all of the sides of the tower feature with glazing. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM17423 AND DRC2005-00585 — CIP REAL ESTATE January 3, 2006 • Page 3 b. Because of the smaller size and scale of these buildings, the stone material should cover the entire fagade of the building sections that are not glazed. This must be done on all sides and on every building. C. Provide either, or a combination of, artwork, a water feature, or seating area with decorative trellis in the pedestrian plaza between Building 6 and the existing Building 2. 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 pedestrian connection from Buildings 2 and 6 to Building 7. 2. All pedestrian paths between the buildings must be of a durable decorative material and submitted to the review committee for review and approval. 3. The proposed futuristic bus shelter and shade structure should be redesigned to match the architectural style of the project. Label materials. 4. The ledge stone material board color does not match the stone color of elevations. • 5. Call out the detail materials and color of the decorative pavement within drive entry throats (outside public right-of-way). 6. An enhanced detail of the trash enclosure needs to match the architecture of the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Diaz Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The applicant was instructed to redesign the Site Plan and work of the other outstanding design items with the project planner and return to DRC at a later date. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Larry Henderson January 3, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT17382 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC - A request to subdivide 20.54 acres of land into 156 condominium units, comprised of 79 numbered lots and 9 lettered lots for streets and open space in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street - APN: 0209-092-04. Related files: Development Review DRC2004-01270 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-01280. (Continued from December 20, 2005, meeting) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01270 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC - A request to develop 156 dwelling units comprised of 78 single-family detached homes and 78 attached condominium units in a gated community on 20.54 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street - APN: 0209-092-04. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17382 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-01280. (Continued from December 20, 2005, meeting) Planner will give oral presentation. Plans will be available at the meeting. • Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Diaz Staff Planner: Larry Henderson The applicant and consultants presented revised plans in response to the comments provided by the Committee at the previous meeting (December 20, 2005). Among the items presented were two alternative Site Plan changes (with a list of pros and cons) at the center of the site showing how single-family detached units could be incorporated on both sides of street without reducing the overall number of units. Alternative A involved a significant reduction in the amount of open recreation space provide for the project. After evaluating the alternatives, Commissioner Stewart supported the original Site Plan layout and Commissioner McPhail favored Alternative B but was willing to support the original layout. The applicant's architect also presented modified building elevation drawings indicating modified window arrangements and the addition of shutters. The Commissioners approved the changes and recommended that the project move forward. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • January 3, 2006 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Diaz Ell Acting Secretary • •