Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/01/24 - Agenda PacketDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM January 14, 1985 Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Rick Gomez Dennis Stout Herman Rempel (Alternate) Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 1985 1977 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 tJ~3ed 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 5:30 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m., with the first desi9n review item being heard at 6:00 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. 6:00 - 6:45 (Curt) 6:45 - 7:30 (Dan) 7:30 - 8:00 (Dino) 8:00 - 8:30 (Howard) 8:30 - 9:00 (Howard) DR 84-22 - BENTSEN CUP 84-31 - DIVERSIFIED TT 12710 - IANCO CUP 84-38 - METHODIST CHURCH CUP 84-39 - GARASICH Y DRC MEETING OF 24, 1985 Page #2 9:00 - 9:30 DR 84-47 - PICKEN (Howard) NF:cv Attachments CC: Planning Commission City Council Tim Beedle, Planning Division Joe Stofa, Paul Rogeau, Paul Quintana, Barrye Hanson DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:45 Curt January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-22 BENTSEN The development of a 924 unit apartment complex, to be built in three phases, on approximately 58.3 acres, located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, in the Medium-High District (14-24 du/ac) APN 202-271- 59,60. Design Parameters This project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee at the December 12, 1984 meeting. The Committee expressed a number of significant design concerns regarding site planning and architecture. The purpose of this meeting is to review the revised plans and offer additional comments. Please review the attached previous comments and Design Review Committee actions. Staff Cerements Site Plan: The Committee's previous site plan concerns basically included provisions for a larger, continuous open space spine, enhancing views from the parking aisles, use of natural/contour grading and split level buildings, and enhancing views of the buildings from Lemon Avenue. Overall, it appears that the site plan revisions do not meet the intent of the previous comments as follows: The open space connection to the westerly shopping center is improved, but still weak (narrows to 12' between buildings and patio fences). 2. Views into the open space corridor from parking aisles are generally obstructed by buildings or carports. Parking spaces and carports still dominate the perimeter aisles and parking courts. The gradin9 plan has been revised throughout the site with greater use of retaining walls to reduce slope areas. Split level units, however, are not used. A maximum three feet is taken up along Building Type VIII in some cases. The pad elevations along Lemon Avenue are basically unchanged (0' to i 1/2' higher). The slopes have been reconfigured somewhat with the use of 4:1 or 3:1 slopes versus 2:1. Architecture: The previous architecture concerns related to general improvement of the design quality of the 2 and 3-story units and enhancement of the carports. The revisions to the building architecture were extremely limited. The only noticeable change was to the patio and balconies (stucco wall versus wood fence/railing). Other revisions as per item 6 on the Design Review Committee action agenda were not provided. To facilitate more detailed review of the individual building types, reductions of the nine different structures are attached. As noted at the December 12, 1984 Design Review Committee meeting, the major concern dealt with the 3-story units and repetitive stacking and floor levels. In addition, there are a number of stark rear elevations and side elevations (see Building Types III, VI, and VII in particular). The carports are now provided with wood supporting posts and trellis work as requested by the Design Review Committee. Storage areas are not included. Design Review Coanittee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Curt Johnson 7:00 - 8:00 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Tim/Curt December 13, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-22 BENTSEN - The development of a 924 unit apartment complex, to be built in three phases, on approximately 58.3 acres, located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, in the Medium-High District (14- 24 du/ac) - APN 202-271-59,60. Design Parameters As the Committee may be aware, the Environmental Assessment for this project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 1984. Please refer to the Staff Report for Environmental Information including a number of mitigation measures which will effect the design of this project. As noted in the description, the project is proposed in three phases. The first phase will consist of 316 units on approximately 15 acres of land with the density of 20.7 units per acre. All access to the site from Lemon Avenue, since the Foothill Freeway Corridor adjoins the property to the south. Considering the complexity of the project, this item will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on two separate occasions. This first meeting is intended to discuss the overall aspects of the project (i.e. Design Concepts, such as open space areas, circulation, building configuration and placement, and architectural concepts), and project alternatives. The second meeting will be provided to review the details of the project design. Staff Coraments Site Plan: The project design will create an urban style of apartment development represented by the overall size of the project, three story building types, and large open space areas. The site plan indicates three building types consisting of one-story units to the north along Lemon Avenue, second-story units immediately to the south and two and three- story units in the large central area of the project. The following are the site plan comments: Design Review Comments DR 84-22 - Bentsen Page 2 Considering the size of project, it is important to create more neighborhood identifica{ion. This can be accomplished by arrangements of units with better orientation to open space areas, and distinctive architectural treatment of buildings. The buildings in the central portion of the site, should be combined to create more significant open space areas. In addition, instead of using flat building pads with engineered slopes and retaining walls, mechanically taking up grade through the project, split level units with use of rolling terrain can create a more natural appearance. Views of the project from the parking lot are currently dominated with parking on both sides of aisle ways. Parking should be eliminated at strategic locations to open up views of buildings and landscaped areas. The diagramatic illustration of Phases II and III should be reviewed'closely, relative to vehicular circulation and open space. Particular concern is the duplication of drive aisles and weak connections between open space areas. Adjoining Phase I of this project to the west is a proposed shopping center. This project should provide a strong pedestrian link directly to the center. Architecture: The applicant has intended that this project would represent more of a higher end apartment complex. The details of the individual buildings should be discussed at the follow-up Design Review Committee meeting. At this point, the issues to be discussed include: architectural and product variation within the project, and building configuration. Considering the number of units within the project, Staff feels that the architectural concepts for Phase I should not be continued throughout the project. Instead, a variety of product types with distinctive architectural treatment should be considered. This will also help to separate the project in definable neighborhoods. Design Review Comments DR 84-22 - Bentsen Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Dennis Stout, ~1, Rick Gomez Staff Planner: Curt Johnston A well defined, central and continuous open space spine should be provided which visually and functionally links together the three phases of this project and the westerly shopping center. To accomplish this, building footprints should be combined to consolidate open space and the major recreational amenities aligned or otherwise organized in a more direct fashion. In addition, significant views into the open space core must be provided from the perimeter parking loop. Of particular concern is the west end of the site where a strong pedestrian orientation to the shopping center is highly desirable. Views of the project from the parking lot are currently dominated wi.th parking on both sides of aisle ways. Parking should be eliminated at strategic locations to open up views of buildings and landscaped areas, particularly at the inside corners of the loop road, and at entryways into the parking courts. Low level lighting shall be provided within the open space areas. The site planning and architecture must work with the natural terrain by taking up grade along the length of buildings and gradually throughout the site. The use of engineered 2:1 slopes with unnatural hard edges are discouraged to the extent possible. The pad elevations of the units nearest Lemon Avenue should be increased- to reduce the sudden drop-off in grade and present more attractive views of the building from the street. Architecture Additional architectural treatment and variation is necessary on the two- and three-story structures. Suggestions presented included loosening up the appearance of repetitive stacking of units, provide variation to the balcony and patio treatment, increase the variation and layering of architectural planes, eliminate flat/blank elevations, and provide significantly more variation to the roof forms and height. Design Review Comments DR 84-22 Page 4 The carport design must be more massive with and trellis work. Also, individual. storage provided. heavy wood beams areas should be 8. Trash enclosures must be shown on the site plan and should be designed with overhead trellis work for shading. BUILDING TYPE I-A1 [TWO BTO RY) BUILDING TYPE I -A1 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE II-A2 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE II-A2 I'TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE (TWO STORY) III -B 1 BUILDING TYPE III-B1 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE IV-B2 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE IV-B2 (TWO STORY} BUILDING TYPE IV-BE (TWO STORY} BUILDING TYPE V-A2 (THREE STORY) BUILDING TYPE V-A2. (THREE STORY) BUILDING TYPE VI-C1 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE VI-C1 (TWO STORY) BUILDING TYPE VI-C1 (TWO STORY) BUILOINI3 TYPE VII-B 1 (THREE STORY) BUILOIN(] TYPE VII-B 1 (THREE STORY} BUILDING TYPE VIII-B2 (TWO AND THREE STORY) BUILDING TYPE VIII-B2 (TWO AND THREE STORY) SUILOING TYPE VIII-RE (TWO AND THREE STORY) BUILDING TYPE IX-C1/B3 (ONE STORY) BUILDING TYPE IX-C1/B3 (ONE STORY) BUILDING TYPE IX-CIB3 CONE STORY) DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:45 - 7:30 Dan January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-31 DIVERSIFIED The development of an integrated shopping center of approximately 118,988 square feet, which includes a gasoline service station, as part of a proposed Phase I of an overall conceptual master plan for future phases, all on about 15 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District generally located at the northeast corner of Highland and Haven Avenues - APN 201-271-53. This site is abutting the proposed Lynn Haven Apartment Project which is currently before the City for Review. Background: The project has been revised and additional information provided based upon the previous DRC Comments listed below. Sheet A is the revised detailed site plan. Sheet C illustrates the changes to the storefront elevations to provide pedestrian scale and variety, particularly as shown in the "Typical Storefront Elevation and Plan" views. Issues: Does the revised site plan and building placement provide adequate pedestrian orientation and amenities in relation to the scale of the site? Does the revised site plan provide for a "center" with a group of organized structures that encourages pedestrian orientation and resolve conflict of fragmented building placement? Are the revised elevations consistent with City policies regarding pedestrian/human scale compatible with character of the surrounding neighborhood? Previous Design Review Committee Action (December 13, 1984): Members Present: David Barker, Dennis Stout, Rick Gomez Staff Planner: Linda D. Daniels Site Plan: More of a major pedestrian focal point needs to be provided than what is presently shown. The main focal point, at the northeast area of the site, needs to have more emphasis both as a design statement as well as a pedestrian user area. This is necessary in both the first phase as well as the future phases. The two minor pedestrian user areas also need to have more emphasis on their design and location than what is currently being achieved. This could be done by opening up the corners of the building, by having shop accesses directly to the areas and enlarging the areas. In addition, the pedestrian path leading from the multi-family project to the east should be coordinated in terms of location, materials, design, width, etc., with the devlopers of that project. The existing fragmentation of smaller buildings in the front of the site (all phases) is not something that enhances interest to the site. These buildings should be consolidated or grouped together. The single building at the northwest area of the site should be combined, through a pedestrian courtyard, with the adjacent row of buildings. The parking in the main drive aisle from Haven Avenue should be eliminated. Landscape planters should be provided on both sides of the drive aisle to increase the effect of an entrance statement. In doing this, the proposed minor pedestrian user area could be enlarged to wrap around the corner building as a way to emphasize the human scale and use of the center. Architecture: The basic building form appears to be compatible with the surrounding area. The shops should be more individualized through the addition of accents and details. These could include such things as awnings, or entrance canopy, bay windows, parted windows vs. the large store front windows, and the introduction of additional color as accent. 2. The colors of the buildings should be earthtone, but of the darker tones (light brown, slate), in order to enhance the river rock being used. 3. A sign program must be submitted for review and approval. The sign program should identify the major tenant locations that will be exempt from the required sign criterias. The sign criteria for the remainder of the center should be of a generic store name nature with a single letter style and a single color. A maximum of two monument signs will be permitted for the development. 4. The height and design of the light poles should be compatible with the style and appearance of the center. A lighting plan, which identifies typical beam spreads, shall be submitted for review. Landscaping and Circulation: From a conceptual stand point both the circulation and landscaping appear to be acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to use an alternative tree species for the proposed pear tree since the tree does not do well in the area. The fieldstone material should also be used in the planter and landscaped seating areas, pedestrian areas, and as a base for the light standards. STAFF COMMENTS ON REVISED PLANS Site Plan: The site plan does not adequately provide a major pedestrian focal point, particularly at the northeast corner of the site. Although the plaza area was expanded, it appears inadequate in relation to the large scale (15 acres) of the site. A larger landscaped plaza area should be created as a focal point by eliminating parking spaces in this area. The two minor pedestrian user areas (between Retail ~1 and Pad ~1 and between Retail ~3 and Future Retail) should be given greater emphasis and shop orientation by angling the corners of the buildings. The pedestrian linkage from Haven to the east (Lynnhaven Apartments) has been substantially improved and is acceptable. The parking in the main drive aisle from Haven was not eliminated, as recommended by Design Review Committee, to provide landscape planters on both sides to create an entrance corridor. The single building at the northwest corner (south of Pad #1) should be combined through a pedestrian courtyard, with the adjacent row of buildings by eliminating parking spaces. Colored concrete pavement texture should be pedestrian path from Haven into the project areas, including the east parking area. used wherever the crosses pavement Architecture: The storefronts have been revised to emphasize individual shop character and human scale through such details as, bay windows, paned windows, light fixtures. In addition, storefronts will have "in's and out's" to provide setback variety underneath the canopy for visual interest. A combination of greater setback variety in the canopy line and roof height is recommended to break up the linear massing of the storefronts and provide a stronger, more distinct architectual image. Sign program was not revised to identify major tenant locations exempt from uniform criteria, nor has generic store name with single letter style/color been indicated. The site plan still indicates three or more monument signs (including future phases). Staff recommends that this item be a condition of approval. No lighting plan was submitted to indicate style and typical beam spread for light poles; however, this would be required as a standard condition of the project. The roof treatment should be continued around the entire east elevation for compatibility with the adjacent residential project (LynnHaven Apartments). Further, the river rock wall detailing should be continued through the pedestrian corridor (south of Retail #3) and wrap around the corner sides of the east elevations to provide an attractive pedestrian entrance to the project center. Desiqn Review Committee Action (January 24, 1985): Members Present: Staff Planner: Dan Coleman 7:30 - 8:00 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Dino January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12710 IANCO A residential custom 8 lot subdivision on 4.9 acres of land in the Very Low residential districts (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 950 feet south of Hillside Road - APN 1061-611-02. Design Parameters: The important issues to be considered for this tract map are grading (drainage), trail easements, and lot depth. The grading is limited to the proposed public right-of-way and trail easements. The City grading policy for a custom lot subdivision is to maintain each lot in its existing and natural condition until building plans are proposed and submitted. This tract map requires a variance in the minimum lot depth requirement (150 feet). The proposed lot depth is approximately 135 feet, or 10 percent less (15 feet) than the minimum required. Due to the nature, size and shape of the project site, the Variance request appears to be reasonable for the full development of the site. A ten (10) foot trail easement is proposed and required along the south property line of the project site. The Trails Committee has recommended: (1) twelve foot parkway trail, (2) fifteen foot trail easement along both the north and south property lines of the project site, (3) ten (10) foot trail easement along the west property line of the project site, and (4) street crossing designation across the proposed street at Hellman. STAFF COMMENTS Site Plan: 1. The variance findings for lot depth can be made due to the constraints of the project site. The overall plan meets the intent of the Development Code and General Plan. Landscaping: 1. Provide Eucalyptus Polyanthemos (Silver Dollar Gum) center, in the parkway area along Hellman Avenue. trees, 20 feet on 2. Provide and designate street trees for the proposed street. Architecture: 1. This application is architecture review. limited to custom lot subdivision only, no building Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Dino Putrino DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 - 8:30 p.m. Howard January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-38 - UNITED METHODIST CHURCH To allow the development of a 9,600 sq. ft. Fellowship Hall and the review of a Master Plan for the development of a church/sanctuary facility located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Archibald Avenue on about 2.8 acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) Development District - APN 208-041-29. Desiqn Parameters: Currently, the subject site is occupied by the United Methodist Church and 3 classroom buildings. The site is bordered by existing single family residential units and represents an important component to the surrounding neighborhood. Overall there is adequate lot area for the project proposed, however the church is situated on a very important site in terms of cultural and historical significance within the community. Interfacing the design an existing historical structure with any future proposals must be conducted with thoughtful review. Furthermore, the site is master planned to incorporate future proposals which must be coordinated to have building elevations similar in design components, thereby unifying the entire design theme. Staff CommEnts Site Plan: Based on the submitted Master Plan, the project proposal will be situated lengthwise with full view of a rather dull elevation. If this is the optimal building orientation for the project proposal, consideration should be given for possible alternative building placement. In its proposed central location, the Fellowship Hall will actually be the hub or focal point of the entire master planned development. Architecture: The overall elevations for this project could be enhanced to be more compatible with the architectural program of the existing church through the following recommendations: 1. The addition of elements to enhance the east architectural plane are needed. These elements could include such things as terraced landscape planters, window pop-outs, changes to the roof plane and design and recessed entryways. 2. Increased use of stone in columns, to continue important features of the existing church. 3. Utilization of wood trim around windows or similar treatment. 4. Continue trellis work across driveway to the existing church. This will help to tie the buildings together. Landscaping: The following improvements are recommended to enrich the project's visual impact from Archibald Avenue. 1. Additional landscaped planters to be placed along the north and south elevations of proposed building. 2. Increase the use of landscaped planters throughout existing parking lot. 3. Increase the tree types along Archibald Avenue through clustering. Oesign Rev~ C~ittee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Howard Fields DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 - 9:00 Howard January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-39 - GARASICH - To allow the development of 3 buildings of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. each for purposes of both industrial warehousing and administrative and professional offices on about 1.25 acres, located on the east side of Rochester Avenue, north of 4th Street in the General Industrial (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN 229-283-03. Design Parameters The subject site is vacant and slopes gently from a north-easterly to southwesterly direction at approximately 2%. The first phase of the proposed development consists of two 2-story buildings on one parcel. The applicant proposes to utilize zero lot line technique for building placement due to lot size constraints and for purposes of separate ownership title. The site is surrounded by land designated as General Industrial and adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway which required special design considerations for building adjacent to the freeway and screening of all loading areas. Staff Co.mnents Site Plan: The overall following: 1. Consideration of site plan could be improved by providing for the singular building for the entire project site with only one driveway. Parking dimensions need adjustment from 26' to 28' for loading aisles. Along project frontage provide the required 25' of landscaping from curb face. Improve internal traffic movement for emergency vehicles by creating an easement to service both parcels. Architecture: The proposed elevations of the two buildings are not very innovating and should incorporate more architectural treatment such as variations and relief of architectural planes. Consideration should be given to the size and scale of project proposal. There is a possibility that this aspect could diminish architectural projections. Landscaping: The overall landscaping plan for the project should have a unifying theme with special landscaping treatment along the project entrance on Rochester Avenue and the portion of project site adjacent to 1-15 Freeway for purposes of mitigating vehicular noise. The applicant should provide written clearance from Cal-Trans on project proponents should increase landscaping areas increase the amount and size of landscaping materials. Design Review CmBittee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Howard Fields planting in their right-of-way. Lastly, around buildings and DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 - 9:30 Howard January 24, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-47 - PICKEN - To allow the development of a retail sales/commercial building of 8,040 square feet, located on the southside of Foothill Boulevard and east of Vineyard on approximately .72 acres within the General Commercial district, APN 208-241- 30. Design Parameters The project site is currently occupied by a single family residence which will be removed. Project proposal is on Foothill Boulevard and required special consideration and focus on landscaping treatment and architecture. Said project is immediately west of the existing In-N-Out Burger. The Pepperwood Project exists to the east and condominiums are approved to the south. Staff Comments Site Plan: plan: Staff has the following concerns regarding the submitted site The conceptual grading plan depicted an area to the rear of proposed building that will pose a future maintenance problem. 2. Consideration of additional area for pedestrian orientation. 3. Conflicting problem of grading plan vs. rear elevation. Landscaping: The following improvements are recommended: Increase pedestrian area to include combination raised planters/seating area and placement of small tree tynes and/or blooming shrubs to further accent front elevation. Architecture: The following improvements are recommended: 1. Continuation of roof line around corners. 2. Utilization of bay windows or similar architectural treatment. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Howard Fields