Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/09/05 - Agenda PacketDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM~0NGA MEMORANDUM September 9, 1985 Design Review Committee ACTION AGENDA Herman Rempel Dan Coleman Suzanne Chitiea Dave Barker (Alternate) Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner )977 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 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 t~ed 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), 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 design 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 - 6:30 (Nancy) 6:30 - 7:00 (Howard) 7:00 - 7:30 (Howard) 7:30 - 8:00 (Bruce) 8:00 - 8:30 (Bruce) DR 85-17/TT 13131 - ROBERTSON HOMES CUP 85-12 - JEHOVAH WITNESSES DR 85-24 - LUSK BUSINESS PARK TT 11549 - LEWIS {CANCELLED) TT 12659 - BLANTON NF/ns Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Joe Stofa, Paul Rougeau, Barrye Hanson Loyd Goolsby y CONSENT CALENDAR ITEHS AGENDA September 5, 1985 1. DR 85-43 - AJA (Howard) Review of preliminary site plan. Committee Action: The Committee discussed site constraints inherent to the project with the architect and owner in areas of transition of use, easements, future street improvements, and area compatibility. The Committee felt the conceptual site plan was progressing in the right direction. 2. CUP 85-17 - "FOR KIDS ONLY" (Howard) Review of site plan and elevations. Committee Action: The Committee reviewed and approved the revised elevation subject to changing the used brick veneer to a tile material similar to the roof tile. 3. DR 84-04 - DALE MEDICAL CENTER (Howard) Review of brick color materials. Committee Action: The Committee reviewed the exterior materials and felt the brick color needed to be closer in appearance to the red color indicated on the rendering. The Committee further stated that this item should be brought back for additional review. ~ESIGN REVIEW CQI~qII'FEE_CO_I~qENTe 6:00 - 6:30 Nancy September 5, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-17 - ROBERTSON HOMES - A total residential development of 164 apartment units on 11.71 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208-251-11, 23. PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO YES SITE PLAN: ....................L__ . Building Orientation Open Space Parking Location Pedestrian Amenities Site Coverage Storage/Loading Areas ARCI!ITECTURE: Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color NO CIRCULATION: Access Location Street Pattern Variation Pedestrian Access Emergency Access Vehicle Stacking Back-up & Turn Around NEIGI~BORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Neighborhood Character Density Transition Buffering/Screening Grading Land Use Conflict Natural Topography Maintained Grading Minimized Contoured Slopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site Streetscape Enhance Architecture Tree Preservation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot Slope Planting Variation/Interest DESIGN REVIEW CONNITFEE ACTION FOR DR 85-17/TT 13131 Date: September 5, 1985 Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Dave Barker, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Recommended approval. Recommended approval Jof approval: Recommended that the project be revised Committee Review as follows: Did not recommend approval as follows: subject to the following conditions for additional The proposed new elevation has too dominant a horizontal roof line, as well as the staircase being too dominant a feature to the elevation. The developer should provide more variations to the roof line and architectural treatment to the elevations including side elevations. The design of the landscaping should incorporate mitigation measures to deflect the direction of prevailing winds. Revised elevations could be reviewed under consent calendar for the next available Design Review meeting. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS FOR DR 85-17/TT 13131 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the Committee at the July 3rd meeting. Copies of the previous comments and action have been attached for your review. Robertson Homes has significantly modified the site plan and redesigned the elevations. STAFF CO~ENTS: Site Plan The revised site plan retained closely the same design as the previous site plan. The common open space has dropped slightly from 57% to 53%. {Current code requires 35%.) However, the developer has added more recreational amenities such as 2 swimming pools, 1 tennis court, and a 2,600 sq. ft. recreation building. {The previous site plan and the new one have been attached for your comparison.) Elevation The previous building types are 2-story stacked units, arranged into 8-plex configurations where each unit has an individual private entrance. The previous elevations have a variety of architectural treatments and different roof heights that create interest. The proposed new building types are 2- story stacked units lined up into 8- and 12-plex configurations. The proposed new elevations are minimal and do not provide for variation in roof line, building planes and architectural treatments. The following improvements are suggested: 1. Provide variation in roof height to break up the roof mass and building mass. 2. Provide more architectural treatment and variation in building planes to the side elevations. Copies of the previous elevations and the new elevations have been attached for your review. Carports The new developer proposes the same carport design as the previous project. Colored plans will be provided at the meeting. Concerns of Surrounding Neighborhood Staff has received a couple of calls from the residents of the surrounding area who are concerned with the density and the increased traffic. Staff has requested that the developer conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to scheduling for Planning Commission consideration. i ,ESIGN .REVIEW COMMII'I'EE CO)'~MEN1/ 8:30 - 9:00 Nancy July 3, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-17 - MARCH/BROOKSIDE - A total residential development of 164 apartment units on 11.71 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208-251-11, 23. PLEASE CHECK YES NO / / Storaqe/Loadino Areas "YES" IE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO SITE PLAN: ) .ui lding ....... i',LL i o.en Space .' ,/ Parking Loc'ation ~/I Pedestrian Amenities ~/--"'1 Site Coverage I~,-/_~ Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color V ar i at i on/I ntere st Roof Screens ARCHITECTURE: Corner Side/Rear Upgrade) Enhance Architecture Tree Preservation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot Slope Planting / LANI)SCA? hNG_:_ CIRCllLATIDN: Access Location Street Pattern Variation Pedestrian Access Emergency Access Vehicle Stacking Back-up & Turn Around NE I GI|BORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Neighborhood Character Density Transition Buffering/Screening Grading Land Use Conflict Noise Traffic GRADING: ..2 Natural Topography Maintained Grading Minimized Contoured Slopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site DESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE ACTION FOR DR 85-17 - MARCH-BROOKSIDE Date: Members Present: July-a, 1985 Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout Staff Planner: Nancy Fong Recommended approval. Recommended approval subject of approval: Recommended that the project 'Committee Review as follows: to the following conditions be revised for additional Did not recommend approval as follows: The new developer should maintain Lhe design of this site plan. Any proposed changes to the site plan and elevation shall be reviewed by the Committee prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. The developer should work with the out-parcels property owners in including these parcels as part of this development. The City may explore the possibility of providing assistance to the developer/ property owner negotiation. *i' L DETAILED ~ pLAN ARROW ROUTE ROBERTSON HOMES SOUTHERN ~oo~ ¢OOLE~ DR SU.~E .e~ SITE PLAN COLTON, CALIFOI~NIA 92524 UNIT B UNIT A I B[:~M / 1 BATH F~OOR ENTRY AT ARROW ROUTE RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA. ........... _IG_N REVIEW~CO[~q_IT[_,E_E~COMME~Ne 6:30 - 7:00 Howard September 5, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-12 - JEHOVAH WITNESSES - To allow the development of a 6,336 sq. ft. fellowship hall on 1.1 acres of land located in the Low Residential District on the north side of Church Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 1077-321-004. PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO / 5[TE PLAN: Building Orientation Open Space Parking Location Pedestrian Amenities Site Coverage Storage/Loading Areas YES NO ................. s ................CIRCULATION: Access Location /' Street Pattern Variation ~ Pedestrian Access ~ Emergency Access / Vehicle Stacking ..~,~__.. Back-up & Turn Around : NEIGIIBORHOOD ; i COMPATIBILITY '/ Neighborhood Character / Density Transition / Buffering/Screening / Grading ARCHITEClllRE: Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color Variation/Interest / Land Use Conflict / Roof Screens Noise / .... ;...._~gZ~.~,gj.~.~E._U.p~! .......././,,.. ....Traffic .................................. LANDSCAPING: / Streetscape / Enhance Architecture / Tree PreserVation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot '// Slope Planting GRADING: Natural Topography Maintained Grading Minimized Contoured.Slopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site Date: Members Present: Staff Planner: DESIGN REVIEW CO~e4II'FEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-12 September 5, 1985 Suzanne Chitlea, Dave Barker, Dan Coleman Howard Fields Recommended approval. Recommended approval subject of approval: Recommended that the project Committee Review as follows: Did not recommend approval as follows: to the following be revised for conditions additional The Committee recommended revisions to the following areas: Site Plan. 1. Maintain 25' setback from the interior street adjacent to the east property line. 2. Provide additional 45 feet on west property line. 3. Consider relocating the building by moving forward in order to screen the parking spaces. 4. Provide plaza areas or expanded landing for entrances. 5. Provide handicap access and ramp. Architecture: 2. 3. Provide architectural statement. too bland. Provide variations to the roof plane. (130 feet). East and west elevations are Too linear in length Lighting fixtures need to be directed downward. The Committee indicated to the applicant that the site constraints (1.1 acre) and development issues were far too great for the project to proceed as proposed. The Committee suggested a larger site to accommodate the proposed project. [GN REVIEW COMMII'FEE COMMEN~ 7: O0 - 7: 30 Howard September 5', '1985 ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-24 - LUSK BUSINESS PARK - Development of 3 industrial buildings consisting of 15,600 sq. ft., 9,500 sq. ft., and 9,600 sq. ft. respectively on 2.17 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 6) located on the north side of Trademark, west of Haven Avenue & 4th Street - APN 210-381-2, 3, 4. PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO / / YES NO SITE PLAN: ......... CIRCULATION: Building Orientation Open Space Parking Location Pedestrian Amenities Site Coverage Storage/Loading Areas ARCHITECTURE: Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color Variation/Interest Roof Screens Corner LAN[)SCAP[NG: Streetscape Enhance Architecture Tree Preservation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot Slope Planting Access Location Street Pattern Variation Pedestrian Access Emergency Access Vehicle Stacking Back-up & Turn Around NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Neighborhood Character Density Transition Buffering/Screening Grading Land Use Conflict Noise Traffic GRADINg: Natural Topography Maintained Grading Minimized Contoured Slopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site DESIGN REVIEW CD)~4II'FEE ACTION FOR DR 85-24 Date: September 5, 1985 Meddlers Present:Suzanne Chitiea, Dave Barker, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Howard Fields Recommended approval. V/Recommended approval subject to the following of approval: Recommended that the project be revised for Committee Review as follows: Did not recommend approval as follows: conditions additional Provide dense landscaping for screening purposes at the rear elevation adjacent to north property line. Provide landscape planters throughout the east/west portion of the site. Provide pedestrian connections from public street. Provide indoor/outdoor eating area. DESIGN REVIEW CO~f4ITTEE COMMENI 7:30 - 8:00 Bruce September 5, 1985 TENTATIVE TRACT 11549 - LEWIS - A request for design review for single family homes on the easterly 67 lots for a residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located on the southwest corner of Summit & East Avenues - APN 225-181-02, 03, 04, 06, 07, 08, 09, 26, and 43. PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO : ) SITE PLAN: Building Orientation / Open Space / Parking Location //' Pedestrian Amenities / Site Coverage / Storage/Loading Areas NO CIRCULATION: Access Location Street Pattern Variation Pedestrian Access Emergency Access Vehicle Stacking Back-up & Turn Around ~ICHITECTURE: Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color Variation/Interest Roof Screens NEIGHBORHOOD _. COMPATIBILITY Neighborhood Character Density Transition Buffering/Screening Grading Land Use Conflict Noise Corner Side/Rear Upgrade/ Traffic ..................................".: ........................: .............: Streetscape Enhance Architecture Tree PreserVation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot Slope Planting Natural Topography Maintained Grading Minimized Contoured Slopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site DESIGN REVIEW COffi~ITFEE CO)~MEN~ 8:00 - 8:30 Bruce September 5, 1985 TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 BLANTON - A custom lot residential subdivision of 6=7m67 acres into 135 single family lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of 24th Street - APN 225-011-35. PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN YES NO YES NO ! _[__.SITE PLAN: Building Orientation Open Space Parking Location Pedestrian Amenities Site Coverage ~ ) _~.,. CIRCULATION: Access Location Street Pattern Variation Pedestrian Access Emergency Access Vehicle Stacking Storage/Loading Areas / Back-up & Turn Around ..... ~ .........: .........~ ..................................... : NEIGtlBORHOOD ARCIIITECTURE: ......... L ............: ........L COMPATIBILITY Recognizable Theme Scale, Mass, Height Harmonious Style/Form Materials/Color Variation/Interest Roof Screens Corner Side~_.UB~ .......... LANDSC--API~G: ............ Streetscape Enhance Architecture Tree Preservation Screening/Buffering Shade Parking Lot Slope Planting / / Neighborhood Character Density Transition Buffering/Screening Grading Land Use Conflict Noise Traffic GRADING: Natural Topography Haintained Grading Minimized Contoured 5lopes Slope Heights/Gradient Vistas Preserved Views Into Site Date: Men~}ers Present: Staff Planner: DESIGN REVIEW CO)II'FEE ACTION FOR II 12659 September 5, 1985 Suzanne Chitlea, Dave Barker, Dan Coleman Bruce Cook Recommended approval. Recommended approval subject to the following conditions of approval: Recommended that the project be revised for additional Committee Review as follows: Did not recommend approval as follows: Revisions should be incorporated into the equestrian area (Lot A) as follows: - Trailer parking spaces should be designed as pull- through. - Some of the trailer spaces should be large enough to accommodate 4-horse trailers. Gates on the central arena should be provided on the east and west ends, as opposed to the north and south sides. - Bleachers should be made available for use. Utilities, pad, etc., should be made available to accommodate future installation of an announcer's booth. - Ramps on manure pits should be more gradual, and a landing should be provided at the top. Manure pits should be located on inside of loop road further away from the houses. Horse washing areas require a cement pad, and the spigot is to be located outside of railing. Hitching posts should be positioned adjacent to both ends of all tack rooms. Horse watering troughs should be provided. - Feeders and water basins on individual horse stalls should be positioned on outside of stall fencing. 5-rail high fencing should be used on horse stalls. - Metal tack rooms are not very durable; consider alternative types of construction. The equestrian easement on the west side of Lot 129 should be extended westerly along the south side of Lot 128 to align the trail provided along the east side of Lot 92. A final comprehensive design of the equestrian area including but not necessarily limited to a standard design for all tack room construction, a landscaping and irrigation plan, a lighting plan, and details of the rest room/caretaker facilities shall be brought back for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to final recordation of the map. Design of the perimeter treatment of the tract including but not necessarily limited to details of perimeter walls/fences, landscaping, and community trails shall be brought back for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to final recordation of the map.