Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/02/06 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 1992 A~/'IONAGENDA TO: FROM: Residential/Institmtional Design Review Committee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman  John Melcher (Alternate Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1992 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 coments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed 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 p.m. 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. - 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:30 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. 6:30 - 7:15 (Steve R.) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY - The design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081-06. 7:]5 - 8:00 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15354 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - The development review of a 156 unit condominium development on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Woodruff Place and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-26. DRC AGENDA FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 2 8:00 - 8:45 (Anna-Lisa) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - The development of 190 condominium units on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the southeast corner of Kenyon Way and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227- 011-17. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council RESIDENTIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITM~S AGENDA February 6, 1992 VT~ 14475 - SABAMA (Scott) Conunittee Action: Review of slope configuration for Street The Con~nittee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) recommended the option using the terraced retaining walls versus the manufactured slope or solitary retaining wall. T~ 14208 - SOOTMWMST (Steve R.) Committee Action: SIGM G~3UP Review of site entry, buila~.g elevation end utility enclosures. The Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) made the following comments and requested that the project return as a Consent Calendar item: Majestic trees, possibly multi- trunk, with a spreading canopy should be provided in the circular planters at the entry. The south elevation of the single unit building should be revised to eliminate the two pop-outs and instead provide a decorative window to provide lighting into the stairwell. Provide a site plan showing the location of the air conditioning units to ensure that they are located in the patios or are completely screened from public view in another location. All balcony drainage shall be internalized to flow through the building wall and out at ground level. DESIGN REVIEW C0~{4ENTS 6:30 - 7:15 Steve R. February 6, 1992 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 LUSK COMPANY - The design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling ~nits per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081-06. Background: The Design Review for Tract 13280 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1989. The applicant recently proposed a number of minor changes to elevations, which the Design Review Conunittee approved on December 5, 1991 with a condition requiring that double-glazed windows be provided on the interior side elevations of the first floor of all units. At that meeting, the Committee also suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of including single story homes in the tract to meet affordable housing needs and to break- up the ~ssing of the streetscape. On January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission continued the Time Extension for the Design Review for Tract 13280 to have the Design Review Committee review the project in terms of building massing and variation, · 360 degree architecture, and siding material. Staff Co-ments: 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: The Planning Commission was concerned that the project would result in a streetscape having the appearance of "row housing." It was strongly suggested that a single story plan be introduced to help break-up the massing of homes along the streets. If a single story plan is not feasible, a new two-story plan should be introduced which will help to break-up the massing along the streetscape. Note: The applicant would like to discuss this issue with the Design Review committee prior to designing a new floor plan. The project should be reviewed with respect to the 360 degree architecture policy. If only partially used, the placement of siding should be done logically throughout the elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COF~MENTS T 13280 - LUSK COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 2 The Planning Commission expressed a concern with the durability of the proposed masonite siding. Staff notes that masonite has been used extensively throughout Rancho Cucamonga. Design Review Co-M~ttee Action: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Committee made the following comments regarding the project: The overall massing to the homes in relation to the lot size was the greatest concern of the Committee. They stated that the homes are out of scale with the lots because they all have second floors and are generally plotted at the minimum setbacks. The Committee suggested that smaller floor plans be introduced to reduce the overall bulk of the homes, resulting in a better streetscape and quality of life for residents within the subdivision. The third-car garages should be rep laced with bonus rooms on all of the lots to improve the streetscape by eliminating paving and garage doors. The front yard setbacks should have greater variation to add interest to the streetscape. The project was forwarded to the Planning Co~unission without a recommendation because the Committee could not reach a consensus on whether the applicant should be required to make the suggested changes, since he is requesting a time extension for a previously approved application. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS 7:15 - 8:00 Steve R. February 6, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15354 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - The development review of a 156 unit condominium development on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8- 14 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Woodruff Place and Kenyon Way - APN:. 227-011- 26. Design Parameters: The site is bounded by Highland Avenue and a Community Facility parcel on the north, a trail and existing single family homes to the east, Kenyon Way on the south, and Woodruff Place on the west. The Vineyards Marketplace shopping center is on the west side of Woodruff Place, and a park is located on the south side of Kenyon Way, next to a vacant school site. Background: The Design Review Committee (Vallette, Tolstoy, Buller) last reviewed the project on January 2, 1992 and made the following comments comments and stated that the project should return to the Committee as a regular item: The plotting of the buildings along the eastern side of the site does not provide for an adequate transition of density. The buildings should be replotted to lessen their apparent size as viewed from the existing single family homes to the east. If this cannot be done, smaller buildings should be plotted in this area. The required 15-foot building to curb separation must be met by the recreation building as well as elsewhere on-site. A minimum 10-foot area shall be maintained free and clear for landscaping. The parking space between Buildings 18 and 19 should be relocated elsewhere on-site. The architecture of the recreation building should be revised to be consistent with the style used throughout the project. The change to the architecture of the six-unit .building did not achieve the desired effect of breaking-up the bulk of the building. Another attempt should be made. Provide an exhibit to show the typical location of air conditioning units. 7. Provide renderings of the entries to the site. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS VTT 15354 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 2 Update: Since January 2, 1992, the applicant has resubmitted a site plan and building plans for a tri-plex for Committee review. Other items, such as an exhibit showing typical air conditioner locations, revised architecture of the recreation building, and renderings of the project entries, have not been provided. The architecture of the six-plex was not revised due to the incorporation of a tri-plex along the eastern side of the project. 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 Comittee discussion regarding this project: The Committee's main concern at the last meeting related to providing a density transition along the project's eastern boundary. In an effort to i~rove the scale and plotting of buildings in this area, the applicant has introduced a tri-plex. The issue of building to curb separation is a technical issue - the project must conform to all code requirements, unless a variance is granted. The required building to curb separation is 15 feet. However, the Development Code states that a patio wall or fence and pedestrian walkway may project into the setback area provided a minimum 10-foot area shall be maintained free and clear for landscaping. From the multi-family workshops, it is also understood that architectural features (chimneys, exterior stairs, bay windows, etc.) may project into this required 15-foot setback. There are numerous locations throughout the project which do not meet the 15 feet separation or 10 feet landscape area requirements. Therefore, Com~aittee clarification of the standard is requested regarding encroachment by equipment enclosures (i.e., electrical and gas meters) and storage closets (i.e., left elevation of five-plex). The recreation building does not conform to the 15 feet separation requirement, nor the 10 feet landscape area, along the front elevation. DESIGN REVIEW CO~LMENTS VTT 15354 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 3 Design Review Committee ACtion: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the incorporation of the following comments: The six-unit buildings should have a mix of the two- and three- gabled rear elevations. Where two six-unit buildings face each other, care should be taken to vary the elevations. The landscaping around the pool area should be very rich to provide a unique environment and to help buffer the area from the adjacent drive aisles. Various finished elevations should be utilized around the pool area to add interest. A special landscaping treatment should be applied between the two project entries along the central drive aisle. Enhanced paving should be carried along the length of this special corridor. It was determined that the 15-foot building to curb separation would be measured from the nearest solid wall of the building. Therefore, the integrated utility enclosures and storage closets are not considered allowable architectural encroachments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 - 8:45 Anna-Lisa February 6, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15289 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - The development of 190 condominium units on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the southeast corner of Kenyon Way and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-011-17. Design Parameters: There are no significant structures or features on the site. The site is bounded by a park site and single family residential to the east, single family residential to the west and south, and a village commercial shopping center to the north. The project is One Of the first to incorporate the new multi-family development standards. The 190 unit townhouse project is proposed with three different unit types: duplex, tri-plex, and four-plex units with stucco and concrete tile roofing. Background: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project On October 3, 1991, and did not recommend approval. The applicant then revised the site plan and elevations to address the Committee's concerns and the Committee reviewed the project again on January 2, 1992. The Committee then reconnnended that the following iten~ be addressed: 1. The overall site plan should be modified as follows: a) The applicant should make an effort to further increase the clustering of the units so as to provide more of an open feeling within the site. b) Minimize the number of back yard to back yard buildings. (If possible, 50 percent fewer such cases than shown in the proposed plan.) c) The buildings that back up to Milliken Avenue should be pulled further away from Milliken Avenue and additional side-on buildings should be used so as to increase the openness into the site and create a more pleasing streetscape. d) Relocate or eliminate the 3 parking spaces located at the southeast side of the project perpendicular the greenbelt trail (Lot E) away from the greenbelt. 2. The proposed architecture should be modified as follows: a) Add multi-pane windows to the second-story windows of all the units. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 2 b) Wrap the wainscoat around all sides of the recreational building. c) The AC condenser~ for each dwelling unit should be oriented away from the buildings and the entries and shall be screened on all sides by landscaping. 3. The landscaping concept for the project should be modified as follows: a) Provide rear yard landscaping for all back yards along the perimeter of the project. b) Move the pedestrian walkway from the south side of the central open space area closer to the recreation building. c) Provide a sketch of the view into the project at both project entries. Staff CoMents: Staff has reviewed the revisions to the project and offers the following comments for the Committee to consider: 1. Site Plan: a) The applicant has attempted to cluster the units to provide more "pockets" of open space, (i.e., between Buildings 11 and 16). However, staff feels that a greater effort could be made to satisfy the Committee's concern. b) The applicant has attempted to minimize the number of back yard to back yard buildings. Staff understands that the Committee's primary intent in this comment is to create usable open space areas with pedestrian linkages, which would aid in creating an "open" feeling throughout the site. However, between Buildings 8 and 9, the open space would be considered "unusable" due to the slope conditions. If Building 9 were shifted to the west, a "pocket" of open space would be created to enhance the streetscape and to establish the "open" feeling. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 3 c) The applicant has revised the plans to address the Com~ittee's concern by removing the four-p lex unit and varying the rear and side-on conditions along Milliken Avenue, which will provide for better transitioning with the residences along the west side. d) Revised as suggested. 2. Architecture: a) Revised as suggested. b) Revised as suggested. c) Screening for ground and roof-mounted equipment is proposed to be be provided through conditions of approval. 3. Landscaping: a) Landscaping for all units along the perimeter is proposed to be be provided through conditions of approval. b) Revised as suggested. c) To be provided at the meeting by the developer. Other Issues: The Building Separation/Landscape Area: There are numerous locations throughout the project which do not meet the 15 feet building to curb separation standard and/or the 10 feet landscape area standard. Generally, this occurs at the ends of the buildings with adjoining parking spaces. However, this project differs from Tentative Tract 15354 because these locations involve the main walls of the units (rather than equipment enclosures and storage closets). Therefore, this project must be redesigned to meet the new multi-family standards. Recreational Area/Facility: The project is required to provide at least five recreational amenities. a) Does the single, larger tot lot meet the requirements for "multiple enclosed tot lots with multiple play equipment?" No details have been provided regarding the layout of equipment within the tot lot. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS TT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 4 b) Does the recreation building meet the requirement for a "community multi-purpose room equipped with kitchen, defined areas for games, exercises, etc.?" More specifically, does the floor plan which indicates a 24-foot by 20 feet multi- purpose room meet the intent to provide "defined areas for games, exercises, etc.?" A negative response to either of these would deem the project deficient in meeting the minimum requirements. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez The Committee reviewed the modifications to the project and recommended approval subject to the following revisions: Architecture The window wrought iron detailing (on the Triplex building type) should be incorporated into the other buildings. All rough sawn wood posts at the unit entries should be stuccoed and painted to match the building. The external guttering on the recreation building should be redesigned so as not to be completely visible to public view, especially along the front elevation. Site Plan All units with side-on conditions along Milliken Avenue should be a minimum of 10 feet away from the perimeter wall (i.e., Units 17, 25, 26, 52, and 64). All units with rear-on conditions adjacent to Milliken Avenue should be a minimum of 15 feet from the perimeter wall (i.e., Units 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72). A trail link between Units 44 and 59 within Lot H should be added to facilitate pedestrian access to the primary recreation area. 4. The two parking stalls perpendicular to the Kenyon entry should be eliminated. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 15289 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY FEBRUARY 6, 1992 Page 5 The Kenyon entry should be redesigned to provide a "focal point," with significant open space at the end of the drive aisle, similar to the entrance at Victoria Park Lane. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Design Review Cor~nittee should review and approve the design of the Kenyon entry. The retaining structure located south of Buildings 48 and 49 and should receive a cap and stucco treatment to match the building architecture. The pedestrian trails between Buildings 29, 21, 22, and 19 should be eliminated to provide the 10-foot minimum setback between the perimeter wall and the unit adjacent to Milliken Avenue. The open space area between Buildings 8 and 9 should be eliminated. Instead this open space should be concentrated along the main spine. Recreation Area The recreation area should be redesigned to provide a usable open play area. The Committee suggested that the pool be located parallel to the main spine road. In addition, the Committee suggested that the applicant utilize grading techniques to create different levels within the recreation area for the amenities.