Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/18 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY MAY 18, 2010 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca 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. (Mike) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2009-00493 - GB ARCHITECTS - A request to construct two office/professional buildings of 25,600 square feet on 3 vacant parcels, with a combined area of 2.5 acres in the Office/Professional (OP) District, located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 0208-811-59, -58, and -60. Related file: Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00092. 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 8:14 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith May 18, 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2009-00493 — GB ARCHITECTS - A request to construct two office/professional buildings of 25,600 square feet on 3 vacant parcels, with a combined area of 2.5 acres in the Office/Professional (OP) District, located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 0208-811-59, -58, and -60. Related file: Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00092. Background: This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee on February 2, 2010. The Committee reviewed the proposal and deemed it to be unacceptable. The Committee stated that the architecture of the buildings is incompatible with the existing development that surrounds the project site and, in general, with what would be expected in the City. The architecture is lacking warmth because of the proposed materials and finishes. The Committee indicated that the applicant should consider introducing wood as a possible material. The massing and form of the buildings were unacceptable and stood in contrast to the residential development to the west. Lastly, the Committee recommended against making both buildings identical to each other. The applicant was directed to substantially revise the proposal and resubmit it for a follow-up review by the Committee at a later date. In the interim period between February 2, 2010, and now, the applicant has been working on the revisions. The applicant has been making incremental revisions and submitting the preliminary designs • to the Planning Department for discussion. In response, staff has been directing him to further refine the design by incorporating various trim, features, and other elements. To ensure that the proposal will be satisfactory to the Committee, staff has concluded that the Committee should review the applicant's • progress and provide comments. Staff Comments: The following items are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. 1. Is the overall design theme acceptable? 2. Is the quality of the design consistent with the Committee's expectations? 3. Is the applicant using and applying appropriate trim, elements, and features to match the design theme? 4. Is the massing and scale acceptable for the site? 5. Are two identical buildings acceptable, or should there be a clear difference between the two buildings? Staff Recommendation: None. This is a review of the applicant's progress. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee reviewed the applicant's revised proposal and concluded that the applicant was generally making progress in the right direction. The principal concern was that the revisions made the buildings look too much like residential structures, such as apartments, when they needed to look more like offices. The Committee instructed the applicant to strive for a high caliber design that reflects a warm, office professional building. The Committee also indicated that the architecture should not focus on providing multiple exterior entrances that are typical of retail projects considering that the underlying land uses that are allowed in the zoning district are office-intensive and retail opportunities are limited. The number of individual storefront entrances, therefore, should be DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2009-00493 — GB ARCHITECTS May 18, 2010 Page 2 minimized. In order to reinforce the office professional district, the entrance to each tenant space should be via the interior of the building with access to the outside through a common lobby. The applicant requested that the two end units of each building be allowed to have direct access to the outside; this request was accepted by the Committee. Lastly, the Committee indicated that the area around the lobby entrance of each building should be significantly enhanced to reflect their importance as the main entrance. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Mike Smith DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS May 18, 2010 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director