HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/06/08 - Agenda Packet CITY 0FRANCHOCUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 12, 1989 ACTION AGENDA
TO: Commercial/Industrial
Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea
Peter Tolstoy
Dan Coleman
David Blakesley {Alternate)
FROM: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 8~ 1989
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 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 - 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
(Bruce) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-06 -
J.p. TECHNOLOGIES - The development of a research and
development building totaling 40,000 square feet on 4.86
acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea
7) located on the north side of Elm Avenue at Maple
Avenue. Related Files: PR 89-13 and DR 86-23
Modification.
6:30 - 7:00
(Bev) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-01 -
BARTON DEVELOPMENT - The development of 3 industrial
buildings totaling 22,772 square feet on 1.28 acres of
land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the
southeast corner of Utica Avenue and Fulton Court
APN: 209-142-51.
DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA
JUNE 8, 1989
Page 2
7:00 - 7:30
(Steve H.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
89-10 - AMPAC ~ The request to establish outside storage
within a Southern California Edison easement of 13.73
acres in the Heavy Industrial Development District
(Subarea 15) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on
the south side of Arrow Route, east of and adjacent to
the Devore Freeway - APN: 229-121-16.
7:30
(Brett) ENVIRONMENTAL AND ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -
88-28 - DAMON DE CROW The development of a 49 bed
hospital totaling 45,000 square feet on 1.9 acres in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located west of
White Oak and at the terminus of Spruce Avenue - APN:
208-351-78 and 79.
BA:mlg
Attachments
cc: Planning Commission/City Council
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
CONSEITF CALENDAR IllEI4S AGENOA
June 8, 1989
1. DR 88-36 - O'DONNELL BRIGHAR
Review of on-site landscaping for
retention basin.
Committee Action: The Committee approved the landscape
plan around the permanent on-site
retention basin with the following
conditions:
1. Wrought iron fencing, rather than
chain link fence should be
provided along the southerly
perimeter of the basin i.e., that
portion which is visible to the
street.
2. Dense landscaping should be
provided adjacent to the chain
link fence on the inside portion
of the basin.
3. Benches, picnic tables, etc.,
should be provided on the bottom
of the basin to provide usable
employee plaza area.
4. The bottom of the basin should be
planted with some type of mowable
turf, rather than the creeping
red rescue as proposed.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:00 - 6:30 Bruce June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-06 - J.P.
TECHNOLOGIES - The development of a research and development building
totaling 40,000 square feet on 4.86 acres of land in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) located on the north side of Elm Avenue at Maple
Avenue. Related Files: PR 89-13 and DR 86-23 Modification.
Staff Counts:
The project was reviewed with the architect by staff on April 19, 1989,
in order to clarify certain design issues. Most of those design issues
and other design concerns are listed as follows to guide the Design
Review Committee in the examination of the proposed development plans:
Architecture:
1. The overall building design appears dated. The theme of the design
brings together certain design elements such as the metal sun
screen at the windows and the tower at the entrance in styles
reminiscent of public and corporate buildings which were popular in
the 1940's and 50's. While this eclectic style of architecture is
popular in many areas, it may not be appropriate for blending in
with the office buildings already in the vicinity, nor may it offer
an appearance which will last beyond the current trend.
2. More articulation of the walls should be provided in order to add
visual interest without the use of dated design elements.
3. The proposed color scheme has been modified to matt white and light
pale mint green. The white replaces all colors originally
specified to be either "yellow or lavender". While this
modification'tones down the original paint scheme, it may cause the
building to appear too plain and "industrial looking".
4. Additional glass in a different configuration tied in with building
articulation should be provided to emphasize the entrances and
relieve the monotony of the facade.
5. A different reveal detail should be used so that the stand-up
concrete panels do not appear independent.
6. Painted metal portions of the building should be minimized.
Site Plan:
1. The employee plaza space should be moved further away from the
street area to reduce the amount of noise and pollution for users.
2. Details of storage area, screen walls, coverings and trash
enclosure should be provided to clarify durability and a desired
connection with the architecture.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 89-06 - J.P. TECHNOLOGIES
Page 2
3. A connection from the sidewalk within the 20 foot pedestrian
easement at the north edge of the site should be provided with the
enriched paving and entrance at the rear of the building.
4. The sidewalk at the middle of the west side of the east}rn most
parking lot, needs to make a connection with sidewalks to she west
or be deleted as it goes nowhere now.
5. The sidewalk at the southwest corner of the eastern most parking
lot would provide a much more pleasurable experience if it were
located away from the building, meandering across the landscape
between berms to the employee plaza.
6. The sidewalk adjacent to Elm Avenue should meander more.
7. A drop off/turn around area for automobiles could have been
designed into the project. This would have provided a certain
practical elegance to the site.
8. Project lighting details should be provided including utilization
of different types of lighting fixtures such as walk lights,
bollard lights, wall lights, step lights and planting flood lights.
9. Entry monument signs should be provided which tie in with the
building architecture.
Landscape:
1. Provide a description of existing plant material on adjacent
properties to the west and the north.
2. Pinus halapensis should be changed to Pinus eldarica (Mondell Pine)
which has a pryamidal shape, helping to unify the site through
repetition of similar tree forms such as Liquidambar and
8rachychiton.
3. A stronger project entry statement tree should be provided.
However, Cupania should remain as the parking lot and lunch area
shade tree.
4. The turf areas should be reduced in size for purposes of water
conservation. An ideal amount would be not more than 25% of
landscaping devoted to turf.
5. The native palm, Washingtonia filifera should be used as the
building accent tree.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 89-06 - J.P. TECHNOLOGIES
Page 3
Design Review Conm~ittee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Bruce Abbott
The Design Review Committee recommended that the following revisions or
additional information be provided and that revised plans be resubmitted
for scheduling as a full review item:
Architecture:
1. Alternative window shade structures should be explored. A round
shape may be appripriate. Also, metal could be utilized, however,
other materials should be explored.
2. Freestanding columns should be used to support the shading
structure, rather than the proposed "wing" wall against the main
wall of the structure.
3. The basic form of the windows may be appropriate, however, the tile
around the windows should be substituted with the same element of
stripes and squares located around the entrance of the building.
4. The building parapet should be stepped and each vertical set of
reveals should culminate at the stepped parapet with an element
which continues over the vertical reveal flush with the top edge of
the building parapet. Alternative spacing of vertical reveals
should be explored.
5. A different color should be proposed for the project and a new
materials and color board resubmitted for review.
Site Plan:
1. The employee plaza space should be moved further away from the
street area to reduce the amount of noise and pollution for users.
2. Details of storage area, screen walls, coverings and trash
enclosure should be provided to clarify durability and a desired
connection with the architecture.
3. The sidewalk at the middle of the west side of the eastern most
parking lot, needs to make a connection with sidewalks to the west
or be deleted as it goes nowhere now.
4. The sidewalk at the southwest corner of the eastern most parking
lot would provide a much more pleasurable experience if it were
located away from the building, meandering across the landscape
between berms to the employee plaza.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 89-06 - J.P. TECHNOLOGIES
Page 4
5. The sidewalk adjacent to Elm Avenue should meander more.
6. Project lighting details should be provided including utilization
of different types of lighting fixtures such as walk lights,
bollard lights, wall lights, step lights and planting flood lights.
7. Entry monument signs should be provided which tie in with the
building architecture.
Landscape:
1. Provide a description of existing plant material on adjacent
properties to the west and the north.
2. Pinus halapensis should be changed to Pinus eldarica (Mondell Pine)
which has a pryamidal shape, helping to unify the site through
repetition of similar tree forms such as Liquidambar and
Brachychiton.
3. A stronger project entry statement tree should be provided.
However, Cupania should remain as the parking lot and lunch area
shade tree.
4. The turf areas should be reduced in size for purposes of water
conservation. An ideal amount would be not more than 25% of
landscaping devoted to turf.
5. The native palm, Washingtonia filifera should be used as the
building accent tree.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:30 - 7:00 Bev June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-01 BARTON
DEVELOPMENT - The development of 3 industrial buildings totaling 22,77z
square feet on 1.28 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the
southeast corner of Utica Avenue and Fulton Court - APN: 209-142-51.
Staff Conmnents:
The Design Review Committee should examine the architectural plans which
will be presented during the meeting, indicating revised elevations.
Design Review Conm~ittee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen
The applicant presented revised elevations to the Committee (Chitiea,
Tolstoy, Coleman). The revised elevations were approved with the
following modifications:
1. Windows should be expanded on the north side of Building 9 and
Building 10.
2. The gray accent color, should be darker and should more closely
reflect the gray glass color.
3. Medium gray color should be used on the bin panels at entry points.
4. The reveals in the wall in the parking lot should be left plain in
the center portion and painted to match the adjacent buildings on
the outer portions.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 - 7:30 Steve H. June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 89-10 - AMPAC -
The request to establish outside storage within a Southern Califor. ia
Edison easement of 13.73 acres in the Heavy Industrial Development
District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, east of and adjacent to the Devore Freeway -
APN: 229-121-16.
Background:
The applicant is proposing to store pipe material on property owned by
Southern California Edison. The primary issue of this application is
screening of the outdoor storage area from Interstate 15 and other areas
of public use. Meetings between staff, applicants and involved public
agencies have clarified many issues, but the following items should be
addressed by the Committee:
1. Oleander "Sister Agnes" is proposed as the screening material
between Interstate 15 and the outdoor storage area, which was an
acceptable screening material to all other public agencies
involved. The Committee may wish to comment on the size, the
proposed spacing (10 feet on center), and the appropriateness of
oleanders as a screening device.
2. Provide additional landscaping along the southern boundary of the
Edison property.
3. Screening device used between the proposed regional trail along Day
Creek and the outdoor storage area.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning
Commission subject to the following conditions:
1. Color contrasts shall be provided within the freeway landscaped
screen through the use of Oleander species other than "Sister
Agnes" or a variety acceptable to Caltrans. The placement of the
new species shall be done to break up the repetition of the white
flowers for extended distances.
2. The freeway shrubs shall be one-gallon size planted three feet on
center.
3. Fees in-lieu of full slope planting shall be provided for the
freeway frontage that abuts the Edison property and project site.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CUP 89-10 - AMPAC
Page 2
4. The screening device between the future Day Creek Regional Trail
and the outdoor storage site shall be landscaping. A non-toxic
species shall be selected that is consistent with the objectives of
the City Planning Division, Southern California Edison and the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District. This landscaping shall
be located on the Edison right-of-way.
5. A variance application will be required to allow landscaping as a
means of screening the outdoor storage area from the Day Creek
Regional Trail.
In addition, staff will be generating further correspondence to the
effected agencies. A letter to the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District will inquire on the timing of future improvements of the Day
Creek Channel. Also, a letter will be sent to Southern California
Edison regarding the placement and appropriateness of certain species
within their right-of-way. Information will be needed from Edison that
landscaping can be planted within their property.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 Brett June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 88-28 - DAMON DE
CROW - The development of a 49 bed hospital totaling 45,000 square feet
on 1.9 acres in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located west of
White Oak and at the terminus of Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-351-78 and
79.
Background:
This is an approved project in which building permits have been issued
for Phase I. Per a condition of the project approval, the final design
of the plaza/service area within the site must be reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Committee, prior to issuance of building permits
for Phase II. Hence, the Committee only needs to review the plaza and
service area adjacent to Phase II. Complete plans were not available as
of this writing. However, the Committee's comments from the September
22, 1988 review are attached and staff's comments are as follows:
Staff Cormmerits:
1. Landscape planters should be provided adjacent to the building
faces which front the plaza area.
2. Tree wells may be used on either side of the temporary emergency
fire access lane.
3. A gradual grade transition should be provided where the decorative
paving terminates.
Design Review Conm~ittee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Brad Buller, Otto Kroutil
Staff Planner: Brett Homer
The Committee reviewed the plans for the plaza/service area and
recommended the following changes:
1. Landscape planters should wrap around the buildings and be provided
adjacent to the building faces and screen wall which fronts the
plaza.
2. A vertical focal element, such as an art piece was suggested for
placement within the plaza to draw attention to this important
area.
3. The screen wall should be lowered in height yet still be able to
screen the equipment and vehicles behind it in the service area.
Material changes were also suggested. In general, the Committee
expressed its desire to "soften" the plaza area by reducing paving
and adding more landscape area.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 88-28 - D~ON DECROW
Page 2
4. Seating furniture (such as benches) in addition to the low seat
wall should be added.
5. Additional ground plane changes were also recommended to provide
visual interest to the plaza.
6. Columns and/or an arbor/trellis was suggested for use adjacent to
the screen wall to soften the appearance of the wall and to provide
a connection to the building to the west which may or may not
reflect the building architecture of the medical center.
7. The applicant should explore reducing the paved turnaround area
directly north of the plaza area to increase the size of the
plaza. Also, special paving may be appropriate within this paved
circular area to break up th expansive asphalt area.
The applicant was directed to work with staff prior to returning to the
Design Review Committee.
CO~IERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
CONSEIFrCALENOAR ITEMS AGENDA
June 22, 1989
1. CUP 83-07 Tower Partners
(Tom) Review of tower sign for ~ rginia Dare
Winery
Committee Action:
2. CUP 86-20 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
(Brett) Review of revised building colors for
Terra ~ sta Business Park
Committee Action:
3. II 12870
l'Sf~'~) Review of alternative color schemes
for residences and additional hobby
room.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:30 - 7:00 Tom June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-41
WOLFF/LANG/CHRISTOPHER The design review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for two office buildings totaling 63,597 square feet
on 1.65 acres of land in the General Commercial District located at the
northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-
661-04 and 09.
Background:
The Virginia Dare Business Center has an established architectural theme
that is characteristic of the winery/mission style. All buildings
within the center have common architectural elements that carry out the
overall program.
The applicants current proposal is to develop the two remaining vacant
sites within the center. First, a single-story office building has been
proposed directly south of Del Taco, and second, the three-story office
building has been proposed directly south of the cinema.
Staff Comments:
Architecture:
The proposed building elevations are in keeping with the existing
architectural design regarding materials, finish, and color.
Site Plan:
The major elements of the site plan have been established through
previous master and site plan approvals. The only suggestion for
improvement to the site design at this time is to provide additional
pedestrian connections and freestanding trellises for a consistent link
between the proposed and existing buildings.
Landscaping:
1. The planter area at the northeast corner of the three-story
building should be designed of a height and width that would allow
for comfortable seating.
2. The sidewalk connecting parking areas at the northwest corner of
the three-story building should be increased in width.
3. Trees should be planted in areas of public view, an equivalent of
one {1} tree per 30 lineal feet of building.
4. Within parking lots, trees should be planted at a rate of one (1}
tree for every three (3} parking stalls which is determined by
dividing 3 into the total number of stalls.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 88-41 - WOLFF/LANG/CHRISTOPHER
Page 2
Oes~n Rev~e~ Con~ttee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 - 7:30 Steve H. June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 89-10 - AMPAC
The request to establish outside storage within a Southern Califo~,,ia
Edison easement of 13.73 acres in the Heavy Industrial Development
District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, east of and adjacent to the Devore Freeway -
APN: 229-121-16.
Background:
The applicant is proposing to store pipe material on property owned by
Southern California Edison. The primary issue of this application is
screening of the outdoor storage area from Interstate 15 and other areas
of public use. Meetings between staff, applicants and involved public
agencies have clarified many issues, but the following items should be
addressed by the Committee:
1. Oleander "Sister Agnes" is proposed as the screening material
between Interstate 15 and the outdoor storage area, which was an
acceptable screening material to all other public agencies
involved. The Committee may wish to comment on the size, the
proposed spacing (10 feet on center), and the appropriateness of
oleanders as a screening device.
2. Provide additional landscaping along the southern boundary of the
Edison property.
3. Screening device used between the proposed regional trail along Day
Creek and the outdoor storage area.
Design Review Coam~ittee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 Brett June 8, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 88-28 - DAMON DE
CROW - The development of a 49 bed hospital totalli,,g 45,000 square feet
on 1.9 acres in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located west of
White Oak and at the terminus of Spruce Avenue - APN: 208-351-78 and
79.
Background:
This is an approved project in which building permits have been issued
for Phase I. Per a condition of the project approval, the final design
of the plaza/service area within the site must be reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Committee, prior to issuance of building permits
for Phase II. Hence, the Committee only needs to review the plaza and
service area adjacent to Phase II. Complete plans were not available as
of this writing. However, the Committee's comments from the September
22, 1988 review are attached and staff's comments are as follows:
Staff Comments:
1. Landscape planters should be provided adjacent to the building
faces which front the plaza area.
2. Tree wells may be used on either side of the temporary emergency
fire access lane.
3. A gradual grade transition should be provided where the decorative
paving terminates.
Design Review Co~mnittee Action:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: Brett Homer