Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/08/18 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ~ MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1988 ACTION AGENDA TO: Cmm~ercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Peter Tolstoy ~ Larry McNiel [977 Dan Coleman Bruce Emerick (Alternate) FROM: Debra Meier, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1988 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 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-27 BARTON DEVELOPMENT - The development of 7 industrial buildings totaling 69,968 square feet on 3.57 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located south of Arrow Route at the intersection of Red Oak Street and Edison Court - APN: 209- 142-34. 6:30 - 7:00 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-20 GILBERT AJA AND ASSOCIATES - The review of a Master Plan for a 104 acre Industrial Park within the General Industrial and Industrial Park Districts (Subareas 11 and 12) and Phase One consisting of two light industrial buildings totaling 94,200 square feet on 3.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located south of 6th Street, east of Pittsburgh Avenue, south of 4th Street and west of Buffalo Avenue - APN: DM:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITE)4S AGENDA August 18, 1988 1. IqDR 88-19 - INTECH (Chris) Review of proposed elevations for office additions. Committee Action: The Committee approved the proposed elevations with the requirement of creating a minimum 24" glass recession. The applicant should also be advised that approval of this addition does not set a precedent for architectural approval for any future development on the site. 2. CUP 88-18 - MCDONALDS {Cindy) Conceptual site plan review. Committee Action: The Committee reviewed the conceptual site plans and indicated that the drive aisle should be screened from view in a manner consistent with the Planning Commission adopted policies for drive-thru facilities. The drive- thru should be completely screened from view from Haven either through building orientation or through the use of a combination of significant grade changes, low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. 3. DR 87-51 - FONTAlIA STEEL (Brett) Review revisions to elevations. Committee Action: The Committee requested that details of the indoor crane structure be submitted to determine if the aggregate metal paneling could remain in areas where the applicant proposes to remove it. The Committee also suggested that a landscape planter area should be provided at the southwest corner of the building if the paneling is removed at that location of the building. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA Commercial/Industrial August 18, 1988 Page 2 4. CUP 88-28 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS (Brett) Review revisions to elevations. Committee Action: The Committee approved the revisions with the condition that a planter area be added under the northeast corner tower (in the corner of the existing and proposed shops building) and that the area directly below the fascia on the northeast corner tower be revised to match the treatment of the area below the fascia on the northwest corner tower. 5. DR86-24 - AJ~S(:HEIJ (Chris) Review modifications to elevations. Committee Action: The Committee approved the color changes to: Building color 1H52G Attar; Mullion color 199-6J Winter White; Insert color 1M25D Regent; and the revision to the architecture. 6. CUP 88-03 - WHEELER & WHEELER (Scott) Revise~t site plan and elevations. Committee Action: The Committee recommended that the hardscape and landscape treatment proposed on Foothill Boulevard should be used on Vineyard Avenue. The benches/hardscape should be located in front of the rock areas of the elevation. The revised plans should be reviewed by staff prior to scheduling for Planning Commission consideration. 7. DR 87-36 - BURGER KING (Brett) Review modified ~ndew treatment. Committee Action: The Committee approved the revisions to the window treatment. However, the multi-paned windows shall remain in the areas adjacent to the entry doorways. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Chris August 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-27 BARTON DEVELOPMENT - The development of 7 industrial buildings totaling 69,968 square feet on 3.57 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located south of Arrow Route at the intersection of Red Oak Street and Edison Court - APN: 209-142-34. Design Parameters: The property is currently vacant without any significant vegetation. The site slopes naturally to the south. This project is Phase IV of an overall development plan which includes properties north and west of this proposal. Staff Coamgents: Architecture 1. The proposed architecture is the same as in previous phases of this master plan. However, the proposed base and accent colors vary from previous approval s. The Committee should make a determination if it is appropriate to change the base color on Phase IV. 2. Screen/yard walls should receive a stucco treatment on all sides visible from the public right-of-way. Site Plan 1. The site plan reflects previous approvals. Landscape 1. Landscaping should be consistent with the overall business park palette. Design Review Co~w~ittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Bruce Emerick, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Chris Westman DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-27 - Barton Development August 18, 1988 Page 4 The Committee reviewed the project and made the following recommendations: 1. Additional evergreens and vines should be planted adjacent to the buildings. An emphasis should be given to Red Oak Avenue. 2. Details of the plaza areas should be provided for Planning Commission review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Debra August 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-20 - GILBERT AJA AND ASSOCIATES - The review of a Master Plan for a 104 acre Industrial Park within the General Industrial and Industrial Park Districts (Subareas 11 and 12) and Phase One consisting of two light industrial buildings totaling 94,200 square feet on 3.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located south of 6th Street, east of Pittsburgh Avenue, south of 4th Street and west of Buffalo Avenue - APN: Design Parameters: The site is vacant with the exception of lot I at the corner of Sixth Street and Pittsburgh Avenue which contains an existing industrial building. Vegetation consists largely of old vineyards and native grasses. The five lots along Pittsburgh south of 6th Street were reviewed as a previous master plan. Development Review 86-45 included the master plan approval of the five lots as well as specific approval of 1 ors 2 and 3, which are pending issuance of bull ding permits at this time. The proposed master plan subdivides the site into 35 parcels ranging in size from 1½ acres to 8 acres. The master plan concept is similar to that of the Bixby Master Plan on the east side of Pittsburgh. The concept is to create a unified development, while at the same time maintaining the possibility for individual identity and self-supporting businesses on separate parcels. This is achieved by establishing the guidelines for landscaping and site development, and establishing an architectural image that future lot sales would follow. Staff Comments 1. Master Plan a) The southern half of the Master Plan is within the Industrial Park District whose urban design concept is to create a campus like setting with the greatest amount of landscaping and emphasis on pedestrian amenities and orientation. b) The landscaping concept should be specifically designed to be a guideline to all future development reviews not only for street trees, but the on-site plant selections for parking lots shading accent trees, etc. c) The applicant has proposed a phasing plan that delineates streetscape landscaping by block. As a new project initiates development in a particular block, that would trigger streetscape development of the entire block. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-20 - Gilbert Aja and Associates August 18, 1988 Page 2 d) The streetscape along Sixth Street and Fourth Street should be reflective of Special Boulevard consideration. The placement of buildings should provide greater variation in setback along the street to create interest along the streetscape. Also typical of a special boulevard is a 45 foot landscape setback including mounding and specimen size trees. e) Each future development will be required to include plaza areas and landscape open space. In order for that to be an early prerequisite in the design of these future buildings the master plan should clearly depict the use of plaza/open space areas integrated into the overall project. 2. Parcels 6 and 7 a) If the two parcels are to successfully share a lunch plaza, there should be a clear pedestrian connection between the buildings to the plaza, including accent walkway materials. b) The entire south property line should be landscaped to screen truck parking and loading activities from the adjacent local street and the lot to the south. c) Truck trailer parking spaces at the rear of parcel 6 seem to create a maneuvering conflict for the trucks. 3. Architecture a) The architecture shown for buildings 6 and 7 are intended to be the concept for the remainder of the Master Plan area. The structures are concrete tilt up panels with rectangular reveals used to break up mass. All concrete areas will be painted. Entrances include accent glazing and storefront windows. b) Since these are to set the trend for future parcel development, they should include a greater articulation of the building surfaces by using other materials and textures. With 35 parcels to be developed, some degree of variety would be encouraged using a consistent theme or concept established by the Master Plan. Design Revie~ Cx~ittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Bruce Emerick, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Debra Meier DESIGN REVIEW C~MENTS DR 88-20 - Gilbert Aja and Associates August 18, 1988 Page 3 The Committee made the following recommendations with regard to this project: 1. The major concern with the project is that area within Subarea 12. The 4th Street corridor is a major entryway into the City and a high quality character is desired. The Industrial Specific Plan identifies this subarea as one that could capture some tourist/ airport oriented activities such as hotels and motels. Also corporate headquarters for major office users would be appropriate. The Master Plan as shown does not meet the goals and objectives of Subarea 12. 2. The applicant should prepare a Master Plan document to be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. The document should establish guidelines for future development in terms of site plan issues, landscaping pal ette and general architectural guidelines consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan recommendations for these subareas. Parcel 6 and 7 3. The Committee recommended the architecture be enhanced by additional building articulation and use of textures in order to set a more distinctive tone for architecture for development of the Master Plan and to promote the Special Boulevard status along 6th Street. 4. The Committee recommended that the setback of the structures be staggered to eliminate straight building line along 6th Street. The applicant indicated a desire to proceed to Planning Commission without revisions to parcels 6 and 7. They will prepare an overlay for the subarea 12 portion of the Master Plan to address Committee concerns.