Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/11/03 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 1988 ACTION AGENDA TO: Cmnercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Peter Tolstoy 1977 Larry McNiel Dan Coleman Bruce Bnerick (Alternate) FROM: Debra Meier, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 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 88-34 - C.P. LANGE - A proposal to develop a multi-tenant office/manufacturing complex on 2.96 acres of 1 and in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located on the southeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue APN: 208-351-62. 6:30 - 7:00 (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-36 - HIMES-PETERS-MASON ARCHITECTS - The review of a master plan for a 131 acre industrial complex and Phase 1 consisting of six (6) industrial buildings totaling 645,516 square feet on 33.7 acres of land in the Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23. DM:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Con~ercial/Industrial CONSENT C~E'&q)AIt Ilt))SAGEIOA November 3, 1988 1. DR 88-24 - NN)EL (Brett) Storefront revision. Committee Action: The Committee did not approve the storefront revision as proposed. The Committee recommended that revised plans be submitted for review which include a more elaborate detail on the stucco wall with tile elements. The Committee proposed that seating, such as benches, be provided by the arch at the western end of the stucco wall. The Committee also recommend that the recessed arches along the wall be at least 6" to 8" in depth. 2. fOR 88-52 - UTHAN (Chris) R~f screen. Committee Action: The Committee recommended that the screen material be "Minerit", a concrete board, vs. the proposed ribbed metal. The product is available through the D.V. Troyer Co. located in Cerritos. 3. CUP 87-04 - DONLEY-BENNLml (Chris) Color change. Committee Action: The Committee approved the change of building color from "San Simeon" X-34 (Base 200) to "Crystal White" X-50 (Base 100) by La Habra. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Chris November 3, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-34 - C.P. LANGE - A proposal to develop a multi -tenant offi ce/man ufacturi ng complex on 2.96 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located on the southeast corner of Elm Avenue and White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-351-62. Staff Comments: The following is a list of concerns and/or con~nents that should be addressed by the Design Review Committee: Site Plan 1. Landscape and office entries at Building E as they relate to the adjacent drive aisle. 2. Roll up door views from White Oak (Building E). 3. Textured paving accents. 4. Treatment at south property line. 5. Interface at west property line. 6. The park lot vs building predominance at the corner of White Oak Avenue and Elm Avenue. Grading 1. Transition between grades at west property line. Archi tecture 1. Rear elevations of Buildings C, D, & E. 2. Right side elevation of Building E. 3. White Oak and Elm corner wall and bench treatment. Oesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee and applicant reviewed the project and issues were discussed which will require the proposal to be re-reviewed by the Design Review Committee at the November 17, 1988 meeting. The following are the Committee's comments: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-34 - C.P. LANGE November 3, 1988 Page 2 Site Plan 1. Planter areas should be increased on the north side of Building "E" in order to increase screening of the roll-up doors. 2. Textured paving accents should be in the same color as the roof material. 3. The site plan should be revised to provi de a building focus at the intersection of White Oak and Elm thereby reducing the amount of parking on Elm. 4. The Con~nittee preferred a reduction in the number of compact spaces. 5. Details of the lunch court should be provided. Architecture 1. The "blank" rear walls of Buildings "C", "D", and "E" should be broken up. Brick banding or columns were discussed; however, the applicant was given free range for a solution. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Scott November 3, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-36 - HIMES-PETERS- MASON ARCHITECTS - The review of a master plan for a 131 acre industrial complex and Phase 1 consisting of six {6) industrial buildings totaling 645,516 square feet on 33.7 acres of land in the Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue - APN: 229- 111-23. Staff Coa~nents: The following is a list of concerns and/or comments that should be addressed by the Design Review Committees: Master Plan 1. Rail Service 2. Master Plan Document 3. Variation in Building Setbacks Along Arrow and Milliken 4. Timing of Streetscape Improvements Phase 1 1. Plaza Area Sizes 2. Screening of Loading Areas 3. Parking at the Southwest Corner of Lot 17 Oesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff P1 anner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended that revised plans be resubmitted to address the following concerns: 1. The entry areas to the buildings should be designed to create more "excitement". 2. The plaza areas should be more accessible to the employees. Doors should be provided for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 that lead directly to the plaza areas. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-36 - Himes-Peters-Mason Architects November 3, 1988 Page 2 3. The plaza areas should be designed with a physical separation from the entry areas. 4. A perspective drawing of the northeast corner of Milliken and Jersey should be provided to illustrate the relationship between the street and the parking area. 5. Variation should be provided in the building setbacks along Milliken and Arrow. 6. Landscaping should be installed on a block by block basis in order to provide a consistent theme throughout the development. In addition to the above-mentioned items, the Design Review Committee felt that terminating the rail spur lines at Jersey was appropriate. The Committee stated that the grade differential across Jersey was not desirable for rail service north of Jersey and the grading necessary to continue the spur lines north would result in extensive slopes along the Jersey frontage. The Committee added that rail service to Buildings 21, 22, 23, and 24 was adequate to address the intent of the rail service standards.