Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/04/17 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA c~ca~&~o MEMORANDUM DATE: April 21, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ~ TO: Commercial/Industrial 1977 Design Review Committee Herman Rempel Suzanne Chitiea Dennis Stout (Alternate) Brad Bullet FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 17~ 1986 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 (Howard) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-22 - EDWARDS CINEMA - A request to modify the approved building elevations for a six-plex movie theatre of 25,188 square feet, within an approved master plan (Virginia Dare Center) located on the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven, in the General Commercial (GC District), APN -1077-104-01 and 03. Related File - CUP 83-07 7:00 7:30 (Nancy) CUP 86-03 AJA SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NF:ns Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council y Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA April 17, 1986 1. DR 85-44 - FALK Review of color scheme and revised master {John} plan. Committee Action: The Design Review Committee approved the proposed color scheme but did not approve the Master Plan. The Master Plan did not properly address plaza areas and pedestrian connections, as required by the Conditions of Approval for DR 85-44. 2. DR 84-13 - BARMAKIAR Review of revised building color. {Debra) Committee Action: Committee did not approve building colors. The gray is acceptable with subdued tones used for color accent bands. The options are: {1) return to original approved color scheme, or (2} bring revised color palate for approval of Design Review Committee. 3. CUP 83-07 - CHRISTESON Review of Sign Program {John} Committee Action: The Design Review Committee agreed to the use of cast aluminum letters rather than individual illuminated channelized letters for the wall signs. The Committee reaffirmed that major tenants' signs such as Spires or Bank of America must conform to the Uniform Sign Program's letter style; logos would be permitted. The Committee further commented they were concerned with the style of marquis that would be used. Staff told them no design had been submitted yet. NF:ns DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Howard April 17, 1986 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-22 - EDWARDS CINEMA - A request to modify the approved building elevations for a six-plex movie theatre of 25,188 square feet within an approved master plan (Virginia Dare Center), located on the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven in the General Commercial (GC District), APN: 1077-104-01 and 03. Related File - CUP 83-07 Issues: The applicant proposed to delete the "furred-out" stucco detail on side and rear elevations due to cost. This modification would significantly affect the shadow patterns and relief that this stucco detail provides to an otherwise stark building elevation. Staff Co~Bents: Architecture: Staff feels this modification request to the theater's elevations would effect the projects design in a detrimental way. The stucco detail provides articulated planes to highlight and accentuate the bands of horizontal color changes which occur in the building elevations and provide relief to the large building mass. Staff recommends that the Committee uphold the approved elevations. Design Review Co~mnittee Action: Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Howard Fields The Committee recommended full Planning Commission discussion for this issue at the April 23, 1985 regular meeting. SIJ!~IARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR CUP 86-03 DATE: April 17, 1986 TIME: 7:00 p.m. (following Design Review Committee Meeting) PLACE: Neighborhood Center ATTENDANCE: Planning Commission: Staff Attendees Dennis Stout Dan Coleman ~Utman Dave Barker Brad Buller Gil Aja Suzanne Chitiea Nancy Fong Tim Beedle Larry McNiel Barrye Hanson Dan Richards Herman Rempel Steve Wheatly The Planning Commission, at its April 9, 1986 regular meeting, held a public hearing and continued the project to this special Planning Commission workshop. The Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the site plan and elevations in that the design did not project a high quality, sophisticated style as required by the Haven Avenue Overlay District. At this meeting, the developer attempted to address the concerns of the Planning Commission by providing revised site plan and elevations for review. The proposed Building A is now a two-story office building, while the proposed Building B is a one-story office building. Research and Development/Office Use will not be proposed for this project. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised site plan and elevations and recommended the following revisions: 1. Site plan concept comply with the design goals of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The Planning Commission, however, is concerned with the grade differential between the detour and Building B. The Planning Commission recommended that a true cross-section (to scale) from the point of Haven Avenue to Building B before and after the construction of the detour be provided for comparison. 2. Provide roof height variation to Building B. 3. Building D that fronts on Acacia Street should include treatment to building plane that ties in with the building plane of the rest of Buildings A, B and C. 4. Additional architectural treatment such as more glass area be provided to the south elevation of Building B as well as wrapping around the same treatment to the east elevation. 5. Staff recommends to the developer that the revised site plan should be forwarded to the Fire District and the Sheriff's Department for their comments. The Planning Commission Workshop was adjourned to the May 14 regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m.