HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/08/22 - Agenda PacketDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMdNGA
MEMORANDUM
August 26, 1985
Design Review Committee
ACTION AGENDAU
Herman Rempel
Dan Coleman
Suzanne Chitiea
Dennis Stout (Alternate)
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 22,
1985
1977
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), 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) TT 10322/TT 10352 - LYON
6:30 - 7:00 (Bruce) TERRA VISTA/HAVEN AVE. PARKWAY DESIGN
7:00 - 7:30 (John) CUP 85-13 - SHAW
7:30 - 8:00 (Nancy) CUP 85-20 - HOYT LUMBER
8:00 - 8:30 (Howard) CUP 85-17 - "FOR KIDS ONLY"
8:30 - 9:00 (Howard)
DISCUSSIONS ON LAND USE AND DESIGN ISSUES
FOR FOR A MINI-STORAGE FACILITY (WIIHDRAWN)
NFnas
Attachments
CC:
Planning Commission/City Council
Joe Stofa, Paul Rougeau, Barrye Hanson
Loyd Goolsby
Y
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEHS AGENDA
August 22, 1985
1. HDR 85-17
(Dino)
Review of restaurant remodeling.
Committee Action:
Recommended the remodel be reviewed by the
full Commission because of its location on a
Special Boulevard in the Foothill Corridor
Study.
2. DR 85-26 - FORECAST
(Nancy)
Review of revised Master Plan
Committee Action:
The Committee recommended approval of the
concept.
3. DR 85-23 - KIRSHBAUM
(Howard)
Review of revised elevations.
Committee Action:
The Committee recommended approval of the
revised elevations subject to changing the
wood strips under the 2nd plan to stucco
coating.
4. TT 11793 - BLISS
(Nancy)
Review of Condition #1.
Committee Action:
The Committee stated that the developer
should meet with CCWD and the City's Traffic
Division to resolve the concerns.
5. CUP 84-12 - CORNWALL
(Nancy)
Review of 14' high windwall.
Committee Action: Approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA (CONTINUED)
August 22, 1985
6. CUP 84-14 - NULLEN
(Nancy)
Review of Buildings E, F, G
Committee Action:
Approved.
7. TT 12726 - A-~ COMPANY
(Nancy)
Review of pedestrian connection.
Committee Action:
The Committee recommended the pedestrian
connection remain as meandering. The
developer should work with engineering staff
in resolving the drainage.
8. CUP 85-02 - ISHII
(Howard)
Review of revised elevation.
Committee Action:
The Committee recommended approval of the
revised design elevations. However, there
is concern over the height of the roof.
COffiqEN*l~
REVIEW COItMII'rEE
6:00 - 6:30 Bruce August 22, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT 13052 (VICTORIA LAKES) LYON
Design review and subdivision of 220 single family homes on 226 lots on 27
acres of land in the Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) District within the Victoria
Planned Community and generally located between Victoria Park Lane & Etiwanda
Avenue and between Base Line Road & Southern Pacific Railroad.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES
NO YES NO
T ..... 1 .................. ~ '.'T' ........l ...............
~ SITE PLAN: i ) ! CIRCULATION:
, m
/
/
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
ARCItITECllIRE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIB[!,ITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade
LANDSCAP)'NG: :
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
GRADING:
/
/
/.
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMIllEE ACTION FOR TT 10352 - LYON
August 22, 1985
Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman
Bruce Cook
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
conditions
additional
1. Tile roofs only shall be used for all building elevations.
2. Elevations should be provided showing design treatment upgrades
for side and second story rear elevations that fact the street.
3. Front yard landscaping should be required for corner lots and
lots at the end of side-on cul-de-sacs.
6:00 - 6:30
REVIEW CO)ITTEE COMMENI~
Bruce August 22, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT 13022 (VICTORIA GROVES} - LYON -
Design review and subdivision of 275 single family homes on 285 lots on 42
acres of land in the Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) & Medium {4-14 du/ac} residential
districts within the Victoria Planned Community and generally located between
Nilliken Avenue & Deer Creek Channel and between the Southern Pacific Railroad
& Highland Avenue.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
-I ....................................I .................i: ....
·SITE PLAN:
/ Building Orientation
/ Open Space
'/ Parking Location /
/ Pedestrian Amenities
/ Site Coverage /
_./_..__._..~.____S_torage/Loadin%...~.~ ........
:
~ ARCHITECTURE: ..... ~ ......................I .....
/ Recognizable Theme
/ Scale, Mass, Height
/ Harmonious Style/Form
/ Materials/Color
/ Variation/Interest
/ Roof Screens
/ Corner Side/Rear Upgrade
CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBORItOOD
COMPATIBILITY ....................
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
/ Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
/ Tree Preservation
/ Screening/Buffering
/ Shade Parking Lot
./ Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION FOR TT 13022 - LYON
August 22, 1985
Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Bruce Cook
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following conditions
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
3.
4.
5.
Front yard landscaping should be required on 3,000 sq. ft.
lots. The Planning Commission should consider this policy of
requiring front yard landscaping and should give direction as
to which size lots it would be appropriate to require the front
yard landscaping, and at which size lot is this requirement no
longer necessary.
Tile roofs only shall be used for all building elevations.
Variable front yard setbacks should be required for lots
fronting on Street "A".
Elevations should be provided showing design treatment upgrades
for side and second story rear elevations that face the street.
Lot plots showing 8' or less driveways should be sited on a
dispersed pattern throughout the project and should not be
grouped in small, concentrated areas.
8 foot grade differentials between building pads and the Loop
Streeet is acceptable, but slopes should be graded to standards
of contour grading and slope planting should be accomplished in
an informal, flowing type of design.
eESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CO~ENI~
6:30 - 7:00 Bruce August 22, 1985
LEWIS HOMES - Review of the landscaping treatment for the median and parkway
on Haven Avenue & Terra Vista Parkway.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
: ........ l""' SITE PLAN: .! ....; CIRCULATION:
Building Orientation Access Location
Open Space Street Pattern Variation
Parking Location Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian Amenities Emergency Access
Site Coverage Vehicle Stacking
Storage/Loading Areas Back-up & Turn Around
-'i ..........· .... !z ; NEIGHBORHOOD
~ __: ARCHITECTtIRE: ~ ! COMPATIBILITY
.... ~ .........i .........................................--~
Recognizable Theme Neighborhood Character
Scale, Mass, Height Density Transition
Harmonious Style/Form Buffering/Screening
Materials/Color Grading
Variation/Interest Land Use Conflict
Roof Screens Noise
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade Traffic
Streetscape Natural Topography Maintained
Enhance Architecture Grading Minimized
Screening/Buffering Slope Heights/Gradient
Shade Parking Lot Vistas Preserved
/ Slope Planting Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW COMMIllEE ACTION FOR TERRA VISTA/HAVEN AVE PARKWAY DESIGN
Date:
August 22, 1985
~embers Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Bruce Cook
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval
of approval:
subject to the following
conditions
Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
The Design Review Committee has reviewed the proposed design and
recommended approval in consideration of the following:
Haven Avenue. The proposed design concept is an acceptable
solution. However, if the design concept is used it should
become the standard for the Haven Avenue median and should be
consistent along the entire length of Haven. Existing non-
conforming medians should then be modified to conform to this
standard.
2. Terra Vista Parkway.
The design treatment of the "arbor" effect and the "window"
effect in the median is an excellent concept that should be
incorporated.
The parkway concept of alternating sidewalks and parkway
landscaping adjacent to curb is not desirable.
Alternatives using a meandering type of walk should be
explored. However, excessive retaining walls (over 2 feet
high) behind the walk are to be avoided.
The proposal to create a distinct identity for the trail
network is a good one and samples of alternative hardscape
treatments should be presented to the Commission for
consideration.
3. General.
a. Project walls and/or fences fronting to the street should
be staggered to achieve a variable setback.
Side-on cul-de-sacs should be open to provide sidewalk
connections. Fencing on either side of the cul-de-sac
should be wrought iron.
REVIEW COMMII'IEE CO)(IENI~
~.700 '~'7i~" ' John August 22, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-13 - SHAW - A request
to install a trailer as a temporary office and 2 storage sheds for a Christmas
tree farm located on the south side of Base Line east of Rochester in the
Southern California Edison utility corridor - APN 227-161-33.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
Building Orientation
/ Open Space
/ Parking Location /
/ Pedestrian Amenities /
/ Site Coverage /
/ Storage/Loading Areas /
ARCHITECTURE;
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-13 - SFL~W
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner: John R. Meyer
__/Recommended approval.
~// Recommended approval
of approval:
August 22, 1985
Suzanne Chitiea, Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman
subject to the following
Recommended that the project be revised for
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
conditions
additional
1. Upgrade the office trailer to a modular-type unit.
2. Provide 45 foot landscape setback along Base Line Road.
7:30 - 8:00
REVIEW CO)ITTEE CO~IEN~
Nancy August 22, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-20 - HOYT LUMBER - A
request to construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building addition to an
existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on 2
acres of land in the Office Professional District located at the northwest
corner of Archibald Avenue and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33.
PLEA~SE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
/ Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
..... . ARCHITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Rembers Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COle4ITTEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-20 - HOIFT LUMBER
August 22, 1985
Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Nancy Fong
~/~/Recommended approval. Recommended approval
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
subject to the following conditions
for additional
1. Provide the same sandblasted horizontal band and color trim
treatment to the north elevation.
2. Provide landscaping along the north elevation to break up the
height and mass of the building.
8:00 - 8:30
REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTI
Howard August 22, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-17 - "FOR KIDS ONLY" -
To allow construction of a 7,380 square foot preschool on 1.18 acres of land
in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac) located on the south side of Base
Line, east of Turner - APN 1077-061-09.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
/
./
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGIIBORHOOD
AI~CHITECTURE: ............. & ..................iCOMPATIBILITY
Recognizable Theme / Neighborhood Character
Scale, Mass, Height / Density Transition
Harmonious Style/Form ,/ Buffering/Screening
Materials/Color /- Grading
Variation/Interest / Land Use Conflict
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW CO!e411TEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-17
August 22, 1985
Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Howard Fields
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
conditions
additional
Realignment of the drive approach towards the front entrance
and elimination of the circular turning aisle.
Provide enhanced upgrade of architecture through trellis work
around the entry way and along the north elevation.
Create focal entry through special landscape treatment along
north elevation, and brick pavers within the entryway.
8:30 - 9:00
REVIEW COMMITFEE COMMEN1t
Howard August 22, 1985
DISCUSSIONS ON LAND USE AND DESIGN ISSUES OF A PROPOSED MINI-STORAGE FACILITY
to be located at the south side of 7th, west of Rochester and 1-15 in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 3). Proposed site plan will be provided
at the meeting.
WrFuP wN
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
ARCHITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGt|BORilOOD
CO~ATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site