HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/09/19 - Agenda PacketDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUC~0NGA
MEMORANDUM
September 23, 1985 ACTION AGENDA
Design Review Committee
Herman Rempel
Dan Coleman
Suzanne Chitlea
1977
Dennis Stout (Alternate)
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1985
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 6i00 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)
DR 85-27 - CONTINENTAL CARE
6:30 - 7:00 (Howard)
DR 85-32 - FORECAST
~OO - ;+30 ~BPuse)
DDA 85-08/GYP 85-25 - ~¥ON Cancelled
7:30 - 8:00 (Bruce)
MDR 85:06 - TACO BELL
8:00 - 8:30 (Nancy)
DR 85-33 - BARMAKIAN
8:30 - 9:00 (Nancy)
DR 85-30 - EMPIRE BANK
NF/nas
Attachments
CC:
Planning Commission/City Council
Joe Stofa, Paul Rougeau, Barrye Hanson
Loyd Goolsby
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA
September 19, 1985
BASE LINE GATEWAY
(Dan)
Committee Action:
Sign.
Use alluvial rock veneer for
base. Colored concrete or
sandblasted concrete instead
of painted concrete.
PEP BOYS
Committee Action:
Review of Signs.
Proposed signs are 3
separate signs and are not
permitted by Sign Ordinance
Develop alternatives,
consistent with Sign
Ordinance regulations, for
Staff approval.
DR 84~42 - DALE MEDICAL CENTER
(Howard)
Committee Action:
Review of building material.
The Committee approved the
red brick sample which will
be used in the building
construction.
CUP 85:17 - "FOR KIDS ONLY"
(Howard)
Committee Action:
Review of revised
elevations.
The Committee approved the
revised architectural
elevations, but requested
color renderings for the
October 9, Planning
Commission meeting.
DR 85-26 - FORECAST
(Nancy)
Committee Action:
DR 85-17 - ROBERTSON
(Nancy)
Review of minor revisions to
plaza area.
Committee stated that plaza
areas be expanded at other
locations for this project
to make up for the lost
area.
Review of revised elevation.
Committee Action: Committee recommended
approval.
......... _DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE
6:00 - 6:30 Howard September 19, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-27 - CONTINENTAL CARE - The
development of a psychiatric hospital facility consisting of 75,865 sq. ft. on
6.1 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located on the
southwest corner of White Oak and Elm Avenue - APN 208-351-15.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
'/ Pedestrian Amenities ,/ Emergency Access
/ Site Coverage ./ Vehicle Stacking
/ Storage/Loading Areas .......... {_.=._ Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBORHOOD
ARC|I'iTECTURE: COMPATIBZLITY
...................................................
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
~/ Streetscape ~ Natural Topography Maintained
;~ Enhance Architecture / Grading Minimized
~ Tree Preservation / Contoured Slopes
-/' Screening/Suffering i / Slope Heights/Gradient
/ Shade Parking Lot ~ / Vistas Preserved
Slope Planting Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW COMMI~EE ACTION FOR DR 85-27
Date: September 23, 1985
Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Howard Fields
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 developer should address the Committee's concerns over the views
into the site by:
1. Providing line of sight study.
2. Provide decorative treatment to rear wall, heavy wood
trim, and screening for the mechanical equipment.
3. Window arches shall be recessed (as shown in perspective
rendering), rather than applied trim.
BESIGN REVIEW CONNIl'tEE COMME~
~:~6 L'7~:60' Howard September 19, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-32 - FORECAST - The
construction of a two-story professional office building consisting of 9,994
sq. ft. in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) within the Rancho
~;.~.~nt~ ~.u~n_~s~ ..a~O~ 2~_%" north of Civic Center Drive and east of .tica
o P 8 .
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
l
/--
YES NO
SITE PLAN:
Building Orientation /_
Open Space /
Parking Location /
Pedestrian Amenities /
Site Coverage /4
Storage/Loading Areas ~-~
CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
ARCH I TECTURE:
Recognizable Theme /
Scale, Mass, Height /
Harmonious Style/Form ~'
Materials/Color /f Grading
Variation/Interest f Land Use Conflict
Roof Screens / Noise
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGItBORIIOOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
S~reetscape
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
· /
OESZGN REVIEN COI, g4Z"FrEE ACTION FOR 85:32
Date: September 23, 1985
Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea
Staff Planner: Howard Fields
Recommended approval.
V//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:
1. Provide additional architectural treatment to the east
and west elevation.
2. Provide special landscape treatment along the streetscape
and project entry.
BESIGN REVIEW COt~4ITTEE
7:00 - 7:30 Bruce
September 19, 1985
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 85-08/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-26 - LYON - An
amendment to the development text for the Victoria POlanned Community and a
Conditional Use Permit to develop a commercial RV storage and mini-warehouse
in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 du/ac) on 4.4 acres of land
located on the north side of Base Line, east of the Southern California Edison
easement corridor - APN 227-091-42.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
;
YES NO
SITE PLAN:
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
ARCHITECTUNE:
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
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
Enhance Architecture
Tree PreserVation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW CO~4IllEE
7:30 - 8:00 Bruce
September 19, 1985
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-06 - TACO BELL - The conversion of an existing
restaurant to a Taco Bell including site plan changes and architectural
revisions in the Neighborhood Commercial District on 0.4 acres of land located
on the south side of Base Line, west of Archibald - APN 208-031-74.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
) SITE PLAN: ' [
I .......... ~ ......i__
/ Building Orientation /
/ Open Space /
/ Parking Location /
/ Pedestrian Amenities ~
/ Site Coverage -/
/ Storage/Loading Areas /
ARCNITECTURE:
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
NEIGIIBORHDOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
/~ Screening/Buffering
'"~"' e Shade Parking Lot
~ Slope Planting
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW COF)III'FEE ACTION FOR MDR 85-06
Date: September 23, 1985
Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: 8ruce 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:
1. Install curbing with planter area along west elevation at
the rear of the building.
2. The westerly drive approach along Base Line shall be
eliminated and replaced by landscaping consistent with
the existing landscape design.
3. The architectural treatments at building entrances shall
be of an angular design using heavy wood beams compatible
with the shopping center's design theme.
4. More wood siding consistent with that of the surrounding
center shall be incorporated into the final building
elevations. The stucco finish shall match that of the
surrounding center.
5. A letter should be submitted to the City by the applicant
from representatives of the shopping center indicating
their agreement to allow Taco Bell to eliminate the
westerly drive approach.
6. The project requires no further Committee or Commission
review. The above directed changes can be reviewed by
Staff during plan check processing.
DESIGN REVIEW COlt~II'FEE
8:00 - 8:30 Nancy
September 19, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-33 BARMAKIAN The
development of 72 unit apartments on 3.77 acres of land in the Medium High
Residential District (14-24 du/ac) located at the north side and end of Lomita
Court - APN 202-151-34.
Note: This project 'is a complete redesign of the market rate portion of
the previously approved Planned Development 83-01 by Calmark, see
Exhibit "A".
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
s · SITE PLAN: ..... i I .... ]
/ Building Orientation /
/ Open Space /
/ Parking Location y
I Pedestrian Amenities
/ , Site Coverage
~ Storage/Loading Areas
.L.... ARC.ZTECTURE: ...............1 ...................i ......
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade ...... y/
: .........................................~. --
LANI)SCAP[NG: ....... : .... ~ .....
Streetscape ~
Enhance Architecture ~mmm~
Tree PreserVation /
Screening/Buffering /
Shade Parking Lot X
Slope Planting X'
,,. CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
~E|GHBORItOOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Traffic
GRADING:
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE ACTION FOR DR 85-33
Date: September 23, 1985
Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
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:
Elevation
Building stucco color should be of off-white, and color
sample shall be reviewed by the City Planner.
Provide roof variation to garages. Provide different
garage door design to break up the monotony as well as
providing landscaping between garage doors as feasible.
The chimney design for building C should include stucco
material.
4. Roof material shall be of tile instead of the proposed
asphalt shingles.
SUNRISE
GENERAL OCCUPANCy
APARTMENTS
HERITAGE PARK
ELDERLY APARTMENTS
NORTH
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION
B
MATERIALS AND COLORS
BUILDING HEIGHT
B A A A
EXTERIORS
OESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE
8:30 - 9:00 Nancy
September 19, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-30 EMPIRE BANK - The
development of a three-story bank and office use building totaling 32,000 sq.
ft. on 1.63 acres of land within a proposed 18 acres Master Plan site in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District located
at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 209-142-16.
PLE~E CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
SITE PLAN:
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
ARCIIITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
YES NO
..................... CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEZGIIBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
DESIGN REVIEW CO)~4II'~EE ACTION FOR DR 85-30
Date: September 23, 1985
~mbers Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
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:
The developer should work with Staff in resolving the
setbacks, parking and grading issues.
Any revisions to the site plan should be reviewed by the
Committee as a Consent Calendar item.
The Committee also directed Staff to send an
informational letter to the adjacent property owner
regarding the proposed master plan in areas of
circulation, access and grading.