The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985/10/17 - Agenda PacketDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCA~0NGA MEMORANDUM October 21, 1985 ACTION AGENDA Conmnercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Dennis Stout Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNeil (Alternate) Dan Coleman Nancy Fong, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 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 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 (Nancy) 6:30 - 7:00 (Nancy) DR 85-36 - HIMES-PETERS DR85-26 - FORECAST NF:cv Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Dan Coleman, Planning Division Joe Stofa, Paul Rogeau, Loyd Goolsby, Barrye Hanson Y CO~ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA October 17, 1985 DR 85-34 - TOKAI/SCRIPTO (Howard) Committee Action: Review of revised elevation. The Committee recommended the use of texturized (4' x 8') panels for the automated warehouse, texturized pedestrian connections throughout project site, and special landscaping treatment at project corners and entry. Also, the applicant is to provide screening at service area, and utilize wing walls to break-up the bland elevations. CUP 84-39 - GARASICH (Nancy) Committee Action: Review of site plan and change in phasing. Approved the change in phasing, but recommended that the original approved site plan be maintained. DR 85-20 - FORECAST (Nancy) Committee Action: Review of proposed garage with office building. Recommended approval with condition that the roll-up door be of opaque color with trim that matches the building. DR 85-27 - CONTINENTAL CARE (Howard) Committee Action: During the Committee's 2nd review, concerns were expressed regarding lack of architectural details. In the revised elevation, entry gate and view- obstructing gate details, detail in the perimeter wall design, lighting fixtures did not relate to the architecture. Lack of texturized paving treatment, roof mass vs. building scale, lack of specialized landscape treatment at entries and corners of the project site. The Committee decided to refer the design elevation to the full Planning Commission determination. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Nancy October 17, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-36 - HIMES-PETERS (UNITED MODEL DISTRIBUTOR The development of a 42,313 square foot warehouse/distribution facility for hobby model products on 1.9 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 10) located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229-261-71 Design Parameter: The site is vacant with an old vineyard, and is part of master planned 75 acres industrial distribution complex. The proposed warehouse/distribution use is a permitted activity in Subarea 10 of the Industrial Specific Plan. The street improvements are already existing except for sidewalks and driveways. Development Review for adjacent parcels 2 and 3 has been approved by the Planning Commission last November. Staff Coments: Site Plan: The overall site plan could be enhanced with the following: a) Provide plaza area, courtyards with shaded seating area and attractive landscaping at building entrance. b) Provide decorative wall for screening the loading area. Elevations: The proposed elevations could be improved with the following: a) Create more shadow pattern and variety in building form and plane by the use of openings and cavities such as window area, recessed or projected landscaped areas. b) Break up the mass of the building with different textures of building materials such as scored split- face medium and heavy sandblasted. c) Provide adequate screening for the roof mounted equipment that is architecturally integrated with the elevations. 3. Landscaping: a) Provide special landscape treatment along west elevation to break up the mass of the building. b) Provide more landscape planters to the parking area at the north and east elevations. c) Provide special landscape treatment along Newport Drive taking into consideration the limitation of the 40' MWD easement. DESIGN REVIEW COMMIllEE ACTION Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Dennis Stout, Jack Lam Project Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended the following: Plaza areas, courtyards with shaded seating area and attractive landscaping at buildin9 entrance should be provided. The column at the building entrance should be increased in size to be more proportionate to the building. The proposed metal fascia and roof screen do not meet the intent of the urban design guidelines of the Industrial Specific Plan, in that the roof screen is not architecturally integrated with the fascia design, and materials do not achieve a total continuity of design. The Committee recommended that the building entrance could be improved by extending the height of the fascia and tie in with the roof screen; and by changing the metal materials to other materials such as fluted or scored split face block. The Committee would like to review the adjacent project elevations (DR) 84-36), for comparison and recommended continuation of this item to the November 7, 1985, regular Design Review Committee meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Nancy October 17, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-26 - FORECAST The development of an industrial park consisting of 4 buildings, totaling 46,500 square feet on 3.24 acres of land within a proposed 18 acre Master Site Plan in the Industrial Park District and Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located west side of Utica Avenue between Arrow Highway and Jersey Boulevard - APN 209-142-18. October 3, 1985, Design Review Committee Action The Committee brought up the issues of plaza areas and on-site circulation and continued this project to October 17, 1985, for full Committee review. October 17, 1985, Design Review Committee Comments On-site Circulation: The Committee stated that the proposed driveway between the two R/D buildings create awkwardness and inefficiency of traffic flow. Also, the driveway would not achieve visibility for the industrial building as stated by the developers. The Committee suggested that the two R/D buildings be combined into one and relocate the driveway to the northerly side with access from the private loop driveway. The proposed suggestions would resolve the inefficiency of traffic flow; provide an opportunity to create a stronger focal point for the industrial building as well as widen its visibility from Haven Avenue; and strengthen the visual interest of the R/D building. Plaza Areas: The Committee preferred the design of the plaza area as originally recommended by the Committee. October 17, 1985 - Design Review Committee Action The Committee recommended that the two R/D buildings be combined into one and relocate the driveway to the northerly property boundary with access from the private loop driveway as shown in Exhibit "A". The Committee recommended that the elevations for the proposed industrial buildings be strengthened with more architectural treatments for creating focal points. The Committee preferred the original design of the plaza area, but will consider the developer's proposal of decreasing the size of the plaza area. The developers agreed to the Committee's recommendations and would revise the development package so as to be forwarded for Planning Commission review. Industrial