HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/14 - Agenda Packet _n
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY DECEMBER 14, 1999 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
7:00 p.m.
(Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-64 —MASTERCRAFT HOMES: A design review of
the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14381, consisting of 34 single
family lots in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan; located. west of Etiwanda and north of Wilson Avenue —
APN: 225-071-68;
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS '`
This is the time and place for the Committee to`discuss' and provide direction to an applicant
regarding their development.application. The following items do not legally require any public
testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:15 p.m.
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-55 —
TRAMMEL CROW AND CO. —The development of four industrial buildings totaling
1,021,000 square feet on 48.93 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, east and west of Milliken Avenue-APN: 229-111-30, 35-
42, 44, 46 and 57.
7:30 p.m.
(Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46—CABOT
INDUSTRIAL TRUST — The development of a 401,910 square foot industrial
building on 17.93 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of 6`h Street between Lucas
Rancho Road and Hermosa Avenue -APN: 210-113-03, and 10, and 210-032—02,
07, 09 and 11.
8:00 P.M.
(Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-37—LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS: A design review of
detailed site plan and elevations for a 6,300 square feet retail Pad A of a previously
approved Master Plan (Conditional Use Permit 89-18)within the Central Park Plaza
in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located
at the northeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-
182-001 through 008, and 010 through 012.
DRC AGENDA
December 14, 1999
Page 2
8:15 p.m.
(Rudy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 —
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES —The development of three industrial buildings
totaling 82,376 on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route,
approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue—APN: 209-461-02 and 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES — The development of a 67,620 square foot
industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea
8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Tacoma
Drive and White Oak Avenue —APN: 209-461-11.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 9, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn December 14, 1999
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-64—MASTERCRAFT HOMES: A design review of the detailed site
plan and building elevations for Tract 14381, consisting of 34 single family lots in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west
of Etiwanda and north of Wilson Avenue—APN: 225-071-68.
Design Parameters: The project site was initially approved as Tract 13527 which provided for the
subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review,Tract
13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380, 14381 and 14382).
Tracts 14379, 14380, and 14381 have been recorded. Tract 14379 is currently being developed
by Centex Homes; Tract 14380 is currently being developed by Mastercraft Homes.
The architectural designs of the proposed project were used on the adjacent tract(Tract 14380)and
were previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee and subsequently approved by the
Planning Commission. Development Review 96-27 was reviewed by the Committee on
December 17, 1996, and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1997.
Development Review 98-11 was reviewed by the Committee on August 4, 1998, and subsequently
approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998. Development Review 99-03 was
reviewed by the Committee on May 18, 1999, and subsequently approved by the Planning
Commission on June 9, 1999.
The current project, Development Review 99-64,will utilize the floor plans and various elevations
previously approved for the different design review applications for Tract 14380. The design,
includes both single-and two-story units,front-on and side-on garage options, and reverse footprints
of all units. The floor'plans range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The floor plans have
three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan (see attached exhibits). Architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan,
Santa Barbara, and Country.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion. .
Maior Issues: There are no design issues associated with the current development application.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 99-64.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
DR 99-64 — MASTERCRAFT HOMES
December 14, 1999
Page 2
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following:
The elevations utilized for Development Review 99-64 are the same elevations used on the previous
applications, Development Review 99-03, Development Review 98-11 and Development Review
96-27. These elevations have not been revised to reflect the comments from the previous
application's Design Review Committee meeting, so the same comments were incorporated into this
projects design.
1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the
Plan 4 elevation.
2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B.
3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation.
• N M ti E N
..', O
is moo• cz
la
•• cz 1.
U
O
N-y c TE
•I V ' W _- i
u N r IT
1 \ r c 0 co cc
•� _ C7
C.)
• •I
X C y
ca
cv a m a. F- W
c U. cc co
r O U .
'• •f U U U O
�`•-+ r y c y •O
%N C: g c o
r A c c .o
U 7 V N
En
u .I 'D C '0 O
N N a C O C O`
CL
N
Y \ 11 f
,• • N R•• .� I w _�_ I•• II I— co co co
co co co
'IT 114T I�T
co
Ir��� j "�. .� u� •• �. _ r r r r
N A r• 1
A w •� w ca �co m co
Ih
r A u I . f r � �" �"' F" �'•' V
N
If �;yiv}�i•.
� Z
LL J
Oa
r
F-
U
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:15 p.m. Doug Fenn December 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-55 —TRAMMEL CROW
AND CO. —The development of four industrial buildings totaling 1,021,000 square feet on 48.93
acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9)of the Industrial Specific
Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, east and west of Milliken Avenue -APN: 229-111-
30, 35-42, 44, 46 and 57.
Staff Comments:
The Committee reviewed the project at the November 30 meeting and recommended that the
developer address the secondary issues since the major issue had been resolved. The Committee
also recommended the developer to bring a sample board of the materials that will be utilized
around the office entrance areas of the project. The applicant was informed to bring the project
back before the next scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on December 14, 1999.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee recommended that the developer again revise the sample board of the fagade
material that will be utilized around the office entrance areas of the project. The applicant was
informed to bring the revised material sample back before the next scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on January 4, 2000.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
9:30 p.m. Doug Fenn November 30, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-55 —TRAMMEL CROW
AND CO.—A request to construct four industrial buildings(Building A-52,700 square feet,Building
"B" - 215,300 square feet, Building "C"-421,900 square feet, and Building "D" - 331,100 square
feet) totaling 1,021,000 square feet on 48.93 acres of land in Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial) of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the -APN: 229-111-30, 35-42, 44,46 and 57
Design Parameters: The four buildings are to be used for warehouse/distribution activities. The
office portion of the buildings will front the public right-of-ways of Arrow Route, Milliken and Jersey
Avenues. The loading areas are oriented to the interior of site behind screen walls and the office
areas. Building wall surfaces facing the street corners feature a creative curvilinear design, and
are articulated with changes of plane, color variation, and use of sandblasted concrete with blue-
green colored glazing accents. The site is surrounded by industrial development to the east,south,
and across Milliken Avenue to the west,and under construction industrial development to the north
across Arrow Route.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Employee parking between Buildings "B" and "C," and Buildings "C" and "D" should be
relocated elsewhere on the property or designed as to not create a potential conflict with the
truck and parking areas. The Planning Commission's policy is to separate employee parking.
from truck parking.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Screen walls as seen from the public right-of-ways shall be no higher than 8 feet in height.
2. The screen gates should be automated to ensure that the gate is open the minimum time
necessary to allow trucks in and out of the loading area.
3. All employee-eating areas should be designed as an integral part of the building and not
located adjacent to access areas for truck and vehicular parking.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design
Review Committee as a consent calendar item.
DRC COMMENTS
99-55 -TRAMMEL CROW AND CO.
November 30, 1999
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee recommended that the developer address the secondary issues since the major
issue has been resolved. The Committee also recommended the developer to bring a sample
board of the materials that will'be utilized around the office entrance areas of the project. The
applicant was informed to bring the project back before the next scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on December 14, 1999.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Doug Fenn December 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46—CABOT INDUSTRIAL
TRUST—The development of a 401,910square foot industrial building on 17.93 acres of land in
General Industrial District(Subarea 5)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side
of 6`h Street between Lucas Rancho Road and Hermosa Avenue -APN: 210-113-03, and 10, and
210-032—02, 07, 09 and 11.
Design Parameters: The building will be used for warehouse/distribution activities. The office
portion of the buildings will front the public right-of-ways of the southeast corner of 6th Street and
Lucas Ranch Road and the north east corner of 5th Street and Lucas Ranch Road. The loading
area fronts Lucas Ranch Road behind screen walls and an abundant amount of landscaping.
Building wall surfaces facing the street corners feature a simplistic, yet, a well articulated building
with changes to the plane, color variation, and use of sandblasted concrete with blue reflective
colored glazing accents.
The site is surrounded by industrial development to the east of Lucas Ranch Road, and across
5`h Street to the south, and across Hermosa Avenue to the west is a vacant parcel and to the north
across 6`h Street are industrial uses and a vacant parcel.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. A 45-foot wide average landscape setback must be provided along the frontage of 6th Street,
as measured from ultimate face of curb, per Industrial Area Specific Plan standard. The
applicant was notified of this setback issue by letter in February 1999 during Preliminary
Review 99-01.
2. Provide stronger vertical element(s) at each corner. For example, the parapet could be
extended 4 feet above main building (instead of 2 feet as proposed).
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. The screen gates should be automated to ensure that the gate is open the minimum time
necessary to allow trucks in and out of the loading area.
2. The screen walls should better reflect the architectural style of the building. One
recommendation would be to recess the wall similar to the building recesses.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design
Review Committee as a consent calendar item.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee recommended that the developer address and work out the major issues with staff,
and once those issues had been resolved to bring the project back before the Design Review
Committee.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:00 P.M. Debra Meier December 14, 1999,
Development Review 99-37—LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS: A design review of detailed site plan and
elevations of a 6,300 square feet retail Pad A of a previously approved Master Plan (Conditional Use
Permit 89-18)within the Central Park Plaza in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra
Vista Community Plan, located at the northeast comer of Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue
-APN: 227-182-001 through 008, and 010 through 012.
Background: The Committee, consisting of Pam Stewart and Nancy Fong, reviewed the project on
August 3, 1999. At that time the Committee expressed several problems with the design of the
Building and Site Plan, including building elevations and consistency with the architectural theme
of Central Park Plaza, and that a trash enclosure must be included in proximity to the new Pad A
Building. The Design Review Committee action comments of August 3, 1999 are attached for your
review.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion. The comments noted below follow the same outline of concerns as noted in the
August 3, 1999 Design Review Committee comments:
1. Building Footprint—The floor area has been reduced by approximately 200 square feet to
accommodate a colonnade along the north elevation. The building width was reduced to
ensure proper building setback along Milliken Avenue and to ensure preservation of existing
landscaping.
2. Site Plan Orientation—Site Plan orientation as proposed was found to be consistent with the
approved Master Plan at the previous meeting. This orientation provides for integration with
the existing plaza at the corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway; and better
pedestrian connection to the Baskin-Robbins (existing Shops 1).
3. Elevations — The building elevations have been modified with the addition of two new
elements -a vertical tower, and a pedestrian terrace which will overlook the existing plaza
at the comer. The elevations provide a greater variety of_vertical interest, and provide a
more defined pedestrian area and entry identification.
4. Landscaping — The Site Plan has been revised to provide vine/trellis along the north
elevation, and preservation of existing landscaping along Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista
Parkway. Pots, containing shrubs and flowering ground cover, are used against the building
face at the north, east, and south elevations. And finally, two Queen palms have been
added to the landscaped finger-planter near the northeast corner of the building. Although
the measures described enhance the appearance of the north and east elevations,
trees are not provided along the building face. Additional landscaping, in the form of
tree pockets or tree wells may be necessary to complement the architectural concept.
5. Trash Enclosure—An additional trash enclosure, matching existing enclosures, has been
added near the east side of the driveway entrance from Terra Vista Parkway. This
enclosure may be more convenient to the-tenants of Pad A if it were to be located on
the west side of the driveway.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, subject to any conditions
added by the Committee, and issuance of the City Planner letter of approval.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-37— LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS
December 14, 1999
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Debra Meier
The Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions:
1. Provide vine pockets at the north elevation.
2. The property owner shall provide an additional trash enclosure closer to Pad A when deemed
necessary by the City Planner.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:15 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63 - CAPELLINO AND
ASSOCIATES—The development of a 67,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
southeast corner of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue—APN: 209-461-11.
Design Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved
by the Planning Commission in 1992 and as shown in Exhibit"A." The site has been rough graded
previously and contains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of the site is improved with curb
and gutter, driveway approaches and no sidewalk or street side landscaping. The site slopes from
north to south at approximately 2 percent.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
The proposed industrial building incorporates painted tilt-up concrete accented with sandblasted
concrete band, brick veneer, and fluted concrete materials. It is designed to be consistent with the
architectural style established in the industrial park. Therefore, there are no major issues. However,
the applicant should address the following secondary issues to further enhance the design of the
project.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding, along the middle and top of the building plane at the
east and south elevations. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding along the top
of the building plane of the south elevation.
2. The employee plaza area shall be relocated to an area, easily accessible to employees. The
plaza area should be designed to be an integral part of the site design. Consider locating
the employee plaza area along the north elevation of building and incorporating a walkway
from the main entrance to the plaza area.
3. Redesign the existing driveway approach on Tacoma Drive to provide a more convenient
common ingress and egress, between the project site and the existing industrial building to
the east.
4. The screen wall on the east side of the building should be setback approximately 17-feet
from the proposed location, to provide a sufficient truck turning radius out of the rear trailer
court onto the common drive on the east. In addition, the proposed trailer parking spaces
along the rear property line and at the southeast corner of the building, should be eliminated
and redesigned as angle parking along the rear property to provide better truck circulation.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-63 —CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
December 14, 1999
Page 2
5. The screen wall design on the west and east sides of the site, should consist of sandblasted
concrete with a reveal detail along the top portion of the wall, to tie in with the building design.
6. Undulating landscaped berms should be used in the streetscape areas to provide visual interest
in areas exposed to public view, such as the parking lot along the west side of the project.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the conditions as recommended above.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments. In
addition, the Committee recommended that the northeast entrance of the proposed building shall
be architecturally enhanced to be consistent with the main entrance on the northwest corner of the
building.
i
� v
I
. . . . . . . .... . . . .
�aat .asrrfaaff •....•... ! IZ I; �.� .. � i.�. � � _ - ra—�
lt7tj11111111t�[ti7[IL.7 •__°.,i� Sf...� _ t - � _ 'T
,.r... . 11
ii ij I:{iiiiiil�lltt P-- :{• S�J —.1 ".1�: �_ ° F i
rf •.: .::; ::..:.Its;'" I �- -a1 -± =1= 1- � �•�,
Tr
..•-fatfalr•.a a• •�'�'• ,�• f'f - =I=
1 � �� -1- — — ••t 1
i- [Ii �i T I t � �1 �� � _ •1 �
i:t:
t t.•;
:t:ttttst:ttt t t t t s t t t.: ;;-t° . : = �_ •''�_ _ .
afar•-afsfstrafrfrraf•■ eft 1 — _ �• I t� _
iifat.ti�t•f{Ra.ta.tftf�a a .t�,r-- _ 1 _ _'Q— -- — [,I•
J•••••••:•-•t= y<1
t:lt::t:l:tltltttt: . t � :: �.- .'J• - • 1 = _ `(
%j.t•f ft t t1.i as •t • �t.l ,•?I'.••1I�f1" _ _ — , a 1• �.u ~.1 = <
I t t f t a c a t aw•a L LIL 1J = _ _ ;i. _.1.J t' Itlr•u::r� i!<
ffY•YfYYYf IfYYffff� l'fiif `- ,if ', , ? = r _— - •' �I�f4
i.I t! l.7.:'!i i[ 1 1[t 1 [1.i t �� _ _ — —""�• •.•=1 w•"r+��•"�
tz:ss:ztt.t.t s-st:z:zt: Lt.,:./.1:..,,L.
a t a- . ' '. ' - .. 's'fi.T. {: = _ � = I !� 1 �..: ,,.,111 1;•
Cl 1.1- is t.t:ia ! .1' _
_
_
_
_
_ :__—=
• alt I _ _ �• ..... , ��r•
—
,r r f[r-r{,'�:•t,�3=:•rat-f' .i1 = =t•I •t = __ _ ' '
Lj
t.)J.i
3 iIl I .i � I .` 1 LPL� — — = I — I � :. _,J ��•.-- ��,
_ ' ' l• :1 ----------- _ _ ' �7 _ 1 _�j '� c ;•w:%
�•
Ll
rl
M 4t
ter , , f{ � •r � ? = � t j1• ''�; �_I, -- � c ltrfF .
:II ��t i I�M[ �_ _i�\- -- � ]]•� �= , , •{�:1:/:.1111111�••.•...�� 1 1
I (( { •i' •7 t= `- =%�` I � •�; 1..1.111.1„w_—'•,1,1•• :��!•� •_� —
1 't_ •>�- -« '�V• �;�•= .fit: .� =' _ _�. —� �•.1
C-j �1'1'1i �!1�,•�'1���1�1111 =1 t• � _ �I ll Ili - C �.'�
J
1 7 = =If G ..�.... l r �-�-�
r. "' Cg L� :GO
_ GA==!!INO s•. A55OGIA I cc-5 Ict-�s„o • :ssou t:s ;�� rrC ,.
_ - , a �\ :at L�tn sera+•:b ,
:c�t0 LLC-.Or+GL C-L.woltr<e '°.'�rr ,u;.;','
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
December 14, 1999
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Her
Secretary
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:15 p.m. Rudy Zeledon December 14, 1999
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62 — CAPELLINO AND
ASSOCIATES—The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 on 4.12 acres of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue—APN: 209-461-02
and 3.
Design Parameters: The project site is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved
by the Planning Commission in 1992, and as shown in Exhibit"A." The site has been rough graded
previously and contains no significant vegetation. The perimeter of the site is improved with curb
and gutter, driveway approaches, sidewalk and street trees. The site slopes from north to south at
approximately 2 percent.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
The three proposed industrial buildings incorporate materials of painted tilt-up concrete and
accented with sandblasted concrete band, brick veneer, and fluted concrete. The three buildings
are designed to be consistent with the architectural style established in the industrial park.
Therefore, there are no major issues. However, the applicant should address the following
secondary issues to further enhance the design of the project.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide sandblasted concrete banding at the middle and top of the building plane on the north,
east and west elevations of all three proposed buildings to provide additional architectural
enhancement to the building. Continue the same sandblasted concrete banding at the south
(rear) elevation on the top of the building plane only.
2. Provide a landscaped strip (5 feet wide inside dimension)on the east and west sides of all three
proposed employee plaza areas for buffering between the parking spaces and the plazas.
3. Provide undulating landscaped berms along Arrow Route in the streetscape areas to provide
visual interest.
4. The perimeter landscape strip along the rear property line shall be a minimum of 5 feet (inside
dimension).
5. The site plan for Building"C'indicates a proposed dust collector, a 50 feet by 8 feet compressor
shed and a 25 feet by 20 feet storage building, all of which are not shown on any of the
elevations. Therefore, approval of these structures will be subject to a Minor Development
Review at a future time. At the time of Minor Development Review process, the structures will
be required to be architectural compatible with the building design and screening will be required
for all exposed equipment.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the conditions as recommended above.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-62—CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
December 14, 1999
Page 2
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments.
i a t t/ a I .r L• .r .. .. ... _.� is •i .. .. .••. ` - - r
�I {7•(� t•L t}}. . a r /l•t i J C /� �� � 1 is i=^—1' � �� '� �-
1{11 .
S .t' .t- .L- , !r I' .t •� !t � (= IT
r/ ... SL2tS� : :•eta• � '1 C:!% � _..... - - - __ - ' � .�
!!If'tiiSJ!iti5:1111i!/ /
t t L t t L t t L t t t L.t.t
•
if _'• -•ti•�r- - ••
■tta :-
as-t-ztr rffttraa fl ,jf (
a a r: l i r t i a ;t s•
7 •t t,i..s•r to•.a t r s l a ,1
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
//1 t aT c�r>f as sa s�t,•t r•S l'i•1 • F t I ••1 _ _ = i 1 1• _ �•II+.IIU.J — �. •
laaaaaaa'to 11aaaaaa
aaa a.a a a
.. .
ff•f•,fYY,f ffY•ff l.fflf=ff `�• 1/ , _ = t. .. ..... � •:'•� -"�� ��r4 It
L t t L :L t t.t. t •t t.t t .T t L �]L • _ - •C••
t t-
3 i /:i
•a,-T' - - �• r
s 7 I{ ! I.i i L i l'{.l:I.1 _ .1 _-_--_!__-� _� C — i !i ! :1• •1.11 ••
._f . �TS'a_-i r s s s..T:•^.-1.sr.t t
72 rz+ �t
_f_a =r,r
t s i s s1 s,!s "it 't s t-
'.
_ •{ _ (( _ ,
i 1 ii = — =
3 _ iii Z t; - I :It L,�� _ � _ � = ;� �' 1' J �` ►►�R���
—►I
70 a t r a - ;
Un
1 i.7 C-r
------ •U:ul:.nulu:' ....11 �•�� I
ar
Is
� ( � ( �tj �, � i= :�%�= t.. '�• 11.,n11•In,';�..—n1-••-t•r-+t• -- ..... =
= '!1•t•I ..• 1'. ':1:1111 =i t- _ = ifit flie _ - �:•�
. . . • - -—— •———— _----__.—.__.r ———_ .. ._ .-- -- -- _— .—
GA'=1 1 INO T. A550GIA I LS Ir..L-1N0 • -ssou_r_s CG
1 =► `� :at r.3" anctr r::a o!a D-
I 1 I• 1 � I I I :CAO CUL: .ONGc. L:LLrORMA 4..ut.ix•.ceDt .t1 -F C:
� r.Y ]7D•lY 1