HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/03/02 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 6, 1989 S~'rION CO!!4[NTS ~
TO: Commerci al /Industrial 1977
Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea
Peter Tolstoy
Dan Col eman
David Blakesley (Alternate)
FROM: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1989
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 4:00 - 4:30 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.
4:00 - 4:30 DINNER
4:30 - 5:30
(Miki) PRELIMINARY ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
5:30 - 6:00 CONSENT CALENDAR
6:00 - 6:30
(Bruce) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
13951 - CHOU - A residential subdivision and design
review of 30 single family lots on 23.45 acres of land
in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2
dwelling units per acre), located north of Manzanita,
east of Beryl, and west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1062-
11-03-06, 1062-761-03, 1062-061-01, 02.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
Commercial/Industrial
March 2, 1989
Page 2
6:30 - 7:00
(Cindy) DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-31
UNOCAL - Revisions to the Sign Program for the
1)'fV~'~i'f'fed shopping center located at the southeast
corner of Haven and Lemon Avenue.
7:00 - 7:30
(Tom) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-21 -
AVERY - A 1U,UUU square foot addition to en existing
war"~'F'e~Fouse building totaling 51,130 square feet on 2.27
acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the south side of gth Street east of ~neyard
Avenue - APN: 209-013-02.
7:30 - 8:00
(Chris) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-04 - GREUBEL - The development
of a Neighborhood Commercial shopping center, consisting
of 30,770 square feet of retail shops and a self-serve
car wash, lube and tune, and auto detail shop, on 3.8
acres of land withi n the Neighborhood Commercial
District, located at the southwest corner of Haven and
Lemon - APN: 201-262-48.
BA:
Attachments
CC: P1 anning Commission/City Council
Commercial/Industrial
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENE)A
March 2, 1989
1. DR 88-33 - I~ ARCHITECTS
(Bruce) Review of dimensioned site plan and
north elevation of building 0 (roll-up
doors).
Committee Action: The Committee (Larry McNiel, Peter
Tolstoy and Dan Coleman) recommended
approval of the dimensioned site plan
and the roll-up doors on the north
side of building 0 were clarified to
the satisfaction of the Committee with
a revised elevation drawing.
2. DR 87-44 - CARNEY ARCHITECTS
(Chris) Review of brise sole mterial.
Committee Action: The Committee recommended the use of
travertine or sand stone.
3. CUP 87-29 - ARCHITECTS ORANGE
Chris) Review of International House of
Pancakes colors and details.
Committee Action: The review was postponed to the March
16, 1989 DRC meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COr~4ENTS
4:30 - 5:30 Miki March 2, 1989
PRELIMINARY ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN - Development of an
approximate)y 7,D53 acre area 1 ocated generally north of 24th Street and
east of the extension of Millikan Avenue.
Background:
At their February 2, 1989 meeting the Design Review Committee commented
on architectural themes and neighborhood monuments. The applicant was
directed to respond to comments in writing by February 16, 1989 and to
return to Design Review on March 2, 1989.
Staff C~nts:
The plan has been delivered under separate cover for review. The
Committee should examine the plans and information for the Preliminary
Etiwanda North Specific Plan for completion of the following revisions
and additional information as requested at the Design Review Con~ni ttee
meeting of February 2, 1989:
o Review the possible design mix using the Etiwanda Specific Plan
methodology for the six architectural types which have been
offered.
o Identify design criteria which indicates distinctive features of
each architectural type.
o If necessary, add a 7th architectural type.
o Revise minimum unit size upward to reflect actual expected minimum
unit sizes.
Design Review C~mittee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman, David Blakeslay
Staff Planner: Miki Bratt
The Planning Commission continued review of the Architectural Guidelines
section of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and directed the applicant
to make changes including the following:
o Define horizontal and vertical, on architectural matrix.
o The matrix must guarantee that all seven styles are used
o Use design type to establish neighborhood identity
o Provide a mix of one story and two story structures
DESIGN REVIEW COI~4ENTS
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
March 2, 1989
Page 2
o Provide best examples of alternatives to front-on garages
o Provide best examples and use language which promotes excellence of
product design
o Provide driveway details
o Provide fence detail
o Design standards must be responsive to fire and wind hazards
o Provide more design guidelines for proposed commercial
The Planning Conmnission will meet in a workshop session on Thursday,
March 30, 1989 to comment on the entire Specific Plan document from 4 to
7 p.m. at the Neighborhood Center.
DESIGN REVIEW CO~gqENTS
6:00 - 6:30 Bruce March 2, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU - a
residential subdivision and design review of 3U single family lots on
23.45 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2
dwelling units per acre) located north of Manzanita, east of Beryl, and
west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1062-11-03-06, 1062-761-03, 1062-061-01,
02.
Staff Conm~nts:
The Design Review Con~nittee should examine the resubmitted plans and
elevations for completion of the following revisions as recommended to
the applicant during the Design Review Committee meeting of January 19,
1989.
Architecture
1. The sides and rear facades of all the homes should receive
additional detail/relief including, but not limited to, additional
reveals and continuing reveals across elevations.
2. The tops of the chimneys should receive additional detail with
variations between the 4 unit types.
3. The eroded edge details use over the windows should be substituted
with an element which emphasizes the overall style of the
residential architecture.
4. Multi-pane windows should be used at the sides and rear of the
residences where large amounts of glass are not currently proposed.
5. Provide a mix of unit types with a portion of the units utilizing
one of the three car garages as a bonus room option (15% of the
front-ons).
6. Roof'tile with more tonal variation should be utilized.
7. Elements such as vents should be integrated more subtly with the
facade.
8. Architectural details on the facade should be modified to appear
lighter in character and should be tied in with other details to
provide an integrated appearing facade.
Site Plan
1. Walls and fences should blend with the architecture of the proposed
tract. The walls on the adjacent Tract 13930 (Winbrook) should
emulate the walls on this tract.
DESIGN REVIEW COMME~FFS
TT 13951 - CHOU
March 2, 1989
Page 2
2. Walls along Manzanita should be setback a minimum of 5 feet from
the back of the sidewalk.
3. Walls along Manzanita shou1 d return to the si de of the house at
corner side yards.
4. Walls at the corner side yards on the east end of Wilson Avenue
should return to the sides of the house.
Landscaping
1. Landscaping on Wilson, Hellman and Beryl should emulate landscaping
on adjacent tracts.
2. The design of the Wilson parkways should utilize the approved
street trees.
3. The Manzanita Avenue parkway should be designed to tie in with
existing beneficial street trees of an approved alternate street
tree.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Col eman
Staff Planner: Bruce Abbott
The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the proposed tract
subject to plans being resubmitted to staff for review and approval with
the following revisions, and subject to resolution of the types and
final placement of trails by the Trails Committee prior to scheduling
for Planning Commission.
Architecture:
1. Chimneys should receive detail that will provi de variation between
the four unit types.
2. Multi-pane windows should be utilized at the sides and rear of
residences where large amounts of glass are not currently proposed,
especially the large windows on the right elevation of Plan 2 and
the windows on the left elevation of Plan 1.
3. The half round window detail at the right elevation of Plan 2
should be removed.
4. The arch detail in the gables of the left elevation of Plan 1 and
the rear elevation of Plan 3 should be removed.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 13951 - CHOU
March 2, 1989
Page 3
5. Reveals should continue across elevations where possible.
6. Roof tile with more tonal variation should be used.
7. The 45 degree angle at the roof corners of plan 3 and 4 should be
replaced with 90 degree corners.
Site Plan:
1. The final alignment or terminus of Manzanita Drive should be
indicated on the site plan and other related plans as resolved
through a neighborhood meeting and long range traffic planning
goals.
2. The final lot arrangement and sizes should be indicated on the site
plans and other related plans as resolved through final placement
of the trails and Manzanlta Drive.
3. The 5 foot wall setback from the back of sidewalk on Manzanita
Drive should be dimensioned on the site plan and should be drawn at
a corresponding scaled distance of 5 feet from the back of
sidewalk.
4. Walls at the corner si de yards on the east end of Wilson Avenue
should return to the sides of houses.
Landscaping:
1. Landscaping on Wilson, Hellman and Beryl should emulate 1 andscaping
on adjacent tracts.
2. The design of the Wilson parkways should utilize the approved
street trees.
3. The Manzanita Drive parkway should incorporate approved trees or an
approved alternate street tree which ties in with existing trees.
DESIGN REVIEW CO)ENTS
6:30 - 7:00 Cindy March 2, 1989
DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTER - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-31 - UNOCAL -
Revisions to the ~gn Program for the Diversified shopping cenLer
located at the southeast corner of Haven and Lemon Avenues.
Background:
Attached for your reference is a summary comparison of the Uniform ~gn
Programs for the Neighborhood Shopping Centers located along Haven
Avenue including the existing Diversified center.
The proposed changes requested by the diversified Company for their
Center would allow greater flexibility in signage requirements for
single purpose, free standing units (SPFSU). The two tenants
specifically effected would be the Unocal and possibly McDonalds. The
proposed changes include the following:
Letter style: Allow SPFSU's to use letter style of choice
Letter color: allow SPFSU's that have registered trademarks the
option to use their standard colors
Logos: Logo size of SPFSU's with registered trademark
logos, to be considered on an individual basis, as
long as they do not exceed City's sign
requirements. Tenants may also have an option to
use their standard logo colors.
St~ff Caamaents:
Staff is concerned that the extent of the requested variations,
including letter styles, colors and logos, are not generally in keeping
with the character of the program. While variation of one or two
elements may be allowed, all other elements should be held constant to
allow a recognizably consistent sign program.
Comparison of all Neighborhood Centers along Haven Avenue.
I. Tetra Vista Village
Major Tenant: Hughes, Longs and C1 oth World
Minor: All other shops and pads
Letter Style: Tenants allowed letter style of choice
Letter Height: Major, up to 6'
Minor, 14" to 18"
Letter Color: Red, all tenants
Logo: Allowed, but not to exceed height of designated sign
area. Logo color may vary, however, excessive copy or
color not allowed.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CUP 84-31 - DIVERSIFIED
March 2, 1989
Page 2
II. Brunswick/Deer Creek
Major Tenant: Single tenant occupying a free standing building on
chain store tenant with 5 or more existing stores and
shall have square footage in excess of 5,000 square
feet.
Letter Style: All tenants to use Helvetica medim, however, tenants
with established registered trademark may use individual
letter style.
Letter Height: Major, 18" to 30" Minor, 18" to 24"
Letter Color: Major, may use either white or Terra Cotta. Minor, white only.
Logo: Restricted to color and size approved by owner. Size
shall not exceed 24" height and 48" length.
III. Chaffey Plaza
Letter Styl e: Souvenir Demi, unless tenant has three or more locations
using their standard letter style.
Letter Height: 12" to 18", (2 lines of copy allowed for specific
tenants where store frontage is limited).
Letter Color: Red, unless tenant has three or more locations using a
standard color.
Logo: Cabinet maximum height 18" and maximum length 24" (must
fit in allotted sign length).
Letter Style: (Same as above).
Letter Area: 12" height, 18" width.
Color: Background ivory, letters red unless tenant has 3 or
more locations using a standard color.
IV. Diversified (Existing)
Major: Lucky and Payless
Minor: All other
Letter Style: Three letter styles permitted except Lucky and Payless.
Letter Height: Major, total sign area not to exceed 11/2 square foot
of linear leased frontage of 150 square foot.
Minor, 18" to 24"
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CUP 84-31 - DIVERSIFIED
March 2, 1989
Page 3
Letter Color: Major, Red, single pad users may use either red or
white.
Minor, White.
Logo: Size shall not exceed 10% of the all owabl e sign area.
Color, may be either red or white.
Design Revied Comittee Action:
Hembars Present: Peter Tolstoy, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Cindy Norris
Based upon review of proposed changes to the Uniform ~ gn Criteria, the
Committee made the following recommendations:
1. ~ngle Purpose Free Standing Units (SPFSU) should use letter style
and colors previously specified in the criteria.
2. SPFSU's may use registered trademark logo col ors.
3. For SPFSU's logos may be a maximum of 24" high and shall not exceed
lot of the allowable sign area.
4. Tenant may use standard trademark logo colors for the gas station
pricing identification sign.
S. Unocal may modify the approved landscape plan to allow a visibility
window for a sign mounted on the southwest end of the bull ding.
DESIGN REVIEW CO~IENTS
7:00 - 7:30 Tom March 2, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-21 - AVERY - A 10,000
square foot addition to an existing warehouse building, totaling 51,130
square feet on 2.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south
side of 9th Street east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 209-013-2.
Staff Comments:
The following is a list of concerns and/or comments that should be
addressed by the Design Review Committee:
Architecture
1. The proposed architecture is consistent with the architecture of
the existing building.
2. Although the proposed addition utilizes the same base color and
accent color, the overall color concept does not create visual
interest.
3. Proposed roof screen materials should be consistent with the
building materials. (Past Design Review Committee action approved
a cement board for screening roof equipment).
Site ~ an
1. Employee lunch area?
2. Views to roll-up doors and dock high doors on both the existing
building and the proposed addition.
Landscaping
1. Width of the landscape planter along the east property line.
2. Clusters of trees versus a staggered spacing.
3. Provide a landscape planter along the east side of the proposed
addition.
Design Revled Coamittee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman, Peter Tolstoy
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 88-21
March 2, 1989
Page 2
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval based on the
following changes:
1. ~hrub planting should be provided along the east property line as
landscape screening adjacent to the existing buildings. The
northern portion should be expanded to a width of three (3) feet,
the southern portion may remain as proposed.
2. An outdoor employee lunch plaza should be provided in the landscape
area at the northeast corner of the site. This should include a
cement pad and permanent furniture.
3. Existing roof mounted equipment should be completely screened from
view on all sides. The building material used in the roof screen
should be compatible with the building design and color.
4. A six (6) foot screen wall should be provided at the northeast
corner of the site extending from the east property line to the
easterly driveway. The wall should be designed to retain and also
be concealed by the berming along Ninth Street. As the berm is
only three (3) feet high, the parking lot will need to be recessed.
5. Roll-up and dock high doors should be painted to match the building
and not the accent trim.
6. Landscaping should be increased to adequately screen loading and
parking areas.
DESIGN REVIEW COr~4ENTS
7:30 - 8:00 Chris March 2, 1989
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-04 GREUBEL The development of a
neighborhood shopping center, consisting of 30,770 square feet of retail
shops and a self-serve car wash, lube and tune, and auto detail shop, on
3.8 acres of land wi thin the Neighborhood Commercial District, 1 ocated
at the southwest corner of Haven and Lemon - APN: 201-262-48.
Background:
Phase I of the development is nearly complete. The conditions of
approval require DRC approval of the designs for Phase 2 prior to
issuance of building permits. The original approval included a site
plan for the car wash area, but did not include elevations.
The developer recently requested a time extension to his CUP approval
which resulted in a large group of surrounding residents petitioning the
City to not approve the project. The developer withdrew his time
extension request and intends to proceed through the design review
process in order to obtain building permits and begin construction
before the CUP expires on June 24, 1989.
A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for March 2, prior to design review,
to receive community input on the project design. Staff will update the
Committee on the results of that meeting.
Staff Comments:
The following is a list of concerns and/or comments that should be
addressed by the Design Review Committee:
~te Plan:
The proposed plans differ from the approved master site plan for the
project (see Exhibit "A") as described below. The Committee's direction
is needed as to whether these changes require a formal modification to
the Conditional Use Permit:
1. The building has been shifed 19 feet further away from the west
property line to provide a row of parking. Staff reports this
change because it provides greater setback from the adjoinging
single family residences.
2. Ten open vacuum cleaner spaces have been added in the parking area
east of the car wash building (none were shown on the approved
CUP). The acoustical study should be required to address the noise
inpact on the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The parking and circulation has been altered in the southerly
portion of the site. The former Cucamonga County Water District
well site has been converted into additional parking and
landscaping. A continuous row of parking stalls has been added
DESIGN REVIEW COM~4ENTS
CUP 87-04 - GREUBEL
March 2, 1989
Page 2
north of a ten foot landscape strip along the south property line. A
driveway connection was added to the back side of the adjoining retail
Building No. 2.
4. The parking and circulation has been altered in the northerly
portion of the site mainly as a result of shifting the easterly row
of parking up against the adjoining retail Building No. 2.
5. The building setback from Lemon has increased to 40 feet from curb
face (versus 35 feet on approved CUP). However, the building is
now setback 92 feet from the southerly property line (versus 102
feet on approved CUP).
6. The building configuraiton has minor changes in the lube area and
the auto detail area (North and South ends of building).
Architecture:
1. The proposed style and elements are consistent with the shopping
center theme.
2. The roof height should be lowered on the lube service and sales
office portion at the northerly end of the building. This will
provide better proportions for the building, and create more drama
for tower elements. This could be accomplished with a 14-15 foot
high fascia line instead of the 18 feet shown.
3. The roof of the main car wash bay area should step down with the
grade to break up the long, linear roof line. The idea here is to
maintain a fairly consistent 12 foot height for the bays at the
crest of the arch.
4. Lower roof height and detail bay heights on the southerly portion
of building peer comments No. 2 and No. 3 above.
5. Provide a steeper roof pitch on towers to create better balance
between the vertical form of the tower and roof mass.
6. The plans do not indicate how the interior of the open bays will be
constructed or finished~however, the architect has indicated they
will be painted masonary block.
Design Review Comnittee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chi tiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Chris Westman