Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/04/06 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 1989 ACTION C~I~4ENTS TO: Cemaercial/Industrtal 1977 Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman David Blakesley (Alternate) FROM: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner SUBjECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 6, 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 Comittee'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. 5:00- 5:30 DINNER 5:30 - 6:00 CONSENT CALENDAR 6:00- 6:30 (Cindy) ENVIRO~4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR 88-43 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS - The development of one industrial building totaling 3U,300 square feet on 1.78 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the northeast corner of Sharon Circle APN: 209- 26 1-24. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA APRIL 6, 1989 Page 2 6:30 - 7:00 (Cynthia) ENVIRO~ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-44 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS - The development of 3 industrial buildings totaling 70,454 square feet on 4.19 acres of land located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Hellman, south of 9th Street - APN: 209-013-24. 7:00 - 7:30 (Cynthia) ENVIRO~ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-09 - SHARFI - The development of an office and warehouse ~ng totaling 14,360 square feet on 0.53 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 1 ocated on the west side of Maple Place between Elm Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 208-351-64. 7:30 - 8:00 (Debra) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A modification to Buildings A, B and T within Phase 1 of Tetra Vista Town Center. 8:00 (Debra) PLANNING CONMISSION WORKSHOP - TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - The purpose of t~e workshop is to preview site plan and elevations of ~ntgomery Ward (Major 3). BA:mlg Attachments CC: Planning Conmission/City Council Con~nercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA April 6, 1989 1. CUP 87-16 NINEST (Brett) Revtew sign program revisions Committee Action: Cancelled 2. MDR 89-13 REEL/GROBMAN (Steve) Review of proposed silos and water coolers Committee Action: The Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee felt that lowering the silo height to the height of the proposed building addition (42') may be appropriate if the silos could be located within the building. Overall, the Committoe felt that this particular site may not be suitable for this type of request. 3. CUP 85-19 KEN RUBY CONST. (Bev) Review of accent color and stucco textum Committee Action: The Committee approved the smother stucco texture, however, they requested that a test panel be reviewed by them prior to actual construction. The Committee did not approve the elimination of the two accent co]ors, but requested that the accent colors be more subtle. The color changes should return to the Committee for their review and approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Cindy April 6, 1989 ENVIRO~4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR 88-43 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS - The development of one industrial building totaling 30,300 square feet on 1.78 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the northeast corner of Sharon Circle - APN: 209-261-24. Staff has provided direction to the applicant regarding design issues. However, the applicant has requested to proceed to Resign Review with the view that they would like to compile all possible conments and address them at one time. Staff Coments: Site Plan/Landscape 1. There is a potential circulation conflict at northwest corner of the building with the service area, trash enclosure and parking. 2. Landscaping should be provided adjacent to west side of the trash enclosure. Architecture: 1. Provide a decorative screen wall on the east side of the truck loading stall to screen views from the future regional trail. 2. Enhance the building entry at the southwest corner through the use of additional glass treatment. Other features which may be added include decorative columns, "pop-outs", recesses, etc. 3. The east elevation should receive an enhanced architectural treatment as it is visible from the proposed regional trail. 4. Additional variation in materials or texture should be provided to the building plane in addition to, or in place of, painted accent bands. Design Review Comnittee Action: Members Present: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Cindy Norris The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Relocate the employee lunch plaza to the northwest corner of the site and locate the trash enclosure and transformer adjacent to the loading area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-43 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS Page 2 2. Recess the rectangular accent details on the west, south and east elevations. The blue accent color is to be added to these recesses on all but the north end of the east elevation. 3. Raise and recess the reflective glass treatment at the entry. 4. Provide a painted, recessed, rectangular detail above the enhanced glass entry area. 5. Provide a decorative screen wall adjacent to the dock area along the east elevation. 6. Continue the sandblasted band on all elevations and the screen wal 1. 7. Provide a 5 foot landscape strip at the southeast corner of the site. 8. The Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff in revising the plans prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Cynthia April 6, 1989 ENVIROM~ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-44 BARASCH ARCHITECTS - The development of 3 industrial buildings totaling 70,454 square feet on 4.19 acres of land located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) located on the west side of Hellman, south of 9th Street - APN: 209-013-24. Background: This project has a number of technical issues which have not been addressed. These technical issues will effect the design of the project. However, it is the applicant's request that this project be brought before the Design Review Committee even though the technical issues have not all been resolved. Site Plan: 1. The applicant is putposing, through the Design Review process, to eliminate the rail service requirement. 2. An enhanced paving treatment should occur at the driveway entry. 3. The site appears overdeveloped and some of the parking may be inappropriately located. Architecture: 1. Office entrances should be upgraded on each building. 2. Articulation/relief should be provided on all building elevations primarily those with street exposure. Landscape: 1. Landscape planters should be incorporated on the west side of Building D and the east side of Buildings B and C. 2. Trees and groundcover should be added to the north sides of Buildings A and C. 3. Accent trees should be provided at the project entry. Design Review Conmittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, David Blakesley, Dan Colemen Staff Planner: Cynthia Kinset The Committee reviewed the proposed and recommended that revised plans be resubmitted for review prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The revised plans should include the following: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-44 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS APRIL 6, 1989 Page 2 1. Trash enclosures should be relocated away from employee plaza areas. Preferably behind the truck parking stalls. 2. Employee plaza areas should be enlarged. 3. Enhanced pavement should be incorporated at project entry at Lion and Hellman and from the entry of Building B to south landscape planter. 4. Trees should be incorporated along north elevation of Building A and C. 5. Architecture: a. Building colors should be modified to include green glass with white mullions, green spandel, and green painted bands. b. Reveal pattern should be revised, as discussed, further, reveal pattern should be carried throughout all building elevations. c. Spandel glass should be incorporated above each building entry. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Cynthia April 6, 1989 ENVIROti4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-09 SHARFI - The development of an office and warehouse building totaling 14,360 square feet on 0.53 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the west side of Maple Place between Elm Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 208-351-64. Staff Comments: The following is a list of concerns and/or conments that should be addressed by the Design Review Committee: Site Plan: 1. A planter area should be incorporated on west side of the trash enclosure. Architecture: 1. Articulation/relief on southwest elevation. 2. Review "stucco/textured stucco" treatment. Design Review Comittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Cynthia Kinser The applicant was not present, however, the Conmittee reviewed the proposal and recommended that revised plans be resubmitted for review prior to consideration by the Planning Conmission. The revised plans should include the following: 1. A planter area should be incorporated on the west side of trash enclosure. 2. Master plan for the purpose of eliminating the 5 foot side setback was not considered acceptable. 3. Architecture: a. Float stucco texture should be eliminated. The lace stucco texture is preferred. b. Glass or spandel should be wrapped around to southwest elevation from southeast elevation. 4. Balcony should "pop out" from the building face, to become a mere significant element. .. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30- 8:00 Debra April 6, 1989 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A modification to Buildings A, B and T within Phase I of Tetra Vista Town Center. Abstract: The architect will be presenting his design solutions to the comnents received on March 16, 1989. At that meeting the Committee made the following recomnendations with respect to each building: Building A: 1. The entrance relocation of unit A-1 is acceptable. However, similar detail should be added to the west elevation to upgrade that appearance. 2. The roof line of the shops within the courtyard should be modified to allow a shed-roof to wrap-around the wall in front. 3. The Comnittee was very concerned about the revised appearance of the north end of Building A. They recommended a redesign of the upper level window layout and column spacing as well as a redesign of the stairwell to provide a roof overhang to simulate a walkway along the building edge. Building B: 1. The redesign at the east end of the elevation, giving the flexibility to tie into the future design of Major 2, was acceptable. 2. The Comnittee reconmended that all towers maintain the wood cornice details as approved previously. 3. The Comnittee noted that as the design of the courtyard begins, they would encourage an outdoor seating area in association with a food service tenant if possible. Building T: Building T will be deleted within the modification associated with Mervyn's occupying the Major 2 spot. The Committee has agreed to the deletion in concept, as the formal modification has not yet begun. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, David Blakesley, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES APRIL 6, 1989 Page 2 The Conmittee approved the modifications to Buildings A and B. The architect responded to all concerns previously expressed by the Conmittee. The Conmittee did make the following conments: Building A The north elevation of Building A was improved by the redesign of the exterior stairway. The Committee suggested that the recesses under stairwell include the tile wainscot and espaliered plant materials. Building B The architect showed the conmittee the stemfront designs, cFeating subtle differences from shop to shop by varying window designs. The Conmittee suggested that wherever double doors are used that could be an opportunity to use decorative door hardware such as hand pulls, etc. The architect suggested he could also vary the color of the accent tiles from shop to shop creating additional interest in the storefront areas. In addition to Building A and B, the architect reviewed the latest conceptual designs of the theater/food court plaza. The design presented was approved by the Conmittee. Discussion regarding landscape design in the traffic circle resulted in the following Committee suggestion: The Committee would like to see somathing like a Jacaranda tree used. Informal groupings of approximately 5 trees would be preferred. The Committee felt that the Jacaranda provided a colorful focal point, yet allowed views beyond the traffic circle to theater plaza area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 Debra April 6, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - The purpose of the workshop is to preview site plan and elevations of Montgomery Ward (Major 3). Design Review Conmittae Action: Me/ers Present: Staff Planner: Debra Meier Conmercial/Industrial CON~NT CALENDAR Ill)IS AGENDA April 20, 1989 1. DR 87-14 MANCHING LAN (Cynthia) Review modified building elevations. Committee Action: 2. DR 87-16 BAR,q. SCH (Cynthia) Review modified site plans and elevations. Committee Action: 3. DR 87-16 NIJWEST (Brett) Review Sign Program. Committee Action: 4. DR 87-19 LIEN!ION ARCHITECTS (Tom) Review ~visions to building elevations. Committee Action: 5. DR88-25 LIENNON (Cindy) Review revised building elevations. Committee Action: