Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/06/22 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 26, 1989 ACTION CO~I~EI(TS TO: Coammercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman David Blakesley (Alternate) FROM: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 22, 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 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 (Dan) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-26- OAS INVESTORS ~ The requested modifications pertain to color of light fixtures; and concrete surface and color of sidewalk and fountain plaza near the Foothill/Vineyard intersection. 6:30 - 7:00 (Bruce) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-49 - AJA/BENNETT - The development of 40 acres of Industrial Master Plan consisting of 18 lots in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the west side of Hermosa Avenue south of 22nd Street - APN: 209-211- 30, 31, 17 & 13. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA JUNE 22, 1989 Page 2 7:00 - 7:30 (Bev) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-09 - BARTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of 12 industrial buildings totaling 140,260 square feet on 6.95 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan) located on the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-142-15. 7:30 (Cindy) REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - A full Planning Commission workshop to introduce Llle City's proposed Hillside Development Ordinance. A cover memo and draft copy of the Ordinance will be provided for review. BA:mlg Attachments cc: P1 anning Commission/Ci ty Council COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA June 22, 1989 1. CUP 83-07 TOWER pARTNERS Review of tower sign for Virginia Dare Winery. Committee Action: The Committee (Chitlea, Tolstoy and Coleman) did not recommend approval. The sign should be designed so the letters closely resemble the original signage. 2. CUP 86-20 WESTERN PROPERTIES (Brett) Review of revised building colors for Terra Vista Business Park. Committee Action: The Committee requested that an alternative building color scheme be presented for review. The Committee was concerned about the extensive use of the tan/brown colors proposed, stating that they were too similar to the professional Center and Town Center building colors. The Committee suggested a lighter hue, and that a sample of the roof material be reviewed in conjunction with the new color scheme. The Committee also expressed its displeasure with the change in uses proposed from the original uses envisioned for the business park. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Dan June 22, 1989 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-26- OAS INVESTORS The requested modifications pertain to color of light fixtures; and concrete surface and color of sidewalk and fountain plaza near the Foothill/Vineyard intersection. Background: The applicant is requesting two design modifications to the Thomas Winery Plaza. Each item is outlined individually. 1. Light Fixtures: You may recall our previous discussions regarding the light fixtures earlier this year, prior to the opening of Souplanation. In summary, the light fixtures were white when installed on Souplanation. The renderings approved by the Planning Commission all depict green lights, matching the window mullions, mounted on Souplanation and the tower portions of other buildings. At the request of the applicant, the Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy) looked at on-site samples of three light fixture colors - white, green and grey. As a result the green was chosen and all fixtures on Souplanation have now been painted green. At this point, the applicant is within a few weeks of occupancy of the remainder of the first phase buildings and is again hesitating in the choice of color for the light fixtures. Their preference is white, while the original renderings did show green. The applicant would like the Committee to reconsider this decision. 2. Concrete/Surface Color: This issue is in regard to the street adjacent sidewalk around the winery, as well as the fountain plaza at the intersection. The approved concept around the winery building included a brown acid wash or sandblast finish of all concrete around the winery. This includes the sidewalk within the public right-of-way. Due to complications with Caltrans and City Public Work inspectors, the sidewalk along Foothill, toward Vineyard, was poured as standard grey concrete. We have suggested that this sidewalk be removed and replaced with the brown colored concrete, without the washed finish, that would be acceptable to the Engineering Division. If the standard grey concrete remains, the design and color of the concrete surface around the fountain is affected. As the approved surface was brown acid wash concrete, it would contrast to the standard grey sidewalk. The applicant is now requesting modifications from the original approval in regard to this issue: 1. That the standard grey concrete sidewalk that is already in place on Foothill Boulevard remain as constructed. In addition, allow the same standard sidewalk to be used along Vineyard (not yet in place). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 87-26 - OAS INVESTORS Page 2 2. That the concrete surface around the fountain be a grey acid wash finish rather than the brown acid wash. (The grey concrete with textured finish has been poured, at the developer's risk that it may not be the approved alternative). Staff Conmments: We have indicated to the applicant that our preference would be to replace the sidewalk on Foothill with the broom finish brown concrete, and continue this material on Vineyard along side the winery (as shown on the landscape plans). This would be per the approved design, except for the aggregate washed finish that will not be allowed in the right- of-way. Within the fountain plaza, we would prefer the brown aggregate finish (acid wash) per the approved plans. Design Review Comittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Dan Coleman 1. Light Fixtures: 8oth wall and parking lot lights should be a consistent green color to match the window mullions. 2. Concrete/Surface Color: The Committee expressed strongly the need to emphasize this important intersection because it is designated as an "Activity Center" by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Committee recommended using color enriched, acid wash finish concrete in the corner plaza outside the public right-of-way, and using color enriched, broom finish concrete for the sidewalks along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Committee suggested that a possible compromise may be to allow the grey broom finish concrete sidewalk to remain on Foothill Boulevard up to the designated curb radius at the corner where a transition would occur into the color enriched concrete. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Bruce June 22, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-49 AJA/BENNETT - The development of 40 acres of Industrial Master Plan consisting of 18 lots in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the west side of Hermosa Avenue south of 22rid Street - APN: 209-211-30, 31, 17 & 13. Background: The proposal for a 40 acre industrial development master plan was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy and Dan Coleman) on April 20, 1989. During that meeting the Committee recommended that development guidelines for the future construction on the lots be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. Staff Co~ents: The applicant has submitted the Design Guidelines as requested. The Design Review Committee should examine the document for completion of elements addressing the major design components that are necessary for the guidelines such as site plan development, architecture and landscaping. Staff feels that there are many areas of the guidelines which need clarification through revised text or additional graphics. Staff will cover these areas of concern in a systematic approach from generalized design concepts to specific details during the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Bruce Abbott The Design Review Committee reviewed the Design Guidelines for completeness and clarity of information. The Committee recommended that: 1. The Design Guidelines for Bixby Business Park be utilized as an example for the Bennett Consolidated Master Plan Design Guidelines. 2. Additional text and revisions to existing text be provided according to Planning Division requirements. 3. Additional graphics and revised page layout be provided according to Planning Division direction. After the additional information, graphics and revisions are complete, the Guidelines should be resubmitted to staff for review prior to scheduling for Design Review Committee resubmittal. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Bev June 22, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-09 BARTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of 12 industrial building~ totaling 140,260 square feet on 6.95 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan) located on the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Jersey Boulevard APN: 209-142-15. Staff Comments: The proposed project is Phase VI of the seven phased Rancho Cucamonga Business Park II. This proposal is consistent with the architecture recently approved for Phase V of the overall Master Plan. Design Review Conmaittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen The Committee approved the project with the following conditions: 1. On Building 4, the small window on the north elevation should be eliminated and the small window on the west elevation should be enlarged {double in size}. 2. The small window on the north elevation of Buildings 5 and 6 should be enlarged {double in size). 3. A window should be added on the west elevation of Building 6. 4. The west side of Building 5 should be upgraded to include pin striping and additional windows. This side of the building should logically tie in to Building 4. 5. Additional windows should be added on the west and north side of Building 12. 6. The small window on the north elevation of Building 8 should be eliminated. 9. The small window on the south side of Building 9 should be enlarged. The window on the west side of Building 9 should either be eliminated or enlarged {double in size). 10. The small window on the south side of Building 11 should be expanded. The small window on the west side should be eliminated. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-09 - BARTON DEVELOPMENT Page 2 11. On Building 12, triple windows and pin striping should be added on the west elevation. The stepped pin striping should be added on the north end of the west side of Building 12 and should continue along the north side of Building 12. 12. Pin striping should be removed on Building 5 where it abuts Building 4. 13. The yellow pin stripe color should be eliminated and the green color should be changed to Sinclair CM 8267.