Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/02/06 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 1986 ACTION AGENDA TO: Conmnercial/Industrial 1977 Design Review Committee Herman Rempel Suzanne Chitlea Dennis Stout (Alternate) Brad Bullet Dan Coleman FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6~ 1986 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 {Dino} DR 85-39 - DAVIES 6:30 - 7:00 (Nancy) DR 85-53 - ANDERSON 7:00 - 7:30 (Nancy) CUP 84-31 - DIVERSIFIED - Discussions on storefronts as requested by applicant, plans will be available at the meeting. NF:cv Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COpI4ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA February 6~ 1986 1. CUR 85-37 - BRUNSWICK Review of rear elevation. {Nancy) Committee Action: The Committee recommended approval of the architectural treatment to the west elevation {rear). The Committee also stated that in lieu of glass block, hollow metal or ceramic tile is acceptable. 2. DR 85-44 - FALK Review of Master Plan and revised (John) site plan. Committee Action: Master Plan: Specific locations of all drive approaches and employee plaza areas be shown on the proposed Master Plan. Site Plan: Exact locations of walkways leading to the building be provided. The proposed employee plaza area be enlarged to a minimum of 400 square feet. 3. PR 85-66 - WOOD ENGINEERING CANCELLED. (Dino) NF:cv DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Dino February 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-39 - DAVIES. The development of three (3) industrial buildings totaling 28,500 square feet on 1.86 acres of land in the General Industrial Area (Subarea 3), located on the north side of 8th Street, south side of Feron Boulevard, at the south end of Helms Avenue - APN 209-03-55. Design Parameters The subject site is a vacant parcel adjacent to the east of a warehouse facility building which houses Chaffey College Skill Center. (Chaffey is phasing out the Skill Center.) The east adjacent property is also a vacant parcel and the south property is the railroad right-of-way. North of the subject site (across Feron Boulevard), is the applicants place of business (A.W. Davies Construction Yard). Development in the general area is typified by undistinguished concrete tilt-up industrial buildings. The applicant is proposing a total of seven (7) warehouse units with the three (3) buildings. Issues The applicant proposed this project as a warehouse use, therefore, has calculated and designed the project at a ratio of one (1) space per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor use. However, it is staff°s interpretation of the ISP that the use is multi-tenant industrial which requires a parking ratio of one (1) space per 400 square feet of gross building area. Staff Cmmaents Site Plan: Redesign project to meet appropriate use to parking ratio. Landscaping: 1. Increase quantity of landscaping in the following areas: a. Accent trees/ground cover to emphasize project entrance identification. b. Parking lot trees at ends of landscape fingers for shading purposes. c. Increase landscape finger width to 6 feet from outside curb to outside curb per City standard. Architecture: The proposed project meets the City's minimum design policies. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Dino Putrino The committee recommended that the project be revised for additional Committee review under the consent calendar item as follows: Site Plan: 1. A parking ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross building area be provided. 2. Pedestrian walkways such as brick pavers be provided to connect from parking area to proposed use and from public sidewalks to interior pedestrian walkways. Landscaping:. 1. A minimum of five {5) feet; but preferably ten {10} feet, of landscaping along the east property line be provided. 2. Landscaping, including shrubs, ground cover and 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building be provided to the east side and north sides of building "C", and to the west side of building "D". 3. A minimum 4 foot landscape planter (inside dimensions) within the parking areas at a rate of one planter per seven {7) parking stalls be provided. 4. The Plaza areas be screened from public views {Feron Boulevard) with two {2} to three (3) feet of berming and shrubs. Architecture: 1. An eight (8) foot high screen wall be provided to the storage area and shall be of appropriate materials and color to be consistent with proposed buildings. 2. Storage area gates be of solid view obstructive materials such as metal. 3. North, East West and South elevations of each building be provided and labele~ccordinglY- 4. Correct materials and color samples be provided. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Nancy February 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-53 - ANDERSON - The development of 3 industrial buildings totaling 61,845 square feet on 4.47 acres of land in the General Industrial rail served district (Subarea 5), located on the north side of 6th Street, 300 feet west of Turner Avenue - APN: 209-211-40. Oesign Parameters The proposed project was previously approved in 1980 for the development of 4 multi-tenant industrial buildings. The developer has completed Building "A" as shown in Exhibit "A", all required off-site improvements and graded the pads for Buildings B, C and D. Unfortunately, the approval for these 3 buildings expired. Therefore, the developer has modified the previous approved site plan to comply with the minimum standards of the City's current Industrial Specific Plan and resubmitted the project for review. (Photographs of existing Building "A" will be available for review at the meeting.) Staff Comments Site Plan: The design of the site plan is essentially the same as before. It meets the minimum standard in areas of building coverage, landscape coverage, and parking requirements. It could be improved by providing a centralized plaza area for outdoor eating area. This could be achieved by eliminating 3 parking spaces as shown in Exhibit "A". Elevation: The proposed elevation is the same as previously approved. It consists of painted tilt-up concrete panels, recessed office windows and texturized band around the top of the building. (Color photos will be available at the meeting for your review). The east elevations of Buildings B, C, and D are exposed to public view and could be improved by providing additional texture treatment to the building plane. Design Review Co~maittee Action: Members present: Suzanne Chitlea, Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Outdoor eating area/plaza area be added to the east and west property boundary as shown in Exhibit "A". 2. A texturized band between two accent strips at the building top be provided to all four sides of the building elevation. 3. Entryway and landscaping as shown in Exhibit "B" be provided in front of office entrances. 4. The Committee recommended full Planning Commission discussion regarding the applicant's disagreement over the required meandering sidewalk and undergrounding of utilities within public right-of-way. --RECEIVED-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ' '~ DIVERSIF]El) AM JAN g 9 1986 SHOi~piNG PM ~ CI{NTERS 718191101111~1Z1~18141516 January 29, 1986 Mr. Brad Bullet Director of Planning 9320 Baseline P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Haven Village Rancho Cuc~monga Storefronts Dear Z~. BuZZer: Per our discussion at our meeting on Monday, January 20, 1986, Diversified has prepared design criterie to be implemented for the reta~ shop storefronts at our ~aven V~llage Shopping Center. · he purpose of the criteria ~s to allow the £1exibility of storefronts design necessary when leasing retai~ space wh~e still maintaining the architectural character and integrity of the center. · be criterle for the design of the storefronts are used ~n conjunction with other important architectuzal elements oE ~he cen~e~, ~ncZud~n~: ~) out o~ concern w~sh~n~ to have one Zon~ plane oE 8~oref~on~s, ~he s~o~e~ronts were of~-set s~&~e~e6 ~n sn&Z~ ~roups 2) co~s ~nd t~ches were used ~o p~ov~de & colonnade ttmosphe~e ~nd 3) Z&~e ~ets ~n ~r~of ~he sho~s ht~e been des~ned · he c~e~a fo~ ~he design of ~he store~on~s sh&~Z ~nco~port~e the use options A/B,C,Or D as shown in Exhibit 1. - 50% the storefronts shall consist of options B,C, or D (extended storefronts) - Option "A" (straight storefront) shall only be used when at least 50% of its elevation is behind a planter that is located outside the colonnade - If option "A" were to occur adjacent to each other - the heights of the bulkhead shall vary - the different materials shall be used for the siding (i.e. wood, river rock, tile or glass) 2910 Red Hill Avenue, '~uite 200, Costa Mesa, California 9262¢5 (714) 957-2651 Mr. Brad Buller -' Page Two If you find this criteria acceptable, then I would like to present it before the design review committee at the meeting on February 6, 1986. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (714) 957-2651. Sincerely, DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTERS Terry A. Klein Project Manager cc: Nancy Fong Janet Petersen DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Nancy February 6, 1986 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-31 DIVERSIFIED - Review of the criteria for the distribution of the storefront designs. I)esign Review Committee Action Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended approval of the following criteria: 1. 50% of the storefronts shall consist of options C or D (extended storefronts). 2. Option "A" (straight storefront) shall only be used when it is behind a planter that is located outside the colonnade. 3. If option "A" were to occur adjacent to each other a. the heights of the bulkhead shall vary. b.the different materials shall be used for the siding (i.e. wood, river rock, tile or glass).