Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/12/04 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 1986 ACTION AGENDA TO: Cmercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea Dan Coleman 1977 FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CObiblII'FEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 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 (Chris) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-07 - ARICAL ~ The request to review changes to the architecture for an approved project consisting of two (2) office buildings totaling 80,058 square feet on 4.24 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (subarea 6) located at the northeast corner of Haven and 6th Street - APN: 209-41- 15. 6:30 - 7:00 (Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-37 - KEXTH CO. - The development of a master plan for a 79.17 acre industrial park consisting of 33 lots in the Industrial Park District (subarea 16), located at the northwest quadrant of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-62-02,11,13,26,32 and 33. 7:00 - 7:30 (Debra) DR 86-31 - HAVENGATE - DISCUSSION ITEM. (Cancelled) NF:te Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA DECEMBER 4, 1986 1. CUP 84-37 - Kel bert (Debra) Review of revised colors for ceramic tile and window mullions. Committee Action: The Committee prefers the traditional "ivory" and "forest green" carriage house color combination rather than the white and turquiose version presented. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Chris December 4, 1986 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-07 - ARICAL - The request to review changes to the architecture for an approved project consisting of two (2) office buildings totaling 80,058 square feet on 4.24 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (subarea 6) located at the northeast corner of Haven and 6th Street - APN: 209-41-15. Staff Comments Background The project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 1986. The applicant is proposing changes to Phase I which consists of one two- story office building at the corner of Haven Avenue and 6th Street. Phase II consists of one three-story office building and would require a separate Design Review process. Architecture The Committee will be reviewing a change in the color of material s as well as minor changes to the facades of the building. The applicant is requesting the use of a lighter sand colored brick and a light green glass. The approved material s are a red brick and dark grey glass. The design changes also include a more extensive use of glass on the building. Staff determines that the change of colors enhances the character of the buildings. Colored elevations and material samples will be available at the meeting for your review. Design Review Co~meittee Action Members Present: Suzanne Chitea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee determined that the proposed el evation changes and material changes were appropriate for the Haven Avenue Overlay District and approved the plans as submitted with the addition of an opaque color band over the office entrance on the east elevation. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Nancy December 4, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-37 - KEITH CO. - The development of a master plan for a 79.17 acre industrial park consisting of 33 lots in the Industrial Park District (subarea 16), located at the northwest quadrant of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-62- 02,11,13,26,32 and 33. Design Parameters: The site is vacant and vegetation consists of decaying vineyards. Located at the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue are approximately two mature pal m trees and three other unidentified mature trees. This corner is al so designated as the Gateway to the city. Three existing single family residences on Archibald Avenue, and two existing single family residences on 4th Street abutt this project. The project site is also surrounded by residential development towards the north side and the south side. According to the Subarea 16 of the Industrial Specific Plan, special considerations are required for any future development within this area. Attached for your review, is a copy of the special considerations of Subarea 16 (attachment A), and a copy of the Master Plan with design guidelines in areas of site planning, architecture, landscaping and grading. Staff Comments Master Plan: The proposed master plan is designed for an industrial lot sales program. Individual or combinations of lots will be sold, designed and ul timate construction will be the responsibility of the buyer. This master plan serves as the design guidelines for future development through establishing driveway access, circulation system, drainage and architecture design concept. The developer is proposing to install all necessary infrastructure as well as perimeter landscaping along 4th Street and Archibald as a marketing tool for this master plan of lot sales program. Site Planning: (1) The overall street circulation complies with the Industrial Specific Plan in that the alignment of the streets with provisions for future street connections meets the master planning for this subarea. DESIGN REVIEW COI~4ENTS DR 86-37 December 4, 1986 Page 2 (2) The site planning guidelines should be expanded to include provisions for shared access between parcels, limited access on 4th Street according to the City policies and no access on Archibald Avenue. Further, the illustrative site plan on Page 6 of the Master Plan text did not address the shared access between parcels, limited access allowed along 4th Street and no access allowed along Archibald Avenue. (3) The master plan boundaries should be expanded to include the triangle piece to the west abutting the Cucamonga Creek. The reason for requiring the master planning of this piece is to assure that the tip of the triangle will not become a "no man's land". (4) Criteria should be added to encourage building placement that create opportunities for plazas or other landscape open spaces and encourage defining spaciously enclosed open space on the same site or adjoining sites. Building orientation should include consideration of wind protection for site activities. Architecture: (1) Graphic examples should be provided for those proposed design features as listed in Page 21 of the Master Plan text. (2) Other staff comments as annotated in the attached Master Plan text. Landscape Concept Plan: (1) Graphic examples of landscaping parking lot tree should be provided with the Master Plan text, as shown in attachment B. (2) Other staff comments as annotated in the attached Master Plan text. Design ReviewCom~itteeAction Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Conmnittee recommended that the project be revised for additional Committee review as follows: DESIGN REVIEW COM~IENTS DR 86-37 December 4, 1986 Page 3 (1) The site planning guidelines should be expanded to include provisions for shared access between parcels, limited access on 4th Street according to the City policies and no access on Archibald Avenue. Further, the illustrative site plan on Page 6 of the Master Plan text should be revised to show shared access between parcels and limited access allowed along 4th Street. However, the developer disagreed with the policy of encouraging shared access between parcels and requested for full Planning Commission on this item. The developer has agreed to revise the illustrative site plan to reflect the limited access along 4th Street and submitted for further review. (2) The master plan boundaries should be expanded to include the triangle piece to the west abutting the Cucamonga Creek. The reason for requiring the master planning of this piece is to assure that the tip of the triangle will not become a "no man's land". However, the developer stated that Lusk Co. has no interest in acquiring this triangle piece of land nor wish to master plan it. The developer requested that this item be forwarded to full Planning Commission discussion. (3) Written criteria should be added to encourage building placement that create opportunities for plazas or other landscape open spaces and encourage defining spaciously enclosed open space on the same site or adjoining sites. Building orientation should include consideration of wind protection for site activities. Graphic examples should also be provided supplementing the written criteria. (4) Written and graphic criteria should be added to the Master Plan for the uniform design of perimeter fencing or wall, should the users require such security fencing. {5) Special design considerations in areas of building massing and landscape treatment should be provided to the corner of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue as it is the "gateway" to the City. (6) Detailed preliminary grading plan should be provided that show concepts of on-site grading for each parcel development, and to be submitted for Grading Committee review. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ITTEE DR 86-37 December 4, 1986 Page 4 (7) Written and graphic criteria should be added for providing design consideration to the location loading areas. (8) Graphic examples should be provided for those proposed design architecture element features as listed in Page 21 of the Master Plan text. (9) Graphic examples of landscaping parking lot should be provided in the Master Plan text.