HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/07/03 - Agenda PacketDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~NGA
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 1985
Design Review Committee
ACTION AGENDA
Rick Gomez
Herman Rempel
Dennis Stout
_
>
1977
Suzanne Chitiea (Alternate)
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 3, 1985
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), 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 - 7:00 (Nancy)
TT 12952 - GLENFED
7:00 - 7:30 (Howard)
CUP 85-19 - LEDERMEN
7:30 - 8:00 (John)
DR 85-20 - FORECAST
8:00 - 8:30 (Nancy)
CUP 85-14 - MULLER
8:30 - 9:00 (Nancy)
DR 85-17 - MARCH/BROOKSIDE
NF/ns
Attachments
CC:
Planning Commission/City Council
Dan Coleman/Planning Division
Joe Stofa, Paul Rougeau, Barrye Hanson
Bob Akridge
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA
JULY 3, 1985
1. TT 12525 - TRUAX
(Curt)
Committee Action:
Review of block wall design.
The Committee approved the block wall and
entrance design with conditions that the
block wall shall be furred out and the
materials shall be consistent with the
wall. Detailed plans with material samples
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of building
permits.
2. TT 12532 - ARCHIBALD ASSOC.
(Nancy)
Review of new elevation for 9 single family
homes.
Conm~ittee Action:
The Committee recommended approval.
3. DR 84-32 - BARMAKIAN
(Dan)
5
Conmnittee Action:
DR 85-15 - ASSURED
MINI-STORAGE
(Howard)
Co~eittee Action:
Review of new color schemes.
The Committee recommended tht the colors
should be of grey, blue, rustic shades.
Revised color schemes should be submitted
for Committee review.
The Committee recommended that the buildings
be separated into 3 buildings and repeat the
same architectural treatment to the east
elevation.
5. HERITAGE PARK
(Dick)
Conm~ittee Action:
Review of Heritage Park building.
The Committee recommended that Community
Services staff work with the City Plan in
revising the elevations to a rustic style.
IESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE COliIENI
6:00 - 7:00 Nancy July 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED - A total
residential development of 257 patio homes on 34 acres of land in the
Low Medium Residential District (4-8 du/ac) located at the end of 19th
Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 202-211-36.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES
NO YES NO
. SITE PLAN: i ; ..........L. CIRCULATION:
/ Building Orientation J Access Location
Open Space / Street Pattern Variation
Parking Location J Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian Amenities x/ Emergency Access
Site Coverage y Vehicle Stacking
Storage/Loading Areas ............. .../__ ........~_ack-u.R...~..Z~S~_.A_ro__u_n~_ ................
i NE I G|iBDRI IDDD
ARCIIITECTUI(E: ............. ~ ..............................COMPATIBILITY
Recognizable Theme y
Scale, MaSs, Height j
Harmonious Style/Form J
Materials/Color ~
Variation/Interest j
Roof Screens /
Corner Side/Rear Upgr__ad~ ............~ ..... Tr.a~fic .........................
LANDSCAPING: .................... i.. GRipING: ..........
Streetscape Natural Topography Maintained
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS FOR TT 12952
Design Parameters
The proposed development consists of 257 patio homes with a net density
of 7 du/ac and is developed under the Optional Standards. The lot sizes
range from 3,000 sq. ft. to over 7,000 sq. ft. The following is the
breakdown of number of lots in each lot size category:
# of Lots
Lot Size (sq. ft.)
82 3,000 - 4,000
100 4,000 - 5,000
64 5,000 - 6,000
11 6,000 - 7,000 +
The developer has used the concept of clustering in arranging the design
of the subdivision. A typical cluster consists of 10 lots designed
around a cul-de-sac. The buildings are oriented at an angle to maximize
privacy and private open space (rear yard) as well as breaking up the
monotony of garagescape. The private open space averages out to 2,660
sq. ft. per unit while the common open space averages out to 864 sq. ft.
per unit.
Staff Comments
Off-Site
The ultimate alignment of 19th Street as determined by Caltrans
may affect the design of those clustered lots along 19th
Street.
Site Plan
The site plan could be improved through the following:
Provide more pedestrian amenities within the linear common open
space such as fountain, benches, bicycle and pedestrian path,
gazebo and obstacle relay course.
Provide decorative block wall along 19th Street, at site
boundaries and property boundaries adjacent to common open
space.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION FOR TT 12952 - GLENFED
Date: July 3, 1985
Members Present: Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following conditions
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
Provide two points of access and improve circulation by connecting
Avenue "A" and Avenue "H".
Provide more con~non open space. Adjustment to the slopes (not to
exceed 3%) within the proposed common 'open space to expand this
area is acceptable. A bigger scale plan for the common open space
should be provided for review.
Provide more distinctive variations to the elevations of Plan 2, 3,
and 4.
All roof material should be of concrete tile.
Provide conceptual design of all decorative block wall/fence along
igth Street, at site boundaries, property boundaries abutting con~non
open space and along interior streets.
7:00 - 7:30
SN REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMEJ
Howard Fields July 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-19 - LEDERMAN -
To allow the construction of a 35,557 sq. ft. general retail center on
3.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District located at the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Aenue ~ APN 208-301-15
through 17.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
!
/
/
/
SITE PLAN:
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
YES NO
ARCI!ITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NETGIIBORHOOD
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Variation/Interest
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
v/
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-19 - LEDERMAN
July 3, 1985
Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout
Howard Fields
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following conditions
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
Architect should explore ways to take the roof plane all the way
through and bring the roof overhang out in order to provide shade
to the walkways.
Provide an increase in pedestrian orientation from public sidewalk
along Foothill and Ramona.
Provide special landscape treatment to the easterly corner next to
the major anchor, i.e., fountain, raised planter/seating, trellis
work, etc.
4. Provide a band along the rear elevation.
7:30 - 8:00
GN REVIEW COMMITFEE COMMEN~
John July 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 85-20 - FORECAST - A proposal
to build a two-story 8,706 sq. ft. office building on .644 acres located
at the east side of Utica, north of Civic Center Drive in Subarea 7
(Industrial Park) - APN 208-062-11.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO YES NO
L_,__~_ ........!,,,.,,.SITE PLAN: _,, I ........i .........L
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
~ .......~torage/Loading Areas
ARCIIITEC FURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
/-- //
CIRCULATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
............................
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
DenSity Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade .........
LANDSCAP I NG:
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Traffic
GRADING: '
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE ACTION FOR DR 85-20 - FORECAST
July 3, 1985
Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout
John Meyer
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject
of approval:
Recommended that the project
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
to the following conditions
be revised for additional
1. Provide meandering sidewalk between Lots 11 and 9.
2. Provide alternative color scheme prior to issuance of building permits.
8:00 - 8:30
REVIEW COMMITFEE COM24E~
Nancy July 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-14 - MULLER - The
development of 3 office buildings totaling 53,226 sq. ft. and 4
industrial buildings totaling 159,704 sq. ft. within an existing
industrial site that has an existing 148,000 sq. ft. manufacturing
industrial building on 18.42 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3), located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and
Archibald Avenue - APN 209-021-5, 16, 17.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
................ i.... SITE PLAN:
YES
Building Orientation
Open Space
Parking Location
Pedestrian Amenities
Site Coverage
Storage/Loading Areas
ARCHITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Variation/Interest
Roof Screens
NO
ClRCIILATION:
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
NEIGHBONHODD
COMPATIBILITY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Noise
LAN[)SCAPING:
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screening/Buffering
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade ~ Traffic
~ GRADING:
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION FOR CUP 85-14 - MULLER
July 3, 1985
Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout
Nancy Fong
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following conditions
of approval:
/ Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
The developer should explore alternatives in designing the plaza
areas to create an attractive, functional setting with "sense of
place".
Provide cosmetic upgrade for the existing building such as repainting
the building to the same color scheme as proposed for the new develop-
ment and as providing screening for roof mounted equipment.
Provide special landscape entrance statement to the corner of 9th Street
and Archibald, and the two driveways On 9th Street.
8:30 - 9:00
REVIEW CO~4II'FEE COMMENt
Nancy July 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-17 - MARCH/BROOKSIDE
- A total residential development of 164 apartment units on 11.71 acres
of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located at the
northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208-251-11,
23.
PLEASE CHECK "YES" IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN
YES NO
.
/,-,/
/
/
/
YES NO
SITE PLAN: ) = )
Building Orientation /
Open Space /
Parking Location /
Pedestrian Amenities /
Site Coverage ~
Storage/Loading Areas /
ARCIIITECTURE:
Recognizable Theme
Scale, Mass, Height
Harmonious Style/Form
Materials/Color
Var i at i on/I nterest
Roof Screens
Corner Side/Rear Upgrade
LANDSCAP I NG:
Streetscape
Enhance Architecture
Tree Preservation
Screen i ng/Buffer i ng
Shade Parking Lot
Slope Planting
CIRCULATION:
Noise
Traffic
GRADING:
Natural Topography Maintained
Grading Minimized
Contoured Slopes
Slope Heights/Gradient
Vistas Preserved
Views Into Site
.~.).~HBQ~g~
CO~PATIBILZTY
Neighborhood Character
Density Transition
Buffering/Screening
Grading
Land Use Conflict
Access Location
Street Pattern Variation
Pedestrian Access
Emergency Access
Vehicle Stacking
Back-up & Turn Around
Date:
Members Present:
Staff Planner:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE ACTION FOR DR 85-17 - MARCH-BROOKSIDE
July 3, 1985
Herman Rempel, Dan Coleman, Dennis Stout
Nancy Fong
Recommended approval.
Recommended approval subject to the following conditions
of approval:
Recommended that the project be revised for additional
Committee Review as follows:
Did not recommend approval as follows:
The new developer should maintain the design of this site plan.
Any proposed changes to the site plan'and elevation shall be reviewed
by the Committee prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
The developer should work with the out-parcels property owners in
including these parcels as part of this development. The City may
explore the possibility of providing assistance to the developer/
property owner negotiation.