Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/03/07 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 1991 ACTION COl~g~r~S 1977 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea Wendy Vallette Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1991 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 - 6:00 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:30 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. 6:30 - 7:00 (Jerry) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED The development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71- 7:00 - 7:30 (Steve R.) ~qVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-19 - FORIA INTERNATIONAL - The development of a 72,000 square foot building consisting of 58,000 square feet of warehouse area and 14,000 square feet of office space on 4.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 11, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, DRC AGENDA MARCH 7, 1991 Page 2 located on the north side of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place - APN: 229-263-54 and 55- SM:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONS~ITCALEIfl)ARi'EM~S AG~DA March 7, 1991 ~uF 89-08 - ~KS INVESTMENTS (Steve H.) Building pad 11. switch for Pads 10 and Connnittee Action: The Committee (Chitiea, Vallette, Kroutil) recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the full Planning Connnission with the following design concerns: The proposed Wells Fargo Bank Building (Pad 10), which is in the preliminary design state, will require some type of orientation to the pedestrian plaza immediately west of the building to enhance its potential visibility. (This issue will be addressed as the development review for the bank progresses through the development review process.) Retaining walls of similar materials and form should be provided along the east side of the Kenyon Way drive aisle. The plaza connections to the public sidewalk connections should be expanded. An additional bicycle security rack should be provided along the storefronts of Building 11. cup 90-27 - FAMILY FITNESS (Steve R.) Committee Action: Review of proposed ill,~-Inated sign (amendment to Sign Program). The Conmlittee (Chitlea, Vallette, Kroutil) recommended approval of the sign subject to the following conditions: The letter height shall not exceed 18 inches. CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA March 7, 1991 Page 2 An illuminated sign will be permitted only if it is "back-lit." The sign program shall be amended to allow "back-lit" signs for major tenants only. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Jerry March 7, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED The development of Phase III of a neighborhood co~m~ercial shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71. The site is within the Haven Village Shopping Center. Attachment "A" shows the approved Master Site Plan for this shopping center. The developer is requesting design review of the plans for the last two buildings as shown on attachment "B." The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Tolstoy and Cole~k~n) last reviewed this project as Development Review 88-10 On April 21, 1988. Subsequent to that review, the applicant withdrew the project and resubmitted under a new application. At the April 21, 1988 meeting, the Co~nittee recommended approval subject to the following: Continuous pedestrian connections should be provided from the west elevation around to the east elevation for the proposed retail no. 3. The same consistent textured material for the pedestrian walkway should be provided. Pedestrian amenities such as benches and free standing trellis work should be provided. The storefront design for retail no. 3 should be consistent with the theme established in the center, i.e., "pop-outs" and "recesses ·" Additional architectural details such as river rock treatment should be provided to the south and west elevations of the commercial pad. Vine pockets should be provided along the east and north elevations of the commercial pad. River rock treatment should be provided to the south elevation of retail no. 3. Per conditions of approval for the master plan, the landscaping work for the Caltrans right-of-way shall be completed prior to issuance of any permits. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED MARCH 7, 1991 Page 2 The current proposed plans for the last phase of Haven Village are essentially the same as were submitted previously under DR 88-10. All of the foregoing comments have been addressed on the new plans with the exception of items 3, 5, and 6- Additionally, pedestrian amenities such as benches and trellis work should be provided at the pedestrian connection around the south elevation of retail no. 3. The trash enclosure for retail no. 3 should be upgraded to be consistent with the current City policy for shopping center trash enclosures i.e. Provide separate pedestrian entrance, roll-up loading door, and trellis cover. Additional landscaping in the form of vine pockets on the west side of retail no. 3 and added trees on the south side of retail no. 3 should be provided. Design Review Committee Action: Members present: Suzanne Chitiea, Wendy Vallette, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Jerry Guarracino The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Regarding the repainting of the existing center, the Conunittee recommended using Amertone 1449F Taupe for the wood siding and slightly darker version of Draper Taupe (custom mix) for the trim color. A test panel is to be prepared for staff review and final approval in the field. The sloped roof element should be continued across the entire south elevation of retail no. 3 and wrap around the east elevation 26 feet. Spandrel glass should be used to form a corner window treatment at the southeast corner of retail no. 3. An open lattice trellis should be provided over the seating area south of retail no. 3. A dense landscape screen should be used to prevent graffiti on the rear side of retail no. 3. River rock veneer should be used in place of T-111 siding in the area adjacent to planters where irrigation over spray will cause excessive wear, i.e., under the window on the south side of retail no. 3, also, under the windows on the south side of retail no. 2- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED MARCH 7, 1991 Page 3 ~e river rock veneer should be extended past the pedestrian door on the east elevation of retail no. 2 to better frame the doorway. A half wall of river rock should be provided on the west elevation of retail no. 2 between the south corner of the building and the pedestrian door to tie in with the river rock under the windows on the south elevation of the building- 9. ~e doors to the electrical closet should match those approved for McDonalds. (Conditional Use permit 88-18-) II CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: T I T L E: ~ ~r~frr~ 1~,4~ EXHIBIT: :,4-' SCALE:_ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Steve R. March 7, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-19 - FORIA INTERNATIONAL - The development of a 72,000 square foot building consisting of 58,000 square feet Of warehouse area and 14,000 square feet of office space on 4.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 11, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place - APN: 229-263-54 and 55. Background: The Committee (Tolstoy, Chitlea, Kroutil) last reviewed the project on February 7, 1991 and made the following comments: The primary concern of the Design Review Committee was that their previous comments had not been incorporated into a harmonious architectural concept for the building. The various architectural elements seem disjointed and do not combine to create one consistent design theme. Therefore, the Co~mittee could not recommend approval of the project at this time. The applicant was instructed to review the previous comments from the Design Review Committee meetings of December 20, 1990 and January 3, 1991. In addition, the Committee made the following comments relating to the current design proposal: The design of the entries at the southwest and southeast corner of the building must be fine-tuned to make a proper architectural statement. The individual materials and elements used to construct the entries are fine but they have not been arranged in a complimentary manner. If an arbor structure is to be constructed in the central landscaping area opposite the Mission park Drive entrance, it should emulate the same elements located at the entries. The current design is not consistent with the rest of the building. The lunch area has not been designed to be an inviting place to eat- Care heo~e~ ht of the walls and should be given to t 'g . screen landscaping should be used to s t n ~ts appearance from the interior as well as outside. The area should appear to be an integral part of the building but must also be of a human scale. The variation of the parapet height was not acceptable as proposed. It has been suggested that an increase of the building height at the southeast and southwest corners of the building create more of an entry statement for the buildings. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 90-19 - FORIA INTERNATIONAL MARCH 7, 1991 Page 2 Staff ~ents: Revised plans had not been received However, at its meeting on February 7, the project should be seen at the facilitate the applicant's progress. at the time of these comments. 1991, the Committee stated that earliest possible meeting to Design Review C~...-{ttee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Wendy Vallette, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Steve Ross The applicant arrived with a new design scheme for the building. The Co~unittee made the following co~unents, and recommended that the revised plans return to the Design Review Committee as a Consent Calendar item: The main entry at the southeast corner of the building should project out from the main building planes of the east and south elevations. The building height at the entry should be greater than the majority of the building to emphasize this entry. The higher parapet should recede into the building to avoid appearing like a false front. Additionally, polished granite should continue through the second-story of the prominent forward columns. The recessed central portion of the building should line up with the driveway on Mission Park Drive. In order to make the warehouse more functional, the building plane should only step back one panel (about 15 feet) rather than 2 feet. Planters should be provided within the lunch area to soften its appearance. The lunch court should be accessible from the parking area as well as the interior of the building. Enhanced paving should be provided at the entries and lunch area which compliments the building materials used at those locations. A revised materials board should be submitted which contains the actual materials and colors to be used on the building.