The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/01/06 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES e TUESDAY JANUARY 6, 1998 7:00 P.M. ,RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER — RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Steve) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 .(MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY-A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01, 06, 07, 08 and 09. 7:40 p.m. (Steve) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 9:00 P.M. (Dan) PATTON DEVELOPMENT - Proposed color repainting for Stater Bros. Center, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. DRC AGENDA Jaunary 6, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 31, 1997,at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Steve Hayes January 6, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY -A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow_ Highway and White Oak Avenue -APN: 209-461-01, 06, 07, 08 and 09. Design Parameters: The property in question is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan (Exhibit "A") consisted of 13 industrial buildings and, specifically, 4 smaller buildings on the parcels where this new building is proposed. Due to this significant departure from the original Master Plan, staff required that this application also be processed as a modification to the original Master Plan. The site has been rough graded previously and contains no significant vegetation and is void of any structures. The perimeter of the site includes curb, gutter, driveway approaches, sidewalk and street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Circulation/Site Planning: Staff has no major concerns with the proposed Master Plan modification from a site planning standpoint. As previously mentioned, the project consists of one large industrial building in an area where the approved Master Plan indicated 4 smaller industrial buildings, hence the purpose of the modification to the Master Plan portion of the application. With the proposed new project, an existing driveway approach on White Oak Avenue will be relocated southerly further away from the Arrow Highway/White Oak Avenue intersection and a previously approved and constructed driveway approach off Arrow Highway will be eliminated. In staff's opinion, both of these modifications will have positive impacts on vehicular circulation and safety. Furthermore, despite the larger scale of the new building proposed on the property, the landscape buffer and amount of parking fields adjacent to Arrow Highway will be significantly reduced. 2. Architecture: The proposed tilt-up concrete industrial building, as currently designed, incorporates secondary material accents of sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas, consistent with the established design elements used on existing buildings throughout the industrial park. The secondary materials, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, have been used primarily to frame the large main entrance area at the northwest corner of the building, the areas of the building visible from Arrow Highway, and the employee outdoor eating area on the west side of the building. Other areas of the building will receive sand blasted concrete banding and columns of sand blasted concrete at all building corners. Staff recommends architectural enhancement (i.e., sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas) on East Elevation because of prominence along a Special Boulevard. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. January 6, 1998 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Pedestrian connections from the public sidewalks to the main entrance area and the outdoor eating area should be provided. 2. A trash enclosure, architecturally compatible with the building, should be provided on the east side of the building where the trash bins and metal recycling bin are shown. 3. The landscaped area outside the screen wall on the south side of the project, between the two driveways, should be widened to accommodate a more dense landscape palette to soften the appearance of the 8-foot high screen wall. 4. Trees should be incorporated into the landscape planter area at the southeast corner of the site. 5. The proposed areas of special paving at the three vehicular entrances to the site should be extended to encompass the entire length of each drive throat and be extended into handicapped parking areas. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Undulating landscaped berms, alluvial rock, shrub massing, etc., should be used in the street scape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view. 2. All transformers and other above ground mechanical equipment should be completely screened from view through the use of landscaping, walls, or a combination thereof. 3. Retaining walls should be composed of a decorative block material architecturally compatible with the building or receive a decorative exterior finish. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the above items as recommended conditions of approval. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DRC COMMENTS DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. January 6, 1998 Page 3 The Design Review Committee recommended that this project return to the Committee as a Consent Calendar item prior to Planning Commission review, addressing the following items: 1. Additional sandblast column and brick inlay elements, similar to those used on the north elevation, should be used on the eastern exposure of the building. 2. The Committee noted that only one pedestrian connection between the public sidewalk and the site would be needed. This connection point could be from the White Oak Avenue sidewalk. 3. The special paving should be extended to the back of the driveway throat for only the main vehicular enterance off White Oak Avenue. 4. The screen wall along the south side of the project, between the two driveway approaches, should be moved northerly wherever possible to allow for more landscaped area on the outside of the wall. 5. All other Secondary and Policy Design Issues from above not already referenced in the action comments will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. Li • ., ..__ r .•. . : ]� i: 111 f'_:__.. .. ....... ... ! _ ..::........ _ ___________ _ .I I is ��-,�-` _ _ f •n r7l r, :ere . • r: n _ — — — -- — • . � E ; i ' EEEE.itEttitstf ; = � ' 1' — _ _'__ '• i ' i [ f f ll.l f.l.l.1.If f Llf - i "; I!:1 : r–r ❑ _ III � – _ !- fG1 I ' -•I ;f •v f _ c11 _ c- - cP — I - ` i I• Ef t – _ to DIf �;� `!� iQj U::.I:✓[2c — mr- _ _ i2 � � .F' •1 ff. _ _ ' A �1• Z cY�l is�.til _ _ _ _ _-_ —_:i=._=` _'��______.. ___.._ ____�___I_.._ .. IIC r > C 1 -5 iE M1G j� t5 n GG' I I G -_� � `i� r. .�S�l��.�-: � �. G GL°[L:nO - n550'.1YTS� r rr l��r�� ` ] I, • +il I I :fl $:]I: fT.:l .••• '1�E�lfl_L[,�Y V �• – i S I III �. i v: – ICnO CUCLnONCC. C�!!02YL ^,"woe..cx: i•P�rq_�'C DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes January 6, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street -APN: 209-491-82. - Background: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed this project at their December 16, 1997 meeting and did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to address the design issues referenced in the attached Design Review Committee Action comments (Exhibit"A") and return to the Committee for further review. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, staff had not yet received any revised plans for the project, although the applicant agreed to revise all plans and submit to staff with ample review time for the Committee members and staff prior to this meeting date. Staff will provide an oral update at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee consider the revisions to the development package and, if acceptable to the Committee, recommend approval of the project with any necessary conditions to the Planning Commission. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 16, 1997 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee acknowledged that significant improvements had been made to the project design since their original review of the project. The Committee recommended that the project only need return to the next available meeting on a Consent Calendar basis, addressing the following issues: 1. The revisions to the north elevation of Building "A" were generally acceptable to the Committee. However, an additional step should be incorporated into the pop-out elements, in 2-foot increments, as dicussed at the meeting. 2. The revisions to the west elevations of Buildings "A" and "D" were acceptable to the Committee. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 6, 1998 Page 2 " 3. The proposed revisions to the east elevation of Building "E" was deemed acceptable to the Committee, provided the landscape planter area along the north and east sides of the building would be wide enough to accomodate speciman size trees planted at 30 feet on center and a dense landscape palette, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. The modifications to the office building'area were generally acceptable to the Committee. However, the Committee did recommend that the proposed painted color striping shown on the cornice of the office area be removed. 5. The Committee noted that they would not support the proposed interior illuminated can signage as shown and proposed on the conceptual building elevations. The Committee did recommend that alternatives to the corporate can signage could be pursued for Committee consideration at the Consent Calendar review. 6. All other unaddressed Secondary and Policy Design Issues from the original Design Review Committee Comments dated December 16, 1997, will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS i 8:10 P.M. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street- APN: 209-491-82. Design Parameters: The project site is bounded by office and light industrial development to the north and south, a fast-food restaurant under construction to the east and vacant land to the west. To the south, the buildings typically abut the shared property lines and walls have been constructed on other portions of the shared property lines. The proposed driveway access to the site will be from a shared access with the fast food restaurant on the east side of the property. An existing drive approach on Arrow Route, at approximately the east/west midpoint of the parcel, is proposed to be removed with this project. No significant vegetation and no structures exist on the property. The site slopes from north to south at aoproximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. 42ior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Staff is concerned with how,the architectural theme of the proposed project fits in with the generally office/light industrial Flavor of the surrounding area. Within the immediate area, a variety of architectural themes exist, with the most prominent style of building being composed of tilt-up concrete as the primary material and flat roofs with parapet walls to screen roof equipment. The proposed buildings consist primarily of a smooth stucco or block material with split face block applied as an accent treatment. The office building has a tower element and sloped standing seam metal roof. In order to provide a greater degree of compatibility with buildings in the area, the architecture should be revised to have tilt-up concrete or a smooth plaster over block finish with joints between blocks smoothed over as the primary building material and the standing seam metal roof eliminated in favor of flat roofs with a parapet screen wall and upgraded cornice treatment. 2. In addition to the concern with the compatibility of the architectural theme, staff is also concerned with the minimal architectural variety presented along the street frontage. Arrow Route is a Special Boulevard that warrants greater attention to architectural design. As currently proposed, of Building A, the primary building visible from Arrow Route, is 410 feet long and linear in nature. Only three minor 5-foot deep recesses and 15 to 20 feet in width occur to break up the vertical building plane, which again consists primarily of a stucco or smooth block material and squared off, minimally protruding arches of split face block as an accent material. Staff would recommend that a greater amount of variety be provided in the horizontal and vertical building planes and that the use of accent materials occur in a more substantial manner. An example would be to introduce fluted block as an accent material for areas such as the roof cornice and/or as the base material for the split face arches. 3. In conjunction with the application, the applicant has submitted a Master Plan for the possible future expansion of the public storage facility on the parcel to the west. Staff feels that the general overall layout of the Master Plan and how it integrates with the proposed project are ,�,� (� ' ll Lt,/I J � DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 2 acceptable. However, staff is concerned that, if the proposed expansion does not occur, then the publicly exposed architectural elevations for the west side of the project (i.e. the west elevations of Buildings A and D) will not have adequate architectural embellishment or a landscape buffer along the project edge. Therefore, staff would recommend the following upgrades along the western property line: a. The west elevations of Building A and D should be upgraded architecturally to a level consistent with the elevations along Arrow Route, per the recommendations in Comment no. 1 above; and b. Buildings A and D should be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the west property line to allow for landscaping (including trees) along the western edge of the project to soften the mass of the buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The appearance of the street scape along Arrow Route will be critical in establishing an appealing public view of the project. Besides the above-referenced architectural modifications, staff would recommend that elements such as undulating landscaped berms, dense landscaping with specimen size trees, special landscape features such as alluvial rock should be used to five visual varieties and interest to the street scape area. 2. The landscaped area on the north and east sides of Building E should be widened to accommodate mature trees. In addition, a landscape planter with trees should be introduced on the south side of the office building to frame the main entrance in to the storage project. 3. The proposed chain link fence over the drainage easement at the southeast and southwest corners of the site should be replaced with a decorative tubular steel or wrought iron fence. 4. The proposed gate at the entrance to the storage area should be moved west to ensure the main driveway for Cowboy Burgers in not obstructed. 5. An alternative, more aesthetically pleasing method of drainage should be provided along the north side of Building A. A concrete channel adjacent to the building would eliminate the possibility of planting any vines or shrubs at the base of the building. 6. It appears that the existing walls along the south property line will be limited in height on the north or project side given the proposed grade difference between the property and adjacent properties to the south. Therefore, a new decorative block wall or wrought iron fence architecturally compatible with the project should be constructed along the south property line. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion- 1. The trash enclosures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with the buildings. 2. The proposed signage should be modified to consist of individual channel letters and not contain any extra information, such as telephone numbers, beyond the business name. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 3 3. Special paving, similar to that used at the fast food restaurant to the east, should be used near the main vehicular entrance to the project. 4. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment should be completely screened from public view. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans per the staff comments. Once the plans are revised to the satisfaction of staff, then the item should be scheduled for further review of the Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff and revise the development plans addressing the concerns of the Committee. Issues which should be addressed are as follows: 11. As currently designed, the Committee felt that the tower design was not in proportion with the building. The Committee suggested that the tower either be reduced in height or the massing increased and/or the height of the office area increased in order to address this concern. 2. The Committee recommended that the repetitive and redundant pattern of the exposed aggregate finish on the north side of Building A be mitigated by utilizing an additional pattern in the upper half of the building. In addition, the Committee expressed concern with the minimal 3-inch depth of the accent treatment in that it would not produce a sufficient shadow line or give the depth necessary to provide variety to the long stretches of vertical building plane. 1 The end panels on the west side of Building D and the east side of Building E should be architecturally treated, consistent with the recommended treatment for the building facing Arrow Highway. With this treatment, it would not be required to move Building D 5 feet easterly to produce the landscape setback requested in the initial staff comments;. 4. The cornice treatment should be modified in design from the corporate painted color banding over the smooth block finish. A fluted block cornice treatment that also extended into the recessed and return areas of the cornice was suggested by the Committee. 5. The signs should be designed per the recommendations of staff, specifically with the telephone numbers eliminated from the signs. The Committee suggested, as an option to provide a recessed area on the tower for a sign and that the corporate color banding could be introduced around the perimeter of the recessed sign area. 3. The Committee agreed to allow the developer to work with the adjacent property owners to the south to place open decorative fencing on top of existing block walls as a solution to the wall/fence situation along the south property line. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 4 7. The Committee agreed with the recommendations of the Grading Committee requiring undulating berming and shrub hedges along the north side of Building A to screen the concrete drainage swale from view. 8. The Committee directed the applicant to address all other Secondary and Policy Design issues not previously referenced in the above comments. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 9:00 P.M. Dan Coleman January 6, 1998 PATTON DEVELOPMENT - Proposed color repainting for Stater Bros. Center, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Nancy Fong for Dan Coleman The Committee recommended approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS January 6, 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary