Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/11/02 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHOCUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 1989 ACTION CO~f4ENTS TO: Coamercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman Betsy Weinberger {Alternate) FROM: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2~ 1989 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 you r comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Conrnittee'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 (Jerry) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-40 .. GARCIA & ASSOCIATES The development of three (3) industrial buildings totaling 55,109 square feet as Phase II of a 10.3 acre Industrial Park, located at 10955 Arrow Route in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) - APN: 209-142-33. 6:30 - 7:00 (Steve H.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-08 GILBERT AJA The development of two warehouse/distribution building totaling 305,400 square feet on 15.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located south of 6th Street, east of Pittsburgh Avenue - APN: 229-263-22. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA NOVEMBER 2, 1989 Page 2 7:00 - 7:30 (Nancy) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The design review of architectural details for Buildings X and Y located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Terra Vista Towne Center, prior to plan check submittal. BA:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COf(4ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITE))S AGENDA November 2, 1989 1. CUP 88-28 - PERRY (Brett} Review of various architectural revisions. Committee Action: The Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Colored concrete should be used outside the storefronts. The colored concrete base on the columns should match or complement the paving color. 2. The Cantera stone detailing should also be used for the quatrefoil and any window detailing. The color should be changed to the first brown sample in the Adoquirt Cantera brochure. 3. The enhanced paving off of Malachite Avenue should be extended further to the west. 4. The landscaping in the vacated alley should be shown on the plans. 2. CUP 88-12 - MERVYN'S (Dan) Review of a 15-foot shift of a tower element on the north elevation of Mervyn's. Committee Action: The 15 foot shift of the tower element was approved as presented. 3. DR 88-25 - LENNON ARCH. (Steve H.) Review color change for building accent bands. Committee Action: The Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) approved the accent color modification as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA NOVEMBER 2, 1989 Page 2 4. DR 88-27 - BARTON (Steve R. ) Review proposed screening of roof mounted equipment for Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. Committee Action: The Committee (Chitlea, Tolstoy, Coleman) required that the roof mounted equipment on Building 5 must be completely screened by "minerit" panels around the entire perimeter of the roof. This roof screen shall be architecturally compatible with the building. 5. DR 88-12 -WESTERN PROP. (Nancy) Review trash enclosure design and changes to light fixtures. Committee Action: The Committee approved the base design for the light fixtures with a condition that top of the base be sandblasted. The Committee did not approve the trash enclosure design. The design must include sectional roll-up doors and chain link mesh underneath the trellis work. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Jerry Nove~>er 2, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-40 - GARCIA & ASSOCIATES - The development of three (3) industrial buildings totaling 55,109 square feet as Phase II of a 10.3 acre Industrial Park, located at 10955 Arrow Route in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) APN: 209-142-33. Background: Phase I of the project included the remodeling and expansion of an existing 118,615 square foot warehouse building as approved under Minor Development Review 88-19. The building improvements approved at that time have been completed, However, some of the landscape improvements have yet to be completed. The existing building is concrete tilt-up with glass pop-out office areas at the northeast and northwest corners of the building. Truck loading and delivery areas are concentrated on the south side of the building with exception of 3 1 oading doors on the east elevation. The proposed project consists of 3 buildings totaling 55,109 square feet. Buildings "A" and "B" are positioned parallel to Arrow Route and are separated by a landscaped plaza. Building "C" will front onto Vincent Avenue, a new street to be constructed in conjunction with this project. Staff ComEents: Site Plan: 1. Reduce the paved area east of the existing warehouse building by pulling the parking bay along Vincent Avenue closer to the building. This will increase the landscape setback along Vincent Avenue and provide room for a mere substantial landscape entrance statement at the northern entrance. 2. Screening for the three 1 oading doors on the east side of the existing building should be provide. 3. Enhanced paving should be added to the parking areas north and south of the plaza area. 4. Extend the planter area around the side and rear of the electrical transformer in the plaza area. Architecture: 1. Colors should match or blend with the existing warehouse building. 2. The finish for the columns needs to be clarified. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-40 - GARCIA & ASSOCIATES Page 2 Landscaping: 1. The use of shrubbery, groundcover and native boulders to screen parking and reduce turf areas should be encouraged along the perimeter landscaped areas. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, D an Coleman Staff Planner: Jerry Guarracino The Design Review Committee recommended that plans be resubmitted as a Consent Calendar item showing revisions to the architectu re and site plan as follows: Site Plan: 1. Upgrade the planter area on the east side of the existing building to provide an employee lunch area to serve the needs of Building "C" {tables and benches of concrete construction should be provided}. 2. A walkway of interlocking pavers should be provided from Building "C" to the above mentioned lunch area. 3. Provide interlocking pavers, consistent with the entrances, between the fountain and main plaza area. 4. Extend the landscape planter around the back and side of the transformer enclosure in the plaza area. Large shade trees should be planted in the plaza area, 72" box were recommended. 5. Provide landscape planters along the rear of Building "A" and "B". Planters should be wide enough to incorporate trees {6' minimum width). Architecture: 1. Provide color sample for the wood trellis over the plaza. 2. The blue building accent color should be reduced in intensity. 3. Provide a scored sandblasted finish on the buildings and columns as shown on the perspective drawings. Maintain the reveal at the top of the columns. 4. The scored sandblasted finish should be increased in height on the side and rear elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Steve H. November 2, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-08 - GILBERT AJA The development of two warehouse/distribution building totaling 305,400 square feet on 15.4 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located south of 6th Street, east of Pittsburgh Avenue - APN: 229-263-22. Background: This project is within the Mission Business Center, which was approved as a master plan on September 14, 1988, under Development Review 88-20. Projects to the south, north, and west of the subject property, within the Mission Business Center, have been approved. Staff Comments: On October 19, 1989, the Committee (Chitiea, We inberger, Coleman) reviewed the project and did not recommend approval as presented. The applicant was directed to revise plans addressing architectural and site planning concerns as follows: 1. Provide additional spandrel glass on the northwest corner and the northeast corner of the "pop-out" sections. 2. Extend the landscaping and berming beyond the streetscape near the northeast corner. 3. Relocated or delete the truck storage spaces near the northeast corner. 4. Relocate the dock high and grade level doors near the northeast corner. If this cannot be done, the Committee suggested that the applicant check into the feasibility of constructing an open beam trellis structure over the dock-high doors in this area. 5. The employee plaza/lunch area for Building I should be relocated, east of its present location, closer to the main entrance of the building. Tables should be included within the lunch area. 6. The employee plaza/lunch area for Building 2 should be enlarged. Subsequently, parking spaces adjacent to and north of the lunch area should be deleted and landscaped. 7. A planter should be added between the west property line and the 45 degree angle truck stalls for Building 1. 8. Landscaping near the main building entrances should be upgraded by including large (36 inch and 48 inch box) trees. Trees should be clustered and frame the entrances. Additional species of trees should be provided near the main entrances. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-08 - GILBERT AJA Pa9e 2 9. The secondary entrances for Building 2 should be upgraded to include additional glass, a "pop-out" trellis structure, repetition of paving score lines as used by the main entrance, and concrete columns with an arbor. 10. The entire base portion of the building should be of a light sandblast texture. 11. The parapet wall should be extended to other areas of the building in order to screen any possible futu re roof mounted equipment. 12. Semi-reflective glass, identical to the glass used on all second-floor windows on the project to the south (DR 89-07), should be used on all second-floor glass areas within this project. Design Review Coamittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The Committee essentially recommended option "A" be utilized to upg rade the northeast portion of Building 1. However, the Committee recommended that the following elements be added to this area for further enhancement: a. The main entry treatment proposed for the southeast corner of the building should be emulated on the northeast corner of the building. This shall include the following: Second-story glazed windows, accent mullions, a raised roof paraplet, a main entry frame treated with textured concrete and recessed lower story glazing. b. The slotted glazing on the northeast corner of Building i and the north side of the "pop-out" portion on the front (east) side of Building I should be deleted, in order to incorporate the items mentioned in la. c. The screen wall north of Building 1, within the streetscape, should be extended to the north, as per option "A." However, the following modifications should be made to the design and placement of said screen wall: 1. The open areas shall be "filled in" with textured concrete, similar in texture and color to the entire screen wall. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-08 - GILBERT AjA Page 3 2. The northern 2 panels of the screen wall shall be turned to the northwest at a 45 degree angle for further screening of the truck storage and garage areas. A subsequent enlargement of the planter to the northwest will occur due to the new screen wall configuration. d. Additional evergreen trees, such as Mondell Pines or Leylandii Cypress should be incorporated within the planter on the northeast corner of the site, and in the planter to the north, which is part of the approved project DR 88-20. It is important that the skirt of the evergreen trees remain low as possible for screening. e. The Conmnittee accepted the other proposed modifications as per option "A": Additional landscape buffer along the streetscape, the additional garage street setback, and an additional landscape planter by the northeast corner of the garage. 2. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed option "B" for additional treatment of the secondary entrances for Building 2 with the following modifications: a. The frame element should be more "pronounced." This can be accomplished by providing an additional frame and arbor structure to extend the entry statement beyond the building plane. b. A parapet wall, consistent in height and appearance with the parapet walls over the primary entrances, should be incorporated at the secondary entrances. c. The Committee accepted the other proposed modifications to the secondary entrances for Building 2 as proposed in option "B". Items such as a textured concrete treatment to the entry frame, second-story double-slotted glazing, recessed ground-level glazing, and additional reveal lines were acceptable. 3. The Committee recommended that the additional planters between the existing planter along the west property line and the proposed 45 degree angle truck stalls be deleted. 4. The Committee recommended that the light sandblast texture be incorporated as a base element treatment only to beyond the secondary entrances for Building 2 and in line with the Building 2 secondary entrances on Building 1. Areas behind (to the west) should have a painted base elements, as per the approved color scheme for the buildings. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-08 - GILBERT AJA Page 4 5. The Conmittee recommended that the following staff Comments be added to the project: a. Landscaping near the main building entrances should be upgraded by including large (36 inch and 48 inch box) trees. Trees should be clustered and frame the entrances. Additional species of trees should be provided near the main entrances. b. The parapet wall should be extended to other areas of the building in order to screen any possible future roof mounted equipment. c. Semi-reflective glass, identical to the glass used on all second-floor windows on the project to the south (DR 89-07), should be used on all second-floor glass areas within this project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Nancy November 2, 1989 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The design review of architectural details for buildings X and Y located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Terra Vista Towne Center. Background: Buildings X and Y are located at the courtyard corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The Commission approved the Terra Vista Towne Center on December 9, 1987, which includes the approval of conceptual elevations for buildings X and Y, as shown in Sheet A-iO of the packets. One of the conditions of approval requires that the final building design and all the architectural details be submitted for Commission review and approval prior to submitting for plan check. Another condition of approval requires that colonade be incorporated around the two-story portions of buildings X and Y since they play an important role in the function of the corner treatment. The purpose of this Design Review meeting is for the Committee to provide preliminary feedback to the applicant so that he could address all the design concerns early in the review process. This item will then be brought back for a full Planning Commission workshop following a regular Design Review Committee meeting, at a later date. Staff C~nments: Site Nan: The overall building orientation and courtyard design is consistent with the approved conceptual plans. The detailed design of the corner treatment such as the fountain, trellis, landscaping, etc., has been approved. However, staff is concerned with how the flat concrete work transitions to the building edge. The applicant should provide such transitional detail for Committee review and approval. Elevation: Both buildings X and Y are approved for financial type of land use. According to the applicant, building X is intended for a single user, however, there are opportunities for the second-story to accommodate a couple of tenants. At this time there is no specific user for building X. As for building Y, there is a perspective user, Home Federal, who will be taking up half of the ground floor area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Page 2 The primary issue is to determine if the proposed elevation for buildings X and Y comply with the approved concept in areas of building massing and architectural detailing. The secondary issue is to determine if the proposed elevation has complied with the condition of approval in providing adequate and functional colonade surrounding the buildings. The following are staff analysis in comparing the approved concept with the proposed elevations: 1. Building X: a. The north and south elevations differ from the approved concept, in that, the three (3) arched windows treatment on the gable building entry is replaced with a stone carved round element. Also, the balcony treatment on the second-story has been eliminated. The gable entry being located at the two~story portion of the building is the only covered walkway. There is no continuous colonade provided around the building. b. As for the west elevation, windows with balcony railings have been provided to the two-story. Staff believes that this west elevation complies with the approved concept. c. The east elevation is significantly different from the approved concept. A one-story gable building entry has been added to the middle of the building. This side of the building not only faces the interior of the site, but also, house the electrical/mechanical room and other utility facilities, such as, restroom and elevator. Therefore, architectural treatment and detailing to this side of the building is important, in order to achieve continuity and completeness to the building design. 2. Building Y: In general, the massing for building Y complies with the approved concept. A continuous colonade and balcony have been provided along the south elevation which wraps around to the rotunda. There is no colonade along the north and east elevations. The design of the rotunda is equivalent to or perhaps upgraded from the approved concept. Windows have been added instead of the squares opening. Additional cornice treatment is provided at the edge of the rotunda below the tower. 3. Architectural Details: The proposed architectural details as shown in Sheet D-1 are consistent with the approved details. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Comnittee reviewed the proposed elevations for buildings X and Y and did not recommend approval. The elevation must be revised to address the following items and submitted for a full Planning Commission workshop: 1. The Committee stated that the corner at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue is very special and that 360 degree architecture is a must, in order to provide a statement. 2. Building X. The Committee did not approve this building design as it does not provide an architectural statement in areas of building massing, architectural treatment and detailing. The Committee provided directions to the applicants to redesign this building as follows: a. The simple square columns should be replaced with the dual round columns. b. The west elevation (Haven Avenue side) should have a second story element similar to the south elevation of Building Y. c. Various concepts to architecturally treat the east elevation should be provided for the Commission review. d. Show signage concept. e. A colonade should be provided. 3. Building Y. The Committee felt the massing of the building is acceptable. However, the following improvements should be made to the building: a. Provide Canterra stone treatment to all arched windows. b. Add stone work detailing to the window on the cupola. c. The windows on the ground floor should be of french window or wood casement design. d. Provide a covered colonade along north the elevation or a gable building entry. e. Show signage concept. CO~RERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR IlEHS AGENDA November 16, 1989 1. DR 88-40 - GARCIA (Jerry) Revised site plan colors and building texture. Con~nittee Action: 2. CUP 87-2g - WEIRICK {Tom} Review of architectural details. Committee Action: 3. DR 88-04 - CARNEY ARCHITECTS (Bruce) Review waterscape materials. Committee Action: 4. OR 88-44 - BARASCH (Bruce) Review building materials and colors, and enriched paving material. Committee Action: 5. DR 87-17 - UNICAL (Bruce) Review alternative light fixture. Committee Action: