Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/04/02 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 18, 1987 ACTION AGENDA TO: Commercial / I ndu str i al 1977 Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel Dan Coleman FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF April 2, 1987 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. P1 ease 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) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-29 - GENERAL MARBLE - The development of a 4b,ODO square foot building addition to an existing 40,000 square foot building on 5.36 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 21 located on the north side of 9th Street between Vineyard and Hellman Avenues - APN: 209- 01-4, 5, 6. 6:30 - 7:00 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-02 - BUILDING INVESTMENT GROUP - The deve|opment of a 214,389 square foot industrial warehouse facility on 9.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 141 located approximately 650 feet north of 4th Street on the east side of Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 229-331-10 & 11. Design Review Committee Agenda COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL April 4, 1987 Page 2 7:00 - 7:30 (Nancy) PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86-77 - NUWEST The proposed deve)opment of a 90,700 square foot integrated shopping center on 8.67 acres of land in a General Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-261-25, 26. NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA April 2, 1987 1. CUP 85-19 - LEDEILqAN Review of color. (Chris) Committee Action: The Committee determined col or X-53 to be the most appropriate. The Committee also discussed the west elevation of Building 2 (Building 1 on construction plans) and the arches along the north elevation of Building 1 (Building 2 on construction plans) and determined that the plans approved on August 14, lg85 are the most acceptable design and shall not be changed. 2. OR 86-40 - CHCG Review of revised tower treatment. (Nancy) Committee Acti on: The Commi tree approved the tower design and Option B of the curvilinear gable which is the smaller one. 3. CUP 85-37 - NOOIFICATION MASCARENAS (Nancy) Review of revised elevation for E1 Pol 1 o Loco Committee Action: The Committee questioned the accuracy of the proposed elevation; in that, the tower at the north elevation of Building 2 does not appear at the west elevation. The Committee stated that the roof extension over the metal gable roof of E1 Pollo Loco should be eliminated while the red accent tile should be changed to red brick. 4. OR 86-21 - HINE~Pbm~R Review of changes to finished floor (Debra) elevation. Committee Action: The revised pad elevations and the 3'~ building setback from north property line are not acceptable to the Committee. The 3'~ separation between buildings represents poor planning, creating a strip of land with both aesthetic concerns and public safety problems. Final grading plan must reflect approved or apply for modification to Development Review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Chris April 2, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-29 - GENERAL MARBLE - The development of a 45,000 square foot building addition to an existing 40,000 square foot building on 5.36 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) located on the north side of 9th Street between Vineyard and Hellman Avenues - APN: 209-01-4, 5, 6. Oesign Par~ters: The pro~ect site includes an existing rail served manufacturing/- warehouse facility for General Marble Corporation. Loading dock facilities for this building face 9th Street. The surrounding uses are manufacturing/warehouse facilities. The properties adjacent to the project site on the east and west are vacant and the properties to the north and south are developed. Background: DR 85-29 was first reviewed by the Committee (Chitlea, Stout, Buller) on August 21, 1986. It was recommended that the project be revised for additional committee review as follows: 1. Design of screen wall and gate be provided within the landscape setback area for screening the loading dock area of the south side of the existing building. A streetscape plan for 9th Street be provided. 2. The proposed elevations do not meet the Design Guidelines of the Industrial Specific Plan in areas of providing articulation of building plane and surface. The elevations should be redesigned to provide an office entrance statement, variation in architectural plane and add texture to building surface. The existing building should be upgraded with the same architectural treatment as the new addition. 3. A ten (10) foot wide landscape planter be provided at the west property line for approximately 280 feet north from the public right-of-way. The landscaping should be densely planted in order to sufficiently screen storage and loading activity from public view and include tall specimen size trees to sufficiently screen the equipment on the west side of the existing bull ding. 4. Landscape "finger" planters along the north property line parking area at a rate of one "finger" per 10 parking stalls be provided. 5. Additional pedestrian amenities such as seating, trellis cover and landscape screening be provided within the employee plaza area. Design Review Comments DR 85-29 - GENERAL MARBLE April 2, 1987 Page 2 6. Eliminate the western most proposed driveway on 9th Street (adjacent to the rail road right-of-way) and incorporate densely planted landscaping and screen walls. Re-route circulation along the west property line to take access from the western most existing driveway. 7. Vines and shrubs be provided adjacent to the screen wall s along 9th Street. Staff Comment: Staff has on numerous occasions contacted the developer to remind him of submitting revised plans according to the Development Review process. The developer stated that he disagrees with the Committee's recommendation of the August 21, 1986 regular meeting. However, the developer has submitted revised plans on March 11, 1987 which reflect the following changes: 1. Screen wall and gates are being provided along 9th Street to screen loading area. However the design details (material, color, height of wall) of the screen wall and gates have not been provided for staff review. 2. The most westerly driveway (adjacent to the railroad tracks) has been eliminated and reverted to landscape area. However, the landscape plan does not indicate this area being densely planted as recommended by the Committee. 3. A five foot planter has been provided along the west property line, instead of the ten foot planter as recommended by the Committee. The landscape plan al so does not indicate this planter to be densely landscaped. Design Review C~ittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee made the following recommendations: 1. The screen wall along 9th Street should be of a concrete tilt-up material that matches the overall building. The design of the metal rolling gates should also have a screening effect, such as a louvered metal material. Design Review Comments DR 85-29 - GENERAL MARBLE April 2, 1987 Page 3 2. The applicant shall prepare alternative designs for the office entry including sample and color board to be submitted for Committee review prior to the April 22, 1987 Planning Commissi on meeting. 3. A ten (10) foot wide landscape planter be provided at the west property line for approximately 280 feet north from the public right- of-way. The landscaping should be densely planted in order to sufficiently screen storage and loading activity from public view and include tall specimen size trees to sufficiently screen the equipment on the west side of the existing building. 4. An employee plaza area should be provided along the north property line. Amenities such as seating, trellis cover and landscape screening should be provided within the employee plaza area. 5. Vines and shrubs should be provided adjacent to the screen walls along 9th Street. 6. The roll up doors should be painted to blend into the building. DESIGN REVIEW COlt~IENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Debra April 2, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-02 - BUILDING INVESTMENT GROUP - The development of a 214,389 square foot industria) warehouse facility on 9.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14} located approximately 650 feet north of 4th Street on the east side of Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 229-331-10 & 11. Oesign Parameters: This site as well as undeveloped properties nearby remain in use as Vineyards. Property to the south is a recently completed warehouse/distribution facility, to the north is an older existing industrial building and to the west is a proposed truck rental/leasing facility. The AT and SF Railroad abutts the east property line, and this project is providing for a future rail spur. Santa Anita Avenue is complete with curb and gutter, with other parkway improvements included as a part of this project. Staff Coments: Site Plan 1. The plazas should be defined by landscaping and other hardscape elements such as benches, drinking fountains and trash receptacles, to create spaces that can be enjoyably used for lunch and break time use. 2. The employee plazas should be located away from trucking and loading activities which are not conducive to lunch time use. The only areas available would be along Santa Anita Avenue, possibly adjacent to bull ding entrance. Architecture Although a form liner texture is used on the west elevation, further enhancement is recommended by incorporating a greater variation in the horizontal and/or vertical building form which would create additional shadow patterns and better articulation of this building plan (i.e. - recesses or projections). Landscaping 1. The site plan provides 13.5% of the net lot area as landscaping. Although this is in excess of the 12% minimum required in this subarea, fully one-third of the landscaping provided is to the rear of the building and within a Railroad easement, not at all visible to public view or to any other Design Review Comments DR 87-02 - BUILDING INVESTMENT GROUP April 2, 1987 Page 2 usable part of the project. The easterly row of trees may not be permitted by the Public Utilities Commission and regulations for rail spurs. That square footage of landscaping would provide a greater aesthetic value to the project if were distributed throughout the site and along the streetscape. 2. The double "soldier" row of trees along Santa Anita should be changed to informal pattern of tree clusters to soften the long, unbroken building lines. Design ReviewCoe~aitteeAction: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee recommended approval of the project with the foll owing recommended conditions: 1. Plaza Areas a. Plaza about midpoint on south side of building is acceptable as shown, with clusters of trees and appropriate hardscape provided. b. Provide an employee plaza on the north side of the building. This plaza may be against the north property line, but must connect to office entry with exposed aggregate walkway across the drive aisle. Again, this the plaza must include tree clusters and appropriate hardscape. 2. Architecture a. The fluted areas of the formline sections should be sandblasted exposed aggregate. b. Other aspects of architecture acceptable as presented. 3. Landscaping a. Along the streetscape utilize clusters of trees and undulated berming to accent and enhance building architecture. b. Use columnar shaped trees (poplars) along east property line between turf block and railroad easement (8'± strip) to screen views of this elevation from 4th Street. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS 7:00- 7:30 Nancy April 2, 1987 PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86-77 - NUWEST - The proposed development of a 90,700 square foot integrated s~opping center on 8.67 acres of land in a General Con~nercial District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-261-25, 26. Oesign Parameters: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 11, 1987 reviewed the conceptual plan for the development of a shopping center at this location. The Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. However, the Commission stated that the proposed development should address and resolve all technical and design issues through the Conditional Use Permit process. The developer is requesting for preliminary review from the Design Review Committee to obtain preliminary comments for his proposed project. The purpose is to assist the developer in preparing plans to best meet all the City's applicable Code and Policies. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plans against the current Development Code, the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and the draft Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Staff tints: Site Plan 1. The draft Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan proposes a setback Standard for building and parking of 50 feet from Foothill Boulevard, versus the current Code Standard of 45 feet being provided on the proposed plans. 2. A larger centralized and usable plaza area should be provided. There are only two (2) small areas shown designated as plaza area with the size of 2,100 square feet and 1,625 square feet. The proposed 15-25 feet continuous area along the front of the building is inadequate to be called as plaza. Approximately 8-10 feet will be underneath a continuous colonnade and walkway. 3. The proposed location of the trucking loading and service area along retail Building C through Building B as shown in Exhibit "D" are inefficient and could create traffic conflict. The alternative is front-loading these buildings by providing loading ZOfieS. Design Review Con~nents PR 86-77 - NUWEST A~eril 2, 1987 Pa9e 2 4. The proposed building Pad "A" located at the corner of Hellman Avenue and Foothill Boulevard with the flood control barrier would have the same design effect as the mul ti-family apartment project across the street, where the block wall and the top of the building would be the dominant visual element. Further, this particular portion of the site is subject to the visibility clearance area where minimum landscaping will be allowed by CalTrans. The previously approved Master Plan as shown in Exhibit "B" mitigated those constraints as mentioned above through the use of open landscape areas at this corner. Staff recommends that a rendering of the corner treatment, at car-level view, be provided for Committee review. 5. Change "Pylon" sign at entrance to a monument style sign architecturally compatible to elevations. Access and Circulation 1. Staff has received comments from CalTrans that only one driveway will be allowed on Foothill, therefore the existing driveway adjacent to Taco Bell should be eliminated. 2. The City Traffic Engineer stated that only two driveway access will be allowed on Helms Avenue. One of the driveways is existing and adjacent to the Taco Bell. The second one should align with Hampshire Street. This would discourage cars from using the most southerly driveway as a shortcut to Hellman Avenue and make use of traffic lights. Architecture The proposed conceptual elevations indicate such architectural elements as covered arcades and curvilinear gables with a contemporary spanish feeling, however, it does not provide for an architectural focal point. It could be said that there is no rear elevation for this project as it is surrounded on three sides by streets that is Hellman Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Helms Avenue. Further, the rear elevation with its roof overhang facing the southerly residences appears to be "tacked on". Additional architectural elements should be provided along the entire rear elevation from shop #1 to retail "B". Landscaping 1. Provide additional planters along storefronts. Code requires trees to be planted at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. Design Review Con~nents PR 86-77 - NUWEST April 2, 1987 Page 3 2. Significantly greater amount of trees should be planted along all street frontages. 3. Provide dense planting of evergreen trees along entire south property line as a buffer to residences to the south. 4. Provide additional tree planters in main parking area per Code requirements (e.g.- 1 tree every 3 stalls). 5. Provide landscape planters at southwest corners of Shop No. 2 and Retail "A" and southeast corners of Retail "B" and Shop No. 3 to break up long line-of-sight down straight driveway to rear of shops. Design Review Cmitt~e Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Con~ni ttee reviewed the conceptual site plan and el evations, and provided the following preliminary con~nents in assisting the developer to prepare for formal application process: Site Plan 1. Building setback along Foothill Boulevard should be 50 feet consistent with the draft Foothill Specific Plan that is pending for review and adoption by the City. 2. A large centralized and usable plaza area should be provided. Smaller plazas should also be provided to tie in the'shopping center as an integrated one. 3. Strong pedestrian connections leading to and interconnecting plazas should be provided. 4. The driveway entrance at the middle of the site along Foothill Boulevard and the first one along Hellman Avenue should be developed as the main entrance to the shopping center, with special treatment. 5. A strong focal point should be provided. 6. Too many parking spaces are being provided to the rear property boundary which will not be used. Design Review Comments PR 86-77 - NUWEST April 2, 1987 Page 4 7. Buildings for uses such as warehouse/record and restaurants, that require intensive use of parking spaces, should not be grouped together. 8. The corner treatment for the flood wall and building that was shown at the meeting appears to be acceptable solution to mitigate the design problems of flood barrier. 9. Loading areas for building shop C, shop 4 and retail B should not back up to Helms. Access Circualtion 1. One driveway allowed on Foothill Boulevard. The developer should work with the adjacent property owner (Taco Bell) in assuring access for Taco Bell. 2. Two driveways allowed on Helms Avenue where one should align with Hamsphire Street. Architecture 1. An architectural focal point such as a tower should be provided. 2. Additional architectural elements and details such as round columns, wood rafters, arbors, impost molding, cornice, etc. should be provided. 3. Elevations that abutts street frontages should be up graded with additional architectural details and elements with special landscape treatment. Landscaping 1. The conceptual landscape plan are deficient in meeting the minimum requirements of the required density of landscape materials, in areas of street trees, parking lot trees, trees along building frontage, etc.