Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/08/06 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 1987 ACTION AGENDA TO: Cotmercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitiea 1977 Dave Blakesley Otto Kroutil Larry McNiel (A1 ternate) FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1987 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 - 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 (Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-08 - WESTERN PROPERTXES - The development of an office park consisting of 4 two story buildings totaling 250,000 square feet on 16.58 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN: 1011-421-06, 10 and 09. Related to this proposed project is a Tree Removal Permit 87-20, requesting the removal of two groves of Eucalyptus trees approximately 56 trees within the site. 6:30 - 7:00 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-28 - AOA/LAIRD - A proposa) to develop a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility on 4.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5, located on the west side of Lucas Ranch Road north of 5th Street - APN: 210-013-01. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Commercial/Industrial August 6, 1987 Page 2 7:00 - 7:30 (Chrls) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-30 - JUAN BAIRES-ADAIR - A proposal to construct two multi- tenant industrial buildings totaling 30,502 square feet on 1.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3, located at the northwest corner of Helms Avenue and Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-031-57. 8:30 - 9:30 (Dan) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - THOMAS WINERY CENTER Located at the northeast corner of Foothill and Vineyard Avenue (Discussion Only). NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALliAR ITEMSAGE)iDA August 6, 1987 1. CUP 84-34- SHERIFF (Debra) Review of arcade and colunm details. Committee Action: Details generally acceptable, however they should be more clearly identified with proper romar dimensioning. 2. DR 87-06- ROMAR (Debra) Review of revised elevations. Committee Action: Revised elevations acceptable, with the condition that the three metal panels on the north elevation be replaced with glass. 3. DR 86-37 - LUSKCO./KEITHCO. '(Nancy) Review of revised architectural concepts and shared access. Committee Action: Approved the concepts of building massing at the corner of 4th and Archibald and the shared access criteria contained in the Master Plan text. 4. CUP 85-37 - BRUNSilICK (Nancy) Review of changes to Circle K storefrentby adding spendtel glass. Committee Action: Approved the adding of spendtel glass matching the same color as the existing vision glass. Metal grid elements should not be added. DESIGN REVIEW CONItENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Nancy August 6, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~4ENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-08 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of an office park consisting of 4 two story buildings totaling 250,000 square feet on 16.58 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive - APN: 1011- 421-06, 10 and 09. Related to this proposed project is a Tree Removal Permit 87-20, requesting the removal of two groves of Eucalyptus trees approximately 56 trees within the site. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of April 8, 1987, conducted a public hearing to consider this proposed project. The Commission stated that the architecture is indicative of a more sophisticated office park development that does not provide for transition or compatibility to the residential development to the north and a future community commercial to the south. The Commission stated that they could approve the project with a condition where the elevations must be revised to reflect an architectural style reminiscent of residential and subject to Design Review Committee review and approval. The developer disagreed with the condition. Based upon the above analysis and determination, the Commission cannot make the necessary finding to support the proposed project and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. On April 22, lg87 the applicant requested that the Planning Commission not adopt the Resolution of Denial and stated that they would agree to revise the elevation to address the architectural concerns. The developer has submitted revised elevation for the Committee review. Attachment "B" shows the previously proposed architecture for the project as a reference to compare to the new elevations. Staff Comments: Architecture The new architectural scheme consists of tile roof, towers, covered arcades, plaster materials, colored accent bands and columns. This style of architecture would provide compatibility to the Residential District to the north and the future community commercial shopping center to the south. Landscape The Design Review Committee at the March 19, 1987 meeting reviewed the site plan and landscape plan and made the following recommendations: 1. Sidewalk connections along one side of the driveway entrance for each street should be strengthened by widening to 20' landscape paseo with a sidewalk in the middle. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-08 - Western Properties August 6, 1987 Page 2 The revised landscape plan shows only a 15' wide landscape paseo along one side of the driveway. The above recommendation could be placed as a condition of approval to provide a 20 foot wide landscape paseo. 2. Within plaza, seating area to accommodate large number of employees should be provided. Also special pavement treatment such as brick pavers should be used. Bollards lights should also be provided. o This recommendation could be placed as a condition of approval. 3. Additional street trees should be provided along Haven Avenue, Church Street, Tetra Vista Parkway, and Town Center Drive. o This recommendation could be placed as a conditions of approval. 4. All project entries should have special landscape treatment which includes multi-trunk trees, annual color and accent trees. This recommendation could be placed as a condition of approval. 5. Undulating mounding up to 3k~' and/or low screen wall with appropriate shrub massings shall be provided along Church Street, Tetra Vista Parkway, Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue rather than the flat grade in cross sections C, D and E in order to mitigate a visual impact of parking spaces along all of these streets. o The developer has revised the cross sections to show mounding as shown in sheets 2A-2C in the packets. The developer has not included shrub massing on top of the mound, however, it could be placed as a condition of approval. 6. The triangle-shape piece of "no man's land" located at the southeast corner of Church Street and Haven Avenue should be landscaped as part of this development. This odd shaped site is designated as park on the Tetra Vista land use plan Figure 3- 1. The Developer stated at the meeting that they have hired a landscape architectural firm to development all gateway landscape design within the Tetra Vista Planned Community boundary. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-08 - Western Properties August 6, 1987 Page 3 7. The intersections of Haven Avenue and Church Street and Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive are designated as secondary gateways into Tetra Vista. Therefore, the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street should receive similar treatment as that proposed for Town Center Drive (see Cross Section B). o This recommendation could be placed as a condition of approval. 8. Within parking areas, evergreen canopy shaped trees are recommended instead of the sycamores, canary island pines, and liquid amber trees indicated on the landscape plan. General Plan policy calls for round headed spreading evergreen trees, 35' to 50' tall. o The revised landscape plan shows that rusty leaf fig tree and camphor tree, which would provide the large spreading shade tree within the parking area. 9. The developer agreed to explore the opportunity to expand landscaping into the Deer Creek Channel right-of-way (similar to Virginia Dare) to provide additional landscaping. o This recommendation could be placed as a condition of approval. 10. The revised landscape plans show that additional landscape planter fingers at the rate of 1 per 10 parking spaces has been provided. However the developer has eliminated the continuous planter between two landscape planter fingers as shown in Attachment "A" thus reducing the amount of landscape area for planting shade trees within the parking lots area. Additional tree wells between the landscape planter fingers should be provided in order to comply with the code requirements of I tree per 3 parking spaces. Design Review Co. mu;ttee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dave Blakesley, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee reviewed the revised architecture and landscape plan and recommended approval with the following conditions: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-08 - Western Properties August 6, 1987 Page 4 1. Uniform Sign Program should consider minimal signage to avoid over cluttering the building. 2. Twenty foot wide landscape paseo be provided on both sides of driveway entrance off Haven Avenue and Tetra Vista Parkway; while, 15 foot wide landscape paseo on one side of driveway entrances off Town Center Drive and Spruce Avenue is acceptable. 3. The Committee stated that they agreed with staff recommendations regarding landscape plans as stated in the above comment {items 1, 2 through 10). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Chris August 6, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-28 - AJA/LAIRD - A proposal to develop a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility on 4.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5, located on the west side of Lucas Ranch Road north of 5th Street - APN: 210-013- 01. Design Parameters: The project site is vacant with no significant vegetation. A rail line runs along the west property line. The parcels north and south are developed with similar industrial uses. Street improvements have been completed except for driveway and sidewalks. A continuous 5 foot planter and densely landscape exist along the entire length of the south property line of the adjacent northerly parcel (abutts the north property line of project site). Staff Commnents: Site Plan 1. The site plan shows zero building setback for buildings A, B and C. The current Industrial Specific Plan requires a 5 foot building setback, however, it could be waived or modified by the Planning Commission subject to Master Plan application and approval. The applicant is requesting such waiver, with reasons that there are existing buildings at the northerly and southerly parcels which constitute a master planning, and that there is an existing densely landscaped planter along the entire north property line, north of the site. Staff concurs with these reasons and recommends that the Committee forward this recommendation to the Planning Commission. 2. The Industrial Specific Plan requires that building layout should be designed to ensure full potential use of rail. The applicant stated that the adjacent parcels to the north and south are not rail served. To accommodate rail service to this site, they would have to set aside 32 feet for rail easement, which would result in a loss of square footage from a small site. The applicant is requesting relief from this rail served requirement. Staff recommends that the applicant provide substantial evidence in a form of letter or a plan explaining the issues and subsequent hardship, and submitted for Committee review. Architecture 1. The north face of building B has exposure to public view and should provide additional articulation to break up the massing. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-28 - Aja/Laird August 6, 1987 Page 2 Landscape 1. Textured paving should be used to delineate the lunch court and office entries. Additional pedestrian amenities should be provided within the lunch court and open landscaped areas. 2. As major focal points, special landscaping should be provided at the northeast and southeast corners of buildings C and D. Design Review Comaittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dave Blakesley, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee reviewed the project and made the following recommendations: 1. Reveals should be used on all building elevations and should be a minimum of 3" wide. 2. The contrasting color found on the east elevation of building "B" should be wrapped around onto the northeast portion of building "B" using the same stepped pattern. 3. All roll-up doors should be painted the same primary color as the building in order to make them "disappear". 4. The Committee stated that the provisions for rail service is a technical issue that needs to be resolved by the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Chris August 6, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIIENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-30 - JUAN BAIRES- ADAIR - A proposal to construct two multi-tenant industrial buildings t~6t)l'ing 30,502 square feet on 1.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3, located at the northwest corner of Helms Avenue and Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-031-57. Design Parameters: The site is an asphal t parking lot which includes interior landscaping. The parcels adjacent to the north and west are developed with similar multi-tenant projects. Street improvements including sidewalks and driveways are existing. Staff tints: Site Plan 1. The design of the shared access at the northeast corner of the site creates traffic conflict due to inadequate maneuvering area for trucks turn around. The design also does not provide for screening of loading areas as required by the Industrial Specific Plan. To improve this area, the building should be recessed south an additional 12' and provided with a wing wall at the same corner, which would help screen the roll up doors on the north building face. Further, a planter area should be provided at the interior east elevation of Building B as it is subject to public view from Helms Avenue. 2. The electric transformer should be relocated to the northeast corner of the lot and screened. 3. The placement of handicap parking spaces for Building A and B would require a continuous 5 foot walkway for handicap accessibility to the front entry of each unit in the building. 4. The applicant is requesting to waive the 5 foot required interior side yard as there is an existing building abutting the property line. The Industrial Specific Plan allows for such waiver or modification to the code by the Planning Commission. Based on the fact that there is an existing building along the property line, the 5 foot side yard between the proposed Building B and existing building should be waiver. However, a 5 foot continuous planter area should be provided along the remainder of the interior side property line south of Building B. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-30 - Baires-Adair August 6, 1987 Page 2 5. The proposed Building B abuts the rear property line. The current Industrial Specific Plan requires a 5 foot building setback when the rear property line, abuts a side street. Due to the existing building north of proposed Building B, requiring the 5 foot setback with landscaping could create a dead area not conducive to public safety. Trees and shrubs may not grow as they are in the shade of the two buildings. To waive this 5 foot setback requirement, the applicant would have to file a variance. Architecture 1. In order to more fully integrate the building materials and to emphasize the office entrances the metal canopies should be extended six {6) to eight (8) feet in both directions. 2. Roll up and man doors should be the same primary color of the building. 3. The screen wall and low planter walls at the south side of the site should be the same texture/material as the building. Landscaping 1. Trees should be retained or relocated where ever possible. 2. Specimen size accent and canopy trees should be placed at key project entry locations and at the employee lunch plaza. 3. The 5 foot planter along the south elevation of building B and east elevation of building A is inadequate to provide both a continuous walkway for handicap access and landscaping along building frontage as required by the Industrial Specific Plan. A minimum 10 foot wide with a 5 foot walkway should be provided along east and south elevations of building A and B respectively. 4. A planter area should be provided to the interior east elevation of building B and behind the recommended wing wall north of building B along Helms Avenue. 5. The conceptual landscape plan show deficiency in meeting the required landscape materials in areas of street trees, trees to shade parking spaces and trees along building frontages. Further a continuous hedge row should be provided along Helms Avenue and at the corner of Helms and Feron to screen parking spaces. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-30 - Baires-Adair August 6, 1987 Page 3 Design Review Cmittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dave Blakesley, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee reviewed the project and expressed concerns with both the architecture and site plan. Therefore, it was felt that the proposed designs did not meet the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The applicant was directed to meet with staff to address the Committee concerns and return with revisions to the site plan and architectural elevations at the next available design review meeting.