Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/02/18 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 1988 ACTION AGENDA TO: Commercial / Industrial Design Review Committee Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dan Col eman David Blakesley (Alternate) FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1988 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 (Greg) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~IENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-61 - RIERSON - The development of a warehouse/distribution ~y totaling 80,620 square feet on 3.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located on the west side of Rochester Avenue (old), south of 6th Street - APN: 229-263-07. 6:30 - 7:00 (Greg) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-56 - DAVIS DEVELOPMENTS - li~e deve)opment of three warehouse, storage, and distribution buildings totaling 175,808 square feet on 9.8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District 1 ocated at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-07. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Commercial/Industrial February 18, 1988 Page 2 7:00 - 8:00 {Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-01 - SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - T~e development of a medical center consisting of a 39,938 square foot ambulatory health care facility and 89,932 square feet of medical offices on ten acres of land in the Mixed Used District (MHO) within the Terra Vista Planned Community 1 ocated at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-151-13 and 14. 8:00 - 8:30 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-39 - DAVIES - T~e development of four industrial buildings T6t~li'ng 19,500 square feet on 1.86 acres of land in the General Industrial Area, Subarea 3, located south of Feron Boulevard and east of Helms Avenue - APN: 209-03- 55. NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA February 18, 1988 1. MI)R 88-01- HIMMRS-PETERS (Cynthia) Review of roof screen. Committee Action: The Committee did not approve the roof screen material as proposed by the applicant stating that it is not durable and does not provide for compatibility to the tilt-up concrete. The Committee suggested asbestos free non-combustable cement board for the roof screen. 2. Mi)R 88-05 - SEIFERT (Cynthia) Review of awning and tiles. Committee Action: The Committee stated that the awning color and tiles should provide compatibility to surrounding building in this complex. The blue tile should be changed to a rust color as in the proposed accent tile. The proposed blue awning should be changed to a rust color. The fabric material for the awning and the installation method are not acceptable as they will not withstand strong winds. 3. DR 87-55 - FULLtiER (Greg) Review of revised plan. Committee Action: The Committee reviewed the revised plans for the project, and determined that all issues identified at the January 21, 1988 meeting had not been completely addressed. The Committee recommended that the applicant address the following previously identified items prior to resubmitting the project for further review: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA Commercial/Industrial February 18, 1988 Page 2 1. A decorative screenwall similar to those used adjacent to Buildings "1" and "2" should be provided along the length of the planter strip west of the trailer stalls at the south property line. 2. Decorative pavement treatment should be provided at all project and building entries. Recommended materials include exposed aggregate, brick or tile pavers, etc. 3. Special accent plantings (e.g. specimen-size multi-trunk accent trees) should be provided adjacent to project entries. 4. Landscape planters should be provided adjacent to all refuse enclosures to soften the appearance of masonry walls, metal gates. Such planters should be at least three feet in width to allow adequate space for shrub plantings. 5. The landscape planter provided on the south side of Building "2" should include tree planrings, similar to the planter for Building "1" 6. Additional architectural treatment should be provided the east and south sides of Buildings "1" and "2" to minimize large expanses of blank building walls. Recommended alternatives include texture/color treatment, additional columnar elements, etc. 7. All columnar elements should be treated with the originally proposed fluted concrete, not the sandblast finish currently shown for columns along the east side of Building "3". DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Greg February 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-61 - RIERSON - The development of a warehouse/distribution facility totaling 77,591 square feet on 3.6 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located on the west side of Rochester Avenue (old), south of 6th Street - APN: 229-263-07. Design Parameters: The site is presently a vineyard, sloping southerly at approximately 1%, with no other significant vegetation. Parcels west of the site also consist of vineyards, and the property to the east (across Rochester) is currently vacant. The property north of the site is developed with a non-conforming residential use and the adjacent parcel to the south is currently occupied by a wholesale plant nursery. Staff Comments: Site Plan 1. Additional pedestrian ammenities (e.g. table, benches) should also be provided within the exterior patio areas for the project. 2. Low level screen walls should be used to separate patio areas from adjacent parking areas and building entries. 3. Pavement treatment should consist of exposed aggregate, interlocking brick, or tile pavers, or a combination of them. Landscape Plan 1. To mitigate views into truck loading and storage areas from the freeway, tall growing evergreens should be planted at approximately ten (10) feet on center adjacent to the eastern most screen wall. Similar plantings should also be provided within planters adjacent to the western end of the loading and storage area. 2. Low level shrub plantings should be provided adjacent to screen walls to soften the appearance of the walls. Architecture 1. Additional vision or spandrel glass elements should be provided the eastern office entry along the north elevation. Specifically, these elements should be carried across to the east end of the structure. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-61 - Rierson February 18, 1988 Page 2 2. Additional textural and color treatment should be provided along the south elevation to establish a degree continuity. Specifically, Also, each corner should relate to the other via a connecting color or textural element Design Review C.~__'tteeAction: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Greg Gage The Committee reviewed the project, and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional spandrel glass elements should be provided to the eastern and western elevations, to upgrade the appearance of the building along the street frontages. 2. A continuous texture band should be provided across the lower portion of the southern elevation, to establish a degree of continuity between the corner treatments. 3. Tall growing evergreens should be provided at approximately ten (10) feet on center within the landscape easement along the northern property line, to ensure adequate screening of the loading area from the 1-15 freeway. 4. All overhead doors shall be painted to match the primary building color. 5. A spl it-1 ever HVAC system should be used to minimize roof-mounted equipment. If a roof-mounted system is proposed, detailed line of sight data should be submitted for review to ensure that all equipment will be screened from public view. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Greg February 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-56 - DAVIS .DEVELOPI~ENTS llqe development of three warehouse, storage, and distribution buildings totaling 177,176 square feet on 8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-07. Design Parameters: The site is presently vacant, sloping southerly at approximately 1~ with four mature eucalyptus and two walnut trees situated on the parcel. Other significant vegetation includes ten olive and two walnut trees, all of which are located within the future street right-of-way for Rochester Avenue or Jersey Boulevard. Parcels north and west of the site are vacant, and property south of the site is developed with three warehouse/distribution buildings. A twelve building industrial project totaling 600,000 square feet was recently approved for the parcel to the east (across Rochester). Staff Coam~ents: Site Plan 1. The Industrial Area Specific Plan (I.S.P.) designates the site (and the parcels north of the site) for rail service; however the current proposal does not provide for extension of the spur from the adjacent parcel to the south. The current policy of the Planning Commission is to require the extension of rail service for parcels designated by the I.S.P. as being rail served, unless such extension is physically impossible. Since physical constraints do not eliminate the possibility of extending rail service for the project (and for potential development to the north), the applicant has been directed to prepare appropriate plans which show how rail service can be provided prior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission consideration. Given the changes to the overall design which will be necessary if rail service is required, the Committee may wish to review the project further when revised plans reflecting the rail service extension are submitted. 2. Pedestrian access to plaza areas from building entries should be strengthened through the provision of additional on-site connections from building entries. Landscape Plan 1. Exposed portions of the low level flood wall along Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue should be complimented through the provision of low level shrub plantings. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-56 - Davis Development February 18, 1988 Page 2 2. Special hardscape elements, accent and annual color plantings, etc. should be provided the northeast and northwest corners of the project to create focal points and compliment the monument project identification signs. Architecture 1. Sandblasted, fluted or other textural elements similar to those originally proposed for the project should be provided all elevations. The balance of textures and materials currently being proposed should be revised to provide greater consistency with the initially submitted elevations, which will be available for review by the Design Review Committee. 2. Additional color, texture and reveal treatment should be provided the north, south, and west elevations of Building "A". Similarly, the south and west elevations of Building "B", and north, south, and east elevations of Buildings "C" should be upgraded through the provision of additional reveals, texture or color bands, etc. 3. Screen wall treatments between Buildings "A" and "B" and between buildings "B" and "C" should be provided treatment which relates to building architecture. Design Review Co~m~ittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Greg Gage The Committee reviewed the project, and recommended that the following issues be addressed prior to re-submitting for further review: Site Plan 1. The Committee pointed out that rail-service may be required for the site; however, this issue could be forwarded for full Planning Commission discussion once all other technical and design issues have been resolved. 2. A plaza area should be provided along the south side of Building "B", and should be similar in size and include amenities and landscape features consistent with the plazas provided Buildings "A" and "C". DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-56 - Davis Development February 18, 1988 Page 3 3. Additional variety to the building footprints should be provided to enhance architectural interest and provide greater articulation of building entries. 4. Breaks, openings, recesses, etc. should be utilized more extensively along all elevations exposed to street frontages, to provide a more significant architectural statement. 5. Additional color treatment should be provided to all southern elevations. Similarly, the west elevation of Building "B", north and west elevations of Building "A", and north and east elevations of Building "C" should be upgraded through the use of additional reveals, texture/color bands, etc. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 8:00 Debra February 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-01 - SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - The development of a medical center consisting of a 39,938 square foot ambulatory health care facility and 89,932 square feet of medical offices on ten acres of land in the Mixed Used District (MHO) within the Terra Vista Planned Community 1 ocated at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-151-13 and 14. Design Parameters: The site is presently vacant with a natural 2% slope from north to south. The eucalyptus row near the west site boundary has previously been approved for removal for the construction of Milliken Avenue from Mountain View Drive to Foothill Boulevard. No other significant plants or structures exist on the site. The hospital complex is located in the northwest portion of a block designated MHO within the Terra Vista Master Plan. This district is intended to be a mixed use area comprised of the hospital facilities and office and con~nercial uses related to the medical facility. The area Master Plan of this block included in the plan package is intended for reference only, we are not considering a Master Plan approval with the medical facility application. Staff Coments: Site Plan 1. The site plan is designed to accommodate two phase completion of the facility. Phase One will include the basic ambulatory care facility, the multi-story physicians office building, parking to accommodate this phase along with landscaping and site monumentation. Phase Two will include two areas of expansion of the ambulatory care center, another multi-story physicians office building and expansion of the parking area to accommodate the additional building square footage. 2. The medical center and physicians offices are accessed through the central lobby. Drive-thru drop off areas are provided on both sides of the lobby. An overhead canopy is proposed from the entry doorway to the curb, but not extended over the drive aisle. Staff suggests that the canopy be extended over the drive aisle on at least one side of the entrance lobby. 3. An outdoor dining patio is located on the south side of the Phase One physicians office building. The patio includes decorative hardscape, seating and trees to provide shade for outdoor waiting or eating. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-01 - San Antonio Community Hospital February 18, 1988 Page 2 4. The Plan proposes monumentation at Church and Milliken that includes annual color and decorative hardscape. This ties directly from the street frontage to the facility entrance via an enhanced pedestrian walkway and accent plant materials. 5. Provisions have been made to the pedestrian circulation from the medical facility to the remaining portions of the site. This will provide access for physicians and patients to other offices and commercial type activities proposed to occur on the remaining portion of the site. Architecture This site is positioned in a location that poses some architectural challenges. First, it is adjacent to parcels intended for multi-family developments within the High and Medium-High Densities and must respect the residential character of these projects. Second, the project is also part of an overall Office/Commercial Mixed Use District and must be compatible to multi-story office structures. And third, it will be visible from Foothill Boulevard which is primarily high end office uses in this particular corridor between Haven and Rochester. In staff's opinion the applicant has striven to meet these goals in the following ways: 1. The proposed building materials are essentially stucco and tinted glass which is a subtle contrast to the adjacent residential projects. In addition, the proposed structures are setback over 100 feet from the street so that the size and scale of the project is not impending upon pedestrians and motorists in the immediate vicinity of this corner. In addition, the lowest profile of the medical facility is oriented to the north portion of the site which is in closest proximity to the residential uses. 2. The two proposed physicians office buildings are up to four stories in height which would be consistent with future office facilities on the remaining portions of the block. The site will also be tied together with landscaping and circulation as indicated on the Conceptual Site Master Plan. 3. The southern exposure of the medical facility which is that portion most closely oriented toward Foothill Boulevard, would primarily be that of the four story physicians office wing. The single story ambulatory care section is positioned closer to Church Street than are the office wings. The southern elevation uses a larger amount of tinted glass which reflects the more sophisticated character of Foothill Boulevard. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-01 - San Antonio Community Hospital February 18, 1988 Page 3 4. Although the architecture is generally sensitive to the surroundings staff makes the following suggestions to the architectural design: a) A metal roof screen has been proposed. This must be an integral component of the overall architectural concept for this facility. Staff is somewhat concerned about the material, color and appearance of such a metal roof screen. It may be acceptable if it is a component part of the architecture and perhaps ties into the standing seam metal roof at the lobby entrances; or perhaps it is eliminated and the stucco parapet is designed to screen any roof top fixtures. b) The MRI unit (near the northeast portion of the facility) is essentially a mobile facility within a security fence. It is placed to have access by medical personnel as well as to be removed from the site if necessary. The fencing material is not clearly identified but appears to be chain link (refer to Section B, Sheet A-6). Staff suggests that this unit be enclosed with a semblance of being a permanent facility. Either with a wall, featuring materials that match the medical facility, or perhaps a building shell that encloses the mobile unit. In either case the berming and landscaping shown on Section B would be appropriate for screening purposes. c) The Phase One ambulatory heal th care facility proposes a moveable CT scanner located at the north side of the facility. This should also be screened as it has direct view from Church Street. Screening should include decorative walls and a gate. Landscaping should be used in conjunction with the walls to provide additional screening and softening of the structure. Landscaping 1. The seven foot planting areas along the west side of the ambulatory care center and the north of Phase One physicians office building seem unusually narrow to provide a sufficient amount of landscaping adjacent to the building face. In general, there is 15-30 feet for planting adjacent to the building in all other locations. Design Review Cuamuittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-01 - San Antonio Community Hospital February 18, 1988 Page 4 The Committee recommended approval of the project based on the following conditions: 1. Final design of the monentation at Church and Milliken shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to approval of Landscape/Irrigation Plans. 2. The metal roof screen shall be painted to match the building face. 3. Screening of the CT Scanner and the MRI shall be accomplished through using a combination of berms, landscaping and a decorative fence/wall. The screening should completely hide the mobile units from public view. 4. The parking along the north face of the Phase One Physicians Office Building should be eliminated (except the handicap spaces) to allow sufficient area for landscaping along the building face. lhe handicap parking spaces on either si de of the entry should be exposed aggregate concrete with a broom finish band to reflect an expansion of the entry courtyard. In addition, staff was able to contact the Foothill Fire District regarding fire truck access near the southeast entry of the main lobby. Due to the necessity to enable fire vehicles around that loop a canopy over the drive aisle would not be feasible. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00- 8:30 Chris February 18, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-39 - DAVIES The development of four industrial buildings totaling 19,500 square feet on 1.86 acres of land in the General Industrial Area, Subarea 3, located south of Feron Boulevard and east of Helms Avenue - APN: 209-03-55. Background: The project was originally approved on September 18, 1986 by City Planner action. Since that time plan check was completed and construction permits issued. A January 28, 1988 site inspection of the construction determined that the project was not built in complete compliance with the approved plans. The issues are: 1. A slumpstone has been used as the major building material versus split face block. 2. Staff's interpretation of the intention for a smooth accent line and columns has not been met. 3. An orange accent has been used versus blue. 4. Brick banding has been eliminated from the on-site plazas and sidewalks. 5. An accent reveal has not been provided for the storage area screen walls. Staff Cements: As a City Planner approval modifications to the existing Development Review may be done without Planning Commission action. However, Design Review Committee must provide direction to the City Planner as to the extent of those modifications which will be acceptable. The Committee should discuss the original approval and the project as built, discuss solutions to rectify any inconsistencies and provide staff direction. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee accepted the use of slumpstone and the proposed orange accent color. The applicant was, however, directed to develop options for special paving within the sight and to modify the approved landscape plans to mitigate the impact of reduced planting areas. Final approval of the landscape modifications and paving proposal shall rest with the City Planner.