Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/07/03 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCA~NGA ME MORANDUM DATE: June 11, 1986 N;TION ~ENDA TO: Commercial / I ndustri al m77 Design Review Co~ittee Suzanne Chitlea Dennis Stout Brad Bul 1 er FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate P1 anner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CO)I~EE MEETING OF JULY 3, 1986 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 meetin9, 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 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-14 - HAVEN INVESTORS The development of one 11,750 square foot office building on 1.005 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) located on the east side of Haven Avenue approximately 550 feet south of Civic Center Drive - APN: 208-622-35. This is a discussion item with regard to revised elevations. There will be no written report. Design Review Meeting .july 3, 1986 Page 2 6:30 7:30 (Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-05 - DICKER-WARMINGTON - The development of an integrated shopping center of approximately 136,000 square feet which includes 6 satellite buildings where one satellite building is a drive-in facility on 15.3 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Planned Community located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN: 202-801-25, 26. 7:30 8:00 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-15 ALLIANCE PARTNERS - The development of 2 office buildings of 6,000 square feet each on 1.0 acre of land in the Industrial Park District {Subarea 7), located on the south side of Aspen Street between Utica and Red Oak Avenues - APN 208-062-11 and 12. This is a discussion item with regard to revised elevations, NF:cv Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Debra June 5, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-14 - HAVEN INVESTORS I The development of one 11,75D square foot office building on 1.0 acre of )and in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 550 feet south of Civic Center Drive - APN 208-622-35. Design parameters The project is within the Haven Avenue Overlay District and part of a larger Master Planned commercial center (K-Mart) as shown in the attached exhibit. During review of Parcel Map 8250, the Daon Corporation indicated that this pad and the one to the north were intended for restaurants. Staff CoEmaents Site Plan: The building location is consistent with the approved Master Plan. 1. The site plan could be improved by enhancing the entry plaza with raised planters or benches that provide seating and landscape materials that will shade seating areas. Further, the plaza should be redesigned with consideration for noise buffering and wind protection. 2. The Traffic Engineering Division recommends that a 100 foot minimum stacking distance be provided on the northerly drive approach. This would necessitate elimination of 7 parking spaces. However, this loss would be made up for through the extra available spaces on Parcel 4. Pedestrian Connections: The off-site sidewalks along Haven Avenue should turn into the project at both driveway locations and connect to interior pedestrian circulation. This would provide pedestrian access not only to this office bull ding, but to the commercial center as a whole. Landscaping: The 7-foot setback from curb on the south side of the building is not sufficient to provide the theme landscaping necessary at this main entrance to the commercial center. That setback should be at least comparable to the 16-foot average landscape setback provided on the south side of the entrance. Archi tecture: Does the proposed elevation comply with the Haven Avenue Overlay District design guidelines for architectural style ? The Overlay District requires that architecture along Haven Avenue project a high quality progressive, sophisticated, and urban style of development. Multiple story buildings of sufficient mass are encouraged that reflect the scale and proportion of the Haven Avenue right-of-way and streetscape setbacks. Low, linear buildings are discouraged. The proposed elevation is a one-story office building. However, the applicant is attempting to give the impression of a two-story structure with the use of clerestory windows along the east and west elevations. Yet, the elevations reflects a low level, single story appearance that is discouraged within the Overlay District. In particular, the north and south elevations are at a critical vantage point for traffic on Haven Avenue and the multi-story appearance will be important. They are also proposing the use of flat concrete roof tile which may not contribute to the modern urban appearance anticipated for the Overlay District. Design ReviewCommitteeAction Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Herman Rempel, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Debra Meier 1. The Committee did not find the architecture to comply with the Haven Avenue Overlay design guidelines, and recommended that revised plans be submitted for Committee review again. Some suggestions for revision included the elmination of the fireplaces, the use of exposed seam metal roof material, and the use of brick veneer. 2. The Committee also recommended expansion of the landscaped setback area along the south side of the building. 3. The Committee expressed concern with the additional driveway cut onto Haven Avenue. Although it is an approved driveway location, the implication at the time of approval was the necessity for the two "restaurant pads" to have direct and separate access from the rest of the shopping center. The placement of an office building on this site may preclude the necessity for an additional drive entrance. Design Review C~itteeAction - July 3, 1986 Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Dennis Stout, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee recommended approval of the revised project with the following conditions: 1. Use of the burgundy windows mullions as shown on colored elevations is preferred"t'6'tEh'Fred mullions on the color sample board. 2. Relocate trash enclosure to a location not directly in front of a window. 3. Provide a colored site/landscape plan for use at Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:30 Nancy July 3, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-05 - DICKER - WARMINGTON - The development of an integrated shopping center of approximately 136,100 square feet, which includes a total of 6 satellite buildings where one is a drive-thru facility on 15.3 acres of land in a Neighbrohood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN: 202-801-25, 26. Background: The Committee has previously reviewed this project last November, 1985, where the project was determined to be inconsistent with the City goals. On January 16, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a special workshop to review and offer comments on the re-design concepts for this project. At this meeting, the Planning Commission was generally favorable to the conceptual site plan as shown in Exhibit "B", and provide directions to the developer to further refine the project prior to scheduling for Planning Commission review. Attached for your review are Exhibits A and B which show the two site plans and the corresponding recommendations of both the Committee and the Planning Commission. Design Parameters: Since the January 16, lg86 meeting, the developer wished to pursue an alternative site plan layout to that found acceptable by the Planning Conmnission workshop. Staff has reiterated the previous recommedations from the Planning Commission to the developer, who has worked with staff in preparing to these revise plans. The latest site plan layout shows a more traditional shopping center layout in a concave building configuration for the major anchors and the retail shops with expanses of parking area in the middle as shown in Exhibit "C". The developer attempted to address the concerns and recommendations of the Planning Commission in this new site plan through the following: 1. Provided clustering of buildings C and D with a major plaza area inbetween, with special design treatment, to reinforce the community's identity. 2. Create a pattern of organized structures by clustering satellite buildings together with a small parking area in between as shown in the Exhibit "C". 3. A stronger texturized pedestrian connection throughout the site for promoting convenient and safe pedestrian movement. 4. Expanded plaza areas as shown in front of shop building 2, and shop building 3. The total amount of plaza area proposed is approximately 5% of the net area (15.3 acres). 5. A major pedestrian connection between the site entrance on Haven Avenue that leads toward the market building has been provided. This same pedestrian connection also helps to break- up the expanses of parking area for this site. 6. Only one fast food drive-thru facility is being proposed. 7. Mounding and screen wall are being used to buffer the adjacent residential uses. Staff Comment: Site Plan: ODes this new site plan ~ts the concerns of the Design Review Committee? 1. The proposed site plan could be improved by widening the planter area to at least 10 feet on the east side of the first driveway on Base Line Road and adding a pedestrian connection, and by adding a pedestrian connection to the east side of the planter area for the second driveway on Base Line Road. 2. Although the parking area in front of the major market has been eliminated, parking spaces are still provided in front of the major retail building and the drug store. However, they are designed at 90° which will somewhat reduce the degree of potential traffic conflict. 3. The buildings along Base Line Road have a required setback of an average 43 feet. However, considering the number of bus stop turnouts and right-turn lanes required along Base Line Road, the constant in and out movement of the curb could create potential traffic conflict that may be hazardous to public health and safety. Based on staff recommendation, the applicant has mitigated this potential conflict by providing a continuous 5th lane along the length of the project site frontage on Base Line Road. 4. This site plan is also similar to the original site plan in that 6 satellite buildings are being proposed. 5. The parking lot circulation for Pad F is awkward and unsafe. The building could be reoriented on a north/south axis with a single parking area provided west of the building. Architecture: Architectural program for this shopping center has incorporated the architectural details as recommended by the Planning Commission. Landscaping: 1. The bermed and special landscape treatment along the Valencia Avenue is critical to the screening and buffering of loading areas. This inverted building configuration reduces the buffering area from the adjacent residential uses from an average landscaping setback of 50 feet as proposed originally, to the currently proposed average landscaping setback of 25 feet. 2. Cluster of tree plantings are needed along the entire store front area, in particular, for Hughes Market, retail building, and the drugstore. 3. Trees should provide wind mitigation within plaza areas and along arcade. Design RevieaCmm~ttee Action: Members Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitlea, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: Site Plan 1. The planter area located at the east side of the front driveway on Base Line Road be widened to at least 10 feet and a pedestrian connection be added. 2. A pedestrian connection be added to the planter area located at the east side of the second driveway on Base Line Road. 3. Parking spaces in front of the major retail building and drug store be eliminated, except for handicap spaces. 4. The continuous 5th lane along the site frontage on Base Line Road to mitigate traffic conflict meets the intent of the required average 43 feet landscape and building setback. 5. Building pad F should be oriented on a north/south axis with a single parking area provided west of the building. The final design shall be subjected to City Planner and City Engineer approval. 6. A reciprocal parking enforcement clause subject to the Sheriff's Department approval shall be recorded with the parcel map. 7. All decorative walls should be of compatible materials such as stucco or concrete, with decorative caps. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on January 16, 1986 in the Neighborhood Center to revie~ and offer preliminary comments on design concepts for the Tetra Vista Village Shopping Center, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue. The following preliminary comments Site Plan 1. The conceptual site plan layout of the center is acceptable. 2. Only - one (1) fast food drive-through facility be proposed. m 3~ Parking immediately in front of the major anchors and ~e retail building be eliminated except for the handicap ~ parking spaces. · 4. Trellis/arbors be added along the two major pedestrian · connections as shown in the attached map. 5. A direct pedestrian connection between the plaza area in front of Building C and D and the proposed market building be provided as shown in the attached map. = 6. The space behind the Shop Building B be closed off with Architecture 1. Instead of symetrical (twin tower) design of towers, variation of tower height and tower schemes for major tenants be provided, subject to City Planner approval. 2. Heavy wood rafters be added to the roof overhang. 3. Additional architectural elements/details be provided to the rear elevation such as strengthening the top edge of parapet, subtle roof height variations for the retail shop buildings. 4. The design of store fronts should compliment the architectural program and should have subtle variations, subject to Design Review Committee approval. 5. The following detailing and building materials are subjected to City Planner or Design Review Committee approval. A. Instead of the proposed brick paver, a non-slip Mexican tile be used for textured pavement. B. The concrete walkway should be of heavy broom finished and colored throughout the site. C. The concrete columns should be of integral color. D. Stacking of roof tile at the edges be provided. Full samples of roof tile be provided. E. The accent tile proposed be of ceramic with design. F. The stucco finish should be of the lumpy smooth type. 6. The design of signage shall compliment and not compete with the architecutral program. Landscaping 1. Bermed and special landscaping treatment such as increased size and number of trees and shrubs along Valencia Avenue shall be provided for screening and buffering loading areas. 2. Clusters of tree plantings, planter pockets in front of columns be provided along the entire store front area, in particular, Hughes Market, retail building and along store. 3. Tree placement within plaza reas and along arcade should provide wind mitigation. 4. The quantity of plant materials shown in the conceptual landscape plan are deficient. It should be designed to meet the City standards in areas of number of street trees, trees around building frontage parking lot trees for shade, hedge grow for screening cars, etc. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Debra june 19, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-15 - ALLIANCE PARTNERS - The development of 2 office buildings of 6,000 square feet each on 1.0 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the south side of Aspen Street between Utica and Red Oak Avenues - APN 208-062-11 and 12. Design Parameters: The proposed office buildings are on Lots I and 15 of the Office Tennis Executive Center. Streets are fully improved, parkway development will occur with the construction of buildings. Staff Comments: Site Plan: The proposed site plan appears to be consistent with the conceptual Master Plan. Additionally, the site plan provides texturized entry plazas connection the two bull dings and outdoor patios bordered by raised planter seating, shaded by a vine covered collanade. However, the site plan could be improved with the following: 1. A shared trash enclosure (double bin) should be provided versus the proposed individual ones, and should be relocated away from the streets. 2. The compact car parking spaces within the texturized pavement entry areas should be changed to standard size in order to lessen the likelihood of these trees being hit by cars (see attached). Architecture: The proposed buildings are single story and identical except for color. The semi-circular window treatments are compatible with other structures proposed or under construction within the Tennis Executive Center. Design Review CmitteeAction Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Herman Rempel, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee did not recommend approval and directed the applicant to address the following concerns: 1. Pedestrian Connections: The project does not have any pedestrian connections toward the south. There needs to be connections from the bulk of the parking area to the office entrance and also connections leading toward the access to the tennis court. 2. Architecture: The Committee does not believe these buildings are in character with the rest of the Tennis Executive Center. They al so think the "mirrored-image" approach is not appropriate. Similarity in building design would be acceptable with discernable differences in treatment in height, width, bulk, etc. 3. The conceptual landscape palette of this project should be compatible to the other approved projects and the Tennis Executive Center Master Plan in order to achieve an uniformity of landscape materials, especially on perimeter streets. 4. The texture pavement for walkway leading to the tennis court throughout the Master Planned area should achieve a compatibility in materials and treatment. 5. Revised el evations shall be submitted for the next Design Review Committee meeting. Design Review C~ittee Action - auly 3, 1986 Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Dennis Stout, Brad Bullet Staff planner: Debra Meier The Committee recommended approval of the revised project with the following condi ti ons: 1. Use of the curved window mullions was acceptable to the Committee. The applicant should provide sample for display at the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Rotate trash enclosure 90 degrees. 3. Landscape materials shall remain consistent with Office Tennis Executive Center conceptual landscape plan. 4. The area between buildings shall consist of a 5 foot minimum landscape area and a 4 foot wide sidewalk. 5. Mr. Corrigan indicated that the applicant would be allowed to encroach 2-3 feet into C.C.&R. required setbacks along street frontages, yet remaining within setbacks established by City Development Codes. 6. Roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. In addition, roof mounted equipment shall be painted to match roof top color in order to mitigate offensive views from nearby multi-story buildings. 7. pedestrian crossings shall be provided across south drive aisle to access tennis easement.