Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/10/03 - Agenda PacketDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 14, 1991 Cc~-m~rcial/Industrial Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) Scott Murphy, Associate PlannJr~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1991 1977 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 - 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:30 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. 6:30 - 7:30 (Anna-Lisa) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES The development of a 51.93 acre industrial master plan consisting of 30 industrial buildings totaling 703,193 square feet, located in the General Industrial and Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Districts (Subareas 8 and 9), located on the south side of Arrow Route, west of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209- 142-06. 7:30 - 8:00 (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-07 - HIMES PETER ARCHITECTS The review of 3 industrial buildings totaling i538,750 square feet on 27.5 acres of land within Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located generally at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 229-111-31, 32, 33, 48, and 49. DRC AGENDA OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 2 8:00 - 8:30 (Tom) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-13 - HWANG - The development of a master plan consisting of a four-story hotel totaling 82,492 square feet, two restaurant buildings totaling 11,000 square feet and two office buildings totaling 48,750 square feet on 8.32 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-150-31. SM:jfs Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA October 3, 1991 CUP 88-47 (Tom) Committee KAD~MAN Action: Review of revised plaza design. The Committee (Chitiea, McNiel, Kroutil) reviewed the design of the plaza and recommended approval with the following comments: The basic design concept of the plaza and architectural details are consistent with the overall project and are acceptable. Delete three of the low planter areas located on either side of the trellis as their location will conflict with pedestrian circulation. Orient the plaza 45 degrees from its current alignment. Provide a raised planter arrangement that will allow a broader view of the fountain. The plans should be revised to the satisfaction of the City Planner. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:30 Anna-Lisa October 3, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES The development of a 51.93 acre industrial master plan consisting of 30 industrial buildings totaling 703,193 square feet, located in the General Industrial and Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Districts (Subareas 8 and 9), located on the south side of Arrow Route, west of White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06. Design Parameters: The project site slopes gently to the south at approximately 2 percent. There are no geologic structures or rock out croppings. There are no special cultural, historical or scenic resources on-site. In addition, there are no existing trees on-site. Background: The applicant is proposing a 52 acre industrial master plan with the development of Phase I of the project as part of this review. Phase I encompasses the development of 8 of the 30 proposed buildings and all public infrastructure for the project. Phases II and III will be submitted at a later date as separate Development Review applications. Staff is processing Conditional Use Permit 91-26, a request to allow a variety of office uses in Buildings 2 and 3 concurrently with Development Review 91-08. The site is identified in the Industrial Specific Plan as a proposed rail service site, with spur lines along its eastern and southern boundary lines. It is important to note that construction of the actual land/spur lines is not required (only easements are required), the buildings must be designed for rail service potential. Buildings should have finish floor elevations and dock height doors or 'kick out' wall panels. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Rail Service: The applicant is proposing to provide rail easements to only 2 of the 5 southern parcels and none of the parcels on the eastern parcels. The developer has prepared a comprehensive rail study which has been provided as part of this package. Numerous issues were discussed within the report, identifying topographical and development constraints, in addition to marketing demands, as the primary reasons for not providing rail service (easements) to the remaining southern and eastern parcels. No comments, however, have been received from A.T. & S.F. railroad. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 2 The following design constraints have been identified within the study: Easterly property line (north-south spur): Due to the railroad imposed limit of 0.20 feet change per station in vertical grade, the spur track must be 1,000 feet long before building service can be provided. In addition, the existing lead track has a slope of 2.3 percent which exceeds the current maximum in allowable grade for any tracks. This results in the northerly 400 feet of the project being serviceable. This would create a large industrial building adjacent to Arrow Route and would be 4.5 feet in elevation below Arrow Route. Arrow Route is scheduled to be developed as multi-tenant industrial park resulting in higher and better usage and is more consistent with the goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Southerly property line (east-west spur): A lead track does not exist along the south property line within the existing easement. In addition, the railroad easement stops at Vincent Avenue. The railroad and property owners west of Vincent Avenue do not desire rail service. The construction of a lead track along the south property line will require the removal of an existing spur. Upon completion of the lead track, four separate switches would be required to serve the various parcels. The existing spur must also be reconstructed. In addition, the spur track must cross the proposed storm drain which is relatively shallow. Due to the proximity of Parcel 21 (shown on Exhibit I) to the track turnout, switches, and the 2.3 percent rate of grade, it will be impossible to serve this parcel. This will create an inconsistent project type along the east and south property lines. The Committee should review the enclosed rail study and discuss whether or not it would be suitable to provide rail service to all parcels on both the southern and eastern parcels. Architecture: The use of brick, as currently proposed, is not substantial enough on certain buildings, such as 6, 8, and 20. Building entrances should contain stronger treatments. Suggestions include variations of architectural planes, pavement surface treatment, and landscape plazas. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 3 Some elevations are much too blank in appearance and should receive additional architectural treatment to provide some type of visual relief, such as east elevation of Building 5A. Architectural detailing and elements on the front and side elevations should be carried onto rear elevations to break up blank wall space. Employee/Plaza Areas: All employee/plaza areas should feature pedestrian amenities such as employee outdoor eating areas, benches, light standards, kiosks, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles designed in a coordinated fashion to enhance the appearance and function of the site. Colonnades or loggias and other covered walkways or structures that provide shade to pedestrian spaces should be utilized whenever possible. Minor Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Site Plan: There is potential circulation conflicts between vehicles entering the site and vehicles backing out of parking spaces at the northwest corner of the project at Arrow Route. AS a result, the parking spaces should be eliminated. The planter on the northwest corner of Building 5B provides an awkward circulation area as it conflicts with the drive aisle area directly north. Berming, landscape materials, low level walls and building mass should be used to screen parking and loading areas where possible, i.e. Building 8 and 9. Design Review Co--~{ ttee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez The Committee reviewed the plans and did not recommend approval. The Committee felt the plans should be revised to address the following: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 4 Rail Issue: In addition to providing rail service to Parcels 20 and 21 along the south side of the project, Parcel 19, located directly west of Parcel 20, should also be rail served. The applicant should provide an exhibit to demonstrate Parcel 19's ability to accommodate rail service. The following should be considered: 1. Redesign of the building's footprint. 2. Reconfiguration of the underground detention basin, if needed. Appropriate design of the building with kick-out panels and dock high doors along the building's south elevation, adjacent to the rail easement. The applicant should note that unless there is written verification of a physical hardship in providing rail service to Parcel 19, the Design Review Committee cannot support the project. Architecture: The Committee advised that the applicant look at the following: A. Buildings 5A and 5B: Additional texture and architectural articulation should be added to the east elevation of Building 5A and the south elevation of Building 5B. The vertical brick element lines should be carried across the north elevation of Building 5B and wrapped onto the east and west elevations. The sandblasted finish along the east elevation should be carried until the end of the building, similar to the west elevation. B. Building 6: Additional texture and articulation should be added to the north and west elevations. 2. Additional brick detailing should be used to make a significant architectural statement. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 5 C. Building 7: The sandblast treatment and brick accent should be carried across the entire west elevation. D. Building 8: Additional architectural detailing is needed along the north elevation. The brick panels above the windows along the west and south elevations appear bulky and awkward. The Co~unittee suggested that some other type of architectural treatment would be appropriate for the entry. E. Building 9: The free-standing brick entry elements should be reconsidered. The elements appear inappropriate and should blend into the building instead Of appearing as the remnants of a pre-existing building in front of a new structure. Additional detailing and articulation is needed to the west and north elevations. F. Building 10: 1. Same as 5A for the south and west elevations. Additional detailing and texture should be added to the north and east elevations. G. All primary entries to the buildings should feature very bold and grand architectural elements. Employee Plaza Areas: A. Textured paving, interlocking pavers, etc., should be used to link buildings together to facilitate pedestrian access. B. A manufacturers brochure should be provided for the streetscape furniture to be used within the plaza areas. Site Plan: Special treatment, i.e., hardscape and building design and orientation, should be considered for the northwest corner of the site at White Oak and Arrow Route. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Scott October 3, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-07 - HIMES PETER ARCHITECTS - The review of 3 industrial buildings totaling ±538,750 square feet on 27.5 acres of land within Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located generally at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 229-111-31, 32, 33, 48, and 49. Design Parameters: On December 14, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a master plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center II located on 131 acres of land between Arrow Route and the A.T.& S.F. railroad at Milliken Avenue. The master plan depicted 24 lots varying in size from 2 acres to 13.77 acres. In conjunction with the master plan, the Planning Commission approved the design of 6 industrial buildings, 4 manufacturing buildings and 2 warehouse/distribution buildings. The building designs consist of painted, concrete tilt-up panels with colored glass (both spandrel and tempered glass). The buildings have been completed and several of the units are occupied. The applicant is now proposing a similar architectural style for the 3 warehouse/distribution buildings. The application will utilize painted, concrete tilt-up panels and colored glass and will introduce a sandblasted concrete finish and a stainless steel metal column at the main building entries. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Building 5 is situated in such a way to provide a focal point at the intersection of Milliken and Jersey. Because of the grade separation from Jersey (12 feet), the building placed at the minimum setback (35 feet) along Jersey, and the height of the building (38 feet), staff is concerned that the building may overwhelm the corner. Options should be reviewed to minimize the dominance of the building to the intersection. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-07 - HIMES PETER ARCHITECTS OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 2 Building 5 incorporates a saw-toothed glass element at the interior, southeast corner of the building. The applicant is utilizing the same element found on the southwest corner of the building on the opposite corner. Staff suggests that the saw-toothed element on the interior corner is not readily visible and the element should be provided at the exterior corner of the building in order to visually tie the 2 corners of Milliken and Jersey together. Originally, Building 5 was depicted as 3 smaller manufacturing buildings. The applicant, however, has revised the plan to provide the one warehouse/distribution building. The loading area will be located on the north side of the building. Because there is no building proposed or approved for Parcel 4 to the north, staff is concerned about the visibility of the loading area from Milliken until such time as a building is constructed. The applicant is proposing a windrow style planting along the north property line to screen the loading area. The Committee should review the plan to determine if this screening is acceptable until the building on Parcel 4 is constructed. Secondary Issues: Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The applicant is proposing the use of sandblasted concrete at the main building entries. The Committee may wish to consider greater use of the sandblasted concrete along those elevations fronting the public rights-of-way. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended that revised plans be submitted for additional Committee review to address the following: Building 5 should be revised to minimize the dominance of the building at the corner of Jersey and Milliken. Suggested revisions include greater building setback or lowering the building height. The Milliken driveway for Building 5 should be shifted southerly to provide additional landscaping on the north side of the driveway. Extensive landscaping should be provided to screen the truck loading area. 3- The saw-tooth element presented by the applicant was acceptable to the Committee and should be incorporated into the revised plans. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 - 8:30 Tom October 3, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-13 - HWANG - The development of a master plan consisting of a four-story hotel totaling 82,492 square feet, two restaurant buildings totaling 11,000 square feet and two office buildings totaling 48,750 square feet on 8.32 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-150-31. Background: This project was reviewed by the Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Kroutil) on April 4, 1991. The Committee reviewed the project but did not recommend approval due to specific concerns pertaining to site design, building orientation, massing, materials, etc- The applicant revised the project design based upon Committee recommendations and has submitted for further consideration. Staff Cc"m"~nts: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Relationship of the restaurant at Foothill and Rochester to design and setback requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - At their previous Committee meeting, the applicant was directed to provide an alternate site plan for the restaurant pad considering the "missing link" design requirements and also to consider deleting the restaurant design from Phase I development. The building design has been deleted from the plans but an alternate plan was not included. The hotel's architectural concept objectives previously identified. reviewed in the following areas: was revised based upon design The revised concept should be a. Building massing. b. "Base" element (arcade) provided on the structure. c. Variation in the roof line. d. Provide a base to the columns ending on the top of the first floor arcade. e- Provide an arch between columns on the porte cochere. f. Provide additional architectural elements to break up large blank areas on the side and rear elevations- g. Placement of individual a.c. units at each room (not shown in elevations)- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 89-13 - HWANG OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 2 The plaza located at Foothill and Rochester shall be revised in conformance with Design Guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan. The plaza should provide an enriched pedestrian zone with special hardscape materials, formal landscape arrangements, and pedestrian level lighting. Secondary Issues: time permitting, design issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and the Committee will discuss the following secondary 1. The location of pedestrian circulation paths should be revised. Relocate the paths so they do not occupy areas intended for landscape fingers. 2. Relocate the trash enclosures and loading areas to the north side of both restaurant pads. 3. Provide additional landscaping along the west and south elevations of the Phase I restaurant pad. 4. Provide landscaping on both sides of the pedestrian circulation paths on the north side of both restaurant pads and on the south side of the hotel. 5. Provide a detail of the fountain design located south of the hotel. 6. Review the design of the trash enclosure for consistency with the building architecture. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee reviewed the application and recommended approval with the following modifications: 1. Provide additional landscape fingers to break-up long uninterrupted rows of parking spaces. 2. Expand the use of decorative paving (below the porte cochere) on both the handicapped ramp and parking spaces. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 89-13 - HWANG OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 3 3. Decorative paving should be revised as follows: a. Use interlocking pavers along all pedestrian circulation paths and at both driveways. b. Use texturized paving along the main drive aisle. The texturized paving should include an exposed large aggregate paving surrounded by a colored concrete band- 4. The restaurant pad at the corner of Foothill and Rochester should be moved to the minimum building setback of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center. Identify a logical phasing line for a boundary of the hardscape and landscape improvements to be installed at this location. 5. Provide additional architectural elements to break up large expanses of stucco on all elevations. 6. Provide either a cornice or corbel below all balcony projections to give the appearance of support. 7. Provide arches to the openings in the dome. 8. Provide glass in the openings in the dome. 9. Provide an additional reveal line below the arched cornice at the top of the dome. 10. The columns above the first floor arcade should tie into the exterior walls of the first floor; either extend the columns to the ground or to the separation walls between the private balconies. 11. Provide a base element to the columns of the porte cochere. 12. Provide a decorative S-curve wrought iron at all balconies.