The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/01/16 - Agenda PacketDATE: January 23, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM ACTION TO: Comercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) FROM: SUBJECT: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner J~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1992 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 - 7:00 (Tom) 7:00 - 8:00 (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-12 - ARCHEION - The development of four industrial buildings totaling 42,800 square feet on 3.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Maple Avenue - APN: 208-961- 11. Related File: PM 14038. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-22 - FOOTHILL M3~R/<ETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of a 131,451 square foot retail building (Wal- Mart) within a conceptually approved 60-acre commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229- 031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20 and a portion of 59. DRC AGENDA JANUARy 16, 1992 Page 2 8:00 - 9:00 (Scott) 9:00 - 10:00 (Steve H.) PLANNING CO~ISSION WORKSHOp Uniform Sign Program Foothill Marketplace PLANNINa CO~ISSION WORKSHOp - Etiwanda Specific Plan SM:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR I~4S AGENDA January 16, 1992 EP 91-02 - BACKWATERS (Brad) Committee Action: Proposed building color modifications. The Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) approved the charcoal color for the wood beam and window mullions and the grey color for the building wall. C~P 91-40 - TACO BALL (Steve H.) Informal site plan review. Committee Action: The Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) felt that with the initial site plan, the drive-thru use created some serious problems that will be hard to overcome on this small parcel. The Committee agreed with staff that the building should be relocated to be adjacent to the pedestrian plaza and any new parking relocated elsewhere on the parcel. In addition, the Committee asked staff to closely check the overall circulation pattern and drive-thru screening solution to insure that circulation and visibility problems will not occur. However, the Committee was not concerned with the proposed size of the building (1,989 square feet), smaller than that recommended in Resolution No. 88-96 (2,500 square feet minimum). CuP 89-23 - MODIFICATION (FIRE STATION NO.4) (Tom) Review of hazardous waste site and central plaza. Committee Action: collection The Committee (Tolsoy, Vallette, Buller) reviewed and recommended approval of the location and design of the household hazardous waste collection site. The central plaza design was approved. However, the architect should consider the addition of tree wells, light standards, and site furniture to break-up the large brick paver areas. DESIGN REVIEW CONMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Tom January 16, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-12 - ARCHEION - The development of four industrial buildings totaling 42,800 square feet on 3.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Maple Avenue - APN: 208-961-11. Related File: PM 14038. Design Parameters: The site is vacant consisting of native vegetation devoid of trees. The site slopes approximately 2 percent from north to south. There are existing buildings to the north, west and east. To the west Of the site is the district boundary which separates the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) from the General Industrial District (Subarea 8). The applicant is proposing four concrete tilt-up industrial buildings with a band of sandblasted concrete around the base. The buildings are intended for warehouse/distribution uses. Each building has one roll-up door. No dock high doors are proposed. Staff CoMets: The architecture is repetitive and the use of building materials should be expanded by using greater variation in the building texture (i.e., smooth finish, sandblasted or fluted concrete), greater variation in the building plane, spandrel glass, chamber reveals and building accent colors. In addition, the proposed sandblasted concrete band should be high-up on the walls rather than at the base, so as not to be hidden by shrubbery. The parking spaces adjacent to the east property line may conflict with loading and unloading areas adjacent to the roll-up doors. One possibility would be to relocate these parking spaces opposite the roll-up doors. The landscape planters adjacent to the buildings should be a minimum of 10 feet wide to allow for an area large enough to accommodate trees and shrubs. Provide architectural details for all building entrances. Also, indicate how en~ployee areas will be separated from building entrances. Design Review Co.~ttee ACtion: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Tom Grahn DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-12 - ARCHEION January 16, 1992 Page 2 The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the following modifications: 1. Additional landscape fingers should be provided and should be located at each end of a row of parking spaces. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided adjacent to the trash enclosures to soften their appearance. The location of employee plaza areas, as shown on the architects exhibit, is acceptable. Employee plaza areas are located in a corner of each parcel, along the rear property line, and opposite the building. Additional architectural detailing should be provided along the north elevation of Building 1. This includes the following: Adding spandrel glass to the northwest corner of the building. · Providing a grid pattern in two places. The grid pattern is identical to the design shown on the south elevation of Building 4. Additional architectural articulation should be provided to distinguish the south elevation of Building 4. The Committee considered the use of additional sandblasted finish and the grid pattern, but determined that these materials would not be sufficient. The Site Plan and building elevations shall be revised to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission consideration. DESIGN REVIEW CO~e4ENTS 7:00 - 8:00 Scott January 16, 1992 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of a 131,451 square foot retail building (Wal-Mart) within a conceptually approved 60-acre commercial retail center within the Regional Related Conunercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20 and a portion of 59. Background: On December 19, 1991, the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) considered the plans submitted by the applicant and recommended that revised plans be provided for additional Committee review. Revisions should include the following: 3. 4. 5. Additional treatment should be provided at the main entry. Treatment may include: a. A secondary parapet over the main entry. b. Variations in the glass mullion pattern. c. A bulkhead across the storefront. d. Stucco columns. Consistent detailing (i.e., medallions, cornice) should be provided on all elevations. The cast stone wainscot should continue across the front of the building. The area on either side of the main entry should receive additional treatment to enhance the entire front elevation. The applicant may eliminate 3 columns on the rear elevation provided the medallion and cornice detailing are maintained. Also, additional landscaping should be considered within the "future expansion" area. Other options may be considered by the Committee upon submittal of detailed plans. A minimum 8-foot clear dimension should be maintained between the entry towers and curb. The 16-foot dimension from the building face to the curb was acceptable. The suggestions by the applicant to raise the parapet was accepted by the Committee. The parapet heights will be as follows: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS JANUARy 16, 1992 Page 2 a. Outside parapet - 25 feet. b. Intermediate parapet - 27 feet 6 inches. c. Entry parapet - 25 feet. The Committee suggested that the applicant stake corners of the building and teather balloons at the pa[apet height to allow staff to view the line-of-sight from the freeway. Staff Coments: At the time of comment preparation, revised plans had not yet been received from the applicant. If, after receipt of the plans, additional comments are necessary, supplemental comments will be distributed to the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended the following changes be incorporated into the plans: Medallions should be provided on the east elevation (at the Garden Center) consistent with the other elevations. The secondary cornice should have more articulation than the cornice proposed by the applicant. The cornice need not be as ornate as the primary stone cornice but should provide sufficient detail/relief. The roof pitch of the tower elements and arcade areas should be the same. The applicant should review how the arcade area interfaces with the tower elements. The large span between the towers and the first columns is awkward and some type of supporting element is needed at the tower. 5. Alternatives to the cast stone storefront should be pursued. The Committee felt Commission and that during the interm. that the item could be scheduled for the Planning the revisions could be reviewed by Design Review