Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/09/15 - Agenda PacketDATE: FROM: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM September 23, 1992 ACTION CO~eM~ITS Primary Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Dan Coleman Peter Tolstoy (Alternate Steve y s, Associate Planner Ha e~ SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 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. Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 5:40 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting. 5:40 - 6:00 (Scott) DESIGN REVIEW 91-01 - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Pad "E" a 7,000 square foot retail building within a previously approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-21. 6:10 - 6:30 (Scott.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building, containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within a previously approved commercial retail center in 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. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council PRIMARY CONSENT CALENDAR I~ AGENDA September 15, 1992 CUP 91-37 - CARL'S JR. (Scott) Committee Action: Review of awning colors. The Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) approved the revised awning colors. DR 92-06 - RYDER (Steve H.) Conunittee Action: Review of vehicular access/parking distribution. The Committee (Vallette, Melcher, Coleman) recommended that a driveway will not be needed along 4th Street to serve the site. However, the Committee recommended that the applicant seriously reconsider the overall site plan design to resolve the Committee's concern for a proportional number of parking spaces for each office area and access to the rear vehicular spaces. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 - 6:00 SCott Murphy September 15, 1992 DESIGN REVIEW 91-01 - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Pad "E" a 7,000 square foot retail building within a previously approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227- 151-21. Background: This item was previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee on two occasions. On March 21, 1991, the Committee (Chitiea, Melcher, Kroutil) recommended that the project be revised to address the following: Sloped roofs should be provided on the tower elements at the building corners. A detailed plan should be provided to show the landscape/hardscape treatment around the building. A detailed plan should be provided to show how the round column would integrate with the flat wall surface. On August 22, 1991, the Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) reviewed the revised plans. The Committee recommended the plans be further revised to address the following: The northeast tower should be redesigned to allow the roof and eave molding to die into the flat portion of the tower. Reveals should be provided on each plane of the tower to break up the stucco. The Committee was split On whether sloped roof elements should be provided on the towers. Staff Coments: Following the Design Review Committee meetings, the applicant decided to forego further processing of the building plans until cor~nittment's could be obtained from potential tenants. As a result, the plans have sat for the past year. With the market looking slightly more favorable for tenants, the applicant has resurrected the plans. Because of the length of time since the last review, the applicant has submitted plans for Committee consideration. The applicant is proposing a stucco building with tile wainscot, barrel tile roof, and pre-cast columns. The details proposed are consistent with those used for Phase I of the center (Ralphs, retail shops). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-01 - LEWIS HOMES SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 Page 2 The main issue with the proposed building is the design of the towers. Previous Con~nittee reviews have been mixed on whether sloped roofs should be incorporated. The applicant has not pursued a tiled tower for fear it would be over-bearing. Because of the previous comments on the tower design, staff recommends the Committee discuss the tower design and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee ACtion: Members present: John Melcher, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy ~ne Committee reviewed the plans and could not reach a concensus on the desired design of the tower elements. One member felt the towers should maintain the flat roof - placing a sloped roof on the towers would make them too overbearing for the size of the building. The other member felt that the flat roofs looked unfinished and, at a minimum, at least one tower should receive a sloped roof. In considering other aspects of the plan, the Committee recommended the following changes to the plan: The half-round cole used at the connection between the tower and the canopy should be changed to a full column. Reveals should be provided on each plane of the tower to break up the stucco. Because a concensus could not be reached on the tower design, the applicant requested that this issue be referred to the Planning Commission for discussion. As a result, the item will be scheduled for the next available meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 - 7:30 Scott Murphy September 15, 1992 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building, containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within a previously approved con~nercial retail center in 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. Background: On August 21, 1991, the City approved the master plan for Foothill Marketplace, a 60-acre commercial retail center. Included with the approval of the master plan was the site plan and building elevations for Price Club. Since that initial approval, additional approvals have been granted for Wal-Mart and In-N-Out Burger. Through all these approvals, a consistent palette of colors, details, and design expectations have been met in order to maintain the character of Foothill Marketplace. The plans for a Chevron gas station have been reviewed by the Design Review Committee with revisions being requested to bring the project into conformance with the established center theme. Discussion: As can be observed on the plans, the applicant is proposing a slightly different approach to a drive-thru facility than those recently reviewed by the Comittee and Planning Con~mission. The 3,183 square foot building contains both retail and fast food uses under the same roof. The main reason for the combined building is economics. The relatively small size of the Weinerschnitzel drive-thru facility makes a free-standing building cost-prohibitive. In order to afford the locations along streets needed for drive-thru businesses, the applicant adds retail space within the parcel to offset the cost of the pad. The combining of buildings also helps address the City's minimum building size for drive-thru facilities. The interim drive-thru policies require drive-thru facilities to maintain a minimum size of 2,500 square foot. Staff Comments: Over the past few weeks, the applicant and staff have been working to address design issues with the design of the building. Many of the concerns are being addressed through changes in the plans including the following: 1- Consistent detailing (wainscot, columns, etc.). 2. The creation of a plaza area at the north end of the building, including the use of trees within tree wells. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 Page 2 Pedestrian access directly from the Foothill Boulevard bus shelter to the building. In addition to the changes to the plans, there are a few items that staff recommends be conditioned on the project. These items include the following: Berming should be provided between the drive-thru lane and the parking area. Extensive shrub planting should be provided between the drive-thru lane and the parking area. 3. The hardscape treatment should be consistent with the center. While the changes and conditions address the majority of issues, there are two remaining issues. First, the interim drive-thru policies require the provision of a loading area. The applicant has indicated that they do not believe the loading area is necessary for their facility because of the relatively small volume of business conducted. Their deliveries are made by small trucks- they do not use tractor-trailers. While they do not agree with the requirement, a loading area could be provided On the south side Of the drive-thru lane. This would require deliveries to pass over the drive-thru lane. A similar approach was taken with a drive- thru facility further west on Foothill Boulevard. The Committee should determine if the loading area is required and if the suggested location is appropriate. The second issue deals with the west side of the building, facing the parking area. The applicant is proposing to provide a retail storefront with a cantilevered roof that overhangs the walkway. While it is desirable to provide the walkway under the overhang to shield pedestrians, the overhang eliminates the opportunity to provide trees along the building. As a result, the parking area runs into the walkway/storefront area. Potted plants would provide some relief at the lower levels but does not provide any softening at the higher levels of the building. Design Review Com{ttee Action: Members present: John Melcher, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the plans and did not recommend approval of the project. The Committee recommended that the plans be revised to address the following concerns: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 Page 3 The building elevations should be redrawn to accurately reflect the building design. The rendering style implied pop-out elements and relief lines that do not exist. Alternative site plan/parking layouts should be considered to landscaping along the west side of the building. The Committee suggested the following options but asked the applicant to explore others if necessary: The drive aisles should be reduced in width from 26 feet to 24 feet and the parking bay should be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet. This will provide 6 additional feet along the storefront that can be used for landscaping. This, however, would reduce the number of parking spaces below the required number. The applicant could apply for a Minor Exception from the City Planner. The cantilevered canopy can be reduced/eliminated and tree wells can be placed along the parking bay adjacent to the building. Because the building is a free-standing pad along the Foothill frontage, the level of detailing across the storefront should be enhanced over the detailing found with the in-line shops. The Committee suggested the applicant review the following: The interface between the wainscot and the storefront. me wainscot may need to extend out from the window plane in order to provide an adequate terminus for the wainscot. The size, design, and consistent application of the cornice details. c. The trellis members should be substantial. The applicant should explore the possibility of creating a seat wall adjacent to the plaza/outdoor eating area. A loading area should be provided to serve the building. The location should be in close proximity to the building. It was suggested that the loading area could be located along the main drive aisle south of the building within a turnout area. The trash enclosure should be located closer to the fast food restaurant. The enclosure may be located adjacent to the suggested loading area. The Committee requested that the revisions be brought back to them for additional review and approval prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission.