Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/10/06 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: October 14, 1992 ACTION CO~ENTS TO: Primary Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette Dan Coleman Peter ol toy (Alternate) 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 Conunission 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) 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. 6:10 - 6:30 (Steve H.) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 G & D CONSTRUCTION - The design review Of detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 32 townhome units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. DRC AGENDA OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 2 6:40 - 7:30 (Bey) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S - The development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21 and 49. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council PEIMARY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA October 6, 1992 TT 14407 - LEWIS (Steve R.) Committee Action: Review of revised color s~les. The Committee (McNiel, Vallette, Coleman) denied the proposed revision to the color scheme because they preferred the colors which were approved on September 1, 1992. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 - 6:00 Scott Murphy October 6, 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 conunercial 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 September 15, 1992, the Conunittee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) reviewed the plans and did not recommend approval of the project. The Committee recommended that the plans be revised to address the following concerns: 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 provide 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. The wainscot may need to extend out from the window plane in order to provide an adequate terminus for the wainscot. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 2 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. Staff Comments: The applicant has provided revised plans to address the Committees concerns. At the time of comment preparation, staff had not reviewed the plans to determine if any comments remain unanswered or if other concerns may be present with the redesign. Staff will update the Committee of the meeting. Design Review Comm{ttee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: Shaded seating should be provided within the outdoor eating area. A majority of the Committee members felt that an overhead trellis structure should be constructed in the outdoor eating area to resolve this issue, which shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. A curb or low seat wall should be provided between landscaped areas and the outdoor plaza. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 3 The wainscot treatment should wrap around the inside corners of all pop-out elements. The applicant should consider the use of a concealed rain gutter system, which can be reviewed as part of the construction package by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The outdoor plaza in front of this building should be included in the overall integrated art program for the site, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this building. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS 6:10 - 6:30 Steve Hayes October 6, 1992 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 32 townhome units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side Of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Background: On October 25, 1989, the Planning Co~nission reviewed and approved Tentative Tract 14263 and the design review thereof. Since that time, the property has been sold and the new owner is processing a new design review application for the approved Tentative Tract Map with smaller units to meet the demands of the current economy. Abstract: The proposed units are 1,310 and 1,450 square feet, compared to the previously approved unit sizes of 1,420 and 1,615 square feet. The decrease in unit sizes amounts to an additional 4,400 square feet of open space area of which a majority will be landscaped. Otherwise, the project is proposed consistent with the previously approved site plan for the project (i.e., building footprint locations, circulation, amenities, streetscape treatments, etc.) Design Parameters: The northern half of the project site contains four structures, which will be demolished with development of this project. A number of healthy mature trees exist on the property, a majority of which will be preserved per the previous approval of Tree Removal Permit 89-58. Surrounding property to the north and east is developed with single family residences, while property to the south and west is set aside for flood control purposes at this time. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent. Staff Coments: 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: DESIGN REVIEW CO~q4ENTS TT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 2 Generally, the proposed smaller units do not exhibit the same level of architectural interest as the previously approved duplexes (see attached exhibits). This occurs primarily because the units within each duplex are "mirror images" whereas two floor plans were within each building with the previous approval. To overcome the "mirror image" appearance, the proposed models should be upgraded through the use of architectural elements such as variety of horizontal and vertical building planes (especially on garage side and rear elevations), breaking up large roof areas, side elevation variety, and layering of building fascias. The overall site plan is essentially unchanged from the previously approved plan, with the exception of the smaller unit footprints. Staff finds the site plan to be acceptable as proposed provided minor technical issues associated with the recently adopted multiple family development standards are resolved (these will be addressed through the Technical Review Committee). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The size of the landscaped planters between garage doors should be increased to accommodate mature trees. Additional landscaping (including trees and shrub massing) should be provided in areas previously part of the larger building footprints, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Special paving within the project should consist of concrete interlocking pavers. Perimeter and retaining walls shall consist of decorative materials and the design shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Design Review Comettee ACtion: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended approval of the building elevations subject to the following condition: EK BURGUNDY CR E S.E ATTACHED E S. ATTACHED BURGUNDY CR EK E E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 3 A corbel or heavy timber element should be provided under the second-story balconies, subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. The Committee recommended all referenced policy issues should be included as conditions of approval for the project. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve all of the technical issues associated with the site plan. Once resolved to the satisfaction of staff, the site plan may return to the Committee as a Consent Calendar item. If the outstanding technical issues cannot be resolve then the site plan should return to the Committee as a regular item. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:30 Bev Nissen October 6, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S The development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21 and 49. Design Parameters/Background: The 10.6 acre site is made up of several parcels and is bounded on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Channel and on the north by two existing apartment buildings and a vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road. The vacant parcel is the site of a previously approved office complex which has since expired. An existing restaurant building is located on the site as well as the vacated roller rink facility. These structures are proposed for demolition with construction of the project. This project proposal has previously been reviewed by Commission as a Pre-Application Review on April 2, 1992. from this meeting have been attached for your review. the Planning The minutes Additionally, the project has been reviewed for completeness by staff on two separate occasions. The project as currently submitted is still somewhat incomplete, but staff determined that due to the extensive amount of design and technical issues, that it would be best to address these major issues up front while allowing the applicant to concurrently work on addressing the completeness items. Staff Co~nents: 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: Generally, the design of the project with its building orientation, site planning and architectural style is not responsive to the comments expressed by the Planning Commission at its Pre- Application Review. The following issues need to be addressed by the applicant: Parking which dominates the streetscape is not consistent with the Design Guidelines contained in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for Activity Centers, as previously noted. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 2 The size and mass of the building (75,000 square feet) in relation to the size of the parcel and the lack of articulation in the building is not desirable. This was also previously noted. The orientation of the roll-up doors facing Foothill Boulevard is inconsistent with desires of the Planning Commission expressed at the Pre-Application Review. The architectural style of the building and the use of materials should reflect the historic character of the Winery building on the opposite side of Vineyard Avenue per the Design Guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Secondary Issues: time permitting, design issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and the Committee will discuss the following secondary Master planning of the three parcels to the north must be taken into consideration with this submittal. A conceptual master plan has not yet been developed. The 2:1 slopes adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue are not entirely consistent with the "urban" character required of an Activity Center. Additionally, the landscape plan for the areas beyond the immediate corner does not reflect the regimented style of planting required in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for an Activity Center. The grading plan could be revised to eliminate or reduce the extent of the 2:1 slopes at the corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The fast food Pad A has not been designed in accordance with the drive-thru policy Resolution No. 88-96. The location of the drive-thru lane creates present vehicular conflicts with the main drive aisle. Although the building placement screens the drive- thru lane, the resultant on-site circulation is problematic. An alternative location has been provided which relocates the drive-thru aisle between the building and Foothill Boulevard. This could be acceptable if properly screened with berms, low walls or trellises. The relocation does not reduce any potential traffic conflict however. It has not been indicated whether or not separate pay/pick up windows have been provided, nor have pedestrian spaces or plaza areas been created. 4. Landscaping should be provided directly adjacent to the front of the building. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 3 5. Roof plane should be provided with more undulation. A cohesive system of pedestrian walkways throughout the site and should connect to located adjacent to the Creek. should be provided the Regional Trail Desigu Review CO.~ ttee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Bey Nissen The Committee did not approve the project as presented and requested that the proposal return to the full Committee with the following issues addressed: The applicant indicated that the rock material utilized on the store was similar to that of the Wayfarer's Chapel and Talisein West. The Committee felt this was unacceptable, but was willing to review specific details, photographs and material samples of how the material could work and whether or not it would fit into the context of the site. Traditional river rock could also be utilized as an alternative, if the other type of stone is determined not to be appropriate, which would also be compatible with river rock approved for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection. The Committee preferred the second option for the drive-thru, however, they required that the drive-thru lane be screened from Foothill Boulevard. An illustrative cross-section should be presented to the Conunittee for further review. A master plan which incorporates access to the parcels to the north should be provided for review by the Conunittee. Landscaping should be provided in front of and adjacent to the Smith's building. No cart storage should be allowed in front of the grocery store building. A letter from Smith's agreeing to this condition should be submitted prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. The Committee suggested using the triangular space between the store and the loading area for cart storage. 6. The mass of the tower should be modified by increasing its height and width. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 4 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The size of the trellis columns on the front elevation should be carefully studied and possibly increased in width to be square in shape. In addition, the size of the trellis members should be specified. The pedestrian connection to the front of the store should line up at 90 degrees with the front entrance, rather than angled as currently shown. Special paving (aggregate finish or interlocking pavers) should be provided in front of the entire entryway across the driveway. Large canopy trees (not the Prunus cerasifera) should be provided for shading of the parking lot. Additional trees should be added to the parking lot and may be planted adjacent to the light standards, with the height of the light being lower (i.e., 15 feet maximum) than the eventual canopy height of the tree. The retaining walls along Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard should be treated with the same type of rock that will be provided on the building front. Redesign the entryway to provide a second set of glass doors rather than a forced air barrier or eliminate the dividing wall between the entrance and exit to provide a more inviting entrance. The Foothill Boulevard Activity Center/landscape concept should continue from the corner to the channel along Foothill Boulevard and from the corner to the northerly driveway along Vineyard Avenue. Terraced rock walls should be provided to minimize 2:1 slopes. The veneer of the two buildings at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue should be constructed of the rock material. If the two building pads at the corner are not developed at the same time as the grocery store, then the streetscape should be developed up to the level of pad and the pads landscaped for erosion control. Increased information on how the fast-food pad will work should be submitted for review by the Committee. A stacking study should be provided. The Committee expressed concern that the "aqueduct" element combined with the grade differential, would negatively affect Smith's view corridor. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S OCTOBER 6, 1992 Page 5 18. 19. The bus stop shelter should be redesigned to eliminate the steeply pitched roof element. Provide a rendering of the truck loading areas to show how trucks would be screened. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 2, 1992 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 5:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: APPLICANTS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, John Melcher, Suzanne Chitlea, Steve Preston, HPC Brad Bullet, City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Bey Nissen, Associate Planner; Anthea Hatrig, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer PRESENT: Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Architects; Lisa Arnett, Prescott Muir Architects; Brett French, Environs Landscape Architecture; Joseph Meyer, C.B. Commercial REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWT~ST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 92-02 - SMITH'S SUPERSTOM Mr. Prescott Muir presented revised architectural plans to the commission and commented on the proposal. Ms. Beverly Nissen presented staff's comments to the Commission. The commission responded to the proposal as follows: commissioner Melcher indicated that this process was not intended for the Commission to receive new information and it would be difficult for him to comment on the revised elevations. He felt that the original drawings were difficult to decipher because of their size and scale. He liked the fact that the building was "dug in" on the north side. He felt this would help reduce the scale Of the building. He felt that the lack of satellite pads at the corner was not an issue and that master planning with the out parcel to the north was appropriate. He felt that the urbanity of the Activity Center needs to be addressed and at first blush he preferred the alternate landscape plan rather than what was originally proposed. He felt that the overhead doors were enormous and needed to be addressed. He felt that allowing the architecture to reflect the winery or still building on the east side of Foothill Boulevard was appropriate, but that the building should not reflect the architecture of the winery shopping center. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he felt the Activity Center as proposed did not meet the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reflected on the reason why no buildings required on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and only this corner was different and buildings should be required. He also felt the site should be more pedestrian oriented and give the customers the opportunity to do other types of shopping and errands. He felt the site plan should try and get away from large parking areas exposed to Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the architecture was hard to comment on because of the scale of the drawings. He felt that the building did not fit his idea of what a shopping center should look like. Commissioner Chitlea shared the site plan concerns of Commissioner Tolstoy. She felt the site was too small to accommodate such a large building. She felt that the convenience to the' consumer was not present without additional shops. She felt the building facade needed greater articulation. She felt it would be hard, however, to place a building of this size adjacent to the street frontage. She felt that the building facade needed more movement and that change was needed in the roof plane. She felt that the orientation of the loading area was a problem. She preferred the revised landscape concept with the water element at the corner. She felt more landscaping against the building should be provided. Commissioner MCN,el commented that he had never seen a building this large for a grocery store. Mr. Prescott Muir responded that the concept behind the Smith's Superstore was to take a typical shopping center and introvert it so that all the ancillary services are provided in the interior of the building. Yogurt stores, video rental, and pizza parlors will be run by concessionaires. Commissioner McNiel indicated that he agreed with the location of the Activity Center. He felt it wae important to master plan the out parcel. He indicated that it was a policy of the Planning Commission not to expose roll-up doors to a public street. He felt that the walkway through the center of the site would be difficult to push a grocery cart through and that it should be expanded. He felt that the specialized paving in front of the store served no purpose unless it lined up with the entry doors. He felt that the roof line needed greater articulation and that equipment screening should be integrated with the architecture of the building. He did not like the standing seamed metal roof and felt a different roof material would be more appropriate. He felt that the exterior of the building should be treated as though it were a Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 2, 1992 shopping center. He felt that the corner treatment should reflect the local winery heritage also. His biggest concern was the creation of pedestrian access that made sense. He felt that the applicant should explore moving pads A and B to the corner to create an Activity Center and possibly reorient the building. He felt that the use was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated =hat he would welcome a new architectural look in the City and did not mind departing from the traditional Mediterranean style, buu that any new theme must have the same level of detail as is common throughout the City. Commissioner Melcher thought that the form of the building should express the fact that so much is happening inside the building. He stated he was disappointed with the mechanical screening concept. Me stated that the lines of the penthouse should not be discernible as a penthouse. Me thought that the applicant should explore reducing the drive aisles to 24 feet in width. He had no Objection to the proposed metal roof. Commissioner Chitiea indicated the applicant should not use any industrial materials. She did not like the use of split face block especially when mixed with stucco and rock. She felt the entry point at the corner should be of quality materials and upscale. She felt the building needed more movement and interest and that it currently looked like a big box. Mr. Bullet concluded the meeting with the fol,lowing remarks: The challenge for the applicant is to fit the 75,000 square foot building onto the site. 2. The out parcel to the north should be master planned. Three of the Commissioners were opposed to roll-up doors facing Foothill Boulevard and one of the Commissioners felt they might be successfully incorporated into the project if aesthetics and location issues were considered. Metal roof is not desirable. The architecture of the project should not reflect that of the winery shopping center. Engineering and Historic Preservation concerns were not discussed. The applicant should consult with the Fire District to determine if the secondary driveway off Vineyard Avenue could be turf blocked and whether a majority of the drive isles could be reduced to 24 feet. The Misteric Preservation commission will consider the project because of the original Cucamonga Post Office was located on the site. The applicant should revise the Activity Center concept. Buildings, of an appropriate scale should be added and sited at the corner. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 2, 1992