Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/04/01 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY APRIL 1, 2008 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corky Nicholson Alternates: Richard Fletcher Frances Howdyshell Ray Wimberly CONSENT CALENDAR No Items Submitted. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS 7:00 p.m. (Mike S.\Tasha) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 4.87 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18872 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A proposal to subdivide a property of 4.87 acres in conjunction with a request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Development Review DRC2007-00696. 7:20 p.m. (Daniel) MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00902 — ABUNDANT LIVING FAMILY CHURCH — A request to illuminate the existing cross that is mounted atop the rooftop dome element at 10900 Civic Center Drive. 7:40 p.m. (Larry\Willie) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18710 - CHARLES JOSEPH, ASSOCIATES — A request for a 4-lot subdivision for property within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00344 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2007-00914. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00344 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES — The development of a retail commercial center consisting of 5 buildings totaling 63,000 square feet within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18710 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2007-00914. DRC AGENDA April 1, 2008 Page 2 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2007-00914 - UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL & ETIWANDA (FOOTHILL GARDENS) - A Sign Program for a retail commercial center consisting of 5 buildings totaling 63,000 square feet within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18710 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00344. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 27, 2008, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ��� &A u✓ CIA DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Michael Smith April 1, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 4.87 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18872 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A proposal to subdivide a property of 4.87 acres in conjunction with a request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Development Review DRC2007-00696. Design Parameters: The project site is a rectangular parcel of about 627 feet (north-south) by 338 feet (east-west). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses, shrubs, and a grouping of trees. The property is bound on the east by Hermosa Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. To the north is a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and to the west is an office complex consisting of four buildings of 20,000 square feet each. Across the streets to the south and east, respectively, are a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and an office/warehouse complex consisting of six buildings of various sizes. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,078 feet and 1,069 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to construct two warehouse distribution buildings of 42,410 square feet (Building A) and 62,606 square feet (Building B). The buildings are speculative at this time, but, as typical for these types of buildings, small offices are included. The office area will be located along the southeast corner of each building. The dock loading/storage area for each building will be located in a common area between the buildings. There will be two points of access — one via Hermosa Avenue and another via 6th Street. There will be an additional access point from Hermosa Avenue for emergency purposes. Access to the loading/storage area will be via the driveway at Hermosa Avenue. Building A and Building B will have 50 and 61 spaces, respectively, for a combined 111 parking stalls for employees and customers. This quantity exceeds the minimum parking requirement of for the site. Landscape coverage is 14.9 percent; the minimum requirement is 7 percent for this development district. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of five different colors. An additional primary material will be sandblasted concrete while a secondary material will be glass panels. Key features include tower elements that project beyond the primary wall plane and above the edge of the primary parapet at all four corners and at the midpoint of the north and south elevations of Buildings A and B, respectively. Glass is generously incorporated around each office area emphasizing its importance as the main entry into the building. In addition to the glazing, each tower at the offices includes a cornice, decorative medallions, and a different paint color. Each office entrance will also have a metal canopy. Glass panels with a dimension of 5 feet by 5 feet have also been incorporated at equal intervals along the wall planes between the tower elements, on the east elevation (of both buildings), on the south elevation (of Building B), and on the north elevation (of Building A). Although glass has not been provided on the interior facing elevations where the dock loading and storage areas are, staff believes that their absence is not detrimental to the overall design of the building. Similarly, glass has not been used on the west elevations of both buildings and sparingly on the north DRC AGENDA DRC2007-00696 — 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC April 1, 2008 Page 2 elevation of Building A. Staff believes that glass should be applied on the corners of the building closest to the street. Sandblasted wall panels have been used on all tower elements except the office towers. Instead of sandblasting, the applicant is proposing a slight change in paint color to differentiate these locations from the rest of their respective buildings. Staff accepts this solution. However, the difference between paint colors should be bolder. 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. 1. Paint each office tower a bolder color such as dark red, blue, or green to further differentiate them from the remainder of their respective buildings. As presented the building is dominated by colors in the same color scale and the office towers should not be another shade of the same color. 2. Provide additional glazing on the west elevation of the southwest tower element of Building B. The glazing should be duplicated in order to a) balance it with its south elevation, and b) enhance aesthetically this readily visible corner as seen from 6th Street. 3. Provide additional glazing on the east elevation of the northeast tower element of Building A. The glazing should be duplicated in order to a) balance it with its south elevation, and b) enhance aesthetically this readily visible corner as seen from Hermosa Avenue. 4. Provide a continuous form-lined relief (or equivalent) along the entire top edge of the parapets of the wall planes located between the tower elements. 5. Paint the depressed areas at each tower (where glass has not been provided) a dark glossy blue to match the color of the glazing. This will present the appearance of glass without having to actually use glass. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Landscaping at the southeast corner of the site shall be intensified to ensure that the presence of the parking lot immediately adjacent to this corner is minimized. 2. All ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes including transformers, fire department connections, back-flow devices, etc. shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. 3. The employee lunch area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on-center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Also, each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural finishes/trim used on the building such as sandblasted bases. The trellis shall be painted to match the building. 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Incorporate undulating berms along the street frontages, within the landscape setback and landscape areas. The highest part of the berms should be at least 3 feet in height. DRC AGENDA DRC2007-00696— 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC April 1, 2008 Page 3 2. Decorative paving shall be provided at the vehicular access points on to the site. 3. All doors (roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 4. Provide durable street furniture in outdoor employee eating area, such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, subject to the revisions above which can be verified by staff, and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Michael Smith Members Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 1214 7:20 p.m. Daniel Correa April 1, 2008 MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00902 — ABUNDANT LIVING FAMILY CHURCH — A request to illuminate the existing cross that is mounted atop the rooftop dome element at 10900 Civic Center Drive. Background: A Minor Development Review application was filed with the Planning Department on November 11, 2007, to re-design a previously approved pipe style cross into an internally illuminated cross. The applicant's request went before the Design Review Committee on November 20, 2007, at which time, the request to illuminate the cross was denied because the Committee did not find the proposed illumination (internal lights with vinyl covered plastic faces) to be appropriate and in keeping with the indirect lighting of the cross, as originally approved. However, the Committee approved a larger "box channel" cross design, as proposed by the applicant. Purpose for the Request: The applicant's request to illuminate the cross from within its framework is to enhance the cross appearance and to further identify the church. Design Parameters: The base of the existing cross is 48 feet above grade level. The cross is 15 feet tall and its cross beam is 8 feet parallel. It is 4 feet 6 inches wide, and the overall height of the tower and cross is dimensioned at 62 feet 5 inches from ground level. The cross will be internally illuminated by white neon light sources behind a white acrylic translucent plastic face. Staff Comments: Churches and other houses of worship are allowed illuminated and non-illuminated Christian symbols and/or signs to identify such places of worship. Typically, this is accomplished via building-mounted and/or freestanding monument signs erected that face the street. The proposed internally illuminated cross for the Abundant Living Family Church is unique, but after further review of the recently installed cross, which remains non-illuminated, staff feels that illuminating the cross will not be a detriment or injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. In staff's opinion, the proposed illumination, if approved, would be mitigated by the location of the cross being at the center of a 30-acre church site within a light industrial zone. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the applicant's request to internally illuminate the subject cross structure. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Daniel Correa Members Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Larry Henderson April 1, 2008 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18710 - CHARLES JOSEPH, ASSOCIATES —A request for a 4-lot subdivision for property within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00344 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2007-00914. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00344 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES —The development of a retail commercial center consisting of 5 buildings totaling 63,000 square feet within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18710 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2007-00914. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2007-00914 - UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL & ETIWANDA (FOOTHILL GARDENS) - A Sign Program for a retail commercial center consisting of 5 buildings totaling 63,000 square feet within the Community Commercial zone, Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Relate Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18710 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00344. Design Parameters: The site is a vacant 5.35-acre site which is fairly flat, sloping to the south. Previously the site was occupied by the Route 66 Garage — Duanne's Service Station and is currently a designated Point of Historic Interest. The project proposal is for five buildings, of which four are single-story and one is 2 stories. The project is served by a single driveway on each street frontage and does not propose to share access with the existing single-family residence on the north Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The applicant has provided a master plan to demonstrate that the remaining commercially zoned residence could develop independently without relying on shared access. The proposed architecture is slanted towards a vineyard concept while utilizing the Route 66 Street Improvement Plan requirements as a compatible accent. The design incorporates the Foothill Boulevard activity center design elements as well. Architectural details include exposed heavy timber entries for two buildings. Significant amenities in the plazas are also proposed to carry out the relevant themes. Parking is provided at the minimum number of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a total of 315 spaces. Under the Code, up to 15 percent (9,450 square feet) of the gross floor area is permitted without increasing parking for food service (defined as restaurants, fast food restaurants, taverns, lounges, and other establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of food and beverages), one additional space is required for each 100 square feet over this limit. Under Section 17.12.040 B(3)(e), offices including medical and dental shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director of a Special Parking Study if they are over 10 percent (6,300 square feet) of the gross area. This project was previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee on December 4, 2007 (see attached Action Agenda and comments). Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: DRC AGENDA SUBTPM18710, DRC2007-00344, DRC2007-00914 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES April 1, 2008 Page 2 1. In consultation with the City Traffic Engineer, it is understood that different uses have different peak hours. Under the City's Development Code, it is not possible to wave the City's minimum parking requirements completely. As indicated on Table 5 of the attached Parking Study, the City requires 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, and that the parking consultant used 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail for the parking study. If less than the City minimum parking standards, then obviously the study will determine that fewer parking spaces are required, regardless of the peak hours of the various uses in the development. Staff recommends that the parking consultant modify his model to use the City's minimum parking requirement, and to then use his model to see if there should be any reduction based on peak hours. Please note that the Development Code States; ... "E. Parking Reduction and Parking Structure Provisions. The following may be required by the Planning Director or provided at the option of the developer when applicable to commercial, residential, or office off-street parking uses. 1. Shared Parking - Parking facilities may be used jointly with parking facilities for other uses when operations are not normally conducted during the same hours, or when hours of peak use vary. Requests for the use of shared parking are subject to the approval of the Planning Director and must meet the following conditions: a. A parking study shall be presented to the Planning Director demonstrating that substantial conflict will not exist in the principal hours or periods of peak demand for the uses which the joint use is proposed. b. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of parking stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during differing hours of operation. C. Parking facilities designated for joint use should not be located further than three hundred feet from any structure or use served. d. A written agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for joint use. The Development Code does not permit using a reduced parking requirement as the basis for the shared parking study. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The Applicant has revised and re-submitted a Uniform Sign Program that addresses all the relevant sign issues except for Committee direction to allow only one Monument Sign per street frontage. Staff Recommendation: Submit a revised Special Parking Study for review prior to the Planning Commission hearing that can be supported by staff and the Committee. Re-design and re-submit the Sign Program to the Committee in accordance with the direction provided before scheduling for review by the Planning Commission. Attachment: December 4, 2007, Design Review Action Comments Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Larry Henderson Members Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. LARRY HENDERSON December 4, 2007 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18710 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request for a 4-lot subdivision for property within the Community Commercial zone Subarea 4 , located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 03. Related file: DRC2007-00344. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00344 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - The development of a retail commercial center consisting of 5 buildings totaling 63,000 square feet within the Community Commercial zone Subarea 4, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-161-02 and 1100-161-03. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18710. Design Parameters: The site is a vacant 5.35-acre site which is fairly flat sloping to the south. Previously the site was occupied by the Route 66 Garage — Duanne's Service Station and is currently a designated Point of Historic Interest. The project proposal is for five buildings, of which four are single-story and one is 2 stories. The project is served by a single driveway on each street frontage and does not propose to share access with the existing single-family residence on the north Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The applicant has provided a master plan to demonstrate that the remaining commercially zoned residence could develop independently without relying on shared access. The proposed architecture is slanted towards a vineyard concept while utilizing the Route 66 Street Improvement Plan requirements as a compatible accent. The design incorporates the Foothill Boulevard activity center design elements as well. Architectural details include exposed heavy timber entries for two buildings. Significant amenities in the plazas are also proposed to carry out the relevant themes. Parking is provided at the minimum number of 5/1000 square feet for a total of 315 spaces. Under the Code, up to 15 percent (9,450 square feet) of the gross floor area is permitted without increasing parking for food service (defined as restaurants, fast food restaurants, taverns, lounges, and other establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of food and beverages), one additional space is required for each 100 square feet over this limit. Under Section 17.12.040 B(3)(e), offices including medical and dental shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director of a Special Parking Study if they are over 10 percent (6,320 square feet) of the gross area. Staff Comments: Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The proposal includes 23,574 square feet of 2nd story retail which may not be feasible and will, in most likelihood, be leased for office use. This is 17,254 square feet over the allowance without a Special Parking Study being submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: gzqxhmw�- DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM18710 AND DRC2007-00344— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 4, 2007 Page 2 1. The project does not propose to share access with the existing single-family residence on the north Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The applicant has provided a master plan to demonstrate that the remaining commercially zoned residence could develop independently without relying on shared access. 2. The Sign Program has several Code deficiencies including too many Monument signs, and building sign allowance of 28 feet, which will not fit within the 14-foot store/office module shown on the building plans. It is recommended that building signs be limited to one module space (at their entrance) for each tenant so that repetition of signs is not allowed. Although the architectural style of the monument sign is compatible with the shopping center, an eight-tenant multi-tenant sign is not in keeping with the maximum Planning commission policy of three Major tenants per monument sign in order to avoid the reader board appearance. The current monument sign design does not include the name of the center. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Because the site is a Historic Point of Interest, a condition of approval is recommended to require appropriate historic signage to document the site and inform the public. 2. The Sign Program should be redesigned to conform to the Sign Ordinance before proceeding. Staff Recommendation: Submit a Special Parking Study for review prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Redesign and resubmit the Sign Program to the Design Review Committee before scheduling for review by the Planning Commission. Desicin Review Committee Action: Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson Staff Planner: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner In general, the architectural style and design of the buildings was acceptable but the Committee continued any action pending re-submittal of the following: 1. A revised Uniform Sign Program that is preferred to be using Option 2 Monument Sign with only three Major Tenant Panels, a maximum of one monument sign per street frontage, and providing details relative to colors of all signs compatible with building colors and site plan details of the locations of the monument signs relative to other improvements of the site. 2. A Parking Study that clearly demonstrates and places use size determinations for parking provided versus the 2nd story office proposal. It was noted that the historical bench concept sketch would be acceptable and that it should be incorporated into the site and landscape plans submittal.