Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/12/21 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: December 22, 1989 AX~TION COI~MEIITS TO: Commerc ia 1/Ind u str ia l Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman Betsy Weinberger (Alternate) FROM: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE MEETING OF December 21, 1989 ll~e 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 Comnittee'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 - 5:30 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:00 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:O0 - 6:30 (Steve H.) ENVIROIi4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOItIENT REVIEW 89-19- MISSION LAND COMPANY The development of 4 warehouse buildings totaling 349,344 square feet on 17.73 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-22, 23, and 24. 6:30 - 7:O0 (Bruce) ENVIRO)ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELO)ENT REVIEW 88-44- BARASCH ARCHITECTS - The development of three industrial buildings totaling 70,454 square feet on 4.19 acres of land located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2), located on the northwest side of Hellman, South of 9th Street - APN: 209-013-24. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA DECEMBER 21, 1989 Page 2 7:00- 7:30 (Bev) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-21 - GREAT WESTERN HOTELS The development of a 6 story hotel totaling approximately 107,811 square feet on 2.5 acres of land at the corner of White Oak Avenue and Spruce in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 208-352-31. BA:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCI~/INDUSTRI~ CON~ENT C~LENDAR ITI~4S AGENDA December 21, 1989 1. DR 89-08- AjA (Steve H.) Reduction of building height. Committee Action: The Committee {Chitiea, Buller} recommended approval of the height recbction for Building i as presented. Due to the lower height of the building as seen from the street, the Committee recommended that during the plan check process, staff be especially attentive in verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened. Sight line drawings and pamphlets on the proposed equipment should be included in the submittal of building plans, prior to the issuance of permits. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00- 6:30 Steve H. December 21, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY The development of 4 warehouse buildings totaling 349,344 square feet on 17.73 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-22, 23, and 24. Background: This project is within the Mission Business Center, which was approved as a Master Plan on September 14, 1988, under Development Review 88-20. Projects to the south and southwest of the subject property, within the Mission Business Center, have been approved. The applicant is proposing to locate visitor and employee parking for Building "A" at the north side of the building. The parking lot was originally conditioned to be located on the south side of the building, thereby, undulating the 6th Street streetscape within the master plan (DR 88-20). The applicant is currently processing a modification to this specific parking condition to alleviate the requirement of locating the parking lot on the south side of the building. Staff has encouraged the applicant to process a complete package that has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to reviewing the modification request (concurrently with the project proposal) before the full Planning Comnission. The following design concerns relate to the proposed parking lot design of Building "A." Staff Comments: Site Plan: 1. In order to provide additional landscaping near the building entrance and within the parking lot, the parking stal 1 configuration should be redesigned per the attached Exhibit "A." 2. The parking stalls near the southwest corner of the building should be deleted and the landscaping should be extended into this area. 3. The proposed screen wall should be relocated b~hind the new landscaped area. If the the parking lot configuration on the plans as opposed to Exhibit "A" is preferable, then the circular planter in the parking lot to the west could be extended. 4. In order to increase the diversity of the streetscape appearance, some of the buildings should be moved closer to the street with parking areas relocated away from the street. 5. Landscape fingers with concrete curbing should be provided between passenger car spaces and the areas proposed for parallel semi-truck parking stalls and trash enclosures. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY Page 2 6. An additional setback should be provided between the truck stalls and the recommended landscape fingers to increase the ease of maneuvering from both directions. 7. The proposed screen wall near the southeast corner of Building "A" should be extended to the south to screen the proposed parallel truck space near the southeast corner of the Building "A" parcel. 8. The proposed employee plaza/lunch areas should be relocated, away from the main building entrances. 9. Concrete tables and street furniture should be incorporated within the employee lunch area that blends with the architecture of the buildings. 10. Concrete interlocking pavers should be provided at all drive entrances, key pedestrian crossings, building entrances and pedestrian gathering areas. 11. The trash enclosures within the "courtyard" area between Buildings "C" and "D", should abut the building and face east and west, respectively. Land sc ape: 1. Large (36" or 48" box) trees should be provided near the main entrances to all buildings to frame and enhance this area and create "focal points" within the project. 2. Additional decidious species should be incorporated into the proposed landscape palette to provide seasonal interest. 3. Additional sp. ecimen size trees (24" box or larger) should be provided within the streetscape near the southeast corner of Building "A" to further screen the truck storage area to the south. 4. Provide an upgraded (i.e., specimen size trees, special palette) landscape "entry" concept at the intersection of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue. 5. Sixth Street should also receive an intensified landscape treatment including items such as, specimen size trees, accent trees, shrubs and granite boulders to match the existing approved streetscape elements. Architecture: 1. The following elements should be incorporated into the buildings to enhance the articulation and aesthetic quality of the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY Page 3 a) Provide complete, 360 degree treatment to the buildings, such as, but not limited to, continuing the two texture (smooth concrete and sandblast) treatment and 3reviding spandrel glass on all elevations. b) In keeping with the Planning Commission's intent to vary the 6th Street streetscape throughout the Mission Business Center, additional recesses or "pop-outs" should be incorporated into all sides of the buildings facing streets, especially the north elevation of Building "A." c) The metal mechanical roof screens should be deleted and a parapet wall should be extended to screen all roof mounted equipment. Oesi~In Review Committee A~tion: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee (Chitiea, Bullet) did not recommend approval of the project. It was recommended that the item be brought back as a full item before the Committee. The following Committee recommendations should be addressed in the revised plans: 1. The Committee agreed in concept that the parking lot for building "A" could be relocated in front {north} of the building if some of the following elements are incorporated into the design of the building, landscape and hardscape areas on the building "A" parcel: a) Provide upgraded landscape near the corner of 6th and Buffalo, carried in both directions for a significant distance. Elements such as specimen size trees, enriched hardscape areas, art pieces, fountains, etc. could be utilized to enhance the streetscape in this area. b) Check into the feasibility of "popping out" the office area near athe northeast corner of building "A" with a subsequent recessing of the long expanse of building plane immediately to the west of the entrance. c} Increase the size of the circular landscape area within the parking lot to create a teardrop shape. Items such as enriched paving, benches and a fountain may be used within the planter to provide a aesthically pleasing gathering area for employees. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY Page 4 d) Increase the amount of enriched paving to include handicapped parking spaces and the expanse of paved area between the office entrance and teardrop-shaped landscape area. 2. The enriched paving should be continued to include all handicapped spaces and entrances throughout the project. Enriched paving should consist of concrete interlocking pavers or a similar material throughout. Special attention should be given to expand the hardscape elements at the main entrance to the building "A" employee parking lot, directly south of 6th Street. 3. All employee plaza/lunch areas should be relocated away from all office entrances. Furthermore, secondary employee lunch areas should be provided for warehouse employees in the trucking courtyard areas behind the buildings. All employee plaza/lunch areas should include items such as, but not limited, to concrete lunch tables, trash receptacles, benches, light standards, drinking fountains and overhead trellis structures with vining. 4. The main entry design on the west side of building "A" should be revised to increase the width of the walk way from the parking lot to the doors and/or incorporate doors with an angular cut-off on the northeast corner of said entrance. 5. Additional landscaping, planters, low walls or any combination thereof should be used to further enhance the office entrances and provide "focal points" throughout the project at ground level. 6. To further screen truck loading areas and provide better truck circulation near the Buffalo Avenue truck entrance, the southeast corner of Building "A" should be recessed with a subsequent loss of the, grade level door closest to the street Also, the screen wall within the truck area, east of the dock high doors, should be moved further to the west and the entry drive should be angled to the southwest to enhance truck maneuverability on-site. 7. The Committee felt that the possible tertiary entrance on the north side of Building "A", directly in view from 6th Street, should be upgraded to include elements of the primary building entrances. 8. The metal roof equipment screens should be deleted from the plans. Instead, a parapet wall, consistent in color and texture with the buildings, should be utilized above all primary and possible secondary entrances. The wall should be of a height satisfactory to screen any possible roof equipment to the satisfaction of the Committee. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY Page 5 9. The Committee recommended that the long expanse of straight wall on the north side of Building"A", immediately west of the main east entrance, be recessed and upgraded to include spandrel glass with the exiting texturized pattern. Also, the amount of landscape should be increased in the planter adjacent to this area, consistent with building perimeter landscape amounts in other planters visible from streets within the project. 10. The architecture for all buildings should be upgraded in the following ways: a) Provide additional spandrel glass on the side and rear elevations of buildings visible from streets; b) Relocate areas of sandblasted texture to places where they are more visible from the public streets. However, this does not waive the requirement for complete 360 degree architecture; c) Revise the horizontal sandblast element on the loading dock sides of the buildings to a mere symetrical shape. 11. When this project comes before the Committee again, a drawing should be provided that indicates the approved locations of buildings immediately to the east and west of Building "A". Said drawing should indicate undulation in the streetscape building setbacks as requested of the Planning Commission when the master plan (DR 88-20) was appreved. 12. Landscape fingers with concrete curbing should be provided between passenger car spaces and the areas proposed for parallel semi-truck parking stalls and trash enclosures. 13. An additional setback should be provided between the truck stalls and the recommended landscape fingers to increase the ease of maneuvering from both directions. 14. The trash enclosures within the "courtyard" area between Buildings "C" and "D", should abut the building and face east and west, respectively. 15. Additional decidious species should be incorporated into the proposed landscape palette to provide seasonal interest. 16. Sixth Street should receive an intensified landscape treatment including items such as, specimen size trees, accent trees, shrubs and granite boulders to match the existing approved streetscape elements. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Bruce December 21, 1989 ENVIRO~ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-44 BARASCH ARCHITECTS The development of three industrial buildings totaling 70,454 square feet on 4.19 acres of land located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2), located on the northwest side of Hel lman, South of 9th Street - APN: 209-013-24. Back~reu nd: The above project was reviewed by Planning Commission for Environmental Assessment on May 10, 1989, and a Negative Declaration was issued. Design review of the project was completed and approval granted on June 13, 1989. Plans for the project were submitted for plan check which described a high-<31oss kynar finish, Peacock Blue and green reflective spandrel glass being used for the project buildings. These finishes and materials were not approved prior to submittal for plan checking. On November 16, 1989, the Design Review Committee reviewed samples of these unapproved materials along with a sample of the paver material for the proposed enriched paving areas. The Committee approved the reflective glass for the spandrel above the doors, however, the kynar finish was not approved. The Committee required that the peacock color for the accent bands be toned down or substituted with a gray color the same tone as the sandblast finish on the approved sample board. The paver material and color was approved, however, it was recommended that the rectilinear paver be substituted with a hexagonal paver. On December 7, 1989, the Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy and Buller) reviewed and approved a toned down color variation, Indian Bead, for the accent mullion. The Committee determined the extent of the accent mullion to be painted with Indian Bead and also required the Indian Bead color to be used in a 1 foot wide band below the broken accent bands which were approved to be painted gray (2M40R Jaquar gray). Staff Comments: The applicant feels that the painting as required by the Committee will appear fragmented on the building. Therefore, the architect will present a alternative painting proposal for approval as follows: 1. The accent mullion would now be modified to include the 3 horizontal mullion below the green reflective glazing. The accent mul lion would not include any vertical elements. 2. The I foot wide band required to be painted Indian Bead would be de le ted. 3. The gray broken band would be replaced with a solid band painted Indian Bead around each of the 3 buildings. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 88-44 - BARASCH ARCHITECTS Page 2 Colored building elevation plans for the alternate proposed color scheme will be available at the meeting. Desil)n Review Conmittee Comments: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Bruce Abbott The Design Review Committee (Chitlea and Bullet} reviewed the proposed color changes and determined tagether with the architect that a broken band as previously proposed, painted Lacquer grey would be used. The one-foot wide band formed by reveals just below the broken band would receive a sand-blasted concrete finish. The horizontal window mullions aligned with the one-foot wide sand-blasted band and the next mullion below (total of 3 horizontal mullions only) would be painted Indian Bead. The remainder of the mullions shall be a clear anndized aluminum finish. All other finishes and colors will be applied as previously approved. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Bey December 21, 1989 ENVIROM4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-21 - GREAT WESTERN HOTELS The development of a 6 story hotel totaling approximately ~,811 square feet on 2.5 acres of land at the corner of White Oak Avenue and Spruce in Sub area 7 of the Inddstrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 208-352-31. Desi9 n Parameters: The proposed hotel is located at the northeast corner of Spruce and White Oak Avenue which is in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Specific Plan. The hotel site is located in an area where a Development Agreement for a commercial design center has been approved. The Development Agreement 87-01 established land use regulations which superseded those in Subarea 7. The Development Agreement deleted hotels as a permitted use. The applicant is concurrently processing an amendment to the Development Agreement to allow for hotels. Staff Comments: The Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy and Coleman) informally reviewed the proposal on September 21, 1989 and had the following Counts: 1. More articulation and movement should be provided on the front e 1 evat i on. 2. The tower element should be more substantial and dominant with mere me SS · 3. The elevation facing White Oak Avenue should be upgraded. It was felt that a focal point is needed. 4. An enlarged detail of a typical window treatment should be provided. 5. Window treatment at the street level should be enhanced. 6. The wall around the pool should be softened with landscaping. The applicant has worked extensively with staff to upgrade the original submittal. However, staff still has the following concerns: Arc hitec tu re: i. The visible portion of the roof appears to be out of proportion with the height of the building (i .e., too small or short). 2. The building should be enhanced with some type of treatment which would provide a "base" to the structure. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-21 -GREAT WESTERN HOTELS Page 2 3. A better detail of the window treatment should be provided which indicates overall size and depth of the recessed arch. 4. An enhanced window treatment should be 3rovided on the ground floor w i ndows. 5. Landscaped arbors/pergolas are required per the Development Agreement and a design drawing should be provided. Site Plan: 1. The landscape area adjacent to the row of parking spaces along the south side of the building should be expanded by eliminating the end space. Design Review Committee Conments: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen The Comnittee {Chitiea, Tolstoy, Bullet) did not approve the project and requested that it be returned as a full item on February 8, 1990 with the following corrections: 1. In order to create greater symmetry for the front elevation, the applicant should consider projecting the tower element out approximately five feet and centering a double row of arched windows under the peak of the roof element. The center tower element should also be increased in size. 2. The top row of windows on the outer portions of the building appears to be too close to the roof line. Either arches should be added to the tops of the windows, the column element repeated or a quoined surround applied around the window to provide moFe definition. Quoins could be constrdcted of stone or concrete. The distance from the top of the window to the bottom of the roof line should be increased. 3. Foundation treatment should be provided with greater articulation, either through color and/or repeating the cornice detail as a reveal. 4. The widest section of the south elevation wall is too blank and should be enhanced either through addition of windows or some other type of architectural element. 5. The end tower elements should either be raised or increased in size to be mere in proportion with the overall mass of the building. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 89-21 -GREAT WESTERN HOTELS Page 3 6. The roof element on the rear of the building should be detailed to the same level as the cornice detail. 7. The center portion of the rear elevation should project 12" to match the front elevation. 8. A lighting study should be done prior to issuance of building perm its. 9. Design of the exterior lighting fixtures should be submitted. 10. Consider providing wrought iron elements to the wall around the pool area to open the space up. 11. Decorative paving, additional pillars and lighting should be provided at the rear entry. 12. Consider losing the four parking spaces at the front entrance to the building and ir~reasing the landscape area or providing the parking area with enriched paving. 13. Meandering sidewalks will be required around the project. Low retaining walls may be used where necessary to take up grade. 14. A more detailed material sample board should be provided. Additional accent colors may be used.