Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/03/05 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 1987 ACTION AGENDA TO: Cu.m,erci al / Indu stri al 1977 Design Review Conanittee Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel Brad Bullet FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CO)~IITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 5, lg87 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 ~rite down your comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Con~nittee's concerns will be t3qDed up as the formal action/reconnendation 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. 6:00 - 6:30 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-27 - MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS - The development of a 13,700 square foot manufacturing/warehouse building addition to an existing 86,000 square foot building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Center - APN: 209-242-08. 6:30 - 7:00 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-46 - DECKK DEVELOPMENT - A proposal to construct an 11,OOU square foot office building at 9113 Foothill Boulevard in the office/professional district located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Hellman - APN: 208- 241-0g. DESIGN REVIEW COMMII'FEE AGENDA Commercial/Industrial March 5, 1987 Page 2 7:00 ~ 7:30 (Debra) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-34 - SHERIFF AND ASSOCIATES - Proposal for remodeling the store front facade, minor building addition and reconstruct drive approaches for an existing Neighborhood Shopping Center on 7.8 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 202-381-24, 25, 26, 28 thru 33, 35 and 36. 7:30 - 8:00 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-42 - LEFF - The development of 12 industrial multi-tenant ~'D'fl'dings totaling 136,367 square feet on 9.15 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (subarea 7) located on the north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and White Oak Avenues - APN: 208-351-30. (Continued from January 22, 1987 meeting.) NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA March 5, 1987 1. CUP 84-37 - KELBERT (Debra) Review of building colors. Committee Action: The Committee found the revised colors acceptable, some revision in choice of ceramic tile may be necessary to be compatible with the champagne white. The Committee would also like to see the block changed to brick or stone. 2. CUP 86-05 - DICKER-WARt4INGTON (Debra) Review of tiles, material and bus shelter design. Committee Action: The Committee found the accent tile and the paver samples to be acceptable as well as the design of the Bus Stop. 3. CUP 85-37 - BRUNSWICK (Nancy) Review of change to storefront and a connection between Brunswick and future health spa. Committee Action: The changes to the storefront are acceptable, as long as the two single doors are marked for emergency use only. The ramp configuration is acceptable with the addition of the landscaped area at the corner, as shown in Exhibit "A". They also noted that the area of the original outdoor ramp, that is enclosed by glass for use by the health spa, should be added to overall square footage for parking calculations. 4. INLAND BUSINESS CENTER (Cindy) Review of proposed change to building color. Committee Action: The Committee approved the color change as proposed by the applicant, from brown and beige to blue and grey. Consent Calendar Items Agenda Commercial/Industrial March 5, 1987 Page 2 5. OR B6-45 - MA (Debra) Review of site plan. Committee Action: The Committee approved the revisions made in reference to the following: a. The provision of the lunch courts is acceptable, however, details of actual design should be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to issuance of building permits. b. The revised driveway orientations are acceptable as proposed. However, the following issues should still be addressed: a. Submit a revised bull ding material sample board and color elevation prior to Planning Commission consideration. b. Variation in vertical building plane is desirable and should be compatible with Bixby Master Plan under construction on the west side of Pittsburgh. c. The Master Planning of this parcel should focus on the Pittsburgh streetscape. Particularly a variation in building setback and parkway design compatible with Bixby Master Plan concept. 6. DR 86-37 - KEITH CO. (Nancy) Review of revised graphic examples for parking lot. Committee Action: The Committee made the following recommendations: a. Provide planting pockets in long rows of parking, at least one every 10 parking stalls. Consent Calendar Items Agenda Page 3 b. The illustration of the property line condition needs to show some concept of shrub planting. c. The block wall surrounding the storage area should have a decorative treatment. d. The chain link fencing should only be used when not visible to public view. e. Tree wells should typically be placed at every third parking stall. 7. DR86-40 - CHCG (Nancy) Review of revised elevation with signage concepts. Committee Action: The decorative parapet feature is too tall, the Committee recommended that the top of the parapet be in line with the bottom of the roof line of the tower. Also, signage is shown on four locations on the building, only three signs are permitted in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Other elevation changes were found acceptable as shown. 8. DR86-43 - HTI (Debra) Site plan and architecture. Committee Action: The site plan and architecture are acceptable as proposed, identical to 8th Street Industrial Phase One. They did recommend that the striping be continued onto the rear of the first two buildings easterly of Baker Avenue. ~ · II* DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Chris March 5, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-27 MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS - The development of a 13,70D square foot manufacturing/ wale building addition to an existing 86,000 square foot building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Center - APN: 209-242-08. Oesign Parameters The site is developed with 90,680 square feet of combined manufacturing, warehouse space, and 7,160 square feet of office space. The existing building is rail served and the majority of the remaining portion of the site is paved for circulation and parking. The properties which are west, south, and east are developed with industrial uses. The property to the north is vacant. Staff Cuumuents Site Plan 1. The parking stalls provided at the southern property line are in conflict with traffic patterns and should be eliminated. There is an adequate number of parking spaces on the site that would allow for this. 2. The outdoor retherm located at the west end of the project site is highly visible and should be screened through the use of screen walls and or shrub and tree planting. Architecture The applicant is requesting to use a corrugated metal siding for the addition. The same material has been used elsewhere on the site however the revised Industrial Specific Plan prohibits the use of metal buildings in the Industrial Park and General Industrial subareas. The Committee should discuss the appropriateness of continuing with the metal material. Landscaping An intense planting of oleanders is proposed along Center Avenue for the purpose of screening the retherm area and parking. The sizes of these trees should be large enough to provide adequate screening in the early stages of their growth. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 86-27 - MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS March 5, 1987 Page 2 Design Review ComEittee Action Members Present: Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitlea, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Chris Westman 1. The Committee determi ned that all owing the use of corrugated metal siding is appropriate in this particular case, due to the relatively minor nature of the proposed addition and the presence of an existing metal addition. 2. The outdoor retherm unit required additional screening through the use of berms, a screen/security wall of pilasters and wrought iron, and an intense planting palette, consistent with what is existing on the site, i.e. cypress and olive trees. Detailed plans for the screen/security wall and landscape theme shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 3. The Committee concured with staff's comment regarding the parking spaces located at the southwest portion of the site and directed the applicant to revise the site plan accordingly. DESIGN REVIEW CO))4ENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Chris March 5, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-46 DECKK DEVELOPMENT - A proposal to construct an 11,000 square foot office building at 9113 Foothill Boulevard in the office/professional district located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Hellman - APN: 208-241-09. Site Characteristics The project site is approximately .60 acres. There is an existing residential structure which the applicant has proposed to remove. The applicant has been in contact with staff and is in the process of exploring possibilities for preservation/relocation. The site has an improved parking lot with spaces for about 16 cars. There are mature trees located on the site which are requested to be removed. The pad elevation of the house is two to three feet higher than Foothill Boulevard. Design Parameters During the preliminary review the Planning Commission indicated that the design of the building be compatible with the surrounding apartments. The intent of the request was to ensure that this small parcel will not stand out and disrupt the character of that portion of the Foothill Boulevard streetscape. Because of the nonconforming lot size the applicants proposal requires some variances. The site was redesigned from the original proposal to reduce the number of variances required. Those still required are: at the west property line for parking setback, at the Foothill Boulevard (north) frontage for less than the 45 foot building setback required by Interim Policy E-2, for exceeding the 25 foot height limitation within 100 feet of residential, and for a reduction in the 44 parking spaces required to 36 provided. Staff Coemaents: Site Plan 1. The proposed variance of 8 parking spaces, if denied, would require substantial changes to the project. Therefore, the Committee should discuss this issue. 2. The transformer location should be moved to the trash enclosure area for more effective screening. DESIGN REVIEW COHltENTS DR 86-46 - DECKK DEVELOPMENT March 5, 1987 Page 2 3. Measures could be taken to facilitate the retention of the northern most chestnut tree. The retention of the other two chestnut trees would require a reduction of two parking spaces. 4. Although the building doesn't meet the 45 foot Foothill Boulevard setback, a study submitted to staff indicates that the setback provided is closely related to those provided on the contiguous apartment sites to the east and west. 5. In order to comply with the setback for parking along the west side of the project, one parking space could be eliminated. However the project is already underparked and the reduction in any more spaces would only exacerbate the deficiency. 6. Concerns over pedestrian orientation and access have been addressed in the revised plan from comments made at the preliminary review stage. Architecture The proposed architecture is compatible with the surrounding structures in general form and mass. However the use of grey tone stucco, dark grey tile roof and solar grey glass with blue mullions and accent railing contrasts with the earthtone colors and red tile roofs used on the apartments to the east, west and south. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan reflects an appropriate number of trees according to the Development Code Standards. However staff is of the opinion that because several mature trees are being removed from the site, that interior replacement trees along the Foothill Boulevard frontage be 36 inch box. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Chris Westman 1. The Committee discussed the number of parking spaces required in relation to the overall site design of the project and were unable to determine justifiable Facts for Findings in support of a Variance. It was recommended that the parking Variance and other Variance issues be discussed at the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Design Review Congnents DR 86-46 - DECKK DEVELOPMENT March 5, 1987 Page 3 2. The applicant stated that he agreed to comply with staff recommendations of relocating the transformer and the requirement of specimen size trees (36") along Foothill Boulevard. 3. The Committee was concerned that the proposed bull ding colors do not provide compatibility to the surrounding existing buildings, and recommended that the color palette be changed to more earth tone. A color scheme shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. 4. The Committee did not discuss staffs comment #3 regarding the existing chestnut trees. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Debra March 5, 1987 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-34 - SHERIFF AND ASSOCIATES - Proposal for remodeling the store front facade, minor building addition and reconstruct drive approaches for an existing Neighborhood Shopping Center on 7.8 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 202-381-24, 25, 26, 28 thru 33, 35 and 36. Design Parameters The site is that of an existing Stater Bros. shopping center with simple, outdated, architectural theme. The applicants propose to remodel and update storefront facades which will also include fill-in and refurbishing of existing landscaping. The facelift construction is not proposed to include the satellite structures of Bank of America and t'E~l's Jr. Restaurant. Staff Comaents Architecture A recognizable design theme should be established for each shopping center. The theme should be one which creates a harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roof line as it relates to surrounding developments. Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall design of immediate area. It is not intended that one style of architecture be dominant but that individual structures create and enhance a high quality and harmonious community appearance. The applicant identifies the theme of the proposed facade in the attached letter, as a "modern interpretation of traditional elements of Spanish mission style". Staff feels that the "high-tech" design elements, such as, geometric shapes, metal roofing and neon lighting along the parapet, is out of character for Alta Loma. Does the proposed facade present a design theme, character and color consistent with Design Guidelines presented in the Development Code? Design Review Comgitee ~tion Members Present: Brad Buller, Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel Staff Planner: Debra Meier DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 84-34 - SHERIFF AND ASSOCIATES March 5, lg87 Page 2 1. The Committee determined that the proposed architecture would not be compatible with development in the surrounding area. A more traditional architectural approach is necessary to reflect the heritage of the Alta Loma Community, al though the use of contemporary elements is encouraged. 2. The Committee also expressed a concern regarding the relationship of the shopping center with the bank and the fast food restaurant. The goal would be to eventually achieve architectural compatibility between all structures on-site. 3. Revised architectural plans should be submitted to the Planning Division and be scheduled for further Design Review Committee review prior to forwarding on to the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 january 22, 1987 7:30 - 8:00 Debra March 5, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-42 - LEFF - The development of 12 indusrial multi-tenant buildings totaling 136,367 square feet on 9.15 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (subarea 7) located on the north side of Arrow Route between Maple Place and White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-351-30. Oesign Parameters: the site is presently vacant and void of any significant plant materials. Street improvements are in existence along all perimeter streets. All properties around the sie are vacant with existing ground sloping from north to south at about a 2% gradient. The site is part of Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. Staff has met with the applicant on two occasions to inform him of and discuss the list of identified technical and design issues of this proposed project, such identified issues as inefficient site planning, access and circulation, and nonfunctional loading areas, to name a few. The applicant has chosen not to address or resolve these issues prior to Committee's review. Staff Coemaents: Site Plan 1. The proposed design of the site plan does not meet the intent of the urban design guidelines in providing functional, safe and visually pleasing environment, in the following ways: a. Awkward and ineffective location for loading areas that create traffic conflict as shown on Exhibit "A"; b. Loading areas in front of plaza areas; c. Businesses have to share loading areas as shown on Exhibit "A"; d. Inadequate and inefficient pedestrian walkways including handicap access for all buildings; e. Parking spaces are provided in front of a portion of the roll-up doors and counted as part of the required parking count; f. Driveway access width is inconsistent with the required 35 foot standard; and DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 86-42 - LEFF March 5, 1987 Page 2 g. Inadequate maneuvering areas for loading and unloading activities. 2. The middle driveway could serve as an east-west central circulation spine for the project. However, it should be upgraded with continuous landscaping and pedestrian connections. This could be achieved by "flipping" buildings 3 and 10 so that the roll-up doors face north. Architecture 1. Office entries should be provided with architectural treatment that present an entrance statement. 2. Articulation of the building plan should be provided through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns and add variety to the building surface. 3. Colonades or loggias and other covered walkways or structures that provide shade to pedestrian spaces should be utilized whenever possible. 4. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from all sides and such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design. Landscaping 1. The site plan design should create opportunities for landscaped spaces. These areas should be an integral part of the overall site design and should create visual interest and variety, enhance building architecture and define and distinguish the pedestrian area from parking and vehicular circulation. January 22, 1987 Design Review Co.~ittee Action: Members Present: Brad Buller Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee did not make any recommendations regarding this project as there was a lack of quorum. However, the following issues and concerns were discussed at this meeting: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 86-42 - LEFF March 5, 1987 Page 3 1. Overall pedestrian circulation and linkage, both internally and externally, should connect parking areas with building entries, pedestrian open spaces and public transit facilities. Particular attention should be paid to handicap accessibility to all building units. 2. The harsh edges of building corners throughout the project should be softened by use of landscaping and angling or recessing of the building corner. 3. Provide a "focal point" at the central area of the project (see attached exhibit) by increasing amount of landscaping, providing textured pavement treatment, enhancing building entries and softening building corners. 4. The middle driveway could serve as an east-west central circulation spine for the project. However, it should be upgraded with continuous landscaping and pedestrian connections with a landscaped node or a focal point to enhance the view. 5. The site plan design should create opportunities for landscaped spaces. These areas should be an integral part of the overall site design and should create visual interest and variety, enhance building architecture and define and distinguish the pedestrian area from parking and vehicular circulation. 6. The proposed 4 foot to 5 foot wide planter area around buildings is inadequate in width to provide continuous pedestrian connection, especially for handicap access and the required landscaping along building perimeter. 7. The northerly driveway of White Oak Avenue opens up a view corridor into the project. Perhaps a smaller landscape node or focal point could be provided to enhance this view. 8. The Committee stated that the project could either be placed on the agenda for another regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting, or a special Committee meeting may be scheduled to review the project with any revisions the applicant has made based on the comments given above. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS DR 86-42 - LEFF March 5, 1987 Page 4 March 5, 1987 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Brad Buller, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee generally recommended approval of the project, but they would like to see the following items addressed and presented as a consent item at the next Design Review Committee meeting, prior to forwarding to Planning Commission consideration: 1. All landscaped areas should be a minimum of 5 feet in width, unless they are adjacent to loading areas, in which case 4 feet would then be acceptable. Whenever possible landscaped areas should be provided that will allow clusters of trees to be planted for best aesthetic effect. 2. The corners of the two-story buildings should receive additional architectural treatment (see exhibit "A") to provide a greater interest and variety at these locations. 3. The entries to the two-story buildings that face the parking lots should receive textured pavement (brick paver) treatment and additional landscaping to produce a more aesthetic entry statement. 4. Pedestrian pathways that cross drive aisles should be concrete edged with brick pavers.