Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/01/21 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 27, 1988 AX~TION AGENDA TO: Co~m~ercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea David Blakesley Dan Coleman Larry McNiel (Alternate) FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1988 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee and distributed to the Commission and Council. As always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. 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 i f 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 (Greg) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-55 - FULLMER - The development of three warehouse buildings ~g 171,641 square feet on 7.71 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located on the east side of Rochester Avenue, north of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way APN: 22g-121-21, 22. 6:30 - 7:00 (Greg) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-51 - FONTANA STEEL - The development of an 82,890 square foot fabrication plant and administration building on 15.34 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-121-35. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Commercial/Industrial January 27, 1988 Page 2 7:00 - 7:30 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-59 - DELMAR ENTERPRISES - The development of an office, manufacturing and research and development facility totaling 50,365 square feet on 4.88 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Center Avenue - APN: 210-381-(9-11) AND 210- 391-(16-18). 7:30 - 8:00 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-53 - O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM AND PARTNERS - The development ot five (5) industrial/distribution buildings totaling 423,827 square feet on 22 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue APN: 229-263-10, 11, 12 and 13. 8:00 - 8:30 (Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87- 37 - ~RTENS AND ASSOCIATES - The development of an auto service mall consisting of 3 buildings totaling 47,220 square feet on 4.46 acres of land in a General Industrial District Subarea 2, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and gth Street - APN: 209- 012-17. (CANCELLEO) NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA January 21, 1988 1. DR 86-13 - MESSENGER (Nancy) Review of roof screen mterial. Committee Action: Approved with condition that the material be painted to match building color. 2. PR 87-74 - W~EELER (Nancy) Consideration of proposed land use. Committee Action: Consensus from Committee that service station with no repair facility may be acceptable. 3. CUP 87-26 - 0AS (Nancy) Review of revised elevations and architectural details. Committee Action: The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval with conditions, which should be added to the proosed resolution of approval for Commission on January 27, 1988. These conditions are as follows: 1. The proposed additional architectural elements and detailing are acceptable with conditions: a) Only metal bracket should be used without the galvenized plate. The metal bracket should be painted to match the wood stain color. b) The half wide gutter should be painted to match building color. c) Sample of mullion should be provided for Commission review at the meeting. d) Variation to store front design should be provided subject to Committee review. 2. The corner treatment for Building "G" is acceptable. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA Commercial/Industrial January 21, 1988 Page 2 3. The entryway treatment including the terracing of east elevation for Building "F" is acceptable. 4. The west and south elevation of Building (Souplantation) are acceptable with conditions: a) Building color and materials should match the entire center. b} Samples of mullion color chip for building should be provided for Commission review at the meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Greg January 21, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-55 - FULLMER - The development of three warehouse buildings totaling 171,641 square feet on 7.71 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located on the east side of Rochester Avenue, north of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way - APN: 229-121-21, 22. Design Parameters: The project site is currently vacant, sloping north to south at approximately 2%, with no significant vegetation. The property is bounded on the east by the Interstate 15 freeway, which is approximately 30 to 35 feet above the grade of the site. An industrial project with 12 buildings totaling 600,000 square feet was recently approved for the adjacent parcel to the north, and a three building warehouse/ distribution center lies across Rochester Avenue to the west. Steff Co~maents: Site Plan 1. Aesthetic and visual impact from the freeway. The developer attempts to address the concern of unaesthetic view into the site from the freeway by orienting building 3 along the freeway in order to shield the loading facility. Perspective views of the project from the freeway will be available at the meeting where the Committee would assess and determine if additional screening measures may be necessary. 2. Loading area including trailer parking must be screened from Rochester Avenue view. A decorative screen wall, of material consistent with the building, should be provided along the length of the planter strip west of the trailer stalls at the southern property line. 3. Given the extent of truck activity which will occur on the site, and the potential for conflicts between auto and truck traffic, an access/circulation "spine" at least 50 feet in width should be maintained from the northern site boundary to the southern most trailer stalls. 4. The size of the proposed lunch area I is inadequate in that it serves more as a pedestrian connection than an open space/plaza area. It should be increased in size and provided with pedestrian ammenities. The design of this lunch area should be inviting to all pedestrian/employee usage. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-55 - Fullmer january 21, 1988 Page 2 5. The proposed lunch area 2 should also be increased in size so that a dense landscape buffer could be provided along the edges to shield the area from constant traffic noise and/or dust and to make it more inviting to pedestrian/employee usage. 6. Decorative pavement treatment (exposed aggregate, brick or tile pavers, etc.) should be provided at all project and building entries, within plaza areas, and at handicapped parking stalls. Landscaping 1. Special accent planrings should be provided at project entries, and should include multi-trunk and specimen size accent trees. 2. Annual color and other accent plantings should be provided within plaza areas, to enhance the aesthetic character of the project. 3. Landscaping should be provided along the north side of building 3 to mitigate the large expanse of blank building wall. Tree wells should be provided along the east side of building 1 to shade the adjacent parking stalls and enhance the appearance of the building. 4. Landscape planters should be provided adjacent to all refuse enclosures to soften the appearance of the masonry walls and metal gates. Planters adjacent to these enclosures should be at least three feet in width, to allow sufficient space for shrub planrings. 5. The proposed location of building 3 along the eastern property boundary limits the extent of on-site tree planting which can be provided along the freeway right-of-way. It is important to note however, that planting within the right-of-way (per the CalTrans Master Planting Plan) will be required in conjunction with the project. 6. Should dense landscaping be provided along the east side of the southern-most trail er parking stalls, to ensure adequate screening of this area from the freeways right-of-way? Architecture 1. Columnar elements along the east elevation of building 3 should be vertically continuous (i.e. fluted from top to bottom). Should the east elevation of building 3 be upgraded through the provision of additional textural or color elements to ensure adequate treatment of this freeway exposure? DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-55 - Fullmer January 21, 1988 Page 3 2. Glass elements at the center entry on the west side of building 3 should be extended to the roofline to provide consistency with the entries of buildings 1 and 2. 3. The west elevations of buildings 1 and 2 should be upgraded as it faces Rochester Avenue, a Special Boulevard. Additional articulation to the building place and surface should be provided, such as more "in" and "out", glass element etc. 4. All air conditioning and related roof equipment/projections should be ground mounted, or installed inside the buildings, to address the issue of freeway screening. 5. The columnar elements at the northwest corner of building 2 should return around the building corner, to provide a stronger architectural statement at the main project entry. I)esign Review Coam=ittee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Greg Gage The Committee expressed concern over the sight lines into the project from the freeway right-of-way, as well as exposure from Rochester Avenue, a Special Boulevard. The foll owing are the Commi ttee's directions to the applicant, with revised plans to be submitted for further Committee review when completed: Site Plan 1. A decorative screen wall similar to those used adjacent to Buildings 1 and 2 should be provided along the length of the planter strip west of the trailer stalls at the southern property line. 2. Decorative pavement treatment should be provided at all project and building entries. Recommended material include exposed aggregate, brick or tile pavers. Similar treatment should al so be provided within plaza areas. 3. Pedestrian furniture within each of the three plaza areas should include tables of a design consistent with that of the surrounding benches. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-55 - Fullmer january 21, 1988 Page 4 4. Parking stalls adjacent to building entries should be reserved for customer parking only (and provided appropriate signage) to mitigate potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Landscaping 1. Special accent plantings should be provided at project entries and should include multi-trunk and specimen size accent trees. 2. Annual color and other accent plantings should be provided within plaza areas to enhance the aesthetic character of the project. 3. Landscaping should be provided along the north side of Building 3 to enhance the appearance of the building. 4. Landscape planters should be provided adjacent to all refuse enclosures to soften the appearance of the masonry walls and metal gates. Planters adjacent to these enclosures should be at least three feet in width to allow sufficient space for shrub plantings. 5. A landscape planter should be provided on the south side of Building 2, similar to that shown for Building 1 {between project entry and plaza area). Architecture 1. Additional treatment should be provided the northeast corner of Building 3 in the form of spandrel glass elements at the upper building panels to return around this corner and between two columnar elements (on the north and east elevations). 2. The entry treatment at the northwest corner of Building 3 shall be expanded to return around the building corner. Spandrel and vision glass should be used for this entry. 3. Additional glass elements should be provided the west elevations of Buildings 1 and 2 (north corners} to upgrade the architecture along Rochester Avenue, a special boulevard. These elements should return a minimum of five (5) feet along the north elevation of Building 1, and should extend between columnar elements at the northwest corner of Building 2. 4. Additional architectural treatment should be provided the east and south sides of Buildings 1 and 2 to minimize large expanses of blank building walls. Recommended alternatives included textural or color treatment, additional columnar elements, etc. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-55 - Fullmer January 21, 1988 Page 5 5. A screen detail for any future roof-mounted equipment should be provided for review. Such screen should be architecturally integrated with the building design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Greg January 21, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-51 - FONTANA STEEL - The development of an 82,890 square foot fabrication plant and administration building on 15.34 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15} located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-121-35. Oesign Parameters: The site is currently vacant, with vegetation consisting of mature oleanders and pine trees along Arrow Route, some of which will be removed to allow for street tree planting. Significant views of the site exist from both Interstate 15 and Arrow Route. Properties south and east of the site are developed and used for steel melting and/or fabrication. Properties north and west of the site are vacant. A utility easement for Southern California Edison also borders the western portion of the site. Street improvements along Arrow Route will be constructed in conjunction with the project. Staff Com~nts: Site Plan 1. Pedestrian connections from parking areas to building entries should be strengthened, and should be clearly delineated. 2. The outdoor patio area should include pedestrian ammenities such as drinking fountains, benches, light bollards, and trash receptacles. These features should relate to the building relative to textures, colors, and design. If possible, pedestrian anlnenities should be fixed in position within the patio area. 3. Retaining walls adjacent to the patio area should be consistent with the building architecture, including a decorative cap. 4. Special pavement treatments at the main building entry should be expanded, and special pavement treatment should be provided within the entirety of the patio area. Recommended materials include exposed aggregate, tile pavers, interlocking brick pavers, or a combination thereof. Additional hardscape elements and pedestrian furniture should be used to enlarge and articulate the main building entry. 5. Given the unobstructed view from Arrow Route into the large, vacant portion of the site, a solid view obscuring gates should be considered across the southerly drive access of the eastern most parking area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-51 - Fontana Steel January 21, 1988 Page 2 Architecture The architectural program proposed consists of stipple finished metal with extensive use of aggregate coated metal to soften and enhance the appearance of the structure. Vision glass and a recessed entry are al so provided along the northern elevation of the proposed office building. The aggregate coated columnar elements provide for variety to the building planes and roof form. Openings on the eastern and western sides of the fabrication facility will be used as loading bays to service the large trailers for which the facility is intended. 1. The northwest corner of the administration building should return and tie into the north elevation of the fabrication shop to provide a degree of continuity. 2. The proposed elevations do not indicate if the roof mounted equipment will be screened from view. Given the view of the site from the freeway and Arrow Route the method of screening to be used should be addressed as a part of the building design. Landscaping 1. Planter widths along the eastern and western site boundaries should be increased to allow space for additional tree plantings in order to screen loading and storage areas. Tall growing evergreen specie (pinus, eucalyptus) should be used in these areas to provide year round screening. 2. Shrub massing should be used to screen parking areas, articulate project and building entries, and improve the screening and privacy of the patio area. The landscape planter between the patio and the parking areas should be enlarged to allow for dense plantings. 3. Where appropriate, annual color plantings should be used to delineate entries and walkways. Color plantings should al so be provided to enhance the patio area. 4. Tree wells should be provided within the patio area to allow for canopy tree plantings and ensure adequate shading. Oesign Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Greg Gage DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-51 - Fontana Steel January 21, lg88 Page 3 The Con~nittee reviewed the project and recon~nended approval subject to the following conditions: Site Plan 1. Pedestrian connections from parking areas to building entries should be strengthened and should be clearly delineated. 2. Pedestrian amenities within the outdoor patio should relate to the building relative to textures, colors, and design. Also, pedestrian amenities should be fixed in position wherever possible. 3. A six (6) foot screenwall should be provided along the southern portion of the easternmost parking area to screen views of the loading and storage activities. Materials and design of the wall should be consistent with the treatment provided other walls on the site including a decorative cap. 4. The retaining wall between the patio and parking areas should be at least four (4) feet in height to ensure adequate screening of the patio from adjacent traffic impacts (noise, dust, etc.). The material for the retaining wall should be compatible to the building material such as split face and with the decorative cap. 5. The special pavement treatment at the main bull ding entry should be expanded and additional hardscape should be used to enlarge and articulate this entry. Landscaping 1. The planter along the eastern site boundary should be approximately 16 feet in width and should be provided staggered plantings of evergreens (e.g. 10 feet on center) to ensure adequate screening of 1 oading and storage areas from Arrow Route, a Special Boulevard. Similarly, the planter along the western site boundary should be provided staggered plantings of tall evergreens to mitigate potential views of roll-up doors and loading areas from the freeway right-of-way. 2. Shrub massing should be used to screen parking areas, articulate project and building entries, and improve the screening and privacy of the patio area. 3. The landscape planter between the patio and parking areas should be increased in width by approximately four (4) feet to ensure sufficient space for such plantings. DESIGN REVIEW COMhiENTS DR 87-51 - Fontana Steel January 21, 1988 Page 4 4. Annual color plantings should be used to delineate entries and walkways as well as enhancing the patio area. 5. Tree wells should be provided within the patio area to allow for canopy tree plantings and to ensure adequate shading. Architecture 1. The Committee supported the general form and design of the facility, however recommended that textured metal panels be treated with a fluted material, as opposed to the aggregate type treatment which was proposed. 2. The mansard overhang/fascia treatment provided the east building elevation should also be utilized along the southern building elevation. 3. The proposed white siding for the facility should be replaced with a more subtle color which relates to the textured portions of the structure to minimize the visibility of stains, weathering, etc. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Chris january 21, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-59 DELMAR ENTERPRISES - The development of an office, manufacturing and research and development facility totaling 50,365 square feet on 4.88 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Center Avenue - APN: 210-381-(9-11) and 210-391-(16-18). Design Parameters: The site is vacant with no significant vegetation. There is a gentle slope from north to south. Surrounding properties are primarily vacant with the exception of the Haven Gate project directly east. Curb and gutter have been completed on three sides of the project however sidewalks an driveways have not. Staff Comments: Site Plan 1. Staff has concern with the circular parking lot planter locations. Although the concept is innovative, the logistics of having raised planters and trees at the rear portion of parking stalls may conflict with typical parking lot circulation. The planters may become obstacles and receive a lot of abuse. 2. Articulated cross walks should be provided between buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 which would improve on-site pedestrian circulation. 3. Textured paving which should be typical throughout the project at plaza areas, pedestrian pathways, and entries should also be provided at the projects points of ingress and egress. Architecture The architecture is appropriate for the industrial park district and the colors proposed are similar to the existing Haven Gate project which is directly west. However staff would comment that: 1. A subtle shade change reminiscent of the proposed glazing could be used at the columns as an enrichment. 2. The exterior staircase should be designed as an element which "hugs" or is a part of the building rather than moving away from the building. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-59 - Delmar Enterprises January 21, 1988 Page 2 Landscaping 1. A solution should be discussed which would provide additional tree planting possibilities adjacent or close to building fronts which have public exposure. Options could include increasing planter areas beyond arcade overhangs or jogging those overhangs to provide sufficient landscape space. 2. A low buffer wall and landscaping should be provided west of building "I" which will shield the passive sitting area. 3. Evergreen canopy trees, accent trees, shrub planting and ground cover should be provided at the main plaza area. A primary concern should be to buffer the plaza from the street and create an inviting year around atmosphere. Oesign Review Cmitt~e Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee reviewed the project and made the following recommendations: 1. The concept proposed for parking lot landscaping is acceptable with modifications. A hardscape treatment should be used in combination with the tree wells which will add interest and reduce the sense of expensive asphalt which is typical in parking lots. 2. Articulated cross walks should be provided for on-site access between buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. 3. A paving treatment to be approved by City Planner should be used for walks adjacent to buildings and a consistent paving pattern should be used throughout the site. 4. A1 ternative staircase designs should be submitted for the two story building. A recommendation was made that a single more prominent staircase be provided for main access and a single interior stairwell be provided for secondary access. 5. In order to satisfy the intent of the requirement of planting adjacent to buildings, planter pots of substantial size should be used to the satisfaction of City Planner. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-59 - Delmar Enterprises january 21, 1988 Page 3 6. Vines should be planted at the west elevation of Building 4. 7. Raised seating should be provided in the minor plaza areas. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Chris January 21, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-53 O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM AND PARTNERS The development of five (5) industrial/ distribution buildings totaling 423,827 square feet on 22 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-10, 11, 12 and 13. Oesign Parameters: This site consists of three parcels which are currently vacant without any significant vegetation. A single industrial building is under construction directly to the northwest and to the northeast is an existing nursery. Major streets run on the west (Buffalo) and the east (Rochester) property boundaries. Street improvements have been completed along Buffalo Avenue except driveway. Rochester Avenue has not been fully completed. Background: The project was previously reviewed on December 17, 1987. The Committee did not act on the project but provided direction with the intent of a re-review as follows: 1. Truck trailer parking areas had not been provided for the four southerly buildings. A solution which was discussed was a re- adjustment of the northerly property lines to create a land area large enough to provide the truck parking. 2. Landscaping areas should be provided by the truck trailer parking areas which will screen the trail er parking and break up the long expanse of building at the dock high doors. 3. Integrated plaza areas for each building should be provided. These plazas should use variations in bardscape texture and include specimen size trees and special shrub and ground cover treatment. 4. Architectural elements should be designed into the east and west ends of Building "A". Similar elements should be used at the office entries of all buildings to tie the project together. Precast post and lintel "appendages" were mentioned but not specifically required. 5. The intersection of 6th and Buffalo should be provided with special landscape treatment that will create a focal anchor. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-53 - O'Donnell, Brigham and Partners January 21, 1988 Page 2 6. The colors used for accent on the buildings should fall into one spectrum of color. A range of blues or greens was mentioned as being appropriate. 7. Any future screen or security wall proposed on the north property line should be subjected to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and/or construction. The Committee stated that this should be placed as a condition of approval. 8. Special textured paving should be used at points of ingress to the project and also at plaza areas. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee reviewed the project and made the following recommendations: 1. The screen wall which runs between Buildings B and E should be tilt up concrete which match the color schemes and textures of the project's buildings. 2. Detailed design of the plaza areas should be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 3. Special landscape treatment as approved by the City Planner should be provided at the intersection of 6th and Buffalo. 4. Any future screen or security wall proposed on the north property line should be subjected to Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. A consistent textured paving should be used throughout the project including points of vehicular ingress and egress. The material for the texture pavement should be compatible to the architectural style and should have integral color for richness.