Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/02/04 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 8, 1988 ACTION AX~ENDA TO: C~mmerci al / I ndustri al Design Review Committee Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dan Col eman Dave B1 akesl ey ( A1 ternate FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 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 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 (Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-60 - BARTON - The development of 11 industrial buildings ~'6t'~li'ng 125,260 square feet on 8.43 acres of land in the Industrial Park District. Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the west side of Red Oak Street, between Jersey Boulevard and Edison Court - APN: 209-142-34. 6:30 - 7:00 {Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSilENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- 20 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - line development of a business park consisting of six buildings totaling 160,155 square feet on 12.9 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Tetra Vista Planned Community 1 ocated at the northeast corner of Elm Street and Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-421-06, 1077-091-17. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Commercial/Industrial February 4, 1988 Page 2 7:00 - 8:00 (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-39 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated community shopping center consisting of four major retail buildings totaling 319,000 square feet, adjoining mall shops totaling 137,395 square feet, nine satellite retail buildings totaling 43,550 square feet, two satellite office building totaling 27,325 square feet, four restaurant pads, and a 30,000 square foot theater. Conceptual approval for a design center consisting of ten buildings totaling 195,660 square feet. All on 71 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, 1 ocated at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, 13. 8:00 - 8:30 (Greg) MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-04 - DONLEY BENNETT - Review of proposed changes to project design ~ffey Plaza necessitated by Uniform Building Code requirements located at the southwest corner of Haven and Lemon. NF:vc Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council Commercial/Industrial CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA February 4, 1988 1. DR 87-17 - UNOCAL (Nancy) Review of minor modification to Site Plan. Committee Action: The Committee approved the modification of shifting the building approximately 18 feet north and expanding the parking area to the south with conditions as follows and as shown in Attachment "A". 1. Provide dense landscaping along the south property boundary and into the freeway right-of-way to the satisfaction of City Planner. 2. Provide dense landscaping with box-size trees along the street frontage of Haven. 3. Eliminate the first parking space south of the entry way to the station and add planter area. 4. Dense landscaping along street frontages and north of building. 2. leR 86-33 - CARL'S OR (Chrls) Review of new colors. Committee Action: The proposal of the dark, dark parapet trim was approved. However, the Committee denied the red trim and yellow awning. 3. CUP 87-05 - LUTHERAN CHURCH (Debra) Review of cal shake roof. Committee Action: Approved cal shake roof with 5/8" thickness and Golden Cedar color. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AGENDA Commercial/Industrial February 4, 1988 Page 2 4. CUP 87-42 - GENERAL DYNAMICS (Greg) Review of substation equipment. Committee Action: The Committee approved the utility equipment, subject to the following conditions: 1. All equipment in excess of eight feet in height shall be painted a light beige or light brown color. 2. Evergreen screen tree planting shall be staggered around the enclosure. Tree species should consist of Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine) or Pinus pinea (Italian Stone Pine). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Nancy February 4, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-60 - BARTON The development of 11 industrial buildings totaling 125,260 square feet on 8.43 acres of land in the Industrial Park District. Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the west side of Red Oak Street, between Jersey Boulevard and Edison Court - APN: 209-142-34. Design Parameters: This project is Phase III of the previously approved Master Plan (Rancho Cucamonga Business Park II) as shown in attachment "A". At present Phase I is completed v~ile Phase II is under construction. Staff Cogmerits: Site Plan 1. The following are identified changes to Phase III development as compared to the one approved with the Master Plan: a) Buildings 8 and 9 are free standing at zero lot line versus being paired. The same changes occur for Buildings 2 and 3. b) Picnic/lunch areas have been provided to all of the lots except for Buildings 11 and 10. Also the location for these areas are in the middle of the site and being shared as shown between Buildings 5 and 6 or being a separate area as shown in Building 2. The approved Master Plan shows that these areas are combined with the office entries as an entry statement. c) A continuous planter along the north property boundary for Building 10 has been eliminated. However, the developer has added a continuous planter along the west elevation of Building 10. 2. Building 11 would take up two adjoining lots, one in Phase III and one in the future Phase IV development as shown in Attachment "B". This will be the administrative office for a construction company - Martin Jaska Inc., based on discussion with representatives from Martin Jaska, Inc. and the developer. According to them, they would be constructing the building located at the end of Bell Court first with future expansion into the westerly adjoining lot. However, they would be improving approximately 100 feet into this westerly adjoining lot to provide the required parking for the office use. They have indicated that they may be storing equipment and building materials within the unimproved portion of this westerly adjoining lot with chain-link fencing around it. According to the ISP, outdoor storage is not permitted. Also, chain-link fence is not acceptable as security fencing material or screen wall material when exposed to public view. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-60 - Barton February 4, 1988 Page 2 3. An average 25 foot landscape setback should be provided. Such is the case for the street frontages between Buildings 7 and 8, and between Buildings 3 and 4. 4. When parking space abuts an interior property line, a continuous 5 foot landscape planter should be provided. Such is the case for the northern property boundary for Building 10. Landscaping 1. Long continuous row of parking spaces should be broken up with 6 foot wide landscape planter. Such is the case with Building 10. 2. Staff appreciates the developer's effort to provide a more substantial lunch area as shown between Buildings 8 and 7 or between 3 and 4. However staff is concerned that this would become the location for a 10' x 8' pad for the transformer in the future; thus destroying the concept. Elevation 1. Building 6: Additional articulation should be provided to the west side of the south elevation. This could be achieved by repeating similar elements as in the east side of the south elevation. 2. Building 10: Although the office entry has been provided with articulation and architectural elements, the design appears incompatible with the design theme established within Rancho Cucamonga Business Park II. 3. Building 11: The proposed building pad area including the future phase has a boxy look. Additional articulation to the building planes should be provided. Also, the office entry area should have substantial articulation to serve as a focal point of the building. Design Review C~muittee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Col eman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-60 - Barton February 4, 1988 Page 3 The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Ground mounted equipment such as transformer should not be placed within plaza area. 2. Additional articulation to the building plane of Building "11" should be provided, especially at the office entry. The building accent color should utilize the same ones within the Business Park. The revised elevation should be reviewed and approved by Design Review Committee prior to plan check. 3. The accent colors for Buildings "1" and "8" should be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The concrete block wall with stucco finish is acceptable. The stucco finish shall be as close to the surface of tilt-up concrete as possible for those walls with public street view. 5. For the future phase area in Building "11" with the temporary outdoor storage, located at the southeast portion of Phase 5 of the Master Plan, a screen wall should be provided to the point where future building will occur. Chain link fence with wood slats may be used to continue from the screen wall. If Phase 5 of the Master P1 an did not receive building permits within one year from the date of this Phase 3 approval, this portion of the chain link fence with wood slats should be removed and should be replaced with a permanent screen wall. 6. Additional 6 foot wide planter fingers should be provided along the north property boundary for Building "10". DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 ~ 7:00 Nancy February 4, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-20 WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of a business park consisting of six buildings totaling 160,155 square feet on 12.9 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Planned Community located at the northeast corner of Elm Street and Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-421- 06, 1077-091-17. Background: The Committee (Chitlea, Blakesley and Kroutil) on September 17, 1987 meeting reviewed the proposed project and recommended that it be revised for further Committee review. The Committee was specifically concerned with the proposed architectural style as it does not provide for compatibility in building form, materials, and col or to the residential development, the Town Center project and the Office Park. Another concern was the service driveway and the roll-up door that encourage industrial use. The developer has resubmitted development plans to address the Committee concerns, which will be discussed in the following section. Copies of the previous plans have been attached for your reference. Staff Comments: 1. The Committee stated that the service driveway and roll-up doors encourage industrial uses. The Committee directed the applicant to explore alternative back entry elements to improve the service driveway streetscape and to depart from the feeling of an industrial project. The revised plans show that the rear service driveways for all the buildings have been upgraded with architectural elements and detailing such as driveway portico at service driveway entrance, additional storefront with awnings. The architectural elements from the front elevation have been wrapped around the corners of the buildings at the service driveway and landscaping. However, the roof line of this rear elevation within the service driveway still has long, horizontal line. Staff suggests that smaller scale curved parapet could be added to break the horizontal roof line. 2. The applicant has agreed to provide illustrative design of the greenway trails within the site and the ones adjacent to it in order to show how they interface with one another for Committee review. lhe design of the greenway trail now includes bike trail, seating benches, and textured pav~nt. Staff suggests that additional hardscape such as trash receptacles and drinking fountains be provide~. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 86-20 - Western Properties February 4, 1988 Page 3 3. Pedestrian connections should be provided on one side of the four project entries leading to the central plaza area. Pedestrian connections have been provided. 4. Textured pedestrian connections should be provided throughout the site and the plaza area. The material for the textured pavement for walkways and across circulation aisle should be compatible to the architectural style and should have color to it for adding richness. 5. The proposed architecture does not provide for compatibility in building form, materials and colors to the residential development, the Town Center project or the Office Park project. The applicant should explore architectural concepts that have a more residential flavor. The revised elevations include architectural elements such as tower of different scale, curved parapet, reveals, painted recessed square, gable roof and awning. The architectural style has a residential flavor and wnuld provide compatibility in form, materials and colors to the rosidential development, the Town Center project and the Office Park project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Col eman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended approval with conditions as follows: 1. Additional pedestrian amenities such as additional benches and free standing light fixtures should be provided along the freeway. 2. Pedestrian connection should be provided to the corners of Town Center Drive and Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway. 3. The horizontal roof line for the rear elevation should be broken up with additional architectural elements subject to City Planner review and approval. 4. Special landscape treatment should be provided to the greenway trail subject to City Planner review and approval. 5. The landscape theme should tie in with the office park project and the Town Center project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 8:00 Debra February 4, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-39 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of an integrated community shopping center consisting of four major retail buildings totaling 319,000 square feet, adjoining mall shops totaling 137,395 square feet, nine satellite retail buildings totaling 43,550 square feet, two satellite office building totaling 27,325 square feet, four restaurant pads, and a 30,000 square foot theater. Conceptual approval for a design center consisting of ten buildings totaling 195,660 square feet. All on 71 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, 1 ocated at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, 13. Background: The Terra Vista Town Center project was approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1987. The following is a description of the action taken for the approval of that project: Specific approval of the site plan, conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan and architecture for the theater, the four ~or retail buildings, mll shops "A" through "L", satellite retail shops "M" through "W" and office buildings "X" and "Y". As well as conceptual approval of pad locations for four satel lite restaurants and conceptual approval of ten pads that c~rise the office design center. This project is returning to the Design Review Committee at this time to satisfy a condition of approval requiring additional committee review of the "architectural details". Due to the overall complexity of the project, earlier Committee meetings were focused on more general aspects of the project such as the design of the major tenants, the prominent courtyard at Haven/Foothill, circulation and the overall promenade design. The intent of this meeting is to review the smaller details with respect to the store fronts, satellite buildings, etc. Staff suggests that the following pages within the development package be reviewed for discussion: A5.1 Misc. details of eaves, moldings and cornice A6 Store fronts for mall shops A-K A7 Store fronts for mall shops K-L A8 Store fronts for mall shops A and E-A A9 Elevations of satellite retail buildings M-W A10 Elevations of office buildings X and Y DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 87-39 - Western Properties February 4, 1988 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee reviewed the design aspects of the project as detailed within the report. The architect reviewed with the Committee the variety of detail, trim and cornice solutions to be used throughout the project. The Committee reacted favorably to the items reviewed and discussed without additional recommendations or conditions. The applicants are preparing a detailed signage program for the center that will be formally approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 - 8:30 Greg February 4, 1988 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-04 - DONLEY BENNETT - Review of proposed changes to project design for Charley P|aza necessitated by Uniform Building Code requirements located at the southwest corner of Haven and Lemon. Design Parameters: The Uniform Building Code requires a parapet wall if a building is 10 feet or less from the property line. The project as designed does not meet the UBC requirements. Building i is 5 feet from the south property line. The south elevation of Building i is quite visible from Haven Avenue. Building 2 is 5 feet from the property line to the west which separates the car wash from the retail center. Staff Co~ents: Building 1: The following options may be considered which would eliminate the need for a parapet wall: 1. Provide greater than 10 foot setback by shifting the entire building (see Exhibit "A"). This can be accomplished by reducing the northerly driveway width from 30 feet to 26 feet and reducing the breezeway depth from 8 feet to 5 feet. (Note: The architectural drawings are "short" I foot; therefore 7 feet of site adjustment is necessary). 2. Jog southeast corner only to provide greater than 10 foot setback. This would maintain the integrity of the architectural design for the corner of the building closest to Haven Avenue (see Exhibit "B"). However, the parapet wall would still be needed for the remainder of the south elevation. 3. Decrease depth of Building I from 52 feet to 46 feet to provide greater than 10 foot setback (see Exhibit "C"). Building 1: The UBC requirements can be met for Building 2 by a lot line adjustment to shift the property line more than 10 feet from the west si de of the building. Design Review C~m~ittee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Greg Gage DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 87-04 - Donley Bennett February 4, 1988 Page 2 1. The Committee reviewed the proposed parapet wall for the south elevation of Building "1" and determined that additional architectural detailing was necessary to enhance the appearance of this wall as seen from Haven Avenue. Specifically, a stucco relief band at least 4" in width should be provided horizontally across the upper edge of the parapet, with additional relief to be provided by repeating square recesses across the lower portion of the parapet. The Committee directed that final design of the parapet detailing be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. 2. The Committee reviewed the west el evation for Building "2" and agreed that the lot line adjustment proposed by the applicant would most effectively address Uniform Building Code requirements while still maintaining the architectural character of the project. 3. The Committee also reviewed the rhythm/spacing of the columns for each building, and determined that spacing at approximately 19 feet on center {versus the 11 foot separation originally approved) would be acceptable, provided that more massive columns are incorporated into the design.