Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/06/05 - Agenda Packet ' CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 1986 ~CTION/~ENDA TO: Commercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Herman Rempel Suzanne Chitlea 1977 Brad Bullet Dennis Stout (Alternate) FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1986 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 {Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-14 - HAVEN INVESTORS I - The development of one 11,750 square foot office building on 1.0 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 550 feet south of Civic Center Drive - APN 208- 622-35. 6:30 - 7:00 {Nancy) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-13 - MESSENGER - The development of a 26 acre industrial Master l~se I development consisting of 7 light manufacturing buildings totaling 139,000 sq. ft. and Phase 2 development consisting of 2 warehouse distribution buildings totaling 223,400 sq. ft. on 22 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District located at the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Highway and 9th Street - APN 209-012-16 NF:ns Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Debra June 5, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-14 - HAVEN INVESTORS I - The development of one 11,750 square foot office building on 1.0 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 550 feet south of Civic Center Drive - APN 208-622-35. Design Parameters The project is within the Haven Avenue Overlay District and part of a larger Master Planned commercial center (K-Mart) as shown in the attached exhibit. During review of Parcel Map 8250, the Daon Corporation indicated that this pad and the one to the north were intended for restaurants. Staff Coments Site Plan: The building location is consistent with the approved Master Plan. 1. The site plan could be improved by enhancing the entry plaza with raised planters or benches that provide seating and landscape materials that will shade seating areas. Further, the plaza should be redesigned with consideration for noise buffering and wind protection. 2. The Traffic Engineering Division recommends that a 100 foot minimum stacking distance be provided on the northerly drive approach. This would necessitate elimination of 7 parking spaces. However, this loss would be made up for through the extra available spaces on Parcel 4. Pedestrian Connections: The offsite sidewalks along Haven Avenue should turn into the project at both driveway locations and connect to interior pedestrian circulation. This would provide pedestrian access not only to this office building, but to the commercial center as a whole. Landscaping: The 7 foot setback from curb on the south side of the building is not sufficient to provide the theme landscaping necessary at this main entrance to the commercial center. That setback should be at least comparable to the 16 foot average landscape setback provided on the south side of the entrance. Design Review Comments DR 86-14 - Haven Investors I June 5, 1986 Page 2 Architecture: Does the proposed elevation comply with the Haven Avenue Overlay District design guidelines for architectural style? The Overlay District requires that architecture along Haven Avenue project a high wuality progressive, sophisticated, and urban style of development, Multiple story buildings of sufficient mass are encouraged that reflect the scale and proportion of the Haven Avenue right-of-way and streetscape setbacks. Low, linear buildings are disouraged. The proposed elevation is a one-story office building. However, the applicant is attempting to give the impression of a two-story structure with the use of clerestory windows along the east and west elevations. Yet, the elevations reflects a low level, single story appearance that is discouraged within the Overlay District. In particular, the north and south elevations are at a critical vantage point for traffic on Haven Avenue and the multi-story appearance will be important. They are also proposing the use of flat concrete roof tile which may not contribute to the modern urban appearance anticipated for the Overlay District. Oesign Review Commi.ttee Action Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Herman Rempel, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Debra Meier 1. The Committee did not find the architecture to comply with the Haven Avenue Overlay design guidelines, and recommended that revised plans be submitted for Committee review again. Some suggestions for revision included the elimination of the fireplaces, the use of exposed seam metal roof material, and the use of brick veneer. 2. The Committee also recommended expansion of the landscaped setback area along the south side of the building. 3. The Committee expressed concern with the additional driveway cut onto Haven Avenue. Although it is an approved driveway location, the implication at the time of approval was the necessity for the two "restaurant 'pads" to have direct and separate access from the rest of the shopping center. The placement of an office building on this site may preclude the necessity for an additional drive entrance. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Nancy June 5, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-13 - MESSENGER - The development of a 26 acre industrial Master Plan, Phase I development consisting of 7 light manufacturing buildings totaling 139,000 sq. ft. and Phase 2 development consisting of 2 warehouse distribution buildings totaling 223,400 sq. ft. on 22 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District located at the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Highway and 9th Street - APN 209-012-16 Design Parameters The site is vacant. Rail service exists to an Industrial Building west of the site (formerly Wheat Motor Company). North of the site are new condominiums in Bear Gulch Court. West of the site is a multi-tenant industrial development under construction. East of the site is an industrial building. Background Per the request of the developer, the Committee reviewed the conceptual Master Plan on April 3, 1986 and provided direction to the developer and staff regarding the appropriateness of the Master Plan in meeting the intent of the Rail Service requirements for the site. The Committee also directed the developer to address the following items: 1. Centralized and usable plaza/open space area should be provided. 2. The corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue is the Gateway to the City and should be enhanced with special landscape treatment, bringing the building forward to the setback area and/or designing the buildings that provide an architectural statement. 3. No access of Vineyard Avenue. 4. Screening of loading area from public view from the two large warehouse/manufacturing buildings on 9th Street. 5. The developer should not design the building with storefront type of architecture that encourages retail, office, and service type of business. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Messenger June 5, 1986 Page 2 The latest proposed Master Plan is essentially the same one as reviewed by the Committee on April 3, 1986. It consisted of three phases; where Phase I is 8.7 acres in size and planned for multi- tenant industrial development, Phase 2 is approximately 13.3 acres in size and planned for large speculative industrial buildings with limited rail service and Phase 3 is 4.4 acres in size and is planned for multi-tenant industrial buildings. The developer is requesting approval for Phase 1 and Phase 2 developments of the Master Plan. Staff CoB~ents 1. Phase 1 A. Site Plan: 1. The northwest corner building plane treatment of Building 3 should be repeated to the northeast corner. The northeast corner building plane treatment of Building 1 be repeated to the northwest corner as shown in Exhibit "A"/ 2. The roll-up service doors for the first two units of Buildings 3 and I should be eliminated as they are most visible from Arrow Highway as shown in Exhibit "AII · 3. The service driveway between the north side of Building 5 and the southwest side of Building 2 should be changed to landscape/open space area. Pedestrian oriented facilities such as benches, kiosks, raised planters be provided within this open space area. B. Elevations: 1. The roof equipment should be screened by the parapet of the building rather than a metal roof screen as proposed. This can be accomplished by extending the metal band at the top of the building to the height of the proposed roof screen. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Messenger June 5, 1986 Page 3 2. Additional variation to surface treatment of all the buildings such as sandblasted concrete, scored or other textured treatment be provided to all the buildings. C. Landscaping: Special landscaping treatment should be provided to the project entrances and along Arrow Highway. 2. Phase 2 A. Site Plan: 1. The proposed parking spaces adjacent to loading docks may create traffic conflict and be hazardous to public safety. Parking courts should be provided instead, as shown in Exhibit "C". 2. Texturized pavement should be provided at project entrance and to tie in with the building entrance area. B. Elevations: 1. The south elevation of Buildings 12 and 13 should be improved with more articulation in building plane such as variation of building depth, more openings, recessed areas to create shadow patterns. 2. Building entrance areas should be provided with architectural statement. 3. All roof screening design should be integrated with the proposed elevation instead of providing a typical ribbed metal screen. C. Landscaping: 1. Special landscape treatment such as intensified landscaping, specimen size trees, and accent trees be provided at project entrance and at building entrance. 2. Special landscaping treatment should be provided to the landsape area along the south elevation of Buildings 12 and 13 such as undulating mounding, rockscape, and intensified landscaping. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Messenger June 5, 1986 Page 4 3. Phase 3 A. Site Plan: 1. The driveway between the north side of Building 9 and the south side of Building 8 should be changed to landscaped open space area to provide a centralized plaza area. Additional pedestrian oriented facilities should be provided within this plaza area as shown in Exhibit "B". 2. The building plane treatment at the southwest corner of Building 9 should be repeated to the southeast corner as shown in Exhibit "B". 3. Southwest corner of Building 8 and the northwest corner of Building 9 should be stepped back in order to open up the plaza area as shown in Exhibit "B". 4. The south elevation of Building 11 should also have the same building plane treatment as Building g since it has public view from 9th Street as shown in Exhibit "B". C. Landscaping: 1. Special landscape treatment should be provided right at the corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street since it is considered as a gateway to the City. 2. Special landscape treatment also be provided to all the project entrances. Design Review Commnittee Action: Members Present: Herman Rempel, Suzanne Chitiea, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Committee recommended approval of the Master Plan, and Phases 1 and 2 with the following conditions: MESSENGER INVESTMENT CO. PHASE I LAND USE PLAN .A.c.o CUCA.O.OA INDUSTRIAL PARK RANCHO CUCAMONQA, CALIFORNIA ARCHITECT PHASE 12 I STC PHASE III GRADE L 4 ~ I 13,00 STORY STOR~ 3,440 10,400 SF SF Jk NINTH PARK ~ DEVEI,0PMENT AREA PHASE I 12 13 Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Messenger June 5, 1986 Page 5 1. Phase 1: A. The northwest corner building plane treatment of Building 3 be repeated to the northeast corner. The northeast corner building plane treatment of Building I be repeated to the northwest corner as shown in Exhibit "A". B. The plaza area betwen the north side of Buidling 5 and the southwest side of Building 2 should be expanded as shown in Exhibit "A". Pedestrian oriented facilities such as benches, kiosks, raised planters be provided within this open space area. 2. Phase 2: A. Concrete columns, trellis, and other hardscape should be added to the common plaza area. B. South elevation of Building B should be improved through the following: 1. Add terrace planters to the office entrances. 2. Add landscaping to the southeast corner of east elevation. 3. Add spandrel glass and wrap around this treatment to the east elevation. 4. Add textured band and wrap around this treatment to the east elevation. C. Add textured band and spandrel glass treatment to the south elevation of Building 12. D. A cross section between the westerly property and Building 12 be provided to show that the grade difference and the landscaping could adequately screen the large expanses of wall for the northern portion of Building 12. 3. All texturized pavements should be of brick pavers instead of the proosed stamped concrete. 4. Full material samples of the proposed roof screen should be submitted for City Planner review and approval. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Messenger June 5, 1986 Page 6 5. The Committee stated that the future Development Review for Phase 3 should address the following recommendations: A. The driveway between the north side of Building 9 and the south side of Building 8 should be changed to landscaped open space area to provide a centralized plaza area. Additional pedestrian oriented facilities should be provided within this plaza area as shown in Exhibit "B". B. The building plane treatment at the southwest corner of Building 9 should be repeated to the southeast corner as shown in Exhibit "B". C. Southwest corner of Building 8 and the northwest corner of Building 9 should be stepped back in order to open up the plaza area as shown in Exhibit "B". D. The south elevation of Building 11 should also have the same building plane treatment as Building 9 since it has public view from 9th Street as shown in Exhibit "B". ARROW ROUTI MESSENGER iNVESTMENT CO. ~.~ ®[j ~F2~-A'[' ~ PHASE I ~ ~ LAND USE PLAN ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK ~ H~f~~ ,ANc,o cuc~o,~A W;ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFO~NI~ pROJECT SUMMARY ARCHITECT ~A~! II DEVELOPMENT AREA V~C~.~ APPLICANT PHASE 12 I STC PHASE I1! GRADE L I *e- -~ I 4/e~ 113,00 j I V 177 C STOR~ ~ ~ STOR~ 13,440 ~10,400 SF ~ SF NINTH