Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/11/06 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: November 12, 1986 ACTION AGE~A TO: CommNercial/In~ustrial 1977 Design Review Committee Dennis Stout Suzanne Chitlea Dan Coleman FROM: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6~ 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 86-31 HAVENGATE FINANCIAL CENTER The development of a 169,000 sq. ft. office/restaurant Master Plan on 11.73 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue - APN: 210-391-1 through 8, and 210-381-22 and 23. 6:30 - 7:00 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-19 GABRIC - The development of a 177,000 sq. ft. warehouse on 8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) located on the east side of Utica Avenue and north of the A.T.S.F. Railroad right-of-way - APN: 209-143-05. Design Review Committee Meeting Commercial/Industrial November 6, 1986 Page 7:00 - 7:30 (Chris) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-33 - CARNEY-THEODOROU - The development of a 11,565 sq. ft. two-story office building on .66 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan District, Subarea 7, Lot 8 of the Office Tennis Executive Center - APN: 208-062-04. 7:30 - 8:00 (Dave Blevins) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-35 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The development of a corporation yard and vehicle maintenance facility master plan on 5.69 acres of land in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Area SpecificPlan located on the south side of 9th Street (9153 9th) between Hellman Avenue and Vineyard Avenue - APN 209-013-27 and a portion of 209- 013-24. NF:ns Attachments CC: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCIAL/IIOUSTRIAL CONSENT CALEII)AR ITEMS AGEIOA (November 6, 1986) 1. CUP 84-37 - KELBERT (Debra) Review of revised south elevations and tile color. Committee Action: The Committee stated that the checkerboard pattern is not acceptable in any color. They also requested that the window mullions be green which was characteristic of the carriage house style from which this was modeled. Revised color elevation and material sample shall be submitted for Committee review. 2. OR 86-22 - KAPLAN (Debra) Review of revised elevation. Committee Action: The Committee found the revised elevations acceptable with one additional condition -- that the accent stripe continue across the roll-up door within the dock well. 3. DR 86-07 - ARICAL Review of sculpture placement. (Chris) Committee Action: The Committee approved the location of the sculpture as proposed. 4. DR 86-18 - L & M DEVELOPMENT Review of minor modification to elevation. Committee Action: The Committee approved the modification to the north and west elevations with the condition that the reveal design located below the curvilinear parapet be retained. The proposed lattice work shall be of metal material. The rail guard design along balcony shelf shall be the original approved design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 - 6:30 Debra November 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-31 HAVENGATE FINANCIAL CENTER - The development of a 169,000 sq. ft. office/restaurant Master Plan on 11.73 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea 6), located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue - APN: 210-391-1 through 8, and 210-381-22 and 23. Design Par~ters Street improvements around the perimeter of the project are existing. Parkway development will occur along with development of the project. There are no significant plant materials on site. The northeast quadrant of 4th Street and Haven Avenue is designated as an "Urban Center" and is one of the most important gateways into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, according to the Haven Avenue Overlay Guidelines. Staff Comments Site Plan: 1. Does the pedestrian circulation system shown met the intent of the Overlay Guidelines in providing continuous landscaped pathways connecting parking areas and public transit facilities to buildings and pedestrian open spaces? The proposed design of the Master Plan does not encourage safe and convenient continuous pedestrian connections throughout the site, nor does the pedestrian circulation system lead to a major focal point. The Overlay District Standards specify the necessity of courtyards, plazas, and other landscaped open spaces for safe and enjoyable pedestrian movement. 2. Does the Master Plan provide a major focal point within the project site as required by the Overlay Guidelines? The location of plazas and courtyards should encourage maximum pedestrian use and be separated and/or buffered from vehicular parking and circulation. Such locations may be near a prominent building entrance or along a centralized pedestrian path. Pedestrian courtyards and plazas should be designed to create an attractive as well as functional setting with the provision of benches, raised planter seating with shade trees, public art, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles. The northwest elevation of the building at the southeast property corner presents itself as a logical focal point (see attached Exhibit}. 3. A phasing plan for the Master Plan should be provided. Design Review Comments DR 86-31 - Havengate Financial Center November 6, 1986 Page 2 Parking and Circulation: 1. Does the proposed Master Plan adequately screen parking areas and circulation aisles along the Haven Avenue frontage? Parking areas and circulation aisles along the Haven Avenue frontage are discouraged and may only be approved through the Master Plan process when it is determined appropriate and necessary to implement the design goal of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The visual impact shall be fully mitigated through disbursed parking areas and extensive landscaping and berming. 2. The proposed vehicular circulation system disrupts pedestrian movement and does not allow for connection of pedestrian spaces. 3. The General Plan calls for the provision of a public transit transfer point at the intersection of Haven Avenue and 4th Street. 4. The use of a parking structure is encouraged to maximize the site area devoted to urban pedestrian plazas and landscaped spaces, especially within a designated urban center. Architecture: 1. Should the Master Plan provide for architectural variety as in accent colors, exterior material, or texture? Although architectural style is represented by the existing Havengate Center, no statement of intent or conceptual elevations are presented to indicate how the architectural concepts including style, form, bulk, and materials relate to the existing structure or to the overall design goal for Haven Avenue. (Photos of existing Havengate Center will be available at the meeting.) 2. Do the proposed two- and three-story buildings provide mid-rise urban appearance, particularly at the corner of 4th Street and Maven Avenue, characteristic of the urban center concept? With developments to the east {the Gateway) and south {Ontario Center) developing in the four- to seven-story range, the two- and three- story structures may not provide the appropriate image. According to the Overlay Guidelines, "urban centers" should promote the highest quality development and intensity to create community focal point. 3. The one-story restaurant is permitted only when architecture is consistent with the high quality image required for Haven Avenue. Design Review Comments DR 86-31 - Havengate Financial Center November 6, 1986 Page 3 Landscaping; 1. Should landscaping pallette along Haven Avenue be compatible with the approved median island landscape concept? Trees in median island include date palm and magnolia. 2. Landscaping and berming shall be designed to create visual interest and variety to the streetscape. All utility structures and trash enclosures shall be oriented away from public view and completely screened. 3. The proposed Master Plan does not provide for a Gateway design at the intersection of 4th & Haven Avenue. Special landscaping and streetscape design features should be developed to create an intensive and prestigious gateway entry. Since the development to the east {The Gateway - DR 85-31) has an approved Gateway design, the developer of this project should emulate such design scheme for providing compatibility, as shown in Exhibit B. Sign: 1. The Haven Overlay guidelines require that coordinated signage should be reviewed concurrently with the development review application. The developer should submit a conceptual Uniform Sign Program, indicating typical design, sign area, and color for review. Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Dennis Stout, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee discussed with the applicant the various concerns in relationship to the Haven Avenue Overlay District and the urban center concept. The area of greatest concern is the treatment at the corner within the area outlined on Exhibit "A". The general provisions outlined in the Overlay District Ordinance that are not adequately addressed on the proposed Master Plan include: 1. The three-story building at the corner does not provide sufficient height and bulk to project the mid-rise urban appearance desired at this location. 2. The Master Plan does not provide a major pedestrian focal pointutilizing plazas, courtyards and landscaped open space for enjoyable pedestrian circulation. Design Review Comments DR 86-31 - Havengate Financial Center November 6, 1986 Page 4 3. The Master Plan does not create an intensive and prestigious gateway entry into Rancho Cucamonga and the Haven Corridor? 4. The parking lot at the corner of 4th Street and Haven Avenue is inconsistent with the Overlay District. It also detracts from the goals of the urban center concept. The Committee did not recommend approval of this Master Plan, but did recommend that it be referrred to the full Commission for discussion. " Primary Project I:D. General Descriplion ;. . , ' ~ F ~, ' "'~ '~ SITE LIGHTING AND FURNISHINGS .... % ~ ...... ,~ . SIGN AND LANDSCAPE AT HAVEN AVENUE AND FOURTH STREET DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Chris November 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-19 - GABRIC The development of a 177,000 sq. ft. warehouse on 8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) located on the east side of Utica Avenue and north of the A.T.S.F. Railroad right-of-way - APN: 209-143-05. Design Parameters The site is predominantly vacant with no significant vegetation. There is a 500 sq. ft. metal building and a connected covered area approximately 6,000 sq. ft. which the developer is proposing to remove. Directly west of the project site is a self-storage complex under construction. Staff Coments Site Plan: 1. Outdoor employee plaza should be provided at the two office entrances to the east. 2. Additional pedestrian amenities such as seating benches, hardscape, patio furniture and landscaping be provided to the employee plaza areas. Elevations: 1. Additional architectural treatment should be added to each of the office entrances in order to create a more distinct entry statement. 2. Vertical elements should be added to the south, east and north side elevations in order to break up the horizontal plane of the proposed building. 3. Architectural detailin9 should be incorporated into the building design along the east and south side elevations, such as textured banding. Landscaping: 1. A continuous hedgerow should be located along north side of Utica Avenue to screen parking area. 2. Special landscape treatment such as intensifying the number of trees and shrubs as well as the size of trees and shrubs should be provided along Utica Avenue landscape setback area. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Gabric November 6, 1986 Page 2 3. Special landscaping in the form of mounding and specimen size trees shall be provided at each of the employee plaza areas. 4. Landscaping fingers shall be provided in the parking lot at the west end of the project at the rate of I parking finger for every 7 parking stalls. Design Review Conmaittee Action Members Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman The Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. An outdoor employee plaza shall be provided at each of the two office entrance locations. 2. The employee plazas shall be heavily landscaped and designed to integrate themselves into the overall design of the building and provide amenities such as seating benches, hardscape and patio furniture. 3. A combination of vertical and horizontal color banding shall be provided to all of the building elevations in order to create architectural variation. 4. An architecturally compatible screen wall shall be provided on the north side if the project entrance and wrap around the northwest corner of the site to continue eastward. 5. Color elevations and sample board shall be reviewed and approved for the building colors by the Design Review Committee prior to building permit issuance. 6. Special landscape treatment such as intensifying the number of trees and shrubs as well as the size of trees and shrubs should be provided along Utica Avenue landscape setback area. Design Review Comments DR 86-13 - Gabric November 6, 1986 Page 3 7. Special landscaping in the form of mounding and specimen size trees shall be provided at each of the employee plaza areas. 8. Landscaping fingers shall be provided in the parking lot at the west end of the project at the rate of I parking finger for every 7 parking stalls. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Chris November 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-33 - CARNEY-THEODOROH - The development of a 11,565 sq. ft. two-story office building on .66 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan District, Subarea 7, Lot 8 of the Office Tennis Executive Center - APN: 208-062-04. Design Parameters The site is vacant with no significant vegetation and rough graded. All street improvements are in existence except for driveways and sidewalks. Neighboring Lots 9 and 11 are built (see Exhibit "A"). Staff ConBents Site Plan: 1. The 5 ft. wide pedestrian walkway along the south and east side of the building virtually reduce adequate area for providing the required landscaping around the building frontage. This walkway should be reduced to four (4) feet wide while a minimum six (6) foot planter area should be provided along the south and east building frontage. 2. Provide pedestrian connection from the proposed patio area to the tennis court central open space. 3. The building entrance area should be expanded to project a more formal entrJAvay. It should be textured with such materials as brick pavers/tiles. 4. The trash enclosure area should be moved to the end of the parking space of the northeast side of the building as shown in Exhibit "B". 5. The first parking space adjacent to the project driveway entrance should be eliminated to mitigate potential traffic conflict as shown in Exhibit "B". 6. Texturized treatment be provided at the vehicular entry from Civic Center Drive and should be the same material as that which exists elsewhere in the Tennis Center. 7. The pedestrian walkway should be of the same consistent texture treatment as in the existing projects within the Center. Design Review Comments DR 86-33 - Carney-Theodorou November 6, 1986 Page 2 Architecture: Does the proposed color scheme consisting of white plaster , grey tone trim and tile roof provide compatibility to the surrounding approved projects? Landscaping: 1. Overall landscaping theme, including the quantity of landscaping materials, should be in conformance with the approved conceptual landscape plan for the Tennis Center. 2. A continuous hedgerow {5 gallon shrubs at 3 feet on center) planting should be provided along the Civic Center Drive frontage in order to screen the parking area. 3. Dense landscaping such as increased number of trees and shrubs and specimen size of trees should be provided along Civic Center Drive. Design Review Conmaittee Action Members Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitlea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Chris Westman 1. The building shall be adjusted so that wider planter area of varying widths ranging from 3 to 8 feet can be provided along the east elevation. 2. Six foot wide planter shall be provided along south elevation. 3. Additional landscape such as increased number of specimen size trees, shrubs and appropriate ground cover shall be provided within planter area along south and east elevation. 4. A pedestrian connection of a material to match the existing sidewalks shall be provided from the patio area to the tennis area. 5. The building entrance hardscape shall be continued into the parking lot to replace the stripped asphalt. Hardscape material shall be relatively flat such as brick pavers, colored salt finish with brick banding, or exposed aggregate with concrete or brick banding. Design Review Comments DR 86-33 - Carney-Theodorou November 6, 1986 Page 3 6. The rear patio area shall use the same material as the entrance. 7. The trash enclosure shall be moved to the north end of the parking area and be treated architecturally to blend with the building. 8. The first parking space adjacent to the project driveway entrance shall be eliminated to mitigate potential traffic conflict as shown in Exhibit "B". 9. Texturized treatment be provided at the vehicular entry from Civic Center Drive and should be the same material as that which exists elsewhere in the Tennis Center. LOT 8 ~ I~ m~mm~mmm~mmmm ~mmmmm ,mm DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Dave Blevins November 6, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-35 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The development of a corporation yard and vehicle maintenance facility master plan on 5.69 acres of land in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Area SpecificPlan located on the south side of 9th Street (9153 9th) between Hellman Avenue and Vineyard Avenue - APN 209-013-27 and a portion of 209-013-24. Design Parameters The parcel adjacent to gth Street has on it a 14,000 square foot concrete tilt-up type structure with an exposed aggregate face located in the northwesterly corner of the site. The site is presently void of any significant vegetation except for some shrubs along the face of the structure and some palm trees in the public parkway. Ninth Street along the parcel is fully improved. The other parcel which is located to the south and fronts on the proposed extension of Lion {extension of Lion previously approved} is vacant and void of any significant vegetation. All parcels directly to the north, west and east are light industrial and warehouse developments of concrete tilt-up type structures. Parcels directly to the south are undeveloped. Staff Comments Developments of the parcels under the Master Plan will occur in phases as growth in the City occurs and/or as the City's service level needs increase. The initial phase will be to provide a screening wall along gth Street with employee parking behind the wall and visitor parking in front of the wall, parkway improvements, landscape treatment and painting of the existing structure. The second phase, whether or not the parcels are further developed at that time, will be the construction of full street improvements of Lion including parkway treatment and screening wall along Lion and parameter wall and fencing of the site. Preliminary coamaents are requested from the Committee to provide guidance as to the development of the Master Plan for the City Corporation Yard. Design Review Comnittee Action Members Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitiea, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Dave Blevins The Committee reviewed the proposed preliminary Master Plan of the City's corporation yard and made the following recommendations: Design Review Comments DR 86-35 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 1. Upgrade the existing building through architectural treatment such as rock veneer to the front elevation and perhaps around the sides of the building. 2. If exposed pipes at the northeast corner of the building cannot be relocated within the building, wing walls to screen the exposed pipes should be required. 3. Extend parapet wall or provide screen wall to screen roof equipment. 4. Concurred with staff that the City should contract the design work of upgrading the existing building to a private architectural firm. 5. Landscaping should exceed the City Standards. 6. The proposed service drive and door located at the east elevation should be eliminated. This area should be landscaped. 7. Outdoor employee patio area with patio furniture should be provided.