Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/04/16 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: April 20, 1992 CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM ACTION CO~{~ENTS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Comercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF APR/L 16, 1992 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 - 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:40 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. 6:40 - 7:30 (Bey) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 268,907 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park Category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28. Associated with the project is Parcel Map 13845. 7:40 - 8:00 (Scott) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-05 - IN-N-OUT BURGER A request to construct a 2,912 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south DRC AGENDA APRIL 16, 1992 Page 2 side of Foothill Boulevard, between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. 8:00 - 9:00 (Scott) PLANNING COM/~ISSION WORKSHOP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of architectural details and on-site amenities for a 60- acre commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue. SM:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:30 Bev April 16, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 268,907 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park Category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28. Associated with the project is Parcel Map 13845. Background: The full Planning Commission has conducted preliminary courtesy workshops on this project on August 8, Septe~3er 5 and September 25, 1991. After the third workshop, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission (McNiel, Melcher) was designated to assist the applicant in resolving outstanding architectural issues. The subcommittee and staff met with the applicants on October 10 and October 31, 1991. The subcommittee then forwarded two alternative architectural concepts to the full Planning Commission for review on November 13, 1991. At that meeting, the Commission felt the more traditional of the two architectural styles was the preferred alternative. The site plan, currently under review, appears retail in nature due to the parking layout and the size of the proposed buildings. The current site plan was prepared prior to the denial of ISPA 92-02C (expansion of retail uses within Subarea 7). Note that this amendment must be finally reviewed by the City Council. NOTE: Due to the great number of issues and the complexity of the project, staff has recommended that the Design Review Comittee consider site plan and architectural issues at two separate meetings. The Committee should discuss the following site plan issues at this meeting and architectural issues at the May 7, 1992 meeting. The Committee should note that the applicant has submitted two alternative site plans, A and B. Alternate A site plan indicates Building 6 and 7 at the extreme northeast corner of the site and Building 5 (proposed restaurant) with 10,000 square feet. Scheme B indicates the deletion of Building 7 and the expansion of Building 5 to 14,000 square feet. The applicant prefers Alternate B, however, this scheme is dependent upon lease negotiations for a lease with the Spaghetti Factory restaurant which will require 14,000 square feet. The applicant prefers Scheme B. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI APRIL 16,1992 Page 2 Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The site is a designated Activity Center. The concept of Activity Centers along Foothill Boulevard as indicated in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is to incorporate a formal, regularly spaced street tree planting system with an enriched pedestrian zone with special landscape treatment, pedestrian level lighting and various streetscape elements. The Committee should determine the extent of the Activity Center along Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue frontages. Staff recommends that the Activity Center design concept terminate just south of the northerly driveway on Rochester Avenue and west of the easterly driveway on Foothill Boulevard. In addition, the proposed design of the Activity Center does little to encourage pedestrian activity along Foothill Boulevard. The applicant should consider orienting the "theme fountain" and historical display adjacent to Building 5 more towards Foothill Boulevard. The remaining portions of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue should be designed to incorporate the "parkway transition" design elements as indicated in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Parkway transition areas should incorporate rolling turf berms, meandering sidewalks and informal tree plantings. The parkway transition treatment should extend along the length of the project. An "Auto Center" has been proposed in the northwest corner of the site and should conply with the recommended design guidelines which were recently approved by the Planning Commission. The gas pumps for the proposed Texaco (Building 2) do not appear to be adequately screened from Masi Drive due to the location of the northerly most driveway into the Auto Center. A berm is proposed along the north boundary which will screen the project from Foothill Boulevard, however, no berming and minimal landscaping is provided along Masi Drive. A low screen wall is proposed in this location which will partially screen the pump area. The Jack in the Box drive-thru lane is screened from Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive through the use of berms. The top of the berm along Foothill Boulevard is approximately 6 feet above the finish floor elevation of the building, however, it should be planted with additional landscaping to further screen cars that may be stacked in line. The drive-thru policy further requires that the drive-thru lane be screened by building orientation, the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping and trellis work. ~ne site design does not comply with these requirements. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI APRIL 16, 1992 Page 3 It would be awkward to screen the drive-thru lane with the building, however, the use of trellis work and low screen walls could be incorporated. .The drive-thru policy also requires that the buildings orient public entrances to the street which the applicant has complied with. The southern side of the facility has the potential for pedestrian plazas and eating areas which has not been explored in the proposed design. In previous Planning Commission workshops, concern was expressed regarding the lack of indulation in the southerly portion of Masi Drive. This issue should be addressed as well as the on-site views towards the west from this street. According to conditions of the City Council Resolution of Approval for the demolition of the Cow Girl structure, the development of the site shall incorporate details of the site's history, in particular, the La Fourcade period, through incorporation of commissioned public art and development and placement of interpretive displays. Details of these interpretive displays were required to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as well as the Historic Preservation Committee. The applicant should clearly identify on the site what is being proposed and its location on the site. Currently, the plans indicate an entry arch/historical display east of Building 5, but the specific details are unclear. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The extent, size and placement of the lunch courts throughout the site should be discussed. Lunch areas/employee plazas have been provided for almost every building in the southerly portion of the site. Details of the lunch courts, however, still need to be provided and substantial furniture and awning/trellis details should be provided. Most of the lunch areas are 10' x 15' in size and are located at the corners of buildings adjacent to drive aisles. The locations may not be the most desirable and the CorNmission should discuss this issue. 2. Additional enhanced pedestrian connections should be provided throughout the site. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI APPaL 16, 1992 Page 4 Details of the central plaza/courtyard and clock tower should be provided for further review. This area appears to be merely p laced in the center of the parking area with no relationship or connection to the rest of the site. If a central plaza area is provided, this might be the logical area for the commissioned public art or interpretive historic display. The on-site circulation portion which is created by the triangular shaped planters in the southern portion of the site is problematic. The triangular planter should be combined with the planter area adjacent to the trash enclosure in order to create more efficient circulation from east to west. Desigu Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Bey Nissen The Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) did not approve the project and requested that the following items be revised and re-reviewed by the Design Review Committee: The Activity Center concept requires additional analysis and the applicant should study all four corners of the intersection to ensure that spatial relationships are compatible. The applicant may wish to consider relocating the drive aisle on Foothill Boulevard westerly in order to expand Building 5 (Spaghetti Factory) to the west which could create a more p leasing symmetry at the corner The applicant might also consider creating a pedestrian oriented courtyard or other focal point at the corner and flanking it with buildings along both Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The screening of the Auto Court is acceptable as presented, however, the on-site circulation pattern is problematic due in part to the northerly driveway. There may also be on-site traffic conflicts with automobiles exiting the car wash and those entering the Jiffy Lube. The on-site circulation should be carefully reconsidered and the northerly driveway into the Auto Court should be deleted. The applicant should provide more details for the Jack in the Box facility. The trash enclosure should be relocated closer to the building. The applicant should consider a smll retaining wall at the corner to further screen the drive-thru aisle. DESIGN REVIEW CO~e4ENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI APPJL 16, 1992 Page 5 9. 10. 11. The alignment of "A" Street (Masi Drive) is acceptable as a straight street. The sidewalk should also be straight, however, extensive landscaping should be provided along the street frontage. The landscaping adjacent to the buildings should be re-worked as much as possible to provide wider planter areas in order to accommodate tree plantings. Details of lunch court areas should be worked out with staff. The size of the eating areas is acceptable, but the applicant should review the landscaping and street furniture details with staff. The parking layout adjacent to Buildings 8-12 should be redesigned in order to provide the majority of the parking aisles in a north/south direction. The Committee suggested that there should be some type of continuous east/west drive aisle that did not have parking spaces backing up onto it. It was suggested that a scheme similar to the K-Mart Center could be utilized which has a parking court in front of the main row of buildings. The required historic element should be incorporated into the site design and presented to the Committee for review and approval. The wind chimes tower and the two fountains should be integrated more carefully into the site plan. The applicant should work with staff to resolve the on-site circulation in the southern portion of the site. The triangular shaped planters could be flattened out to provide a straighter driving path from east to west. The median along "A" Street should be deleted unless Engineering staff will permit it. The applicant could also move the median to the private drive aisle off of Foothill Boulevard which would alleviate Engineering concerns. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 - 8:00 ScOtt April 16, 1992 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-05 - IN-N-OUT BURGER - A request to construct a 2,912 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Background: On March 19, 1992, the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) reviewed the original plans and recommended that the following issues be addressed in the revised plans: The integral public art for the center should be reviewed and approved prior to scheduling this project for the Planning Commission. Once the extent of the public art and the impact it may have on this site are known, the plans should be revised accordingly. Because the drive-thru lane on the north side of the building will be for exiting and no stacking will occur, the Committee felt that setbeck from the street was acceptable with the inclusion of: A retaining wall on the north side of the drive-thru lane to bring the landscaping closer to street grade; and Shrub planting along the Foothill frontage to further screen the drive-thru lane. 3. Greater relief/treatment is needed on all elevations. A trellis structure should be provided over the drive-thru lane on the east elevation. The Committee would consider the use of canopy trees around the outdoor seating area in-lieu of. a trellis. 6. Arched windows should be used under the arched elements of the elevations. 7. Pre-cast columns should be used at the towers. The applicant should explore reducing the drive aisle widths to 26 feet (28 feet proposed) and shifting the building to the west. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 92-05 - IN-N-OUT-BURGER APRIL 16, 1992 Page 2 The applicant should consider a 6-foot wall on the south side of the building to screen and separate the delivery area from the drive-thru and drive aisle. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted revised plans to address the comments generated by the Design Review Committee. At the time of comment preparation, staff had not reviewed the revised plans. As a result, comments may be sent to the Committee under separate cover. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended that the plans be revised to address the following coraments: The retaining/screen wall on the east side Of the drive-thru lane should be revised to allow placement of the trellis columns on top of the wall. A minimum 20-foot wide landscape area should be provided on the east side of the building between the drive-thru trellis and the project entry drive. The north window on the east elevation should be recessed to provide consistent window detailing around the front of the building. 4. Relocate the keystone elements from above the arches to the building corners. Eliminate the reveal arch at the south end of the west elevation and continue the trim band behind the trellis. The trellis beams should be increased in size and decreased in spacing. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Upon acceptance of the revised plans and approval of the integral public art for the center, the application can be scheduled for Planning Commission review. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS 8:00 - 9:00 Scott April 16, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of architectural details and on-site amenities for a 60-acre commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue. Background: On June 26, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the master plan for Foothill Marketplace and the site plan and elevations for Price Club. As part of that approval, the Con~mission required the applicant to submit architectural details and on-site amenities for the project in order to establish the flavor of the center and to assist future applications in meeting the design intent of the center. On October 17, 1991, the Planning Commission initially reviewed the architectural details and on-site amenity package for the development. At that time, the Commission expressed acceptance of a number of items submitted for review. These items include the following: 1. The pre-cast stone cornice and wainscot. The walkway treatments utilizing integral color, retartant finish, smooth trowel bands, sandblast finish, etc. 3. The poured in place concrete seat wall. 4. The bicycle rack design. 5. The tree grate and tree guard designs. 6. The trash enclosure design. 7. The overhead trellis design. The Commission also voiced many areas of concern that should be revised and resubmitted for additional review. These areas include: The incorporation of integral public art required by the Historic Preservation condition of approval had not been submitted and the impact of the art on the building designs was not known. Proportions of the tower elements were awkward. were top-heavy and lacked support columns of mass to balance the upper portion of the tower. Most of the towers sufficient size and DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS PC WORKSHOP CUP 90-37 - FOOTHILL MAPd<ETPLACE PARTNERS APRIL 16, 1992 Page 2 The design of the major building designs did not provide sufficient architectural relief. In that the individual designs will be approved by the Planning Commission, the Commission agreed to conunent on the designs at the time of the Development Review application. All street furniture shall be consistent in style, including the light standards and bollards. Plan view drawings should be submitted to demonstrate how the tower elements would transition into the building corners. Of special concern were the diagonally placed towers. A comprehensive plan should be submitted to indicate the locations of the various on-site, pedestrian scale amenities. Since that initial review by the Commission, plans for Wal-Mart have been reviewed and approved. These plans incorporate many of the elements that were previously reviewed by the Commission, including the pre-cast cornice and wainscot, column treatments, and enriched pavement locations. Staff Comments: The applicant has resubmitted the architectural details and site amenities that were not approved during the previous workshop. In considering these revised plans, staff provides the following comments: The proportions of the towers are still of concern and should be reviewed by the Commission. The use of the pre-cast or poured in place furniture (i.e., benches, trash cans, ash urns, light bollards, etc.) provides more continuity across the site. The previously approved bicycle rack design should be used instead of the design now proposed. 4. The handrail design should be more substantial and sturdy looking. A comprehensive amenity plan should be submitted for review and approval. The plan should locate the various amenities (i.e., trellises, seating areas, free-standing elements, etc.) across the site. The locations should reinforce logical pedestrian connections across the site. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS PC WORKSHOP CUP 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS APRIL 16, 1992 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Scott Murphy Refer to Planning Co-~{ssion minutes.