Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/07 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: May 15, 1992 CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM ACTION CO~M]~]TS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 7, 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 Comittee 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 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-21 - CHENG/SU INVESTORS - The development of a 16,500 square foot medical Office building on 1.54 acres of land in the Office Professional District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue between Lemon and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-262-37. 7:40 - 8:30 (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. DRC AGENDA MAY 7, 1992 Page 2 8:40 - 9:30 (Steve H.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION The proposed development of a fast food drive-thru restaurant totaling 1,989 square feet on 0.58 acres of land in the Village Conunercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues APN: 229-011-22o Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 (Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center). SM:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSENT CALENDAR IT~4S AGMNDA May 7, 1992 DR 91-22 -WAL-MA!~ (Scott) Committee Action: Review of roof connection to tower. The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Kroutil) approved the addition of the support column. MDR 92-06 -ARLON (Steve R.) Committee Action: Review of roof equipment enclosure. Due to the scale and visibility of the proposed and existing equipment above the roof line, the Committee (McNiel, Kroutil) agreed with staff's recommendation to enclose both the proposed and existing structures with a uniform, architecturally integrated screen wall painted to match the building. All external ducts must be contained within the enclosure. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:30 Steve R. May 7,.1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-21 CHENG/SU INVESTORS - The development of a 16,500 square foot medical office building on 1.54 acres of land in the Office Professional District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue between Lemon and Highland Avenues - APN: 201-262-37. Design Parameters: The site is bounded on the east by Haven Avenue, the north by the Chaffey Plaza convenience center, on the south by a row of Eucalyptus trees and a driveway, leading to the Garden Condominium complex located on the west side of the project. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The design of the building appears inconsistent with the Design Guidelines found in the General Plan and the Development Code. Both documents emphasize the importance of sensitivity to surrounding developments and community character. The proposed design style appears out of character with the established residential neighborhood context. The required landscape setback along Haven Avenue is 45 feet from the curb face. However, only the first 30 feet of this required setback will be readily visible to the public because the southerly portion of the streetscape is hidden behind a retaining wall, and the northern third of the site is a parking lot. In addition, a large amount of the area claimed as landscaping is actually hardscape, which will not serve to enhance the overall design of the streetscape or soften the appearance of the building. The proposed design of the retaining walls and landscape planter at the northern property line may not be sufficient to adequately screen the existing and proposed walls in this area. Dense landscaping should be used to soften the impact of the retaining walls and the south building wall of the adjacent property. A wider landscape planter may be necessary to achieve this effect. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-21 - CHENG/SU INVESTORS MAY 7, 1992 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been resolved, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Additional landscaping should be provided along the southern property line, especially within the 35-foot streetscape setback from the future Alta Loma Drive. The proposed design of the southern portion of the site consists of retaining walls, a drainage channel, vehicle turn around, and additional hardscape for the plaza areas. Additional landscaping should be provided in the parking lot to provide additional shade and "greenscape". The proposed planters should be increased in size and number. The drainage swale in the middle of the drive aisle should be moved to one side so that it does not disrupt the enhanced paving treatment. The amount of hardscape should be reduced and replaced with landscaping to help soften the strong appearance of the project. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Interlocking concrete pavers should be used where special paving is proposed. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the project. The members stated that the proposed project was not sensitive to the design of surrounding developments or the character of the area. The proposed design was considered to be out of character with the established residential neighborhood context. The Committee stated that the Planning Commission would most likely oppose the project as proposed and the Conunittee strongly recoramended redesigning the project. The Committee also advised the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting with the residents of the condominium project to the west. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-21 - CHENG/SU INVESTORS MAY 7, 1992 Page 3 The Committee also made the following comments about the project: The landscape setback should be increased between the parking lot and Haven Avenue to improve views of the site as seen from the street. The triple wall condition at the northerly property line probably does not provide sufficient room for landscaping to flourish. At a minimum, a planter with a 6-foot wide clear area should be provided for landscaping between the retaining walls and the back of the curb. Additional tree wells should be located in the many locations where hardscape is a dominant feature (south and east of the building) to provide shade. The landscape planters should be enlarged in these areas. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 - 8:30 Bev May 7, 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~er 5 and Septe~er 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 Cor~nission 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 Commission has reviewed site planning issues at their April 16, 1992 meeting. An additional Design Review Comittee meeting will be scheduled to review the outstanding site plan issues. At this meeting, the Commission should direct their cor~nents to the architectural issues noted below: Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Building elevations and details for Building 5, including any proposed trellis structures must be sut~nitted for review and approval. The view from the Sports Complex of Buildings 20-28 (the southerly tier) should be carefully considered. Existing wall heights along the south property line range up to 8 feet in height. Building walls and parking lot screen walls are located directly beyond this, which could create views of blank walls up to 31 feet in height. The Conunittee should consider the feasibility of moving the buildings forward in order to provide a landscape buffer DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI MAY 7, 1992 Page 2 between the existing 8-foot wall and the proposed south building elevations. The Committee should also review the compatibility of materials and colors of the wall and the proposed buildings. The wall is currently precision block with a stucco finish, with the buildings being proposed as a textured stucco. Within the "Auto Court" portion of the site, the south elevation of Building 1 (Jiffy Lube) should have some type of detailing in addition to the cornice detailing along the roof. Details of all awnings should be provided. Greater articulation or repetition of the awning element should be provided for the car wash building. The north elevation of Buildings 1 and 2 (Jiffy Lube and Texaco) do not present an attractive view towards Foothill Boulevard. The screen wall in this area could also be treated architecturally with the use of pilasters which would add additional interest. The south elevation of Building 3 (Jack in the Box) will be highly visible especially if outdoor seating is provided in this area. Also, the north elevation should be reworked to provide a more substantial central tower facing Foothill BOulevard. TWo schemes have been provided for the Jack in the BOx building; The "solid structure scheme" as opposed to the "grape lattice scheme" blends more successfully with the "classical" detailing. The Foothill Boulevard elevation of Building 4 as well as the east elevation (visible from the secondary entrance) should be upgraded with the level of detail shown on the west elevation. The site plan indicates a trellis structure on the east side of Building 7. Details of this trellis should be provided for Committee review. The ROchester Avenue elevation of Building 7 should reflect the same level of detail as that indicated for Building 6. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: ROof material for the buildings along Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue should be indicated. The Commission has indicated they would prefer not to see any metal roofs along Foothill Boulevard. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI MAY 7, 1992 Page 3 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. The large industrial buildings as well as the multi-tenant buildings to the south are required to be provided with a minimum of two primary building materials. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Bev Nissen In response to written staff comments, the applicant brought modified architectural elevations for several buildings to the meeting. These modifications were reviewed by the Committee and the following observations were made: The design of the canopy element used throughout the project needs to be explained graphically, in a larger scale. The Committee also expressed serious reservations about the use of fabric/mylar awnings in this high wind area. The detailing of all auto court structures should resemble more closely the other commercial/service buildings in the project through the use of appropriate base material, cornice and window treatment. In particular, the car wash enclosure and Buildings 31 and 43 require additional attention to be more consistent with the rest of the project. The 9-foot high auto court screen wall should retain 2-3 feet of fill to reduce its apparent height from Foothill Boulevard. In general, all structures should be more three-dimensional with varying degrees of architectural treatment on all sides. Appropriate architectural treatment should wrap around the west elevation of Building 8, the west/northwest elevations of Building 19, and south elevation of Building 20. The applicant also introduced an elevation of the south property line. It was the Committee's concensus that a 6-foot high wall, as measured from the north side, would be adequate. It was noted that tree plantings would be needed just south of Building 20. (Please note the question of required fill/retention along the southerly property line is DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI MAY 7, 1992 Page 4 yet to be resolved. Staff's recommendation will continue to be that the amount of fill and subsequent overall height of the south bank of structures be minimized.) The applicant also brought a new concept for the activity center/"Vitner's walk". While the idea appears imaginative, the presentation was very sketchy and needs to be developed in some detail. Staff would suggest a joint Historic Presentation Committee/Planning Commission subcommittee meeting to review this concept when the design is ready. Although the site plan was not on the agenda, a revised site plan was introduced at the meeting by the applicant. Engineering staff had again indicated their objection to the proposed median within the local public street. The applicant should submit a complete and internally consistent development package, including a fully dimensioned site plan, landscape plan, and all elevations for approval by Technical and Design Review Committees. DESI~ REVIEW COMMENTS 8:40 - 9:30 Steve H. May 7, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION - The proposed development of a fast food drive-thru restaurant totaling 1,989 square feet on 0.58 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues - APN: 229- 011-22. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 (Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center). Abstract: This is the third freestanding retail pad to be processed within the Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center; the Mobil Service Station is completed and the Wells Fargo Bank is now under construction. When the Planning Commission approved this Shopping Center (including the Master Plan for all freestanding pads and shops buildings) a Condition of Approval was placed requiring this pad to be processed under a separate application. In previous meetings (most recently when the Wells Fargo Bank pad location was switched with Shop Building 11), the Commission strongly urged the developer to select a tenant for Building 9 that would increase the "usability" of the contiguous plaza. The attached Master Plan (Exhibit "A") was approved by the Commission with Buildings 9 and 10 adjacent to the pedestrian plaza to indicate the importance of the relationship between these buildings and the plaza. Staff Commets: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues are intended to be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Site Plan: As previously noted, this pad was approved in concept contiguous to the pedestrian plaza to promote the use of the plaza. The proposed plan, despite the proposed pedestrian connection to the building, will require pedestrians to cross the drive-thru lane or a parking lot to reach the plaza. This modification to the relationship between Building 9 and the plaza is inconsistent with the goals established by the Planning Commission for encouraging pedestrian use of this neighborhood center. Therefore, the building should be relocated contiguous to the plaza to encourage its use and the parking area should be removed or relocated as to not conflict with pedestrian circulation. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION MAY 7, 1992 Page 2 As currently proposed, the drive-thru lane is oriented to allow the viewing of vehicles from Milliken Avenue. To mitigate this concern, one or a combination of the following methods should be utilized to screen the drive-thru area from view of Milliken Avenue: a) Re-orient the building end the drive-thru lane so the drive-thru area is screened through building orientation (refer to Comment No. 1 for the suggested building location). b) Provide dense landscaping, berming, and decorative retaining/screen walls in combination with lowering the building pad (similar to the Mobil Service Station to the north). Architecture: Overall, the proposed architectural theme is consistent with the previously approved Mediterranean style of the entire shopping center. Given the much smaller scale of the fast food restaurant building, many of the architectural features provided on the primary buildings within the center may not be in proportion with the small size of this building. However, all elevations of the building should be upgraded to be consistent with the level and type of detail utilized on other buildings throughout the center. Please refer to the attached elevations (Exhibit "B") for examples of the architectural elements and details used in the center. A different architectural solution should be used for the building entrances that more closely resembles the tower elements utilized throughout the center. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: ~rchitecturally integrated low walls should be provided in place of the proposed metal handrails in all situations. Additional landscaping (including trees) around the building perimeter should be provided. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91=40 - TAC0 BELL CORPOPj%TION MAY 7, 1992 Page 3 The flat stucco walls that protrude at corners should be modified to provide a more interesting design. The mansard roof/parapet design should be considered by the Committee. This treatment is not utilized currently in this shopping center; all roofs have either a continuous parapet or a mansard tile roof where tile is completed to the roof line. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Conunission l~Dlicy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The following items are inconsistencies with the City's Interim Design Goals and Policies for drive-thru facilities. These issues should be considered by the Committee as they relate to this specific application: a) The minimum building size shall be 2,500 square feet unless modified by the Committee; b) The primary building entry should be oriented toward primary streets; c) Separate pay and pick-up windows should be provided. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee (McNiel, Kroutil) recommended that the project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the following recommendations: The Committee could not support the proposed site plan for the following reasons: a) The overall circulation pattern for the site should be significantly revised to allow for proper access to and screening of the drive-thru lane, a designated area for unloading large trucks and additional enriched raised paving connections from the building to the [edestrian plaza. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL MAY 7, 1992 Page 4 b) The building should be relocated contiguous to the pedestrian plaza to encourage its use. The parking area proposed between the plaza and the building should be removed or relocated as to not conflict with pedestrian circulation, per the conceptually approved master plan for the shopping center. The proposed "corporate" architectural scheme should be significantly revised to better integrate with other buildings within the center (examples: mansard roof and parapet, entry elements). Several substantial tables with umbrellas should be provided in the pedestrian plaza to encourage its use. Given the significance of the referenced major issues, the Committee did not discuss any secondary Or policy issues other than those previously referenced in the action cormnents.