Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/06/04 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM June 11, 1992 Au~ON ~O~M]~ Co~mercial/Industrial Design Review Committee Larry McNiel Suzanne Chitiea Otto Kroutil John Melcher (Alternate) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner~ DESIGN REVIEW COF~4ITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 4, 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: 229-01~-10, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28. Associated with the project is Parcel Map 13845. 7:30 - 8:00 BREAK 8:00 - 8:30 (Steve H.) PLANNING COF~4ISSION WORKSHOP - FU MAI LIMITED - Pre-Application review for a 24-acre residential project located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. Attachments cc: Planning Conunission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:30 Bey June, 4, 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 purpose of this session with the Design Review Committee is to resolve the remaining site plan issues which were discussed at the April 16, 1992 meeting and the remaining architectural issues which were discussed at the May 7, 1992 meeting. Comments made at these two meetings are noted below; the revised plans (distributed with this agenda) include the applicant's responses to most of these issues. The Committee needs to determine whether these modifications adequately address the comments made at the previous meetings. Site Planning: The Activity Center concept requires additional analysis and the applicant should study all four corner 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 pleasing 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. (Note: this issue is currently being reviewed by the Engineering Division.) 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. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI JUNE 4, 1992 Page 2 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. (Staff is attempting to arrange a joint Historic Preservation Committee and Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting, prior to this Design Review Committee meeting. 10. 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 should alleviate Engineering Concerns. Architecture: 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 structure 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. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI JUNE 4, 1992 Page 3 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 consensus 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 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/"Vintder'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 Corm~ittee/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. Design Review Committee ACtion: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen The applicant made alterations to the plans which effectively addressed the above noted issues: Site Planning; #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and Architecture; #3. The Design Review Committee (Chitiea, McNiel, Kroutil) requested that the following item be reviewed by them prior to scheduling for a Planning Commission hearing: The applicant should provide material samples and colors of the mylar/canvas canopy element and the perforated steel canopy material so that the Committee can make a final selection. The following items should either be re-reviewed by the Committee or placed as conditions on the project: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CUP 91-24 - MASI JUNE 4, 1992 Page 4 Vines should be added ajdacent to Buildings 11-18 along the alley- side where area for planting is severely limited. Trees within the lunch court areas should actually be planted in the ground rather than in pots. Each eating area should be provided with a trash receptacle. The furniture should be revised to have backs on the seats for greater comfort. The buildings comprising that Auto Court have been designed with 4-inch stucco recesses. The recesses should be redesigned with a bull nose or something other than a strictly 90 degree angle. The revisions to Buildings 8 and 19 were acceptable, however, the south side of Building 20 due to its proximity to Rochester Avenue will require additional upgrading. Additionally, the rear elevations of Buildings 21-23 should be upgraded.