Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2016-08-16 #2DATE: August 9, 2016 Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Kent, Chair, and Design Review Board Members FROM: Caron Parker, Associate Planner SUBJECT: 200 Northgate Drive (Northgate One Shopping Center) — Walkway Area Revisions (ED16-068) Staff is currently reviewing an Environmental and Design Review permit application to replace the existing bollards at the end of the central driveway with a new 2' 3" concrete wall. The bollards were approved by the Planning Commission, with DRB recommendation, in April 2009 (ED08-112) as part of site parking lot / landscaping update. The applicant has proposed to change the bollards to a solid wall due to issues of vehicles hitting the bollards. The new concrete wall would be designed to match the existing concrete walls on site. The project has been reviewed by the City's Fire Prevention Division and no issues were identified. Planning Commission Resolution 09-04 Condition of Approval #1 stipulates that "Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division". Staff is seeking the Board's input on the following: 1. Whether the change from bollards to a cement wall in this location is consistent with the design approval. 2. The choice of materials for the proposed concrete wall, such as a textured finish. 3. Whether the wall should have illumination similar to the soft illumination on the existing bollards. The proposed project would be processed as a staff level administrative design review permit. The March 3, 2009 DRB meeting discussion on the action to recommend approval of the original project have been provided attached to this Memorandum. Attachment — DRB Minutes of March 3, 2009 Attachment — Excerpt from DRB Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2009 E. New Business (4) SRO- Master sign program amendment, parking reduction, and exterior 074/ED08- modifications to Northgate One Shopping Center (Northgate One 1121UP08-063 Shopping Center Renovation) 350 Northgate Dr. (Caron Parker) 4 -ml Parker summarized the staff report and indicated that overall the proposed new sign program, fagade improvements and new landscaping would be a substantial improvement to the Northgate One Shopping Center. Staff believes the proposed Sign Program and proposed site improvements provide multiple common design elements, including colors, materials, illumination, sign type, sign shape, letter size and letter type. In addition, the proposed signage would be harmonious with the materials, colors, and architecture of the building itself. The Board is asked to make its recommendation to the Planning Commission on the merits of the proposed project and specifically comment on the following items: • The design of the freestanding sign as an electronic display • Design/appropriateness of the courtyard "water feature " • The proposed new building/sign color palette • The total number of signs proposed for the front of Safeway (northeast elevation) • Impact of the removal of all sidewalk planter boxes along business sidewalk Frontage • Lack of seating areas in the center courtyard • Adequacy of the number of bike racks on site • Incorporating design elements from the North San Rafael Promenade Plan Chair Olmsted believed there is a conflict between the exterior elevations, referring specifically to Safeway, between the sign program on the architectural drawings and the sign program on the sign drawings. Parker indicated that the sign program was updated from the original that was presented in July, so what is included in the sign packet is proposed. Wise desired clarification from staff in regard to the bike racks proposed. Parker pointed out that the current proposal is seven inverted U's, two bikes per rack for a total of 14 spaces. However, the applicant indicated that they would like to increase that to 21 bikes. Michael Pettit, applicant, agreed with staff's explanation that the sign package for Safeway is the correct signage proposed. Don Blayney, landscape architect, stated that the plans as shown in July have stayed somewhat the same. They redeveloped the entry. In regard to the sycamore trees, 31 will be eliminated and replaced with another tree species, and they are adding 53 additional trees for a total count of 84. For the main single access, they propose palm trees to provide a visual barrier and a central access to the center. In terms of the pedestrian promenade and pathway, they have two connections from Freitas on either side of the entry and palm trees. The sycamore trees will remain at the existing parking lot. In terms of the plaza area, they will have concrete bollards, planters, decorative pavers, a fountain and seating wall. In terms of the fountain, a drain will run all the way around it. Reclaimed water cannot be used, so it will be filtered fresh water. All catch F) basins will be below and not visible. In times of drought, the fountain will be shutoff and tables and chairs will be placed in the area. They will eliminate the two existing concrete seat walls. Removable furniture works best for any plaza. In terms of the east end, minor landscape improvements will occur. They will combine the two sidewalks and introduce a sign wall to hide the fronts of the vehicles as well as create a pathway through landscaping. They propose a 3 -foot high arbor to mitigate the large fagade against the building. On the west end, they pushed the sidewalk out about 5 feet to provide cart storage and the additional 10 feet will be the entire length of the promenade, so the walkway will extend straight all the way out to the corner. They eliminated 6 parking spaces to accommodate the promenade walkway. City engineering staff studied the parking requirements and concluded elimination of those spaces would be feasible. In terms of incorporating the decorative leaves desired for the promenade, they are willing to this at the first 20 feet of paving and sandblast the leaves on the benches, if in fact that is desired. Mr. Pettit discussed that the architectural improvements and the design is similar to what was seen at the last meeting. They added some cupolas and accent towers as well as towers along the front side of the entire fagade. They are keeping the roof design, but adding cupolas at the top to provide an accent and finalization to the element. Along the fagade to courtyard, they added cupolas and pergola to cover the front section of the courtyard area. At the Safeway fagade, they updated signage to match the sign package. They have the existing towers and just modifying the shape to provide more accent. The Pier 1 Imports building will be upgraded with stucco finish and diagonal taller elements on two sides of the building as well as some cupola elements at the opposite corners. In terms of the courtyard area, the pergola is acting as an accent and providing direction to the center. The covering will be a translucent material that provides different types of shade in the courtyard depending on the season. The back of the courtyard would be open to the elements. In addition, they are creating an enhancement to the pedestrian promenade, and adding a number of elements to the fagade to create an arcade type of design element. They are proposing solar tubes for natural daylight along the arcade. They will use large diameter solar tube with some type of translucent disc element to read as a fixture, so the light source or tube itself will not be seen. In terms of the signage package, they created an element that is functional for the signage, but has architectural quality to it as well that enhances the rhythm of the fagade, which is a very important element in terms of integration of design with signage and architecture. Summers asked if tower elements would continue to be illuminated. Mr. Pettit responded in the affirmative. Scott Blare, signage consultant, explained they updated the entry walls to include address ranges as required by Fire department along with identification using dimensional flush mounted letters. They took the architects color panel and are refacing, repainting and recladding the existing pylon sign. They are updating the old electronic message display with a modern sign, using amber monochromatic colors and trying to keep illumination and energy levels low. The illumination would be low-level LED lighting. The effect is a glow more than an outburst of light. It will not be extravagant or overpowering in any way. The sign content would be low volt "static" sign display, with letters only illuminated. They lights could be dimmable automatically to keep consistent contrast during day/night conditions. For the anchor tenant they would implement use of their logos and graphics routed through a sign face. With the multi -occupancy building, they have signed the separate businesses and 3 announced additional services. They rounded the standard shop tenants into two groups. Single tenant -use sign construction will be an extension of the fagade. Tenants granted a slight increase due to their occupancy are allowed primary and secondary identification. The signage is an aluminum structure with vitality, interest and color. They are trying to part from the existing sign program by allowing variety of letter style. The major feature of the remodel is to create a pedestrian friendly experience and eliminate some of that clutter in the arcade. They encourage tenants to use a window display as additional feature of interest to pedestrians and create more of a village affair. They encourage use of graphics such as a coffee cup instead of "coffee shop" or a loaf of bread instead of "bakery". He presented several slides showing the size, type, illumination and material proposed for the signage. He provided examples of technology proposed for the electronic message center as well. They are looking to update and refresh the existing sign entitlements of the project per document SR93-44. They propose a very controlled, energy efficient signage. Wise asked how often would the electronic message change during the week. Sign Consultant Blare responded twice per week. Chair Olmsted expressed concern for the logos proposed on the lighted panel and did not understand the need, stating that when a singe is mounted on an illuminated panel the entire panel becomes the sign. Sign Consultant Blare explained that what is proposed is a sign placed on brackets spaced off the face of the glass. The Safeway logo is on an aluminum panel. The black letters are halo -illuminated letters. SR93-44 specifies that each business is entitled to a wall sign. It is not just a supermarket, but also a set of services. Safeway desired a broader narrative. Wise noted the color schedule needs to be clarified and color P8 noted on the plans should be P 10. The applicant agreed. Chair Olmsted opened the public hearing on this item. Reuel Brady, President, Terra Linda HOA, submitted a letter from the Terra Linda HOA outlining their concerns as follows: the courtyard feature is too kid friendly, and possibly a slipping hazard; expressed concern for the paving stones proposed; hoped to see improvements along the pathway from the auto entry driveway into the new promenade; and desired a community bulletin board, which the HOA would be glad to maintain. He further commended the applicant for making such improvements to the center in this down economy. Preston McCoy, Chairman, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, noted that in 2009, San Rafael is developing five different non -motorized transportation pilot program projects, two are in this area. He applauded the proposed path from the northwest corner into Safeway, but more bicycle parking is desired. He would like to see the four -foot sidewalk along Freitas widened if . any improvements along the frontage are proposed, because currently it is very crowded. Edward Roualdes, Tamarack Drive resident, stated that Marin County does not have a surplus of water, so he objected to the water feature. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action. C! Kent felt it is an ambitious project for a center in dire need for a facelift. This will be an addition to the community and he can support the sign program. He had no objection to the electronic sign as proposed. There are several nice elements occurring with the landscaping, sidewalks and pathways. He desired the same special paving patterns in the main entry to be used to attach the pathway at Freitas. He expressed concern for the trees in the parking and has a hard time supporting any project that removes trees that are in good condition and thriving. By leaving those sycamore trees, it provides an opportunity on each of the two pedestrian entryways to use a different tree species. He supported as much genetic diversity in the landscaping as possible. He had no objection to the occasional palm tree, but suggested exploring other species to achieve the tall columnar presence, such as a ginkgo princeton sentry. Kent agreed with maintaining the planters to provide psychological sense of security from traffic. In terms of the courtyard, the existing program has been set with tables and kids playing on the rocks. He supports continuing the program that already exists. The water feature is not an appropriate play feature and suggested some type of play apparatus to satisfy that part of the program. He questioned where the equipment for the fountain would be located. He supported several moveable tables and chairs for the courtyard to provide flexibility. In regard to the pergola, it is very important that it works in scale with the rest of the building. He agreed with comments about providing a kiosk and additional bicycle racks. Summers appreciated the presentation. The plans are very clear and it was a very good presentation. He agreed that the fountain is not the best solution and not necessary. Continuing the existing use makes sense. He expressed concern for the pylon sign and objected to the electronic sign. He suggested considering just an identity sign stating, "Northgate One. " He supported moveable tables and chairs. Also, additional bicycle parking should be provided. He desired a 90 -day lighting review on this site, including the illuminated towers. A light glow for tower lighting would be reasonable. He further expressed concern for maintenance of the pylon sign to avoid its becoming an eyesore. Wise appreciated the presentation and the revitalization of this shopping center. The courtyard is the gathering place and understands the logic of having moveable furniture and one seating wall, but that is not enough. The City plaza is a perfect example of providing two or three tables that are attached. With respect to the bulletin board, that should be incorporated. General Plan NH - 134 encourages outdoor public places that encourage people to gather, so a bulletin board would be beneficial. Lori Therian, property manager, did not feel this is an appropriate location for a message board. Wise agreed with the staff recommendations to provide additional bicycle racks, but desired one or two bike racks that are better designed than the inverted U's proposed. She opposed the water feature and suggested considering alternative, possibly having an art display. With respect to planters that line the pedestrian walkway, they really do provide relief from vehicular traffic, so they should be maintained and not removed. In terms of parking, for the record she supported losing five parking spaces in this particular location. In regard to the sign program, she is in general pleased and appreciated the warm color scheme. On Sheet 2 it shows the monument signs with addresses, which appeared unbalanced. She suggested centering and enlarging "Northgate One " and having the addresses on one blank wall and then adding the name of the 5 street on the next section. Also, the spacing between the letters and address should be smaller in her view. Her major issue is the pylon sign. She wanted to avoid a zoning code amendment for other electronic signs. She wanted to be clear in the conditions of approval about what is desired in regard to this electronic sign and how often it rotates messages. It should rotate as often as it rotates now, which is twice per week, not more and include all the other conditions in terms of no flashing and so forth. She could support the new sign to honor the original approval. Huntsberry also appreciated the presentation tonight. He liked the widening of the sidewalk at Safeway to 10 feet clear. He liked the pergola elements as long as they have that subdued illumination, which will give great identity and place to this center. He liked the cornice being added to the stucco and the vertical elements above the columns, which helps with the articulation. Also, they must add in the approval process the following: "there shall not be any new signs on these fascias. " He found the sign program acceptable. He felt the under canopy signs are nicely designed, but at 8 feet they are a little low. In regard to the Safeway signage, the logo in the center is very appropriate and a logo at the upper right entry is not needed, so that logo should be removed. The "signature cafe" logo should be removed and introduced on the left hand fascia in the same character as the `pharmacy" sign. The Starbuck sign should be moved out to the front of the store rather than hanging in the window. He found the basic sign program very nice. He liked the connection at the corner into the center. As discussed, they need a sense of entry and enhancement off of Las Gallinas at the southwestern corner of Safeway. He also expressed concern for the electronic message pylon sign. He noted there are other message boards in town. As described, this upgrades the existing sign to 21St century technology. The City has been against this type of element, so it should be limited to changing the sign no more than once per day or twice per week. The number "one " on the pylon sign is weak in its graphic nature. He liked the palm trees used at the entry of the site, which provides an instant image and point of entry. He has mixed emotions about the water feature proposed, and believed it will be a nuisance. He agreed more fixed seats are needed. More planters are needed near the curb line in front of traffic to provide a sense of protection to pedestrians and provide more green space. Additional bicycle racks should be provided, which should be discussed with the Bicycle Coalition. He noted that on some of the new columns a slate base is being installed, but some columns at the entryway have no base column, so all columns need protection with some kind of durable concrete base. He further indicated his support with the few modifications as discussed. Chair Olmsted commended the applicant and design team on what he considered a thorough and professionally developed and organized design submittal. He also appreciated the applicant's willingness to go through this process. Losing five spaces in front of Safeway is essential to make this function properly. Changing the tree species to form a row in front of these buildings he found acceptable. The pathway design seems appropriate. He shared the views expressed by others that losing the planters near the curb line is unnecessary and a mistake. The width of the main sidewalk he considered generous for a shopping center of this sort and the sense of containment within that pathway under the canopy he believed is a nice feature. The change in the road entry and the addition of the curve at the courtyard are a splendid idea. All the patterns of paving and walkways are very nicely designed. In regard to the courtyard, he was persuaded during the presentation that the walk-in fountain was the best way a fountain could be built in this location and that it would function properly, but after hearing from others, he understands the issues and believed that should be reconsidered. The primary purpose of the courtyard is a gathering area and a wonderful community asset. Starting with the pylon sign, there is merit to G the argument that they are in the 21St century now and the sign that is present is rather foolish. He understands the marketing benefits and given the constraints placed on the times the message can be modified through conditions of approval, so he is not offended. He had no objection to the other signs proposed, except for the Safeway signs. Putting these logos on the glass panels is unnecessary as stated earlier. The effect is to create the whole glass paneling to a sign panel, which he found objectionable. The Safeway sign placed low under the building is far less effective than the one illustrated on the architectural drawings on the fascia and preferred that it be changed back to the way it is depicted on the architectural drawings, not the sign drawings. He found the planting plan as presented to be acceptable. Again, he encouraged all to move forward, but he did not get a sense that the Board is entirely ready to bring this to a motion that would move along without a string of attachments that might be difficult to resolve. Tambornini summarized the Board's comments: • General support for the project as presented and explained by the applicant with refinements: o Courtyard ■ Water feature is not appropriate and very problematic. The courtyard serves as a gather place, so some type of feature along those lines would be more appropriate ■ Add more fixed tables and chairs to provide for more ability to gather o Signs ■ General support for the Sign Program ■ Agreed with intent of electronic message board with conditions as discussed o Safeway ■ Suggestion to remove the signs off the glass display ■ Remove both logos from the panels and place elsewhere on the building o Walkways ■ Keep planters along walkways to provide sense of protection for pedestrians o Bike Racks ■ Increase number of bicycle racks o Architecture ■ Support for architecture with the sense that illumination of the towers will be very low with conditions to control and a 90 day review period ■ Base of all columns must have a durable concrete or slate finish to make sure they are protected for the duration of the project Huntsberry asked about the enhanced entrance off Los Gallinas. Mr. Pettit responded that they did explore that idea. They met with the City's Traffic Engineer who conducted an analysis and discouraged any improvements due to the juxtaposition of the loading drive aisle with the pedestrian pathway, which is problematic in his opinion, so they did not proceed with that part of the design as far as any kind of circulation. Parker noted that the City's Traffic Engineer indicated that adding a pedestrian crosswalk in that area would be irresponsible because it is not safe. Staff further added that it provides a false sense of security. VA Kent pointed out that if more passive seating is added to the courtyard they might be looking at a very different paving pattern. Chair Olmsted asked for a motion. Wise moved and Huntsberry seconded, to approve the project with modifications as outlined by staff; and with respect to the Safeway sign, approve with signage as shown in the architectural plans, not on the sign program. Motion carried 4-1. Kent opposed. AYES: Members Wise, Huntsberry, Chair Olmsted, Summers NOES: Members: Kent ABSTAIN: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Alternate Garg