WALNUT CREEK DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 WALNUT CREEK DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA: December 3, 2014 ORIGINATED BY: Community and Ecomic Development Department ITEM: 4d Day/Date/Time Place Project Name Application Type & App. # Project Location Project Description Zoning & General Plan CEQA Applicant/ Owner Wednesday, December 3, 2014, 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall, 1666 N. Main Street Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Design Review Y South Main Street/Olympic Blvd./Botelho Drive/South California Blvd. Design Review Study Session for new Design Guidelines at Plaza Escuela which outline storefront design and signage design criteria. The Design Guidelines address allowable façade designs for individual tenant spaces as well as signage allowances for tenants. The applicant is also proposing to add one new kiosk. Pedestrian Retail (P-R) Pedestrian Retail (PR) Categorical Exemption Section Existing Facilities. Mary Hunter & Jason LeMone, Equity One 3 Serramonte Center Daly City, CA Architect Shelley Golomb / SZFM Design Studio 601 Fourth Street, Loft 211 San Francisco, CA Staff Contact Afshan Hamid, AICP, Associate Planner (925) x2209 or ahamid@walnut-creek.org STATEMENT OF ISSUES: The applicant is proposing new Retail Design Guidelines and a new kiosk on Locust Street for Design Review Commission (DRC) review and input. The Design Guidelines outline storefront façade improvements and signage design criteria for the existing tenants at Plaza Escuela, as well as one new proposed kiosk on the west side of Locust Street adjacent to the garage entry. The applicant s retail concept is to have branding and image identification for individual tenants and the new Design Guidelines will allow them to have more expression. The Design Guidelines also address signage options that promote wall signs, shingle signs, awning signs, window signs, and outdoor display areas. The applicant is also adding a new sidewalk kiosk. Sign criteria will replace the existing sign program for Plaza Escuela. The DRC is being asked to consider these guidelines, which will allow tenants a better level of certainty when pursuing future storefront remodels and signage parameters. The applicant appeared before the DRC for a Study Session on September 17, In general the DRC was in support of the project and provided feedback on tenant signage, materials, and kiosk concerns. The applicant has revised the Design Guidelines to address the DRC comments and is

2 Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Page 2 seeking input from the DRC prior to a final review. The September 17 Study Session staff report is provided as Attachment 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Design Review Commission (DRC) provide input and feedback on the revisions for the new Design Guidelines and kiosk. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Site: The project site (Plaza Escuela) is located in the Pedestrian Retail District (P-R) and takes almost two full blocks between S. California Blvd, Olympic Blvd, S. Main Street, and Botelho Drive. A close up aerial of the project site is below. S. Main St Subject site Broadway Plaza Parking Garage Aerial of Site and Surrounding Properties The area surrounding Plaza Escuela is supported by a synergy of national brand retail and restaurants including Macy s, Neiman Marcus, Barnes & Noble, California Pizza Kitchen and Crate & Barrel, as well as local shops and restaurants in the pedestrian-oriented downtown, see Attachment 2. Project: Plaza Escuela has a consistent architectural theme, however with the recent approval of Uniqlo clothing store and staff level approval of Project Pie restaurant, individual and unique storefronts with a more brand oriented development is sought by the owners at Equity One. The proposed Design Guidelines will allow individual tenants more identity, and provide criteria in anticipation of expansions into adjacent tenant spaces. If there is a larger, or two-level tenant remodel, then DRC approval will be required similar to Uniqlo. The Design Guidelines also address various types of signage for the tenants and will replace the current sign program. Criteria for outdoor displays, seating, and landscaping are also included. BACKGROUND: At the Study Session in September, the DRC was in support of the Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines and Locust Street Improvements however, there were several issues that were raised by the Commission including:

3 Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Page 3 Futher study the Locust Street crosswalk Evaluate kiosk locations and function Tenant Size: It was felt that storefront design criteria for small and large tenants were addressed, however those for medium size tenants were t Evaluate the total façade (two-level) option and locations The September 17 staff report is provided as Attachment 7. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING COMPLIANCE: The project is located in the Pedestrian Retail (PR) GP area. General Plan 2025, Chapter 4, The Built Environment, Goal 20.1 looks to strengthen the identity of the Pedestrian Retail District as a pedestrian-oriented shopping destination for local residents and regional shoppers. The intent of the PR designation is to provide for a range of retail and personal service uses that are accessed by pedestrians. In this case, the Design Guidelines seek to improve the appearance of the Plaza Escuela building and therefore is compatible with this General Plan policy. The zoning designation for the project area is Pedestrian Retail (P-R) and is intended to provide for a concentration of retail activity that is destination oriented within the City s designated Core Area. The intent is to serve the pedestrian shopper by offering a wide variety of shops in the retail area. Examples of permitted uses include cultural centers, adult daycare, government offices, park and recreation facilities, public parking facilities, natural history/science museum. Plaza Escuela was approved as a development project and the proposed use is permitted, therefore the site s use is compliant with the City s Zoning Ordinance. Parking: No modification to the parking is proposed as part of this application and ne is required because there is overall expansion to the building square footage proposed. Building Height: No modifications are proposed to building heights as part of this application. DISCUSSION: Locust Street Crosswalks: At the September Study Session, the DRC presented many thoughts and ideas for an expanded crosswalk feature at the mid-block crossing on Locust Street. Some of the suggestions included having two crosswalks or a raised mid-block crosswalk. The applicant would like to defer further discussion of this issue which will be evaluated and brought to the DRC at a later time if necessary. Multiple Kiosk Locations on Locust Street: The DRC felt that the locations for several, proposed kiosks were challenging in terms of accessibility, tightness of location, hours of kiosk vendors, and a general concern that the kiosks and their operators may become a nuisance to shoppers. The applicant has removed all but one kiosk from the request. At this time only the kiosk on the west side of Locust Street, adjacent to the tower entry is being proposed. (see discussion below). Remodels according to Tenant Size: Some members of the DRC commented that the Design Guidelines only addressed large and small scale tenants and that medium size tenants were t addressed. In regards to small scale tenants, the Design

4 Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Page 4 Guidelines are encouraging more branding and retail expression through storefront design and signage. The guidelines provide numerous examples for façade design and encourage elements such as overhang design, materials, and exterior lighting. Larger tenants, 12,000 sf or greater, (one or two level) identification in the guidelines has been removed, and a larger retail tenant will w require Design Review Commission approvals similar to Uniqlo for signage and exterior. Medium size (two or three bays) multiple bay, ground floor tenants are t specifically addressed, however recently Project Pie restaurant was approved at the staff level and is an example of a tenant spanning several storefronts. Project Pie was requested to provide transition elements, such as the base material and detailing of the windows. In addition Project Pie lowered the awnings and added adized aluminum louvers to tie in at the pedestrian scale. On page 13 of the Design Guidelines (see Attachment 5), Storefronts Spanning Two Buildings is discussed. However staff would like DRC input on expanding this section with more specific examples, photos and or illustrations to demonstrate how cohesive branding may occur over multiple spans and two different building architectural languages. As stated above the applicant has removed all references to the Total Façade Option. In doing so they have also removed the proposed Corner Tenant Signs (projecting, multi-sided signs). Portable Signs & Outdoor Displays: The applicant would like to retain these all year round, whereas the agreement with Walnut Creek Downtown (WCD) is from May through December under a seasonal activity permit. Staff feels that the portable sign and outdoor sign regulations should be consistent with those established by WCD and the Walnut Creek Municipal Code. Plaza Escuela should t be afforded more flexibility than other downtown retailers in regard to these issues (see page 21 and 38, Attachment 5). Wayfinding Signage: Previously, the applicant had proposed suspended wayfinding signage at two locations on the south end of Locust Street under the Men s Wearhouse and Container Store arcade. The request for that type of signage has been removed. Tenant Signage: Plaza Escuela has a master sign program that was approved in September 2001, however with the new approach a sign program that has more flexibility is desired. The September 2001 Master Sign Program will be replaced once the new Design Guidelines are approved (see attachment 5). Kiosk on Locust Street: Staff is t opposed to the design, however, further clarification is required on dimensions, materials, size and height. The 6-foot clear area is the only public walkway in and out of the garage, with the kiosk as proposed and the 3-foot kiosk roof overhang the space will get congested with pedestrians and shoppers, and will lead to people walking in the driveway instead. It is already a hard-to-find entrance to the garage, and should t be blocked, see Attachment 6. Overall the Design Guidelines are proposing one square foot of sign area per one linear foot of building frontage, which is consistent with a maximum WCMC. Staff is striking through the previous request and highlighting the new modifications and updates in the table on page 5 (next page): The applicant has revised the signage to be more in conformance to the Walnut Creek Municipal Code. In some cases larger signs are being requested, such as the proposed Shingle sign at 6-1/2 sf. Staff is in support of this as long as the Shingle is the primary sign and other wall, awning or capy sign is allowed, and the shingle sign is mounted at a pedestrian level height and scale. Larger shingle signs

5 Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Page 5 Sign Type Proposed WCMC Meets Code Wall Sign 20 inch min a; 24 inch max No min or max Awning Sign Face 18 inch font b; 22 inch light font Allowed to 18 inches in height Awning Sign Valance 20% of face, if sign is 6 4 ft or less in length, letter height may increase by 50% for wall and capy signs for maximum of 27 in 8 inch bold font 10 inch light font 30% total sf of awning or capy 18 inches b; Allowed to 18 inches in height Staff Recommendation OK, as long as overall allowable square footage is met Limit to 18 inches OK No increases allowed for letter height beyond 18 inches. Staff would like to see an example OK Capy Signs Architectural Banners Corner Signs Projecting/Shingle 65% 30% of valance, if sign is 6 ft or less in length inch bold font inch light font if sign is 6 4 ft or less in length, letter height may increase by 50% for wall and capy signs for maximum of 27 in feet height sf area 36 in projection Only allowed for 2 nd floor tenants, if other wall signs are proposed 10 feet height 20 in bold font 24 in light font 7 4-1/2 sf max sign area 5 4 ft max projection 7-6 clearance 6-1/2 sf max sign Only as a primary sign 30% total sf of awning or capy b; Allowed to 18 inches in height 30% total sf of awning or capy 18 inches * c 1 q; 4-1/2 sf area 4 feet Not allowed Projecting signs other than architectural banners prohibited c; 4-1/2 sf max sign area 4 feet max projection 7-6 clearance Yes OK Excessive proportion and scale, reduce to meet code. No increase allowed for letter height beyond 18 inches. Limit to 18 inches Maintain percentage to allow for better proportions. No increase allowed for letter height beyond 18 inches. Staff would like to see an example Permanently installed banners are subject to DRC, excessive banner sf should be reviewed on a case by case basis. DRC review required One per major corner tenant Locate above corner entrance No wall signs allowed Above 4-1/2 sf max requires review by DRC OK Storefront Window b; OK Excessive proportion and scale, reduce Graphics 12 in min bold font to meet code. Permanent signs included 12 in max bold font in overall allowances % for 1 st floor 15% for 1 st floor No 15 10% for 2 nd floor 10% for 2 nd floor Portable Signs & Year round display May thru December Difficult to enforce, follow WCD guidelines Outdoor Displays per WCD & Municipal Code *DRC approval required. Current sign program sets parameters for size, placement (to follow shingle sign parameters).

6 Plaza Escuela Design Guidelines Page 6 ( lollipop sign ), 7 sf, were allowed in the 2001 Master Sign Program, however, only for small interior tenants on Locust Street. These lollipop signs due to scale and mounting height were t pedestrian friendly signs. In regards to architectural banners, staff recommends that those continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis by the DRC. For ease of future sign regulations and enforcement, signage types should be labeled the same as those in the WCMC. For example the capy sign proposed in the Design Guidelines are a type of wall sign, and projecting signs should be re-named shingle signs. Pursuant to , 8 Existing Signs Not Conforming to a Master Sign Program, if any new or amended master sign program is filed for property on which existing signs are located, it shall include a schedule for bringing into conformance, within the time frames contained in the schedule in of Chapter 8. Any signs t conforming to an approved sign program which existed at the time of adoption of this Chapter shall be brought into conformance with the approved master sign program within the time frames contained in the schedule in of this Chapter. Pursuant to , 9 Binding Effect, after approval of a Master Sign Program, signs shall be erected, placed, painted, or maintained, except in conformance with such plan, and such plan may be enforced in the same way as any provision of Chapter 8. The Master Sign Program shall be attached to the lease agreements for all leasable space within the project. In case of any conflict between the provisions of such a plan and any other provision, Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code shall control. As the Guidelines provide a much wider array of flexibility than the current, stringent sign program, many of the existing signs would be allowed to remain. Signs that would need to be modified would be those tenants with projecting lollipop signs, wall signs on the second floor, architectural banners on the first floor, oval signs under awnings on Locust Street as well as others. COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED: Staff requests that the DRC consider the applicant s modifications on the Design Guidelines and provide feedback on the following: Conceptual Kiosk location and design. The need to provide specifics and examples for medium sized tenants (two or three bays) with expansion into two different buildings. Architectural Banners and staff s suggestions that they be reviewed on a case by case basis by the DRC. Staff s suggestion to strike all portable signs and outdoor displays from the Guidelines and all tenants shall adhere to the provisions of WCD & the Municipal Code criteria regarding these issues. Prepared by: Afshan Hamid, AICP Associate Planner Effects of imposing a timeframe for tenants to conform to the new sign parameters. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial with Surrounding Properties 3. Plaza Escuela Building Locations (site plan) 4. SZFM correspondence dated 10/03/ Design Guidelines 6. Proposed Kiosk, Existing Shingle Signs, Proposed Capy Sign 7. September 17 Study Session Report