Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/19 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 19, 2007 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Michael Diaz Alternates: Richard Fletcher Rich Macias CONSENT CALENDAR (All consent items start at 7 p.m.) (Vance/Joe) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00926 - WLC ARCHITECTS - Review of a Master Plan for the remaining phases of Lifeway Church project development including education building, temporary classroom modules, gymnasium and fellowship hall on 5.03 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7477 Vineyard Avenue at Calle del Prado - APN: 0208-921-36. Related: Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:10 p.m. (Larry/Mark) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16909 - HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES - A request to subdivide into 3 office condominium lots on 17.1 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District located on the West side of Haven Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street. APN: 209-092-04. Related files: Development Review DRC2006-00557, General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272, Development District DRC2004-00273. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00557 - HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES - Vintner's Grove Office Park, a phased office development of 9 buildings covering 17.1 net acres with a total of 266,323 square feet of building area. Related File: SUBTT16909. 7:30 p.m. (Tom/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00633 - RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - The request to develop a 166 unit apartment complex on 10.5 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (the associated GPA and DCA applications propose the Mixed Use District), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and west side of Center Avenue - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, and 04. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. DRC ACTION AGENDA June 19, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy June 19, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00926 - WLC ARCHITECTS - Review of a Master Plan for the remaining phases of Lifeway Church project development including education building, temporary classroom modules, gymnasium and fellowship hall on 5.03 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7477 Vineyard Avenue at Calle del Prado - APN: 0208-921-36. Related: Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439. Design Parameters: On July 1, 2001, an application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439 was filed for the construction and occupation of a church complex on Vineyard Avenue across from Red Hill Park. The complex included several phases of construction with a sanctuary, offices, education building, fellowship hall, and gymnasium. After concluding the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the project on April 24, 2002. Development Code Section 17.02.100 and repeated in the Standard Conditions for DRC2001-00439, requires that building permits be obtained for all buildings within 5 years and diligently pursued toward completion. The master plan approved under DRC2001-00439 expired on April 24, 2007, without the Building Permits for the subsequent phases being issued. The applicant submitted this new application, Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00926, for the remaining phases that have not obtained Building Permits prior to their expiration. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. The owner of the property has worked closely with staff to work out any technical and design issues. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. At the December 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the original project approval was brought for clarification of conditions. The issues surrounded the temporary classroom units and whether they were a part of the approved phases. The portion of the determination pertinent to this application was that the temporary classroom units were part of the original approval of all the phases, but that they must be associated with a permanent building which has an active Conditional Use Permit. With the expiration of the 2002 CUP, a new CUP (the one before you) must be approved for the temporary classroom units to remain. The permanent building to replace the temporary units is the education building included in the subject CUP. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as presented. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart, Michael Diaz Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The remaining phases approved are: • Phase 2— Education Building • Phase 3— Fellowship Hall • Phase 4—Gymnasium DRC ACTION AGENDA June 19, 2007 Page 2 2. The full five years permitted in Section 17.02.100 shall be extended to this approval including the other requirements and limitations of that section, except that the temporary classroom buildings shall be removed from the site by the end of the five year period regardless of the status of the progress of the several phases of the Master Plan or any extension that may be provided for the rest of the Master Plan's phases. 3. The temporary classroom buildings shall be maintained in good condition at all times including, but not limited to, paint. No signs and/or banners shall be installed and/or aff ixed to the temporary classroom buildings. Please note that, contrary to information conveyed at the meeting, per Planning Condition 9 for this project (DRC2001-00439), the approval" does not include a daycare or private K-12 school." "Private and Parochial Schools" is a conditional use in the Low Density Residential District and requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In order to proceed with such a use, regardless of the buildings or facilities provided for the use, the CUP must be approved by the Planning Commission. The current request for the Master Plan for the additional phases, DRC2006-00926, does not include a request for a private school. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Larry Henderson June 19, 2007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16909 - HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES - A request to subdivide into 3 office condominium lots on 17.1 acres of land in the Haven Overlay District located on the West side of Haven Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street. APN: 209-092-04. Related files: Development Review DRC2006-00557, General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272, Development District DRC2004-00273. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00557 - HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES - Vintner's Grove Office Park, a phased office development of 9 buildings covering 17.1 net acres with a total of 266,323 square feet of building area. Related File: SUBTT16909. Design Parameters: The Vintners Grove Business Park is a proposed phased project with a 3 lot office condominium map. The development consists of 9 buildings, with thee, 3-story buildings along Haven Avenue and the remaining six buildings are single-story, along the west side of the property near the center. The site has been cleared of all vegetation and gently slopes to the south. The surrounding land uses consist of two—story apartment buildings across Arrow Route to the north and Triplexes and single-family detached residential under construction to the west. To the south across 26th street is "HCS Cutler", which is an industrial and commercial supply business. To the east across Haven Avenue is an Office Business Park uses. The project is within the Haven Avenue Office Overlay zone and the design is in conformance with the Office Campus environment provided for under the Industrial Specific Plan. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: There are no major issues with this project. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The Sign Program is overall very compatible with the Architectural theme and site layout. However the Sign Program submittal has some discrepancies with the building plans. Based on the Design Review Committee direction, both or one of the documents should be revised before the Planning Commission acts on the application. Details on the Sign Program issues are outlined as follows: a. Signs No.'s 1 and 2: Only 1 monument sign is permitted per Haven Avenue frontage; 2 are proposed. However, the DRC may want to recommend that the project is better served architecturally by having two identification signs to encourage a symmetrical look at the main Haven Avenue entrance. In addition, a maximum height is 8 feet; no height is indicated. Provide dimensions for all sign plans. b. Signs No.'s 10 and 11 could be interpreted as monument signs. Criteria: only 1 per street frontage, with a maximum height of 8 feet. C. Sign No. 5: is acceptable, as defined on the Building plans. Reference to the Sign Program should be made consistent. d. Sign No. 8: This would be classified as a direction sign, and need to be revised substantially. The standard is 4 square feet in area and 4 feet in height. Also, from a design perspective, this sign needs to be enhanced. DRC ACTION AGENDA June 19, 2007 Page 2 e. Signs No.'s 12, 14, 17, 18, and 19. This would be classified as a business directory. These meet the technical requirements (height and area); but, from a design perspective, this sign needs to be enhanced. f. Wall Signage: Minimal technical information was included (missing letter height, type of letters, font, trademarked signs, etc.), so it is rather incomplete. Overall, it appears that they are not asking for excessive wall signage (4 signs total, one per elevation), which is good. The main problem is preventing office buildings from having too many walls signs. Also, they want to use raceways and hide them with back plates; this may or may not turn out so well. I would be cautious about this design type. Notice how the letters will be 9 inches off the wall plane. Finally, no information is provided for wall signs for Buildings 4 through 9, which is highly problematic. In addition, the portion of the Sign Program called Sign Criteria (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches) appears to be in conflict with the project identity, and the tenant sign age exhibits (11 inches by 17 inches) since it appears to allow the tenant subject to the owners approval to propose their own colors and style with no guidelines provided. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to Sign Program modifications as determined by DRC prior to review of the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart, Michael Diaz Staff Planner: Larry Henderson Overall the Committee found the Building and Architectural concept and the amended sign programs to be good and requested the following be brought back under consent calendar at the next meeting on July 3, 2007: 1. Provide a parking lot elevation drawing of all the single-story office buildings together as they would appear from the parking lot. 2. Provide 360 degree architecture for the single-story Office buildings by wrapping the materials around to the blank walls. 3. Provide details concerning ADA compliance requirements for the Haven Avenue and Arrow Route intersection/plaza connection. 4. The sign background color for the Entry Monument, Pilaster, and Pedestrian way finding signs is not acceptable. Provide color alternative/s that are more compatible with the building colors for this background. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Tom Grahn June 19, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00633 - RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - The request to develop a 166 unit apartment complex on 10.5 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (the associated GPA and DCA applications propose the Mixed Use District), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and west side of Center Avenue - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, and 04. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing the development of a 166-unit apartment complex (with 60 percent of the units held below market rate) called Rancho Workforce Housing. The project design includes 1-, 2-, and 3-story apartment buildings. The 1-story buildings will be adjacent to the existing residences to the north, and the 3-story buildings will be adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. The design of the buildings is a contemporary Spanish/Mediterranean architectural style. Architectural elements include stucco finish, stacked stone veneer, concrete "S" roof tile, hip roofs, lattice, decorative shutters, wood trellis, and wrought iron fencing. The project site is located on a relatively flat site, sloping gradually from north to south. The majority of the site is vacant; however, a residence and business (Espinoza Tire) are currently located on the Foothill Boulevard frontage, and the project surrounds an existing restaurant (The Whole Enchilada) at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue. The property to the north contains existing single-family residences. The property to the south contains vacant land, a day care, law offices, and a liquor store. The property to the east contains commercial and industrial uses. The property to the west contains a restaurant/bar and other commercial uses. Background: The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Diaz) previously reviewed this project on May 1, 2007. At that meeting, the Committee recommended that the applicant revise the site plan, taking into consideration the close proximity of existing land uses adjacent to the southeast and southwest corners of the project, and that the architecture be revised to eliminate the "boxy" appearance of the project design. The applicant revised their project design based on these recommendations and has submitted for additional Committee consideration. Staff Comments: . Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. There are no major design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide details/catalog cuts/samples of proposed exterior materials, particularly proposed stone veneer, roofing, stucco pattern, garage doors, window and door trim, decorative metal work, and wall mounted exterior lighting fixtures. 2. Provide decorative paving at the project entrance, and across the project drive aisles connecting pedestrian walkways. DRC ACTION AGENDA June 19, 2007 Page 2 3. Confirm how HVAC equipment will be accommodated for the units. Staff does not recommend the placement of any equipment in the balcony as it will decrease the usefulness of private open space areas. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide decorative paving of the project entrance and across project drive aisles connecting pedestrian walkways. 2. All wrought iron fencing and decorative metalwork should be constructed of powder-coated metal. 3. All HVAC equipment, including ground mounted equipment, shall be screened from view. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart, Michael Diaz Staff Planner: Tom Grahn 1. The Committee reviewed the revised Site Plan and building elevations for the proposed apartment complex. The Committee recognized that the applicant had revised the plans to reflect the comments from the prior Design Review Committee. 2. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed project; however, the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve two minor design issues. These design issues included: a) a revising color scheme #2 to replace the yellow stucco color, and b) a better architectural detail/solution for the glass sound attenuation panels on the patios facing Foothill Boulevard. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS June 19, 2007 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Res ectfully su mi ichael P. Diaz Senior Planner