Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/10/14 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 14, 2008 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corky Nicholson Alternates: Richard Fletcher Frances Howdyshell Ray Wimberly CONSENT CALENDAR 7:00 p.m. (Corkran\Joe) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00926 - WLC•ARCHITECTS - A review of the Master Phasing Plan for remaining phases of Lifeway Church project development including a class room wing, temporary classroom modules and multi-purpose 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 de Prado - APN: 0208-921-36. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439 and Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00544. On April 24, 2002, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. 7:10 p.m (Mayuko\Willie) DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2008-00587 - LEGG MASON REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, INC. - Development and Design Review of the Thomas Winery Plaza by adding a 13,969 square foot commercial/grocery building and demolition of two non-historic commercial buildings of 13,828 square feet with additional site, landscaping, and signage changes in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 2), located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue—APN: 0208-101-22, 23, 24, and 25. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. It is a Class 2b categorical exemption because the project includes replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2007-01019, Tree Removal Permit DRC2008-00590, Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00588, Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2008-00591, and Variance DRC2008-00781. 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. DRC ACTION AGENDA October 14, 2008 Page 2 7:20 p.m. (Mike\Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18466 - ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (for ANTHONY VERNOLA) - A proposal to subdivide a property of 9.56 acres into 43 lots for the purposes of residential development in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Miller Avenues - APN: 1100-131-01. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Corkran Nicholson October 14, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2006-00926 - WLC ARCHITECTS - A review of the Master Phasing Plan for remaining phases of Lifeway Church project development including a class room wing, temporary classroom modules and multi-purpose 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 de Prado - APN: 0208-921-36. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439 and Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00544. On April 24, 2002, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The planner will provide an oral presentation and plans at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Corkran Nicholson Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director gave a brief introduction and noted that the last time the project was reviewed was on January 15, 2008. He invited the architect to make a short presentation regarding the change on the roof design. Jim Di Camillo of WLC Architects noted that there are now two buildings proposed; the Education Wing and the Multi-Purpose Hall with no changes to the Education Wing. He noted that they erected story poles on many locations of the site. He said there was some concern of the height of the ridgeline of the building and so to address the concern, they changed the design of the roof, eliminating the ridge which lowered the overall height of the building. He said that was the intent of the story poles, to give people the impression as to how the building would appear. He said everything else stayed the same. Mr. Nicholson noted a sheet that makes the comparison of the old plan to that of the revised plans; Sheet AB5.3 indicates the resulting change in the reduction of the building mass. Commissioner Wimberly noted a significant reduction in mass. Mr. Di Camillo commented that the change makes the building appear lower from only some perspectives. Mr. Nicholson invited the one neighbor in attendance to comment. Charles Rich, 8930 Balsa Avenue, said it is true the building height is lower but only to meet the City Code requirement of 30 feet and no more than that. He said that he believes there is a pitch to the roof. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00926 -WLC ARCHITECTS October 14, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Nicholson clarified that there is a slight pitch to the roof for drainage but that they added a parapet to screen that. Mr. Rich stated that not all of the Commissioners came to view the story poles from his backyard. He said the project to the north of his and the neighbors' yard (southerly slope of the church property) creates a 30 to 40 foot "wall." He said because of the grading, the project is now lower on the bottom and higher on top. He said it does not make sense to totally destroy the homes to spread the wealth around. He said it is unfortunate that not all the neighbors received the information regarding the meeting this evening and he did not know why. He said it is no secret they are planning on building a school. He said almost everyone that has looked at this agrees that it never should have been approved the way it was approved. He said because it was approved, you have to approve the second phase. He said you are approving an education building that is planned to be a school and when a plan is presented for a school, it will be approved for a school. He said there are 11 large rooms. He added that the property is not fit to be a school and a lot of the neighbors have a concern about that. He said a dead tree has been there for a year. He said the retaining wall the church built seeps (onto his neighbor's property). He said it used to be a wooden fence but now it seeps and has algae growing on it and is a mess. He said he pointed it out to Trang Hyung (Building Official) and Mandi Aluzri, (Deputy City Manager, Community Development). He claimed the neighbor has complained and nothing has been done to his knowledge. Commissioner Munoz confirmed with Mr. Rich that he had completed his comments. He noted the comment about the pitch of the main building. He asked staff to comment on the seeping wall. Mr. Nicholson said he is aware of the wall condition and noted that the staff report for the October 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting notes a condition stipulating that the church will be responsible for the maintenance and function of all the walls. He added that the church and the architect have been very willing to look into these matters and correct what issues may exist. He noted that Mr. Rich commented on the grading. He reported that on the southerly portion of the site, 19 feet of fill was added when the site was originally graded. He said Planning staff is now far more sensitive to these infill concerns than when the original proposal was presented. He said it is difficult to say what would be recommended at this time. He said that from working with the church on the original proposal, the plans have changed, that originally there was to be a gym and fellowship hall (two separate buildings), with the gym located at the current location/elevation of the modular trailers. He said they have tried to mitigate the infill by lowering the building pad 14 feet. He noted that if the original 19 feet of infill is considered, the difference between the 19 feet and 14 feet is a building pad elevation of 5 feet above the natural grade prior to development. He said that the extent of the lowered pad is consistent with the interior plaza area which will serve as access to the new Multi-Purpose Building. He noted that the re-design consolidated the gym and fellowship hall into one building with a net reduction of approximately 2,000 square feet. He said the new roof design lessens the building mass as well. He said staff is conditioning (provided the project is approved) additional landscaping, stucco finish to the southerly wall, and the installation of 6-foot high wrought iron fencing along the southerly perimeter of the parking lot (for added security). He commented that these are substantial improvements. He said this approval has nothing to do with the past approvals. He said this re-design has been to the Design Review Committee three times over the course of 6 to 7 months with more than 1/2 dozen revisions to mitigate the impacts on the adjacent property owners. He responded to Mr. Rich's comment about only some of the neighbors being invited to this meeting. He reported that the property owners most affected by the project were invited and that although this meeting is not a public hearing, staff wanted to give them the opportunity to attend. He added that the Planning Commission Meeting on October 22, 2008, will provide a specific, detailed staff report for a public hearing. He said that it has been fully advertised and DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00926 -WLC ARCHITECTS October 14, 2008 Page 3 all property owners within a 660-foot radius from the exterior property lines have been noticed. Mr. Nicholson responded to the comment about the church operating a school. He noted that prior to the January 15, 2008, meeting the Commission considered the phasing plan and their request for a school. The Commission heard the concerns of the neighbors and said that there was not enough information to support approval of a school use, that further environmental clearance, a traffic study, and information from the other schools in the area was needed as well as additional staff review. Therefore, the church withdrew the application for the school use and asked that no further phases be considered. The Commission directed that their review would be through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The staff report for the upcoming meeting indicates there will not be a school and that he has a statement from the church detailing what is proposed for the Classroom Wing and the uses for those rooms that include meeting rooms and a youth worship area. He confirmed that upon completion of the Classroom Wing and prior to the Multi-Purpose room being built, the modular units must be removed from the site. Commissioner Munoz asked what would occur if the church wanted to establish plans for a school at a later time. Mr. Nicholson said they would be required to go through a new CUP process with environmental clearance, a traffic study, and with input from the surrounding area schools. He said there are many issues that this proposal does not even address. He said there is no means for them to do that without going through the process. Commissioner Munoz asked the applicant if they are aware of the condition of the wall maintenance and of the seeping wall and if they can accept the condition regarding its maintenance. Pastor Esteves stated they have already worked out this concern with the affected neighbor months ago. Commissioner Munoz summarized the concerns, the wall issue, plans for a school, seepage, the building height, the slope, maintenance, enhanced landscaping, stucco on the wall, security fencing for the parking area, etc. He said it is not a public hearing and the applicants are present to tell them about the changes. He stated he appreciated Mr. Rich's input and it is difficult situation for the neighbors and for the church to proceed with what they believe their mission to be. He said the DRC has dealt with this in a fair, drawn out and specific manner, that they have looked at everything, the building height, the mass, and they put up story poles to help the neighbors understand what the massing would look like and that the church changed their plans in good faith. He noted the story poles went up at great expense and that the church has gone further and with their new plans reduced the mass of the building closest to the neighbors by nearly one third. He said he believes the church has bent over backwards; it is a tough problem just short of putting the hill back the way it was 10 years ago. He said he did not believe any other solution would work here. He said he recommends the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission as presented. He reiterated that this meeting is not a public hearing, but that was his opinion and he deferred to Commissioner Wimberly for comment. Commissioner Wimberly concurred with all of Commissioner Munoz' comments and added that he felt the cooperation received from the applicant, their product, what they have done, and their attempt to mitigate all that is out there is significant. He concurred with moving the.project forward to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Munoz recommended the project move forward, that he would not debate the issue further but invited further comment from Mr. Rich. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-00926 -WLC ARCHITECTS October 14, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Rich reiterated they do not maintain things now, and that nothing gets done unless the neighbors complain either on the church side or the City's side. He said the lights were getting blocked, issues with landscaping being put in, gravel, sandbags, and tree removal. He said he has no assurance they will do anything and he cited old concerns regarding sandbags, lights, and the wall maintenance. He said the stucco treatment on the wall is a new wrinkle and that no one talked to the neighbors about it, that they won't take care of it, and that he did not know if the neighbors want that. He insisted it would not be taken care of and that the church did not work with the neighbors as directed by the Commission. He said they did not work with them at all. He said they just came to us and told us what they want to do and they asked for their approval. He maintained the building could be moved to the other side of the property. He said the building is now compacted and on top of them and the height is higher than the City Code and it does not help them. He said there is a lack of working with the neighbors on their part (church) and the City. Commissioner Munoz said he appreciates the church working with the City. Jim Di Camillo said his company has done work for the City for 25 years and that this project is an example of the process working. He said the applicant has made numerous changes. He said the intent is to improve the project and there has been much compromise on the part of the church. He said staff has done a great job. He said it is an example of a problem being resolved with people working together. Pastor Esteves thanked staff on behalf of the church. Mr. Rich said it would be impossible for him to be at that meeting (October 22, 2008). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Mayuko Nakajima October 14, 2008 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2008-00587 - LEGG MASON REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, INC. - Development and Design Review of the Thomas Winery Plaza by adding a 13,969 square foot commercial/grocery building and demolition of two non-historic commercial buildings of 13,828 square feet with additional site, landscaping, and signage changes in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 2), located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue — APN: 0208-101-22, 23, 24, and 25. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. It is a Class 2b categorical exemption because the project includes replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2007-01019, Tree Removal Permit DRC2008-00590, Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00588, Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2008-00591, and Variance DRC2008-00781. Background: This application was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on September 16, 2008. At that time, staff presented the project and the Committee directed the applicant to revise the application as follows and resubmit the application for a follow-up review as a Consent item: 1. The applicant demonstrated why using the 18-foot height lightpole would be more practical than the 15-foot height standard. The Committee felt comfortable in recommending the applicant to submit a variance application for the 3-foot height increase. 2. The Committee appreciated the signs proposed and recommended no changes to the design at this time (Monument sign, Entry Gateway Arch, Project I.D. Sign). 3. Create more articulation on the corner with a "terraced" river rock feature to produce depth. The applicant revised as follows: 1. The applicant submitted a variance application for an increased light standard height. 2. Sign designs are the same, but the applicant has revised the height to conform to the current Sign Ordinance. 3. The applicant has proposed a modification of the previously proposed corner plan that exhibits more depth by creating a "terraced" river rock feature as recommended by the Design Review Committee. The following features were revised: a. The river rock walls are terraced at two levels with an 18-inch high wall in the triangular planter area beneath the Corner ID sign and approximately 4-foot high retaining wall elsewhere as currently existing at this location. This results in the sign to be slightly lower than first proposed to create articulation and depth. b. Berming was added to help merge the sign into the river rock wall. C. Geometric stamped brick pattern concrete was added to create uniformity and add visual interest to the corner. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2008-00587— LEGG MASON REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, INC. October 14, 2008 Page 2 d. The stamped brick pattern concrete is now incorporated into the parking court to maintain continuity. e. A Route 66 logo was added to fit inside one of the geometric grids. f. The number of lighted bollards was increased from four to six. g. Double row of Crape Myrtle trees were added on each street frontage. h. Two Chinese Pistache trees were added to line up with the Crape Myrtle trees. These accent trees help define the corner. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and forwarding to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Wimberly, Munoz, Nicholson Staff Planner: Mayuko Nakajima The Committee requested that a condition be added for the two Chinese Pistache trees, which are proposed at the southwest corner of the site as a further enhancement of the project, be at least 48-inch box size. The Committee recommends approval and forwarding to the Planning Commission for review and action. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith October 14, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18466 - ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (for ANTHONY VERNOLA) - A proposal to subdivide a property of 9.56 acres into 43 lots for the purposes of residential development in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Miller Avenues -APN: 1100-131-01. Background: This proposed subdivision was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on August 19, 2008 (Exhibit C). The applicant was directed to modify the northwest corner (specifically Lot 38) of the proposed subdivision by adjusting lot sizes, re-arranging the lots, or eliminating the lot. The change(s) were required to address the Committee's concern regarding the suitability of a residential structure located in close proximity to the Interstate 15 Freeway overpass where noise mitigation measures are limited because of Caltrans' policy regarding noise walls along the freeway right-of-way and limits on wall height along Etiwanda Avenue established in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant's proposal to provide an outdoor area buffered from freeway noise by the bulk of the house was not deemed to be an adequate solution. This was especially the case since the precise design/architecture and layout of the homes is not known as the applicant is not proposing the construction of homes at this time. The Committee had no concerns regarding the remainder of the subdivision. They were satisfied that this project would be compatible with the existing residential development to the south, north, and west, and the school to the east. Any potential impacts, such as excessive wall heights because of significant grade differences, have been minimized. The applicant was directed to revise the project accordingly and return for a follow-up review by the Committee at a later date prior to scheduling for Planning Commission review and action. Revisions: The applicant has revised the subdivision as directed so that the potential noise impact on a potential home located at the northwest corner of the project site has been further minimized. To accomplish this, the lot at the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision was eliminated so that there are now 43 lots proposed instead of 44 lots. Lot 38 is now larger than originally proposed at 19,403 square feet versus 11,710 square feet (essentially Lots 38 and 39 of the previous layout were combined). The location of the potential house footprint on Lot 38 has been moved to the previous location of the house footprint on Lot 39. Increasing the size of Lot 38 has resulted in a corresponding increase in yard area. The lot areas for Lots 21 and 37 have been increased by about 1,200 square feet to 13,305 and 14,479 square feet, respectively. The increase in the size of Lot 37 allows for the provision of a larger "protected" outdoor, private space which was one of the revisions described in the comments report Design Review Committee meeting on August 19, 2008 (Exhibit A). The applicant has also revised the orientation of Lots 27, 28, 30, and 31 so that the primary axis of each lot is east to west to match Lot 29; there are also corresponding adjustments in the lot areas of these lots (Exhibit B). The minimum net average lot area for the overall subdivision has increased from 7,249 square feet to 7,418 square feet. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUPTT18466—ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (FOR ANTHONY VERNOLA) October 14, 2008 Page 2 Major Issues: The following are from the previous Comments report and are provided for further discussion (if necessary). 1. The final map shall show the "protected" outdoor, private space for Lots 20, 21, and 37 through 44. The side yard setback for these lots, on the side of the lot where each private space is proposed, shall be 20 feet minimum. 2. Per Section 5.42.608 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the policies/guidelines set forth by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission, two-story structures shall not be planned for corner lots (Lots 1, 20, 21, 27, 31, 37, 38, and 43) unless extra deep setbacks are used. 3. Per Section 5.25.303 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, prior to final map recordation, a Conditional Use Permit shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4. All homes shall be designed in accordance with the design/technical standards specified in Section 5.42 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 5. All homes proposed along Etiwanda Avenue shall comply with the design/technical standards specified in Section 5.25.304 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Secondary Issues: The following are from the previous Comments report and are provided for further discussion (if necessary). 1. The northwest corner of the project site, immediately adjacent to the intersection of Etiwanda and Miller Avenues, shall be landscaped. The applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans a Landscape Plan. This Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final map recordation. 2. The maximum height of solid walls along Etiwanda Avenue shall be 3 feet. 3. All wrought iron fences shall be painted black or a similarly dark color. 4. Double wall/fence conditions shall be eliminated, if possible. The applicant shall contact the administrators for the Perdew Elementary School and request permission to remove the existing fence along the common property line. Staff Recommendation: Staff believes these changes address the primary concerns of the Committee. Staff recommends that the project be approved, with the above items listed incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, and be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Wimberly, Munoz, Nicholson Staff Planner: Mike Smith DRC ACTION AGENDA SUPTT18466—ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (FOR ANTHONY VERNOLA) October 14, 2008 Page 3 The Committee approved the applicant's revised tentative tract map design, and recommends approval to the Planning Commission with all of the above conditions specified into the Resolution of Approval. The Committee also added another condition of approval requiring that the northwest corner of Lot 38, at the intersection of Etiwanda and Miller Avenue, shall be landscaped with specimen-sized trees, berming, extensive ground-cover, and river rock pavers. This improvement shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department to ensure continuity with required public landscaping improvements. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS OCTOBER 14, 2008 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0, 'w ./ L-L Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planning Director