HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/29 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 29, 2000 7:00 P.M.
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. Typically, they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
TRACT 14139 BUILDOUT - CENTEX HOMES - A request to use the home product approved for
Tract 14379 for buildout of the five remaining lots within Tract 14139 in the Low Residential District
(2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located at the southwest corner
of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive. APN: 225-471-01 through 05.
The Committee was in favor of using the home product for Tract 14379 for buildout of the five
remaining lots within Tract 14139.
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.
7:00 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 -LEE - A
residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for
23 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4
to 8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east
of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 208-091-08.
7:40 p.m.
(Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 -
f-1VIVICJ- IIIC F/1 VF/VJCU LVIIJlIU4UVll VI !O IIUIIICJ WIU IIII ICIILQUVG IIQLW IJJ I I gllU
15912 in the Low-Medium District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the
Southern Pacific right-of-way -APN: 227-131-005 and 227-141-011 and 012, Related
Files: Variance 99-11, Tentative Tract 15911 and 15912.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
~ DRC AGENDA
` February 29, 2000
Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a
true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 24, 2000, at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga. ~n
1 1 I~~}.1.Ar 6'~-
s~
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count February 29, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 -LEE - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 23 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located
on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08.
Background: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review on
this site fora 20-lot project. Time extensions have been granted for this map to December 2000.
The current application represents an alternative street confguration with 23 lots.
The current design was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) in
September 1999 but was not approved. The applicant had requested a continuance to allow time
to address issues identified at the meeting. The Committee had the following comments:
1. The proposed street layout is acceptable.
2. Plans should be revised to address all major and secondary issues identified by staff. See
below.
3. Single-story plan and/or single story elements are needed to address neighborhood
compatibility. All homes are still proposed to be two-story; however, Plan B has a single
story element.
4. A neighborhood meeting is recommended. The applicant has not yet held a meeting but is
willing to do so, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Previously identified issues:
There are two flag lots (Lots 9 and 14) and a "difficult" lot (Lot 12), which does not meet lot
depth requirements. Eliminating one lot would provide better site design and flexibility to
satisfy all code requirements. Lots should have sufficient room to provide varied setbacks
along street frontages.
The applicant has not revised the lot layout. The street system causes variable front yards
to occur given the substantial amount of lot frontage on cul-de-sac bulbs. There are some
interior side yard setback encroachments but they can be alleviated through creative re-
plotting and re-orientation (see item 3 below).
2. There is a lack of variation in the proposed Floor Plans and Elevations of the four Floor
Plans, three are nearly identical, with only one elevation each. The Planning Commission's
Residential Design Guidelines indicate for 23 lots there should be five Floor Plans with three
Elevations each.
The applicant has complied by provided five Floor Plans with three elevations each. The
Floor Plans range from 1,686 up to 2,090 square feet. The revised design provides
variation between home plans through the use of roof style, colors, wainscoting, reverse
plotting, wood accents, and garage door styles.
3. All lots are proposed to have two-story dwellings, using an architectural style that
emphasizes vertical massing. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly single story.
A revised architectural approach and introduction of single story plans on corner lots and
in strategic locations abutting existing single story neighborhoods is recommended to
address neighborhood compatibility.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
TT 15955 -LEE
M February 29, 2000
Page 2
Plan B has a single story element on half of the Floor Plan. The homes along the north
project boundary are proposed to have horizontal change of plane but almost no vertical
relief. The homes along the east side have an average rear yard setback of 28 feet where
a 15-foot setback is required. These homes also have bay windows and second story
window pop-outs to add visual interest. The homes plotted on corner lots (all Plan E) are
proposed to have a small one-story element for part of the side elevation, which steps back
to a two-story.
Recommendation: Provide a more interesting entry theme by plotting another home plan (besides
Plan E) on some corner lots. Suggest using some Plan B Floor Plans on corner lots with the one-
story element on the corner side yard. The following home plotting adjustments will provide a more
visually interesting street scene and alleviate side yard setback encroachments:
Re-orient home on Lot 16 to provide 5/10-foot side yard setbacks.
2. Plot Plan B home on Lots 20 and 23.
Plot Plans D or E homes on Lots 18 and 21.
The Committee should discuss whether it is essential to provide a single story home plan
and, if not, whether the architectural design of the homes sufficiently mitigates the impacts
of two-story homes.
4. Plan D rear elevation forms a long two-story wall plane at the minimum rear yard setback
on Lots 9, 12, and 13. Revise to break up the wall plane, incorporate single story elements,
and avoid "walling off' existing residences to the north.
The homes along the north project boundary have been completely redesigned with more
horizontal wall relief to break up the wall plane. Window pop-outs and belly bands are also
provided. The existing home sites to the north are approximately 10 feet higher than the
home sites within the project.
5. Increase decorative paving in shared driveways and provide more artistic pattern.
All driveways are now proposed to have concrete grid score lines and shared driveways will
have brick bands to add visual interest.
6. Upgrade the quality of the submittal package: include dimensions, colors, and materials on
each elevation, insert Floor Plans and Elevations in sequential order, add details to Site
Plan.
The revised plans are better than those previously submitted. Colors and materials are
called out on Elevations and Floor Plans are included. No revised Site Plan has been
submitted and the overall development package can stand further upgrading related to
detailed callouts (driveway paving), dimensions, and wall details/sections. Committee should
review building materials sample board and colors.
7. All walls visible from streets and all retaining walls shall be decorative masonry.
8. Provide a minimum of 2 trees per front yard area.
M
DRC ACTION AGENDA
TT 15955 -LEE
February 29, 2000
Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the plans be revised in light of the above
comments and any further Committee discussion and brought back for further review before
proceeding to Planning Commission.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staffs comments and the following
additional comments and brought back for further review:
1. The tract appears overly tight with insufficient lot depth and side yard setbacks. Eliminate Lot
9 and incorporate the extra land area into surrounding lots to provide a more open and useable
lot layout with more generous side yards. Maintain a minimum 15-foot setback between home
on Lot 10 and the south property line.
2. Vary grid pattern for driveway paving.
3. The Committee is in favor of eliminating the Plan E home plan and of increasing the percentage
of Plan B's floorplan.
4. Use Plan B (one-story) on corner lots whenever possible.
Members Present: Larry McNeil, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren September 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTSL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15955 -LEE - A residential
subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 23 single family lots on
4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located
on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 208-091-08.
Background: In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a tentative tract and design review
on this site fora 20-lot project (Exhibit "A"). Earlier this year, the Commission granted a time
extension, which extended the approvals for the 20-lot project until December 9, 1999. At this
time, the applicant is proposing an alternate street configuration with 23 lots.
Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to shift the tract entrance from the site's west
edge of its mid-point along the San Bernardino Road frontage. The lots range in size from
5,010 to 13, 230 square feet. The applicant is proposing four Floor Plans, ranging in size from
1,782 to 2,002 square feet.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
• regarding this project:
1. There are two flag lots (Lots 9 and 14) and a "difficult" lot, which does not meet lot depth
requirements (Lot 12). Eliminating one lot would provide better site design and flexibility
to satisfy all code requirements. Lots should have sufficient room to provide varied
setbacks along street frontages.
2. There is a lack of variation in the proposed Floor Plans and Elevations. Of the four Floor
Plans, three are nearly identical, with only one elevation each. The Planning
Commission's Residential Design Guidelines indicate for 23 lots, there should be five
Floor Plans with three Elevations each.
All lots are proposed to have two-story dwellings, using an architectural style that
emphasizes vertical massing. The surrounding neighborhood is predominately single
story. A revised architectural approach, and introduction of single story plan(s) on
corner lots and in strategic locations abutting existing single story neighborhoods is
recommended to address neighborhood compatibility.
Plan D rear elevation forms a long (48 feet), two-story wall plane at the minimum rear
yard setback on Lots 9, 12, and 13. Revise to break up the wall plane, incorporate
single story elements, and avoid "walling off' existing residences to the north.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
• 1. Increase decorative paving in shared driveways and provide more artistic pattern
(banding is monotonous). Remove decorative paving in the proposed public street.
• DRC COMMENTS
TT 15955 -LEE
September 14, 1999
Page 2
2. Upgrade the quality of submittal package: include dimensions, colors, and materials on
each elevation, insert Floor Plans and Elevations in sequential order, add details to Site
Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee continue the
project to allow revisions.
Attachment
n Review Committee Action:
•
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The developer requested a continuance to allow time for his development team to address
major issues identified in the Design Review Committee comments. The Committee agreed to
continue the project and provided the following direction:
1. The proposed street layout is acceptable.
2. Plans should be revised to address all major and secondary issues listed above.
3. Single story plan and/or single story elements are needed to address neighborhood
compatibility.
4. A neighborhood meeting is recommended.
tLJ
~_ •
~. ~~
r:... ,..
o.~.; ~..:n.. v.a.Y~~ ~.w
57t~OI1VO~OtVVJ....JI~IJVd
~~ VI OuS
i~
. ;;
I.
,;.
'~ ;
~
~ ~
7 .
;
...
\
,
';
~
~
~ ' /
J
~ 1. ;' ~
. ~_~- r-
.:
.., ~-~:
}~.
. ~. ~-
~~-,
--:.
. -, I
Ex~+tslT .,~~-,
.W.:. .,;~. ;.. ~ i
aaoJ ~o~,~nais~ of vt~ , 1 ~ ~ 1 ,
.I I '
~~
~:
I
~.:
~ ..
i.
i''
i ,,
I .~ ~
~._
I -
i '~~
,, ._
I
.`
u
I
•r~~
,.
-;
;~~ .
C7
O
a
--~ U
W U~
O
~ U
z
n
f
U
h
t .'~ ~ ,~
~i~ ,
~ -.. __ _ . it
. ~,
. ~--...
---, ,
t .
~~
;; :, .
M DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count February 29, 2000
AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 - RYLAND HOMES-
Low-Medium District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the
southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way - APN: 227-
131-005 and 227-141-011 and 012, Related Files: Variance 99-11, Tentative Tract 15911 and
15912.
Design Parameters: The Tentative Tract Maps were approved by the Planning Commission in
October 1998. As environmental mitigation for freeway traffic noise, high sound walls are required.
The highest sound walls will be along the south and east sides of the Tract 15911 site (northeast
corner of SPRR/East Avenue). The wall along the south side as high as 16 feet overall (retaining
wall plus free standing wall above) and along the east edge as high as 21 feet. The applicant has
submitted a request for a Variance (Variance 99-11) for the excessive wall height. The height of
the walls is proposed to be softened by a combined split face/fluted block design with vine planting
along the base trained to climb the walls.
The number of lots for the Tract 15911 site is proposed to be reduced from 26 to 23 to
accommodate a larger home plan than originally anticipated. Lot sizes range from 7,895 square
feet to 18,600 square feet (10,000 square foot average) and homes range from 2,566 square feet
to 3,300 square feet. Four home plans are proposed, each with four separate elevation types
(reverse plotting and side-on garage alternatives provide even greater variation). A pedestrian
paseo with river rock treatment (low maintenance) is provided at the east side of Tract 15911 site
connecting to a community horse trail.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The applicant has been working diligently with staff to resolve major issues. There are no
remaining outstanding major issues. The home designs are the same as were approved
for Tract 15798 (near the southwest corner of the Route 30 and I-15 Freeways) and
exhibit a high level of design integrity.
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 approved colors for Ryland Homes include a deep purple paint that is used extensively
on siding of certain elevations. The Committee should carefully review the proposed color
samples, and visit their existing homes in Tract 15798 (near the southwest corner of the
Route 30 and I-15 Freeways).
2. The East Avenue Parkway walls (stone pilaster with stucco walls and river rock planters) for
Tract 15912 site should have regularly spaced indents similar to or matching that of Tract
15911.
N 3. Rear yard fencing visible from public streets (at top of slope) shall be decorative masonry.
4. Rip-rap application for detention basin shall be as naturalized as possible.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DR 99-72 - RYLAND HOMES
February 29, 2000
Page 2
5. Retaining walls used in rear yard areas shall be decorative masonry and shall have vine
planting at top of wall to cascade down over walls.
6. The developer proposes split face block walls along the east and south tract boundaries
because it requires less maintenance. The north tract wall is proposed as stucco. The
Committee should discuss whether it is acceptable to have a wall material transition from
stucco to split face at the southwest and northeast corners of Tract 15911 (northeast corner
of East Avenue and SPRR). The established theme for the East Avenue Parkway wall is
stucco with stone pilasters. Stone covered pilasters are proposed at transition points.
7. Adjust pad elevations, wall heights, and slopes for lots along East Avenue to avoid
excessively high retaining walls (such as Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Tract 15912 and Lots 2 and 33
in Tract 15911).
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Fieldstone veneer shall be natural river rock as opposed to a manufactured product. The
developer mistakenly used manufactured river rock on Tract 15798 (near the southwest
corner of the Route 30 and I-15 Freeways); however, staff has issued a correction to remove
and replace with authentic river rock. Other types of stone veneers may be manufactured.
2. All walls visible from or facing a street shall be decorative masonry.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the above comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
The Committee recommends approval subject to staffs comments and the following:
1. Provide atwo-tone color scheme with the darker color on the base to mitigate visual impact of
excessively high walls along the south and east boundaries of Tract 15911.
2. Provide asingle-story home plotting along the north side of Tract 15911 to the degree possible.
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
~~
L_~
~~
February 29, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8.15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
d Bulle
Secretary
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 15, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members
Alternates:
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:00 p.m.
(Doug)
Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46 -CABOT
The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. Typically they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
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.
(Doug) E
7:40 p.m.
(Rudy)
ENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-61 -
HOGLE-IRELAND -The development of a 92,590 square foot industrial building on
4.68 acres of land in General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located on the north side of 7th Street between Archibald and Hellman
Avenues -APN: 209-171-18.
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - A residential
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTAT
1 -
on 15.63 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner of Base Line
Road and Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-091-45. Related file: Development
Review 99-48.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
site plan for Tentative Tract 16051 consisting of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres
• of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the
Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-091-45. Related file: Tentative Tract 16051.
• DRC AGENDA
February 15, 2000
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 10, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
C~
•
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
• 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn February 15, 2000
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-46 -CABOT
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee approved the applicant's revision of the office elevation entryway and modified the
45-foot average landscaping along Sixth Street.
•
I,. J
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Doug Fenn February 15, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-61- HOGLE-IRELAND
- The development of a 92,590 square foot industrial building on 4.68 acres of land in General
Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specifc Plan located on the north side of
7`h Street between Archibald and Hellman Avenues - APN: 209-171-18.
Design Parameters: The site is a 4.68 vacant acre parcel. There are two matureEucalyptus trees
in the middle of the site, a tree removal permit will be required to replace these trees. There is no
other significant vegetation on the site. The site slopes from north to south at an approximately
2 percent. The site is surrounded by industrial development to the north, east and west. To the
south across 7th Street are single-family residences. The proposed building is designed to be
utilized multiple tenants.
The building design will be oriented to front at least 157 lineal feet along 7th Street and the length
of the building (approximately 580 feet) will be along the east property line. The building will be
divided into six units with an average size of 15,500 square feet and each unit will have 800 square
feet of office space. The storage and loading areas face the west portion of the site and do not front
the 7th Street right-of-way. The building design features a raised 2-foot high parapet over the office
entryways of the building. The facility has weak 360 architecture. Most of the detail articulation is
along the front of the building and east elevation; however, the remaining portions (especially the
west side) of the building are very plane and simple (see major issues). The color variation of the
building is, of a "timeless gray," "smoky candle" and "twain blue" color scheme on a concrete tilt-up
facade (small amounts of sandblasted concrete) with blue reflective colored glazing accents.
• Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues:
1. Provide more sandblasted concrete in office portions. The amount provided is minimal and
does not meet intent of Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158.
2. Provide stronger vertical relief (increase the heights of the parapets) over office entryway(s),
and for the portion of the building that fronts 7th Street and portions of the building that is
visible from the public right-of-way.
Secondary Issues:
1. Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, minimum 4 feet high, around outdoor employee
eating areas:
2. For the main central loading area that is located in the middle of the building area, provide
5-foot wide landscape planters along the sides of the screen wall. This will help soften the
appearance of the screen walls.
3. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds, which may affect
truck loading operations. Due to driveway location policies, the building cannot be reversed
on-site; therefore, alternate methods should be explored.
• Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
Provide tables and chairs for outdoor employee eating area.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-61 - HOGLE-IRELAND
• February 15, 2000
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the
project subject to the modification as recommend above.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee approved the applicant's project
sandblasted concrete to the building elevations.
up on elevations, instead of at the ground plane.
subject to revisions to the entryways and more
Sandblasted concrete should be located higher
Provide stronger color contract consistent with colored elevations.
Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, minimum 4 feet high around outdoor eating area.
n
U
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:40 p.m. Rudy Zeledon February 15, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16051 - RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES- A residential subdivision of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres of land in the
Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan,
located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-091-45.
Related file: Development Review 99-48.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-48 - RICHMOND
16051 consisting of 78 single family lots on 15.63 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-091-45. Related file: Tentative Tract 16051.
Background: The project site was not part of the Victoria Planned Community; however, was
incorporated into the Victoria Community Plan in 1988. The tentative map application follows a
General Plan Amendment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment adopted for the project site
(May 1991), which changed the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Design Parameters: The project site is located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
• Rochester Avenue. The project site is bordered by a vacant parcel land to the north, which is
currently being utilized by the City as a temporary storage yard. To the west the project site is
bounded by Rochester Avenue, Base Line Road to the south and the Southern California Edison
Utility Corridor to the east. The site is currently vacant except for some scrub vegetation and has
a natural slope of approximately 2 to 4 percent from north to south.
The site is proposed to be developed under the Center Plot Development Standards of the Victoria
Planned Community. The proposal is for the subdivision of 15.63 acres of land into 78 single-family
lots. The lots will range in size from 5,803 square feet to 11,385 square feet, with an average size
lot of 6,563 square feet.
Three two-story house plans are being proposed, each having three different elevation styles.
House Plan 1 is proposed to have a 3 car side-on garage. House Plans 2 and 3 are proposed to
have 3 car front-on garages, with the option for a den or office in place of the third garage. Lots that
side or rear on to Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard are proposed to have enhanced rear
and side elevations to include second-story pop-outs (option for 6-foot deck), wood shutters, and
corbel detail to second story windows.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
• 1. Provide greenbelt "paseo" trail connection at intersection at Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue Tract 13281, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue, included a trail connection, at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue. The purpose of the "paseo" connection is to provide a convenient
pedestrian access from the subdivision to the bus bay on Base Line Road (see Exhibit "A").
DRC COMMENTS
TT 16051 & DR 99-48 -RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
• February 15, 2000
Page 2
Without a trail, the nearest access would be 500-600 feet away at "A" and "E" Streets.
Greenbelt trails are one of the dominant features of the Victoria Planned Community.
2. The Planning Commission's Residential Design Guidelines requires a project of this size
(78 single family homes) to have a minimum number of 7 floor plans and 4 elevations per
each floor plan. The project is proposing 6 floor plans (reverse footprints included), with
4 elevations per plan. Either provide a 7U' floor plan or introduce aside-on garage for house
Plan 2 or 3.
3. Provide 360 degree architectural treatment to all elevations by using the "Enhanced
Elevations" on all lots. Architectural details proposed on all front elevations, shall be
incorporated into the side and rear elevations. These architectural details shall include
window mullions, wood shutters, and potshelves.
4. Elevations -Staff believes the homes are attractive; however, suggest the following
refinements:
A. Plan 1
• 1) The three house plans proposed are overly boxy and do not have enough
variation. Additional architectural treatment is needed to help differentiate the
dwelling units from one another, which could include but is not limited to the
following detail (see Exhibit "B"):
a. Changes in roof level and plane.
b. Second story recession and projections.
c. Additional window treatment.
2) Wainscoting treatment shall be continued along the entire lower building plan of
the garage and carried around to the side elevation and end at the return wall or
logical point.
B. Plan 2
1) To avoid a streetscape dominated by 3-car garages, the 2-car garage with window
option shall become a standard option; therefore making the 3-car garage
proposed a bonus option.
C. Plan 3
1) Continue the wainscoting treatment along left side of the 2-car garage. In
addition, carry the treatment around to the front and left side of the 1- car
garages.
• 2) To provide addition variation between the elevations, vary fenestration treatment
to second story windows.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 16051 & DR 99-48 -RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
• FEBRUARY 15, 2000
Page 3
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Vary the design of chimney stacks proposed per Plan. Consider the use of accent materials
used on the houses, such as brick or stone
2. The proposed project does include special landscape treatment to the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue; however, the design should be consistent with the
design and layout used and on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester
Avenue.
Policy issues: The following items area matter of the Planning Commission and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Provide recreational vehicle storage (12-foot minimum side yard) on at least 20 percent of
the lots as required by the Victoria Community Plan (Ordinance 287). Although this is a
"technical issue" the project must be redesigned to comply, which will mean the loss of
about 6 lots. Only 3 out of the 78 lots are wide enough to accommodate a 12-foot side yard
for RV storage.
• Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the project be revised and returned to the Design
Review Committee, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission.
Attachment
n Review Committee Action:
Members Present: John Mannerino, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner Rudy Zeledon
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staffs comments with
the following changes:
The proposed paseo connection, introduced by the applicant at the meeting, was
conceptually approved by the Committee members.
2. The introduction of an additional Floor Plan was not needed. The Committee felt that
there was enough variation between the six Floor Plans being proposed.
3. The Committee was satisfied with the four elevation styles proposed for house Plan 1.
The Committee determined that as a whole, the three house plans being proposed had
significant architecture variation that would provide for a varied streetscape.
• 4. Enhance the side elevations of all house products, by incorporating the use of window
mullion treatment as shown on all front elevations.
•
0
v
4
1
A
c~
~o
a~ ~
•~ ~--~
0
7
4
• C'.
~I
YYfI
~;:
i?e
1
~
4 . l K. •~ r - ~ a •
~~ ' ~.
~ ~ ~ -iii ~ '• '
:r 177 di : iii x ~
.
. ^ I
iii ~Y ~ iii
~ I •. ej Y ® S } iii %'~
1
ra
1
v F
•a
v.
~~-
:
i
'
!. ..
.
B f e~ d~e p g e u ~
p ~3~S FaBa ~4~ s6~ ~ S4~ ~ t0 a ~ #~j ~~
3~~1,9893~ ~43~~i ~1~ ~~ e Q Wj ~°~
00000000• s w++++us »5 ~ x 4
•I I ° ~ g a
F ~ ~ I 8 ~ I I. ~ L' ~~~ ~~3
I 1 _
$ ~! I=
-~~ ' iii ~ - x. - b•; 'I a
r
• .. _
e•
W ..
~~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~~~~ Il1 ~~~~ 'N
~ 1 ~ ~mei'
~~/. `
~ .~.. i/ ~ ~ 111 ~~ ~ -~~1~ ~~~ ~ Y
...~ `\ 1 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ill i '1 4
1~ ai iii ~ _
=+- iii,-_ i .. - ...,
7~' _ '~1, I .~~ T
111,, \:Y. • ~/; ~\'I •'~ •® ~ i ..~~.~ L~
_t- iii - • s:> _ - p3
~ •~ ~ rii ~I~l W .; ~. ~ 1
~:O". ^z•'~.'{' iii ..- _
n i:i ' i .'iii .r i• ~ } ~i\" .~' `_-_ ,A '• -' _'- I ..iii J 'e
::]~ _ •1.• `~ I S _ .}. '.J1 ~?1 ll is f!! ? M y
~ •~
v1 ~ .L ~ ~ ~.I ? ..1 2~ ~l
'
iii •_f- { , -:y ii! - ^e !ii ' : iai
.
. ~. ii"a ~ :\ p
= ~
I I 'J
/! I I /I
,/ ! ',
,~ 5(~~I
X15/~ _.~
,:
--.,~ ,.od ._..- ~L..e ---i
{~AS~
~_
~•
Q
,T'
~1r ~ ( t !1~ ~" a~3E
g::~ ~
~x k~i
~~~I ~
,. ~
a,d ~
ol~l~llli~j~l~1
w~a!!!1~_la~~7llt
u
~¢_eeeeann na aana
J
! d ~ A 1
~!~j5~s!l~1~3
!],~fll?ll~~t!
.........~_yy
oQ
Q~
~~
~ o
~~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• FEBRUARY 15, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
.~i~~~~
Brad Buller
Secretary
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2000 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart
Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
Dan Coleman
John Mannerino
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.
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. Typically they are items such
as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting.
NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the
Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five
minutes per individual.
ADJOURNMENT
1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 27, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to
fhe meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga.
•