HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/09/15 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER C71
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corkran Nicholson
Alternates: Ray Wimberly Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher
CONSENT CALENDAR
NO ITEMS SUBMITTED.
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.
(Daniel/Cam) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19043 - HUGO LEPE - A request to subdivide a
property of 2.43 acres into two (2) parcels in the Estates Residential District, within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north side of Amber Lane approximately
370 feet west from the centerline of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0225-111-37. This
action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land divisions.
7:20 p.m.
(Tabe/Willie) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17512 —
RCM GROUP - A request to subdivide 42,743 square feet of land into 4 parcels in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related Files: Development
Review DRC2006-00214, Variance DRC2007-00964 and Minor Exception
DRC2007-00252.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00214 - RCM GROUP - The review of site plans
and elevations for four single-family residences on a 42,743 square foot site in the
Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related Files:
SUBTPM17512, Variance DRC2007-00964, and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
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
September 15, 2006
Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
I, Gail Elwood„ Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate
copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 3, 2009, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting
per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Daniel Correa September 15, 2009
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19043 - HUGO LEPE - A request to subdivide a property of
2.43 acres into two (2) parcels in the Estates Residential District, within the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located on the north side of Amber Lane approximately 370 feet west from the centerline of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0225-111-37. This action is categorically exempt per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land
divisions.
Site Characteristics: The project site is located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The 2.43-acre site is
located on the north side of Amber Lane, west of Etiwanda Avenue. The parcel is generally square in
shape with overall dimensions of approximately 320 feet from east to west and about 330 feet from north
to south. The grade difference between the north and south property lines is approximately 15 feet. The
lots to the north are zoned Very Low Residential, and the lot to the south is zoned Estate Residential and
is developed with a school.
Proiect Overview: The applicant proposes subdividing the site into 2 lots. There are no existing
house(s) or structure(s) on the property. The lots exceed all City development requirements.
Amber Lane presently dead ends and does not meet the Fire Services vehicle emergency turnaround
requirement; therefore, the applicant has proposed a temporary vehicle turnaround located between the
two lots to remain in place until Amber Lane is fully developed.
The Equestrian Overlay Plan requires that equestrian trail and/or feeders be provided on all lots. The
housing tract to the north has developed a 15-foot wide trail along their southern property line. The
applicant has requested use of the existing trail and was unable to secure consent from all of the
property owners. The applicant proposes constructing a new 15-foot wide trail directly adjacent to the
existing trail to meet the trail requirement.
Staff Comments: Staff concludes that the proposed subdivision will be well-integrated into the overall
design of the existing surrounding lots.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Daniel Correa
Members Present:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag September 15, 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL' REVIEW AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17512 - RCM GROUP - A
request to subdivide 42,743 square feet of land into 4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24.
Related Files: Development Review DRC2006-00214, Variance DRC2007-00964 and Minor Exception
DRC2007-00252.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00214 - RCM GROUP - The review of site plans and elevations for
four single-family residences on a 42,743 square foot site in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24.
Related Files: SUBTPM17512, Variance DRC2007-00964, and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
Site Characteristics: The 42,743 square foot project site is located at the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and Beryl Street. The site is surrounded by existing residential development with the
same Residential Low (L) zoning designation. The site has an approximate 6-percent slope and drains
roughly from north to south.
Project Overview: The applicant proposes subdividing the 42,743 square foot site into 4 lots. The
Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map were submitted in March of 2006. Staff has determined
and made commitments that while the site is 2 percent (817 square feet) deficient of meeting the density
requirement of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, it meets the intent of the density requirement of the Low
Residential District and is consistent with the surrounding area. Because of the small size and layout of
the project site, the Engineering Department has accepted the applicant's request to develop the site
with a reduced cul-de-sac bulb.
Taken together, the project size, layout, and reduced cul-de-sac lead to one of the lots not being able to
meet the lot width requirement at both the front property line and the front yard setback. The applicant
has submitted a request to reduce the front property line lot width requirement from 40 feet to 22 feet and
the lot width at the front yard setback from 60 feet to 49 feet — 6 inches. The applicant has also
submitted a request for a Minor Exception to construct combination retaining/free standing walls with a
measured height of 8 feet. The retaining walls are necessary because of the grade difference between
the project site and the properties to the north and west.
The sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1-8,678 square feet, Lot 2 - 10,466 square feet,
Lot 3 - 9,059 square feet, and Lot 4-7,602 square feet. The lot average is 8,951 square feet, which is
951 square feet greater than the required 8,000 square foot lot average requirement. Previous staff also
determined that Lots 1 and 2 front Base Line Road, which is classified as a Major Arterial and has a
required streetscape setback of 45 feet from the curb face. The minimum front yard setback in the
Residential Low District is 37 feet +/- 5 feet. All of the lots meet this requirement as well as the side and
rear setback requirements.
Design Comments: The living area of the proposed houses range in size from 2,243 to 2,357 square
feet. All of the houses are single-story designs with attached two-car garages. The project consists of
two floor plans with two different elevations per floor plan. While the applicant has worked with staff to
enhance the proposed designs, staff analysis concludes that the proposed houses are generic and do
not meet the City's minimum architectural design requirements. Staff has directed the applicant to
choose a recognizable architectural style and carry the architectural details associated with that style to
•
DRC AGENDA
SUBTPM17512 AND DRC2009-00214 — RCM GROUP
September 15, 2009
Page 2
all elevations. The plans indicate that Models B and C are designed to resemble Traditional architecture
style, while no architectural style is listed for Models A and D. Staff is hard pressed to identify a
recognizable architectural style in the proposed designs other than the broad category of California
Ranch. Additionally, each design has minimal variation in either the wall or roof planes on the side and
rear elevations, providing little visual interest to these elevations.
Staff is also concerned that the footprints of houses plotted on Lots 3 and 4 (Models A and C) are too
large relative to their lot size. The lot coverage is 36.2 percent for Lot 3 and 39.9 percent for Lot 4
(maximum permitted lot coverage is 40 percent). While the single-story design helps reduce privacy
issues with the surrounding property owners, it may be advisable to redesign the houses to incorporate a
modest second story element. This would accomplish two objectives: 1) It would help reduce the size
of the footprint and 2) add more variation in the roof plane in order to give them more visual interest.
Maior Issues:
1. As discussed above, the elevations do not meet the City's minimum architectural requirements and
lack sufficient variation in the roof and wall planes. The architecture needs to be enhanced in order
to meet the City's design requirements.
Secondary Issues:
1. The footprints of the houses on Lots 3 and 4 are too large, relative to the lot size.
2. The plotting of the houses on Lots 3 and 4 should be modified to increase the building separation
between the two houses. They are now each set 5 feet back from the property line separating
them.
3. Consideration should be giving to reversing the floor plans on Lots 3 and 4 in order to orient the
garages next to each other so that they can share a single drive approach. This will decrease the
length of the driveway on Lot 3 and increase the amount of area available for landscaping.
4. The shed roof over the living room window on Model A appears tacked on. Consideration should
be given to extending the living/dining room in order to provide a change in the wall plane on the
rear elevation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant make architectural changes outlined in
the comments above, and incorporate all comments made by the Design Review Committee into a
revised design. Because of the scope of necessary revisions, staff recommends that the project be
rescheduled for a future Design Review Committee meeting to review revisions made by the applicant
prior to being scheduled for review by the Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag
Members Present: