Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/20 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca 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. (Donald) PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT DRC2011-00824 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on the use of metal roof material to simulate composition, tile and barrel tile roofs for dwelling units within Residential Development Districts. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. 7:20 p.m. (Steve) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2010-00318M - RYLAND HOMES - A request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages be two-car garages within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North . Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-121-24 through 30; 1087-141-43 through 52, 57; 1087-171-44 through 51; 1087-351-0lthrough 05, 12 through 18, 45, and 46; 1087-361-01 through 30. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. 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. DRC AGENDA September 20, 2011 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 7, 2011, 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. Donald Granger September 20, 2011 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT DRC2011-00824 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on the use of metal roof material to simulate composition, tile and barrel tile roofs for dwelling units within Residential Development Districts. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. Background The current policy of the Planning Department, based on the past direction of the Planning Commission, is not to permit the installation of metal roofs on residential structures. This policy is based on the following two sections of the Development Code: Section 17.08.040-S: Roofing Materials. All new development within residential districts shall have roofing material made of tile, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles. Other roofing materials such as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, may be approved by the Design Review Committee, if it is determined by the Design Review Committee that the roof material enhances the building design. Roofing materials for additions and accessory structures shall be governed by Section 17.08.0601f, Special Development Criteria. Section 17.08.090-D-2-x (General Design Guidelines): Use roofing material made of tile, slate, copper, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, that will upgrade the character and the visual quality of the structure. Historically, based on the these two sections of the Development Code, the Planning Department's re-roof operating policy for existing single-family homes is like material to like material (e.g., composition to composition) or a material upgrade (e.g., composition to tile). In August of 2011, the Planning Department received a request from a resident who had removed his existing composition roof to install a metal roof that simulates composition. Based upon the existing policy, the Planning staff denied the permit at the counter; the resident subsequently appealed the Planning Director's decision to the Design Review Committee for consideration. At the August 2, 2011, Design Review Committee meeting, the Design Review Committee received testimony from a resident, a metal roofing contractor, and a,metal roofing manufacturer regarding the aesthetic, environmental, wind, solar, and energy benefits of metal roofs. Following the testimony and discussion, Chairman Munoz directed staff to prepare a report analyzing the benefits and negative aspects of metal roofs that imitate tile for use on residential dwelling units. Chairman Munoz requested that staff provide a comprehensive analysis of metal roofs that includes the following: • Aesthetics • Noise • Structural and wind load requirements DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 2 • Life span and walkability factors • Energy efficiency and green building compatibility • Survey of the surrounding cities regarding polices on the use metal roofs for residential structures The Planning staff surveyed a total of 14 cities, and the information is presented in the tables that follow, along with discussion and analysis. Analysis Table 1 ;Lira] h,•—ittitY�7 '14-1li 7C1t1 @G7 fa••YG Rancho Code permits"imitation tile" Metal roofs currently not permitted by policy on new construction or re-roofs Cucamon•a Ontario Code is silent P•h : R-vi-w • - ••• --•Airik a•r-wn.____aal•nmarnn n�n•n•i Jam' Irvine Yes Permits the followin• metal roofs: tile,barrel tile,and com•osition San Marino Code is silent Polic : San Marino refers re•uests for metal roofs to the Desi•n Review Committee La Verne Code is silent Pali : P- it t - f•II• •nearhnr•il.sim•san•. Chino No New roofs: concrete or cla U•land Code is silent Polic : Metal roofs are •ermitted on new construction and re-roofs Fontana Code is silent Polic : Metal roofs re•uire submittal and review. Claremont Yes •• a•..ra.r.Iraniraw7mxl.uuu..tnrxrthaw a e o - c - • .I San Dimas Yes Permits all t •es metal roofs standin• seam,tile,barrel tile,com•osition Monterey Park Code permits variety of Metals roofs are permitted on new construction and re-roofs residential roof material Yorba Linda Code is silent Metals roofs are •ermitted on re-roofs Pico Rivera Code permits metal roofs that Metal roofs must be "formed and finished" to accurately simulate. Metals roofs simulate tile,shake or shin•le 'ermined on re-roofs Montclair Code is silent P•Ii `RW II:41 a9•F.a•YFY-0•PGM:6Y-a•Y-CYFa(9�•r at•L1.1.11•GUS•nI•]•tl•Y.Illq/II�' Arcadia Yes Permits the followin• metal roofs: tile, barrel tile, cam•osition with conditions Staff selected the above cities based upon the following criteria: adjacency to Rancho Cucamonga (Upland, Fontana, and Ontario); comparable size (Fontana, Ontario and Irvine); reputation for quality and comprehensive architectural review (San Marino, Claremont, San Dimas, and Arcadia); sampling of Southern California (balance of cities). Of the 14 cities surveyed (Table 1), 6 of the cities permit the use of metal roofs by their respective zoning codes (Arcadia, Claremont, Irvine, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, and San Dimas); 7 have zoning codes that are currently "silent" on the use of metal roofs on residential structures (Fontana, Montclair, La Verne, Ontario, San Marino, Upland, and Yorba Linda); and the City of Chino is the only city whose Code does not permit metal roofs (new structures and re-roofs). Of the 7 cities that have zoning codes that are silent on the use of metal roofs for residential structures, all of the cities either have operating polices that either permit metal roofs or review them on a case-by-case basis for neighborhood compatibility. Supplemental Requirements by City City of Upland: Upland permits the removal of a concrete tile roof and the installation of tile, traditional composition or a metal roof that simulates tile or composition. City of San Marino: San Marino's standing protocol for a metal roof request is to refer it to the Design Review Committee for consideration; if approved, it would be added to the list of pre-approved roofing materials. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00824– CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 3 City of Claremont: Claremont utilizes a holistic approach and reviews roof material concurrent with the architecture and must make series of findings that the overall design meets standards. City of Arcadia: Arcadia includes a series of conditions of approval to ensure aesthetic quality and architectural authenticity. Building Code Requirements • Structural Requirements and Integrity: The Planning staff researched the use of metal roofs with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building and Safety Department and asked a series of questions regarding the installation of structural requirements of metal roofs. Following is summary of the discussion: • Metal roofs are walkable, but additional care must be taken to avoid damaging the roof • Wind clips and the use of battens beneath the metal are required when the manufacturer's specifications require it. • Installations should be done by a contractor familiar with bending metal and the aspects of installing a metal roof that is aesthetically pleasing (i.e., valleys, rake, start of ridge). Quality craftsmanship is critical for the successful installation of a metal roof. • The Uniform Building Code permits up to two layers of roof material to be installed before a complete tear off is required. Since metal is one of the lightest products, it is an ideal choice for re-roofs. • Metal roofs have the potential to mitigate impacts from earthquakes since the lateral loads are substantial, less than other materials, especially concrete tile. The weight per square of the most common residential roof materials is shown in Table 2. Table 2 PRODUCT WGT. PER SQ. (1-SQ. = 100 SQ. FT.) Steel Roofing 125 lbs. Standard (3-Tab) Asphalt Shingles 190 — 215 lbs. Wood Shake/Shingle* 250 — 300 lbs.* Heavy Weight Laminated Asphalt Shingles ; 290—430 lbs. Clay/Concrete Tiles* 900— 1200 lbs.* Souce:www.metalroof mart.com Fire, Hail, Wind, and Rain: Metal roofs receive very high scorecard marks for fire, wind and hail resistance. Metal roofs have the highest fire rating (Class A), a non-combustible rating under the Building Code, a 120 mph-plus wind resistance rating (F2 Tornado equivalent), and are impact hail resistant (class IV). One manufacturer, Metro panels, received the highest impact resistance rating from Underwriters Laboratories. According to Metro, except under the most extreme storms, Metro panels show no visible effects from impacting hail stones. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 4 Acoustic Analysis Rain noise: Research indicates that stone-coated metal roofs provide substantial sound attenuation because the stone coating provides energy absorption and the dead air space between the metal roof and decking provide sound attenuation. Non-stone coated metal roofs, however, are known to generation moderate to substantial amounts of noise when measured from close distances (less than 50 feet). Interviews with industry professionals indicate that residential occupants with stone coated metal roofs do not complain about rain generated noise, and that the only likely scenario that would generate a compliant be from an adjacent owner concerned about the noise level emanating from or generated by a non-coated metal roof (e.g., an adjacent barn with corrugated metal roof). Manufacturing Product Types: Metal roofs can virtually emulate all types of traditional residential roofing materials. Metal roofs are available in barrel tile, shake, shingle, and composition. Environmental Impacts and Green Building Manufacturing: Today, many construction materials are recycled for various purposes, including landfill waste reduction and material re-purposing. Metal roofs are made of steel and often use recycled steel in the manufacturing process (up to 30 percent recycled content), which is environmentally sensitive. Solar Absorption/Reflection: Metal roofs receive excellent marks for energy efficiency. A steel roof system moves air both between the shingles and the underlying deck, as well as moving air from vents under the decking. Heated air is allowed to dissipate through the ridgeline as cooler air is drawn through eave vents. Reduced energy bills can result from airflow both under and over the decking. Green Building Score Card: If recycled steel is utilized during the manufacturing process, then metal roofs qualify as green construction building material and score 1-2 points for a LEED® certification. Once installed, metal roofs dissipate heat quickly because of air gaps between the metal and roof deck and the heat loss properties of metal. As such, metal roofs score well for energy efficiency and contribute to lower energy consumption. Once the lifespan of the metal roof has been exhausted, up to 100 percent of the material can be recycled. Construction Field Survey The Planning staff arranged for a field tour of residential structures with metal roofs and conducted a site visit with a residential roofing contractor. The Planning staff surveyed the metal roofs for aesthetics, architectural simulation, color, and weathering. Below is a summary of the type of roofs surveyed and field review comments. Staff used the following rating system in the three evaluation categories: poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. Barrel Tile: Color and material quality: Very Good Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Very Good to Excellent Photo: Exhibit A DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 5 Half Barrel Tile: Color and material quality: Excellent Architectural authenticity: Excellent • Installation quality: Excellent Photos: Exhibits B, C, and D Shake: Color and material quality: Very Good Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Very Good to Excellent Photo: Exhibit E Flat Tile: Color and material quality: Excellent Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Excellent Photos: Exhibits F and G Table 3 below indicates the roof type from the field survey and any applicable notes. Table 3 City Roof Type Notes/Comments Pomona,Philips Barrel Tile • Ranch Pomona, Phillips Half Barrel Tile Ranch Pomona, Phillips Shake Ridge pieces must lie flat/match slope of roof; do not Ranch overlap fascia Pomona, Phillips Flat Tile Must have open cut valleys Ranch Summary Findings and Conclusion: From staff's research, nearly all municipalities either permit the use of metal roofs by Code, policy or on a case-by-case basis if the material is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and compliments the architectural style of the dwelling unit. The City of Arcadia provided useful information to staff in the preparation of this report, including the following 5 conditions of approval that are attached to every roof permit: 1. The roof shall have open cut valleys. 2. A drip-edge overhang shall be provided at the eaves. 3. The edges shall not be exposed more than two inches. 4 The starter of the ridge shall be cut and bent neatly. 5. No trim tiles shall be used on the rake of the gable roof. DRC AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 6 Metal Roof Advantages/Disadvantages: Staff research concludes that metal roofs, like other roof materials, possess advantages and disadvantages. Below is a summary of the pros and cons: Pros: Durable (25 year plus color/aesthetic lifespan; 50 to 100 year plus functional lifespan); fire-retardant; maintenance free; good scorecard for energy efficiency (34 percent less heat absorption than asphalt shingles; green product (high utilization of recycled metal in manufacturing process-can be 50 percent or more; can be installed over other systems, thus reducing landfill waste); lower energy bills; lighter structural loads, which is advantageous in areas known to experience earthquakes. Cons: Price premium relative to other some materials (i.e., asphalt shingles); some loss of architectural integrity on some types (i.e., barrel tile); installation is more intricate; more care must taken when walking for maintenance purposes or when roof accessibility is required. Staff Recommendation: Re-roofs: Staff finds the use of metal roofs that mimic tile, barrel tile, and shake to be an acceptable material choice for all types residential re-roofs, even if the tear-off material is concrete tile. Should the City of Rancho Cucamonga opt to change its currently policy and permit metal re-roofs, in order to ensure that roof installations meet the desired aesthetic levels the City expects, staff recommends that the five conditions of approval that the City of Arcadia utilizes be attached to roof permits. For re-roofs that propose the use of metal, the Planning Director has the authority to draft a policy based on the input of the Design Review Committee and the current Development Code (Section 17.02.050). New Construction: Should the Committee also conclude that metal roofs are an acceptable material choice for new residential roofs, no Development Code Amendment is required, as the Code currently requires that "tile, or imitation thereof" be used and also states the following: "Other roofing materials such as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, may be approved by the Design Review Committee, if it is determined by the Design Review Committee that the roof material enhances the building design." For re-roofs that propose the use of metal, the Planning Director has the authority to draft a policy based on the input of the Design Review Committee and the current Development Code (Section 17.02.050). Staff also recommends that the Committee receive the report and provide input and direction as the Committee deems appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: a -- ' (7 , I 's . \ . • lk 4 Nit i EXHIBIT A ..."-. .1 . ; , • -i w -- ,,• 1.,... P r .- ) . ... *..' • -77...- ,.'■ .. _. -. ., ,. I 111111111-141 ,. ,fi,i - i.,...•• .i . 2-1,-,,,rt. :,.'-.--:."..- . . '..7. lir • -...)k . . '14, . . ---.'''t - • 1. .:7.,-■ . • .., _ • -...., ' ...- i ----• I.-.,--- 1 ....--- .• ... 1111 I . -- 1 -. . I 11 ---- 1 1\ It 1 ■ ....'...,..„ .., .... 4 11 ' ill i 11 .... ..... ii 11 .,. 1 4.01 .,,, .............._,. .•._. __... ,J . • , . .. 1 • . • r .. - . i I . ..,...-•,.•:;:.-...:.:' ,I, ••.. . , ....,.......,•,...,. ..„..; ,i, , i ::...:-. - .11 i 1 •- • .': • : 4 - _..., • ••11 .. , ' nAr r...... . ,. . ,..., • I. 1 1.-•. 11!'i , 14:::■.?C' ",,:":;:'''.• :. , i . • P:' -, . ... .,-.. . ..... ,...z, ....„:.... ., C--::..:',.:1" ‘,.,, • 7.,.-.:.,-:. •i .. - • . . . -4, : - ..; . -_ ....' -- EXHIBIT B .:. '..!...:1',, E•,.#,=7:-!..;3r---=----_—,,----• _. .., , # ,.... i k)141elii 0", , , .' 8. ■ITO f kiliii lile::iii li 4:voie iveAi t%:7, 1111 1 i ii i 1/2 i i li i ili‘ A iikti il 4t I ''■'Iii• ikii ii iTi 4( -I thiAiLltililil f : .,, I! : , 'e4t '''' •' . ' d' •.. 7 ,, ;P,., ,-- ; . , ... (1,cccccSciic ..._ ,. 4... I . . /Ifirjc(1(cCcCcCI\))ic . ..... i. '''' , Pt!t 11 I (t I li 0 1 illiiit(e /I i • J 9 I( VI I I ( 11 II( rifi 11(1)‘i\ ,yoillif tt ilicti c .,.— . otl'iltilot!,?!'‘if I! ..--t,- - , „,,,,:, 1f 1 o .. i . ---;,-....y 7 ...„ 3,..: , • - \.. . , ., . • • • , klif,,,:,,,,.;;ti EXHIBIT C -::.14t; :„. ' i-• 1 , , . 4 . ., , ,:,.,.... ......:,.._, .,,;.. .0 _,. . . . , .: ... .. ...,......... . . .",„::,..,.._.:,... ..-..11;:s- -- '.f.",--',-,., --,#. '.* :•/: '", ., '-'.'.."-- "-..i St ''- -, - -.'. :J.9-1-'1.11,0-4..-;4.it-.,.1"."'''... -4 . , — ''' ,,,„, .,,.....,,,,i.,,,,,-,. .,..:„., .., -!!.. ,__-- - -...,- .-.... .."...t i - ' - " '`.,46,,,.-- "."l-f.c..,,t:,.. ...-...-.,„"" -I. ' -'',':'.:..,i'-'-,;,i'.,;;;:.‘5fii",,t!',::;--','":-.-.-.":.' -- . -"e-2-..' -'t'-'•--.- 'tit t- - : ' ..,./oori,i'01,*: ,-".-° ''dr--;'- .,_.tt - .", .`:. - ' I' -N - ....-- , -.----,i;-. -`', . . 1 it-.. .,,‘,-,4 _ t 4-c-..X. - - - • .''-'";.,':'-,!-''.*'H,T..:-... .:-::.-,..'''':',:"'"'','i",.,'I':-4':'''''.ifi'"!:;::'''-'::'':'":.".:.I'''-.:,1','-:,.'',,''-'',- - ' -'-''.=,,,..:,::.4t- , :-'-if' ' ',, , , _ . „ , . . ,i - - - - .„ „ „. . , , r- ' fs --:'----' -- ' ,_ . , ... „ , , , -.. - „,_. . , . . . . _ I ,f.,:---',:-,',,,,;:-T.,-,'," ; --;.1: 11111113 '-'-' 1 I 1' - : I PS. ._ . . - :','''..",',- - .. ' \_\_11\"" -) °to'''- ' ' — 7 ''' in - . :„!,,,,,-;,,:-_-.":".,.-:. - '-' .1t): 41,. 1 .- , 1 1..-. , . . . . - -7 . . , i , , ., ... . . ,., - . - .- -%'-,,,,,,,..-..-,,,'..„,. , - ' • , ti.- - _- I 1) ) - -- . ... .„. • . .. ,..,„. , ,. -_ . . , ,,,._„ ,„. , , 1 . , , .,, . . ., . „. ,. . „ - , ... , _ ,„„ , --•,,, , . , ,,, , , . . , , , %.1t4..--„,"..-",.:--:-..,, - - . -- . , ,. . ...';',7,..--.:!:.-'-':,-",.°Z.',.;,,,,..".„.,:.,...„,..,:,,,,,_ '' , . , . , .. ,.'-;;.gs:&,-.."-"'''-g'-'"•"''''''' - ' 3 ''' ' .,.. . .., . ;',5•fiiik.--...0',.-,,:,:-,:".--"--"-- . f ' .; . i';':'''''''.,..?2013..i.'t.,,,..„10.'..'11;.''il'?'''' ''...;;:::'.''''':;. ' '' ' ),C i ' i , . ,. . . ,. . , . `,14:111f0iit.?',?.'','.-'::: ' \ ' ., . . , , . ....,... . ..- . . .',',;r,.'..,;;;;.ii,N..4,...:...#9t,:fi..,.,:.s...::- . . . ..„ ... . . . .,...,,,,,,,;.,*4, .,---,,.-,.._-,...- .. .. ,-„,,,,,,ekttT44---,-,...,,-....,,,,- . is 1 it . ., .. ,, -. - ,:-6,,,,,4,.*?i,10,',5?-ns. j:- ‘'' '- i f, ' :,.:;=-R,,,,,,,..,.1.-ze.ok.4k--,A..-?P.,--.---- - i - . i • -,....i,,,,,p,,...,,.....,1.,,,,..-.:... ..' - : . :1;,-,,'0,3'..c•IM-5.,.. ,,,,;,',"•',,',.'"="','.:'' 1 \ ( . ••,•-• ,,,,, ,,,,„,.,,,,, ., , ,. ,. , .,,..,,,I*,,4.,,, , ) i . ■ "?{',',,j,'41,i,t..4.,.A.'"". '3'.''''''' 1 i . P tg : '''''''.,;;;',VV.,',-';,,k,":,,,Z:''''''+ ' ''' ''' ) '' ..,,,,,7,:t!',..71.;,:6:1'IT '1' ' ' .. )e S 1 A,,:,-1 ''''. ,,,,, ',1152ii3;;ItV ,1-'11-"''''''''':" ' ' ;‘ ''''--0 ' .11_6:5'.1. ' iNg-tx*.,...4‘,i.-e'-'..,::'-'",-:.'--; '' °;.' ' i f — r. ,, . , , ., .-- , , ) ,. ) 't'.iliwi'lki.4.,:,),-,i.,-,,,,r,:,:::,,,, , ., .#., , ...*:--:-1,44--"ii ----,"'",-,'' -, -,' ------"°1 4 ? . ,, ,. ,i .g .., . Ap'..j .. '-:;;Ttr.:%;.:: ',, '''' ' ''-,:,'.,4,,,`,..`,/•:,,',. '.:, ,,,,„ :,: ,..,-:-.,,-. l' t ' '.‘ . . . ,. ,. . ,., '4 ' -*.. ,' : • ' , ,,, ''e';;:.,,,i,',..,',,,:'',,. . ..„.,,,, , ) , :.,, ,1 ' "...!.:111E1',",:';',',..,.-'1''''.'' ' '..', __..._:"..-1,-:-:-.0-7,:',-.2:44:, : ''' ,:', ' ' ', ,- . .'1 ('‘) 1 ' .1 - , .,..`"":!:;','''''' '' '-.7`''''''''"--''''''.- t':): ( ? . , - ,„,,..,,,, , . .4 i, ., -''''''-:`,}=:„;;;;',..,:\":,;, " '... , -,;.,,,,-- -'''''*)(',(4 . ,',1,41,,,:•;::,--:"',,,' -'''''.'''''''''''' i ,'1\•? ‘11.‘ (, ik ' - .:7.*;1:: ,,,,,,. , , i 7, k, ii, 4 ‘ . t • s, r(/ q'' ) ; ,. ....„, „.„.. , ( '1.', ' . , ..142,;;:''`'' '''-' le ' .‘(? ' ,, 044''',;...?.e.i,'4:3'S'.'..'S' ' ) Zi1+:11."..''X:,;7:',",.-'' ,' .'' ' — 07t.".;.:,':41::"':.:11?''' .. 1' ''' '1 \ ; f ,„ iikz,ily,r.--., :- ', ', . --- - - :,( (,' ( % f ....?,.. ,-. - .,,-,.:,. - - - ,!i(',1‘t( -1',1\E i( , , , v'' (, ? ( - L', ', ' , . . --'4, e it(.., -, , 1,, : .- . „ , iy,(;%,,,..ik,fr( .,( .-- ,:,. ,..., , ' ...i( . i. .i.,,,4,,,;. . ,, .5,-.0 .„. ... . , . -r +1. ,4- , . . ... ,-. ..,:::,.: . ,, • ,, .. .,_ , - - ' ' . ;- A -= ' _.7-- "....* - •...._ .., , '''. ° • - .44.R: ... 002 .10 .,:. .., . . .. . _ .. , _,_, s„.,..: . ,. -,:tr . ... : .t . '?#‘ _t .. 0 . limotr_.01,,......7--‘,0-- * i . . . ExHIBIT D • - .-, '•., 1, 0- ' k - - x, l -. e -,.--• - ":'A ' 1110 1 '4 d'e ,...- . .. ilia 1'4 t"'k I" ‘,- l'v• --,.‘,0". , . , . „ ,411L ) , 4 iv. - : ie itt..- .1.- -we' - - - ' . - - .-,e 34• -- ,-4e- ... 4,...\, ,_ ; , ''■ -'', •. ' - %,,er.- - • t.lir---s /- - s--- a _■111 lip -4101111/4. , • ,•••• . ..-5,41 •.....„-L !-•-,I, - -._ • - ,A4.0%. -.. ,..„ ' - far+-11•: „., • ..ril•,f 4.' tt, 1 ....__ - ......e"--7,.....Is - • .,...,...r ... t -- .L....7rd . it•••, i /00.1 Zil 14 •%., , l'%:-1.• ••■-••> "ila% 4117 ' N4SI‘, • Je 77. /k•,,, 4 • ..., ///.0 'tk• IIP _ ......,,,....-. - I - — -.,•:-.' ._. • . ....„ .4 . ........ .. ...,. _ • . , .. • opum.... 4 1 1 N,,/. ''e iole ' l' ._31r•‘ — ,—le• '''..../ 1" • - _ - ‘N, ... .41104/ 11....- ---....,,,,....„,.. JP"sr' ',1: --., 4.,..- '* '-dy .- . . 0411 ..-•••""- ■N: '-',.... ,,i41`6.107, .11iiiiL.4. 1,.101 - viia,- - -, . . di,•.:Q,I.. . ;.- -", , ,, 4 . ... -1. . • -- •-tra• 41.." ' t. ...; •-. ' . W -. ,40 7 •,..... .• •... • ,: '',..$7,'AL. 4".114.1.,„.... ,. . ,i•• .• . , let'% ''' ., 7....-- sf- 7 • r' -•• ;44..:-..-1--: •_ - ,,,b- -.if. . •• ,- -..— --f., ,..‘,,, i •-•----...r` 40—K".--- . .....". . - _ -- - kr,... -',„,■.;--7,-"ery-I - , 17, •■••••:,.... • _ 4,,,,r ., !I _ --- '44!-,-,- . i'•-... ip, iwir, -..• * -- . , ` .•r,a •• 4.•....-4‘-,. -ir,r.-...,.. ir -- jpo- ,..:0,6, -i-0,:.0 -.2, J. 4 Ir t- ' .'- '"N‘-;:. , ,', Atilt A .44:‘ ;'Nt41,..-,..:41-';•14.1•4'. ' f ,:,,'' ,.', ... ,.. A 4e s,■• .,z.,„.--/ --- -'- 41".11.t*..!°•":-.: - ..- -.4141 ...4414:4072%-.44; - 's /\' ' i''' Ji '' ik0-''';iNec.-7 .-.' '"I'':'li %.''gr 4u).--"..- - . ,'11‘*?• sr'''''•,7,p,--- f ,.. -..„.../•■• oar ''• .. . -/F• ..„ , -A .., .. , .._ - _ ..„1,..r*,..,40t... - ••.- -_,,'"*.-.4..!-%- -•-- v •s.,ii, :41 '4,- ,-,• * t.. , y. - . 4.---,'""-- .. , I e, Ni.;...,-. ..,4, ..,, 1 "Mt . 1. klo -,' , IP'-•Npit,... --7" ''s . •fr. •-4 - ""; ... '''..-.,... •' -), . ..., . /'- . '•i - - •: , • . ' e- . . ‘,....,...„,t„..„. .v. „..„„• : ..24' tte... •-:_,../.7 r ,-"•1 .:Or \k • •-* . 1,14t'-. ' --'' '''--114'..* '\ •".. \ .,,.. .' 7..- ... :.,i'......1('i- --.._'•... '".; . ' , .,, .,. fr.p..,..:,. ••4•., -,....7'6...4i:7; .' .,..., \ .‘, ::1:. V ''''., : ...!Z •Ve.' ';''.' \. . ' '' ' ;' a' •' • '.. - •. .1\ \XIA,'‘. ., \ \,.•,',,, , ,‘ :■!.:,i,;,.:NA . ., ,,,,., „..., . -.. I i • .... II . 1 )1'1 ■■■•1 Air '/ '.,•,..i ee. 0,--ai .;,;,' : 'Cr • , i it i 0 . _ .., . i. - ) ----t--- • N 4 ; ,...,. . _:---„-- 1 I. T-------, . _ . . ....„. ..., .....-4.0i. 1 , ... •. .„ • : I ' ..A•. 41 Cer• 14 ' IN i. 4NO - 4. 4 , _ - • • _. :to** 1 • RE_ • .. 7' ...,t.- ;• • •- ... - -' .• ' e •'' > -.., N. EXHIBIT E . .4 111;1001/ ... ' . . .. . ' . . ..... , 1 . . •,_ 0 '' , '11- . . . - 30 • ... I 1 ' . .. . _ . k. : .. • 4„ • , ._ . .. - - ---- h I '44, 1 , ... ... . .. ..._ . : r I _ . ! 11 . 1 . - --, t... 1 ' _ _ 1 i ..- 1 .... --- ! t r , !7, II .., -- 1-- !--i I , 1"---. 1 - 1 ■ - • -.1.1, . ...r, 0 :7 ,- , .1 -. • ,- - ,? •-•`; ,S, ,,,-' •.,,.' ."g;5'.. ' '- .• ''. 2%4,!(% • -,-4:4:e ' .•-4 r'4(,, . . , •-1,<-,,•--.:' " ",- 4ir ,i!',"*", ' • ',.-, -.,--4.1 ,• .1ei,-''. ,,...X, . . . 2...• . , t , . ., . F'417.;- . I „e. :,--V-i-,t: ''Wt. . , i .- ••-•• ....,-r ..k- ..... ,...:..,-,•:;:•-•:.t:., • • ,. , ,,,,....-N,.•---• ” ., . . ,. • -.„. ..4.• • , ,-*„ • •- --..-,-- - .,:,1=•i; .. - .• ••., --:--,- • . . -•,•• .: - - .'••• ,..,-•..P.4.,.-- • 1-• ..• - ,.. - - '•••4;,',--.-.,-• , , • -,..,74.....r. ;•..,4, ..... . " .. . L , • • . , I , • ,. . , .--„ --,:,1'. s[.--*;...-7--- • . - -•L :.--eL •4•,',,, . •, • ,- ---••' ,,..-: ..•.::1-%r Is;4': : • . - ••••" , . , , ,-- - - ' ••k 4- .4"..I'•",: P •-. ......- •": - .-•'e ... . '''.. ' '..."z; /1 1 •- ,t iw, -• ''.rir: - , ''-'--'- ; :-.;i ' . ' -,- - . .2 .- , •...-• 0,- -,-, - ; ,".Z-......i- ''.-'• ,...'^:- ''-: -.„..5•04,- • . *, , . . 7.li-ri,4..:N. '... '...:.,/-• i .. . • ‘• •. -".;'4■ '..:..'• ',:"..-' '' !A•;';:: - • ., -`-' - '_‘,_ _.-' ,,e,-.:-.- . •..s-,'-.:. •_, \ -- :•....,VV". -'-;,--..--:%.'':'•;-;----..;-:,e.. `-' c•-- ex ,•-•.;" - --' ---.-:'....""E:-'‘;."4"."...?" ' - It/ • , : .*to;,4,11-; . ,...,, i l'".,e 4..11101 • '' ' "..4!" 7 ,,h.:. 1..,•^7 ve •..., Pr. Jr' ...., •."417,17.4■1.1t..0, ",.. ,:1..?..;','' '-'' ; ...-7=:',:: -•,'-, so ....,.. firt,..._. r7,0....,..t,„7,_ •,,,,i.",„vet,..,.1F ,^., ,....."..,, -. ..L?„,,- .. ...•„. . : .- „40, .- - .,.- _of•.. • _,,,,, . ,. , _ .• • .,.. . . ,!'•'4.„-,..- . •'I' -” , ,, -7:.<42 At,-:I, ,-'4r.. '.', 7'1:sr 14::•• ..: • • - '' .itti.''f,,. t +• /4 .• -, .,)(;.:•:.. '. , .z it.. -.1.,..s1... ..... ,' ,.,. : . ,. .'''IT .,-;„%r,...e,41. 4,,,;,:f.-.- ,...,. .) .,..' .-..:, e .f. . ;•:. T--20'.-. . V.p, • , '`,,: ,!!:.,•;•'_...--•-.".7,1**.Vii$* :".1,,it..rsle.4.'•. 10 11k1'.' ' It" i • ' 0 4-: • ' . 0. 1.4‘.. 7' „-4 '‘`'' •- `--.• . . '::ii•":t,^ ,S:....t. . N.:, ■ EXHIBIT F _ . •4:-,.....4-. ... • .. , •.: • -0‘ , "1". ' • . •,•. ,.. 7 1-•..4 , . , - ;::. 4-Fri° • 'ft .„ I =- 1 o )`' ,...i 440 , 1 1- ......"0" 1 i i . , II T4 Pir i 11 I I I l' ''- ', St , ,,,..“. e. -. -."...- ` .... `i ' - ' 1 ' I -.._ ...Ito ill .1,I itt t 1% • -4 1 . ' ; , - 1. . . • . t k, . ..\\ .111 . iiiii111141, .... ..,.. *-P-2,: . 1 Jitioi ( -.. ..4....-;.: , ' ,. ,:.:,..- .,.....1., -4 1 , , , ... EXHIBIT G J‘•",. ' DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Fowler September 20, 2011 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2010-00318M - RYLAND HOMES - A request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages be two-car garages within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-121-24 through 30; 1087-141-43 through 52, 57; 1087-171-44 through 51; 1087-351-0lthrough 05, 12 through 18, 45, and 46; 1087-361-01 through 30. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. Background: On January 12, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2010-00318 for the development of 70 single-family residences on 30.93 acres of land in the master-planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The underlying document that regulates this area is the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). In 2001, a Development Agreement was approved which required that all lots within this Master Planned Community be required to adhere to the Low Residential District Standards. Development Review DRC2010-00318 was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 5, 2010 (DRC Action Comments — Exhibit A). At that time, the Committee requested that the applicant increase the number of side-on or recessed garages to 30 percent in order to meet the minimum requirement set forth in the ENSP (Exhibit B). The Committee also indicated that side-on garages shall be two-car garages to qualify for this requirement. The applicant returned to Design Review Committee on November 30, 2010 (DRC Action Comments — Exhibit C) and provided 18 two-car garages with side-on design and another 17 with a one-car side on design. The 18 garages did not meet the requirement of 30 percent side-on garages as discussed in the previous Design Review Committee meeting (21 garages are required to meet 30 percent). At the time of the meeting, the applicant came in with a solution and stated they would require Lots 12, 17, and 114 to also be two-car side-on garages, and the Committee agreed to this solution. General: The applicant has started construction of the product that was approved and has stated that they are having trouble selling the homes with the required four-car garages. The attached letter from Ryland Homes dated August 19, 2011, (Exhibit D), is requesting that the requirement of having side-on garages to be two-car garages be eliminated. The applicant is requesting that the one-car, side-on garages fulfill the side-on garage requirement. If this were to occur, the applicant would exceed the minimum requirements. The requirement to have the two-car side-on garages counts towards the percentage requirement that has been utilized throughout the City with all the recent applications that have gone through the Design Review Process. In the ENSP (Exhibit A, Page III-22) there are examples of the garage variations that would count towards this requirement, and none of them indicate that a side-on, single-car garage is acceptable. The graphics do not indicate the size of the garages, but new homes within the City are required to have a two-car garage, and the illustrations suggest that these are two-car garages. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the Committee discussion regarding this project. DRC AGENDA • DRC2010-00318M — RYLAND HOMES September 20, 2011 Page 2 Major Issues: 1. Staff has utilized the Design Review Committee comments in the past to guide applicants towards a project that will be approved by both DRC and Planning Commission. Staff requests that the Committee review the request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages to be two-car garages and, if the requirement is eliminated, give direction as to what will be acceptable as side-on and recessed garages. Minor Issues: No Minor issues at this time. Policy Issues: No policy issues at this time. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee provide guidance as to the acceptable requirement for recessed and side-on garages in the City. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner Steve Fowler Members Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS. 7:40 p.m. Steve Fowler October 5, 2010 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION DRC2010-00318 - RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 70 single-family lots on 30.93 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Background: On July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2006- 00098 for the development of 114 homes on a 30.93-acre site within the 832-unit Master Planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. Because of a shifting demand in the housing market, the applicant, Ryland Homes, is requesting modifications of the previously approved Development Review in which 44 of those homes were built. This request is incorporating a single-story plan into the remaining 70 lots left to complete this development. The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific architectural styles. A Development Agreement was approved in 2001 which required the Low Residential standards for all lots within this tract. The property was rough graded in June of 2004. The area was mass graded and infrastructure was installed. The master developer has installed the main access of the gated community, as well as the slope landscaping and decorative perimeter walls. These walls will be consistent throughout the entire master planned community. The site is bordered by the utility corridor to the north; by single-family homes to the west and south; and by vacant land to the east. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the "Upper Etiwanda' neighborhood, which has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP. The ENSP requires that a mix of the following primary architectural styles be used for at least two-thirds of the units: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Up to one-third of the units may use these styles; Country, Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. The proposed modifications are consistent with the required architectural styles and include down-sized floor plans that range from a 3,244 square foot plan to a 4,709 square foot plan. The original plans ranged from 3,614 to 4,780 square feet. These new plans provide a large yard area to meet the demand of the current housing market. A total of 14 (20 percent) of the proposed house product will be single-story. The two-story plans have been designed with three floor plans and all the plans have four architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are San Juan, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Ranch. The San Juan elevation incorporates recessed windows, decorative shutters, S concrete tile roofing, and arched patio/entryway. The Santa Barbara incorporates S tile concrete roofing on low pitched hip roof forms, stucco finish, shutters, and recessed windows. The Monterey style incorporates brick veneer elements, flat tile roof, board and baton elements under windows, and balconies. The Ranch style incorporates louvered shutters, recessed windows, accents of siding and stone veneer. EXHIBIT A DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00318— RYLAND HOMES October 5, 2010 Page 2 Some of the plans incorporate a modest amount of wall plane articulation, and all plans incorporate decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries that range in size dependent upon the style. Plans 2 and 4 both have side-on storage areas that can be used as garages but do not meet the minimum interior dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet to qualify as a garage. With these floor plans and the Plan 1 garages recessed back approximately 2 feet, the development meets the 30 percent requirement for side-on or recessed, garages. 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 proposed design of the houses does not meet the design regulations under RCMC 17.08.090.D-2-a (i.e. 360 degree architecture to all elevations). The front elevations include some elements that either disappear or are sparse on the sides and rear elevations, and some elements from the front, such as stone veneer and siding, disappear as it moves to the rear elevations. Materials, such as siding, stone veneer, wrought iron and the use of faux shutters should be utilized on all elevations and in greater amounts to achieve 360 degree architecture. Long wall planes of stucco do not achieve this requirement and should be avoided, Architectural elements should be added to create visual interest, yet be authentic to the stated architectural theme. The applicant has added some elements to the housing product, but the design still requires more elements on walls to break-up long areas of stucco. Additionally, some of the front elevations need further embellishment, especially with the goal of accurately representing the selected architectural style. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. None at this time. policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard Landscape Plan, per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval. 2. The driveways shall be colored and scored in a diagonal pattern for additional entryway detail. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the proposed design and provide additional feedback and input as necessary. Staff further recommends that the applicant work with staff and substantially revise the elevations to meet the 360 degree architectural requirement that meets the City's architectural expectations. Following review of the revisions by staff, the project will be scheduled for review and consideration by the Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee members reviewed the project and brought up several deficiencies in the design of the project. The Committee stated that the applicant needs to increase the percentage of side-on or DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00318— RYLAND HOMES October 5, 2010 Page 3 recessed garages to meet the 30 percent minimum requirement, and that the plans with the side-on garage need to be two-car garages to qualify for this requirement. The Committee also requested that the applicant increase the percentage of single-story residences from 20 percent to 30 percent. The Committee also felt that the architectural design and plotting did not meet the Etiwanda North Specific Plan requirements. Specifically, the plotting of the homes were not staggered enough to create a variety of frontages as indicated in the Design Guidelines. Additionally, the architectural elements of each style were understated. The Committee felt that the elements that were used were sparse and did not demonstrate a true representation of the architectural style that was trying to be conveyed. Another concern was that the architectural style was sparse as it moved from the front elevations to the sides and rear. The Committee felt that the elements used on the front elevations should be utilized more on the side and rear elevations. The Committee asked that the applicant work with staff on the issues and return to Design Review Committee at a later date, Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner. Steve Fowler 11.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES 11. 1 SITE PLANNING Project design shall be guided by site-specific factors such as views, mature vegetation, topography, and surrounding development. Natural features should be used to an advantage as design elements, including landform, drainage courses, rock outcroppings and views to minimize alteration to the existing landform. Conversely, undesirable site features can be minimized through proper site planning and building orientation. It should be noted that access shall comply with City access regulations and shall not conflict with other planned or existing access points. Two points of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-de-sacs and temporary (partial) streets shall not be permitted to exceed 600 ' in length. The following characteristics should be considered in the design of individual projects: • Curvilinear streets are encouraged whenever possible. • Driveways should not exceed 16 ' in width through public parkway frontages. • Property lines and setbacks should be staggered as much as possible to create variety. • At least 50% of dwellings should not be plotted parallel to the street frontage. • Driveway widths for two or three car garages shall not exceed 16 ' 00" at curb. For every foot of building setback greater than 25 ' , a one-foot reduction in width of curb cut will be permitted to occur to a minimum of 12 ' 0" with a two-car garage and 16 ' 0" with a three- car garage. 12 ' 0" widths at streets are permitted on circular drives. At least 30% of all houses within any phase/tract will be required to have side-on, and/or recessed or detached garages as shown below. III-21 • EXHIBIT B GARAGE VARIATIONS: SIDE-ON SIDE-ON \\:\ � T FRONT-ON RECESSED III-22' DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Steve Fowler November 30, 2010 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION DRC2010-00318 - RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 70 single-family lots on 30.93 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-121-24 through 30; 1087-141-43 through 52, 57; 1087-171-44 through 51; 1087-351-0lthrough 05, 12 through 18, 45 and 46; 1087-361-0lthrough 30. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915 and No. 98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Background: At the Design Review Committee meeting on October 5, 2010, the Committee raised several deficiencies in the design of the house product. The applicant was asked to make changes and bring the project back to the Design Review Committee for review. The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific architectural styles. The project also has to conform to the Development Agreement that was approved in 2001, which requires the Low Residential standards for all lots within this tract. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood, which has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP. The ENSP requires that a mix of the following primary architectural styles be used for at least two-thirds of the units: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Up to one-third of the units may use these styles: Country, Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. Design Changes: One of the items that the Committee requested to be revised was 30 percent of the housing mix to have side-on garages. The applicant has plotted 25 percent of the homes with two-car side on garages and another 25 percent with one-car side-on garages. Plans 2 and 4 also have front-on two-car garages that are recessed at least 10 feet because of the other garages being plotted to the front and side of the other garages. The applicant has also increased the architectural elements on the homes by adding elements to all elevations. The applicant has also increased the amount of stone veneer on the architectural styles that have incorporated stone as an element. The Monterey style has board and batten as an element incorporated on all of the floor plans. The San Juan style has a stucco trim banding incorporated on all the floor plans. The Ranch style has additional siding and stone veneer incorporated into the plan. The Santa Barbara style has added a two tone paint scheme, and more stucco trim banding. All of the styles have coach lights, additional shutters, faux shutters, and windows incorporated to elevations that were lacking these elements in the previous review. The applicant has staggered the plotting of the homes to create a variety of frontages as indicated in the design guidelines. These homes are now staggered at the street frontage starting at a 10'-0" setback to a 30'-0" front yard setback. The staggering typically changes in intervals of 2'-0" but can change drastically when the two-car side-on garages are plotted. • EXHIBIT C • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00318 — RYLAND HOMES November 30, 2010 Page 2 The proposed modifications are consistent with the required architectural styles and include downsized floor plans that range from a 2,627 square foot plan to a 4,010 square foot plan. The original plans range from 3,614 to 4,780 square feet. These new plans provide a larger yard area to meet the demand of the current housing market. A total of 18 (25 percent) of the proposed house product will be single- story. The two-story plans have been designed with three floor plans, and all plans have four architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are San Juan, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Ranch. The San Juan elevation incorporates recessed windows, decorative shutters, S concrete tile roofing, and an arched patio/entryway. The Santa Barbara incorporates S tile concrete roofing on low pitched hip roof forms, stucco finish, shutters, and recessed windows. The Monterey style incorporates brick veneer elements, flat tile roof, board and baton elements, and balconies. The Ranch style incorporates louvered shutters, recessed windows, accents of siding and stone veneer. All plans incorporate decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries which range in size dependent upon the style. Plans 2 and 4 both have side on garages to accommodate the 30 percent side on garage requirement. 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 provided 18 two-car garages as side-on design and another 17 one-car side-on garages to satisfy the 30 percent of the garages required per the ENSP. Technically, the requirement of 30 percent of the garages being side-on or recessed has been met, but the intent of the code may not have been addressed by not having the full 30 percent of the garages plotted as two-car side-on. The housing tract with both the one-car and two-car side-on car garages will occupy over 50 percent of the project or 35 of the 70 houses plotted. Of the remaining 35 homes, • 30 of those have the option of being.converted to another two-car garage. They also have the option for the one-car garage to be a guest suite. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. None at this time. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard Landscape Plan, per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval. 2. Driveways shall be colored and scored in a diagonal pattern for additional entryway detail. • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00318 — RYLAND HOMES November 30, 2010 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee members reviewed the project and asked that the applicant add carriage lights to the rear of the elevations and change Lots 12, 17, and 114 to have side-on garages. The applicant was also required to work with staff to enhance the architecture of the chimneys to better match the styles of each home. The Committee agreed to recommend the item move to Planning Commission for approval once all these items were addressed. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Steve Fowler RYLAND HOMES' Southern California Division 1250 Corona Pointe Court August 19,2011 Suite 100 Corona,CA 92879 951-273-3473 Office 951-273-3472 Fox www.ryland.com City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 A7TN:Steven Fowler RE: Vista Heights TR 16227-2 In May 2010 Ryland submitted for Design Review on the above-mentioned project. We submitted four (4) plans with four(4) elevations per plan (1 one-story,3 two-story). Over the next 6 months we worked diligently with staff to make sure the home design was in conformance with the requirements of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Specific Plan. We knew that the Specific Plan required that 30% of the homes have a side-load garage and satisfied this requirement by adding a single-car side load garage on Plans 2&4. One of the homebuyer options we planned to offer was a two-car garage in lieu of the one-car garage. Ryland plotted these two plans(w/ single-car side load garage)on 50% of the total lots well exceeding the requirement of 30%. Ryland had their first Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting on October 5th,2010 and the DRC recommended that Ryland work with the Planning staff to add additional one-story units as well as material elements they felt were lacking. The single-car side load garage we were offering was not brought up as an issue or discussed at the meeting. We-worked-with-staff-over-the-next-couple of weeks-to-revise-plans-pursuant to-the------ - October 5th meeting and scheduled a subsequent DRC meeting on November 29, 2010. The DRC was pleased with the additions we made regarding our plotting changes and material additions. At this time the DRC approved the application to proceed to Planning Commission with the condition that we make the two-car side load option standard on 30% of the homes. Although it is not explicitly written in the Specific Plan, the DRC felt that the requirement could only be met with a 2-car side load garage. This was the first time it was ever suggested that we did not meet the Specific Plan requirement for side-load garages. It was very important for us to get on the next Planning Commission agenda so we could submit construction documents and start models during the 1st Quarter of 2011. We agreed to make the changes to the site plan and selected 21 lots where we would "force" the two-car garage option. We received Planning Commission approval on January 12,2011 and started construction on the model complex in the beginning of February. We opened for sale in April 2011 and have enjoyed moderate success. The feedback has been very positive on EXHIBIT D all our offered features,but it has been very difficult to sell the homes where we had to "force" the 2-car side load garage. To date, we have constructed five homes where we had to"force" the 2-car side load garage. We have sold two out of those five and are struggling to sell the other three. We feel like this trend is going to continue as we move through the rest of production. I have attached an exhibit that highlights the lots where we agreed to"force" the 2-car side-load garage. The lots marked in yellow are the homes scheduled to get the 2-car side-load garage and the lots marked in red are the homes already under construction with the 2-car side-load garage. We are committed to providing the most beautiful community possible that meets the intent of City guidelines and the demands of the home buying public. We would like to revisit this issue with the Planning Department to see if the 2-car side load garage requirement can be eliminated. Please contact me with any questions. Thank you, e34k Craig Moraes Forward Planner (951)300-5167 Ph. (951)300-5296 Fx. cmoraes @ryland.com • i' \ a-trees w ,�..�N.-„ LA i 11 EE ppNTr a)X - ,,� p II[II 0 N.--W� • _g�� - , �.._ — g H o o QQ0 fiftrEftatriPor- INI,Iga,M ,.. -ANN/ 1 ' -41 i gl,iii, 0 0 w , /0 1 1.7----wr•aftpc.ry -.,--\ . •\t al 1, ...��, ,', 'L�ig/ t 111 • ~ ! -Q= 1 lirli I'I s ..- -.: --• �, �� ' i y 4_CfXH .in I � �� _- co 6 i1 t / ! . / Ef z II I I ' i �� r W `� �Ci <LLIg i '� - - , �: ,4 I PraifIrli*. .‘1-:-) ;-;-7� : 4t4'r��fa�t r__ � :-. tt : 1 j•\� j �E+t - ci th Ai Pr* ---Nd,f ''--, - ...V1 /A IA) ---, , ' ** AWA.,- . , Viiii 1 �,..., - �. ,.'< 4^:._ *P .. ... „ . WV"- --- \ s', -'-''.. # '•<<,, # 0;‘---, --..; ail; " ri' �IG� • ? ��' ` 9� 9ir-,v-\,,,,r,zi:N.'...1/4.,-,; - . ,. ,...,;4.:,..•• Iii!.,/-,i,,. --;-=4" to: , � w. i ;;; ; mOtt, �'/ .�' �,' ` �' r ill , ��t=— ' ,' if,r� ..,--It, .�l y,%,,.,,,tit,_ _ ,,, ,,_ __ ,, Tr, ,I -D•i ----• , Z4likl% , Is...14_ .„.._____. , „ft 11_' _pir, •,s.' -- '' • iir...... .., ,L, ... , .:., •,_44,„, ric A -, ; 4. -Iti l'IL`6'2' sib .-,,, ,,,.. 4, . --- : ,..., tufa..., : . ---...4 • k F; imm...- - irluffort . - •- . 1 i llit ';'//4.- 11), /VIII.0 --. / v• lAr Tgedr.ikt: :1-r.----'ji ' 4kviri. (4-10 . \ ''• x , \ licyt .sr.01*44 ,..?.......- .., ', \:00:44rA'Air• Ma .-1- . - i ' \V41044‘0011, ' L 1 1114, 11" EXHIBIT E 1 as i S OW }1a a 6.0: rgOE1yi liii gN�Wzi_ a i'pgii ; I g 4t 79113 46ia 1 pl to 1 111 a R i9 I;if 1 i 1 1 � �1� 1g9 Ip�g��1 ��lh iY l [if•e�S li ®0 V Oa f° - 1 s it ik ,,tt.iia$ i 9 i , 1 9 '�g d ill III @i1?@9`,ts= i:!1 1.:1ai !';y W ' fl $ o z"-MJ0 )" I lli I ri 0 1 1:115,9/SF a ��J 1, 9 doi,1s1,a•pt i ye 0 ��i7 is r, �• ,,. ,_,g1 9? w] s itiz i ; iliih66z9 I i- I 0 9 9 )2N 13349 339 9 W 133f9 33S '` q V j LU CD __ t�• 4it-,!.....4b,,., VJ i k r ��1 U ° *:-. , f Q y I ;v pf ',zit fi�'/ 1 CL 1 ,/ �r d ' ig.111 i I kV 11 Z rf. I� ` p li eft ------4 jell I , et V d 1. - _ -, i r J r : 41,41riii..., . , OW 1.1404 "•1 til flp: i 1 b g .. \ 1, 4.,. c. 71,,,I.t,1 . =., i •d 1 ar • 4140A 1 i 1 1'' � o yR 4 (tr , 1 4 �4, a,1S 100 �. 1 1- 1.\..v" 'r erh ' Vx.'7. 0 ]DNOY000 11 �� i I , r, a< pip 0 op e p 1 1 i 2i @ n ^ R yq [tui III NY-61 pptlai 1 p6 q lila �t;,1''xee 1 1 it / !i1'i ' (092 N�'�Z�� iB47 6 6 § e 1 s1 4 1 IP B 1111 `-� (�f T w . a9 li g7.79S�" a3 i i .COgifro;og li la g i e4 9A1 i� i tin#.f�= i igs 1i 5 I ' o alajQQJ § 7 r! A § : eAq ¢"! Y is 7 i E O O Q '��,10yii1[1g°' a g s !i § § pill=i i i iiii iil° ;a41t r rs �� o o�F-�Ue 1 1.11hili.ontylig B g . I 1 s g��1 9 i9� i�i piibl! e!,!Ai!:!i Pat: i1" i; it �sl I . " zw,w b Iii$iiiiii#1iitiF111111 i i iil viii . pp .8ifi i' Ils.i?F () F_�-"Lul� . 11 Iiip 5a Aa�i p Mfg 2 U O ~ 1, �: i;. CY��l7'? ^ a pe �4 S` t y�y giP Q f^�, , ■� ', I , �.81I®. ! A ; ; Ifp Id 44 VI1 � ►5n� i7l cc(S)If 9 'ON 13315 33S 9 'AM 1331S 33S 1.1 i -4- iiii0.* V: ,'Ai" r.,...ctc—ng 1 i-n v ailk t&44, .atob \. .i,. 7r, ._.. - porn 4 Lo r— W o 111411” lik$ 10'7 /fTti ;; 1 !)2 3 , ,............_ U- 0 3111-4pRivr .-•/m.s.. 4 MO WO Oo z. 8 1 ,k ( ,...--;it,./11 Vet\ , %, % ..... ir , 1- % L . lia, \ .....761.1i . " (3, , ":11 :Itiktie \ / ,4 ,-I. : .. . 1 3 ' iii 1 ' i'll ' woiPN, \ 1- i - 6 - di 1 k 1i„, • O 1 NV 7 ,9 ..:. , V® I� r It traimbx As . 1 1 ii itimidrir'' e , ' 1E11 < ' IIII illidwrmiliVI iia mar MII t1 - ,,,, m II r : 1 a; il ,,f it. , V ia . i 1 _______ ili ' ,41.1ii Ira i-----______ • .1 I zi Ilia z Ne-b \ 0, ...":„ . r_....A s ` Ilt i 1 \ \S\s , IVA* , / / s 1 % /i S 1 1 0 I I , a / 114* • S r.:c. . I(' to'- i! OW t f . 1i 1 4 h 3 iii . $ 9I i I !!!' 8 r" �Z 1.1,iie 1 1 I y p; is 79 8 i !f g" 94 �ill i1§ x 1e V i iria ilj s11;i : stt 1 1 g , 1 s " 4 1 il i�11 : % rag i 11 I' ;1..-,-Ra o,M i1!� � � � �i $ � � � � � viii �"ttxsl �p 11 � �ac, lif© s+I '" 401110:0 1 Q Q •§II is? I r Ili 1 a :12. !a 51:t5I! H I 10 9 _ 316Ar ra Ua nM Q H yr- al. ftral"..- MINE ma 10 1-- cl I 111' 111 �;m ' �� �-f 1 O Ii a wt LA O= ► I } 4 sr ..„Iega.. '-7- L.-. ii 1, „ : ifai__ __11§Mr.•l _151:a: j •ps ��� .-ti � . i, it `'.o . � a U Ili I Mara i .,. _Al. ,itliliiiialla ; I /1 r4 , I 6 SUNK .E i al : I� r. tr. '� I `'4f E I r Mar% 1 Dna 11/11111.1111.:911g 1 FA . ' ' is i1 Lillie; 1,111) . 1111 pi; t'iiiiiiar la � �..I NF 9 ;iii- •�f • fir an r Irk ro 'F ! ,. . Ili; g ' * fi1ct 3t ' yy Ott' \ 111011$t ri: :0' 64 1 I 2,.; I 14 ._ii . ts, , j I CP' 1i` W:4: �` t;lit') \ , VP4' .0 ®:,.% '' 1 ,. ''. ' I it s\ �_ ���• fit ` ,�'' , ;v I \'. *cam "':,.. il 1 1.11 Pi ti 1:141.1;,,,r,:;.17. ,°:,:'''\3 V h41%,' ‘Al\ ti ' ' ,4 b.4,:,‘,/•..1:, , , '. , P Ity, . 1 iiiii..!wri,,at \ 4 lid � � I:.O '/ `\ w•' } 1,0" ,„,'4„, +\'''+# -... N\'''' i ' , iti 16, 'ai,..irsie.,0,.. ....., .„ 4‘44,,,* ,,,,,' ..„.,,, , \ 1 it � � �,. - • J J . ,! `, \♦