The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011/03/15 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 15, 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. (Tabe/Betty) DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00028 - K. HOVNANIAN COMMUNITIES INC. - Architectural and site review for 63 single-family residences on 45.23 acres within the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP), located on south side of Banyan Street, approximately 1,220 feet east of East Avenue - APN: 0225-191-12 and 0226-102-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 AND SUBTT18708. On August 9, 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 and on April 15, 2010, for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18708. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag March 15, 2011 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00028 - K. HOVNANIAN COMMUNITIES INC. - Architectural and site review for 63 single-family residences on 45.23 acres within the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP), located on south side of Banyan Street, approximately 1,220 feet east of East Avenue - APN: 0225-191-12 and 0226-102-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 AND SUBTT18708. On August 9, 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17651 and on April 15, 2010, for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18708. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Project Proposal: The project site is located on the south side of Banyan Street and 1,220 feet east of East Avenue and is made up of two approved tract maps for a total of 63 lots (SUBTT17651 — 56 lots on 40 acres and SUBTT18708 — 7 lots on 5 acres). The site is located within the Very Low Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and within the Equestrian Overlay District. The lots range in size from 20,109 to 47,218 square feet and will be developed entirely with single-story residences, ranging in size from 3,401 to 4,049 square feet. A community trail runs along the perimeter of the site, with each residence either providing direct equestrian access to a local trail or a community trail. Staff Comments: This proposal is designed with 100 percent single-story residences, exceeding the 25 percent design policy. Each lot meets the minimum setback and the lot coverage requirement. The applicant has provided five floor plans with 4 elevations per floor plan. While staff feels that the applicant has worked to address a number of inconsistencies that the project has with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, a number of issues remain unresolved. These issues are being brought before the Committee at the applicant's request. 1. Number of Footprints: The major issue is whether the project meets the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement (see attached) that residential developments with 61 to 80 homes include 7 footprints. The Development Code permits reverse footprints and alternate garage orientations (i.e. side entry or detached garages) to count as separate footprints. As proposed, the project includes two distinct footprints (62- and 68-foot wide houses), one with an alternate garage orientation (side entry), and reverse footprints for each model. Staff feels that this equates to 6 footprints, 1 footprint deficient of meeting the requirement. The applicant feels that they are providing 4 unique footprints, one alternate garage orientation and 5 reverse footprints, for a total of 10 footprints. The question is whether the proposed variation in footprints meets the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to avoid excessive repetition of single-family homes with nearly identical floor plans. Staff is concerned that if one were to look at the Detailed Site Plan for the project, it would appear that nearly identical homes are being plotted on each lot, this is especially , true of the side and rear elevations. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00028— K. HOVANANIAN COMMUNITIES, INC. March 15, 2011 Page 1 2. Plotting: The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that a minimum 50 percent of the houses not be plotted parallel to the street frontage. As proposed, the applicant is only skewing the houses on the large lots at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Staff feels that there is adequate room on the sides of the houses to meet this requirement. The Committee should make a recommendation as to the percentage of skew necessary to fulfill the requirement. Additionally, subdivisions within the Very Low Development Districts are required to vary the house setback as measured from the property line by up to 10 feet. The current variation averages approximately 5 feet between neighboring residences. 3. Design Issues: While staff feels that the applicant has made a good effort in designing front elevations that are distinct from one another, they are deficient in carrying this variation over to the side and rear elevations. This problem is magnified because of the size of the houses (3,401 to 4,049 square feet and single-story houses 90 feet deep) and the lack of true variation in the footprints of the house as seen from the side and rear elevations. Per staff recommendation, the applicant has added front porches to two of the models, short walls, or railings to better define the courtyards on the other three models, and wall pop-outs on the side elevations of each of the models. Staff feels that additional attention needs to be directed towards the side and rear elevations and to the front porches on the Spanish Eclectic Models 3664 and 4049, which look dated. Staff has outlined a number of design recommendations below under secondary issues. Major Issues: 1. Number of Footprints — Staff feels that there is inadequate variation in the footprints between the models to fulfill the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and that the side and rear elevations lack adequate articulation and variation. Secondary Issues: 1. Front porches on the Spanish Eclectic Models 3664 and 4049 look dated and should be redesigned. 2. The garage doors on each of the Spanish Eclectic models are generic and do not enhance the Spanish architecture. 3. Each model should have a minimum of two pop-outs on the side elevations. Additional pop-outs should be added to the right elevation of Model 3401 and 3406 (fireplace), the left elevation of Models 3664 and 3898 (casita window) and the right and left elevations of Model 4049 (bedroom and kitchen windows). 4. Add wood siding to the chimney of Model 3406 — Rural Cottage. 5. Add a plaster wainscot to the chimney of Model 3664— Spanish Eclectic. 6. Carry the design elements used on the front elevations to the rear elevations of each model to add visual interest. 7. Use decorative solid block walls with metal gates along the private trails. The applicant has proposed equestrian fencing with wood-faced gates. Staff has informed the applicant that the DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00028 — K. HOVANANIAN COMMUNITIES, INC. March 15, 2011 Page 2 Committee may consider a combination 3-foot high block wall topped by tube metal fencing with pilasters at the property corners, with a maximum of 4-foot spacing between the pilasters. Technical Issue: The trail and wall construction details should be returned to the Trails Advisory Committee before continuing to Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff seeks direction from the Committee as to whether the project meets the minimum requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan related to the variation in footprints (7 required), building articulation, and 360 degree architecture. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee did not recommend approval of DRC2011-00028 and made the following recommendations regarding the issues presented by staff: • 1. Number of Footprints: The Committee concluded that the applicant did not fulfill the requirement for providing the required 7 footprints. The Committee indicated that the applicant should design a new floor plan that was substantially different than what was presented. This additional floor plan requirement could be fulfilled with a one or two-story design. 2. Plotting: The Committee stated that the houses were not adequately staggered and recommended that there be an approximate 10-foot setback difference between the neighboring houses. Regarding staff's comments concerning skewing the house product, Commissioner Munoz agreed with the applicant that skewing the houses could give the appearance that a mistake was made in plotting the houses. Staff has interpreted this statement as confirmation that skewing the house product is not required, but a variation in the setbacks by 10 feet between the neighboring houses is required. 3. Design Issues: Overall, the Committee was pleased with the architecture and articulation of the houses. The Committee noted that additional attention should be given to the front porches of Models 3664 and 4049 (Spanish Eclectic) and the garage doors on each of the Spanish Eclectic elevations. The Committee also stated that the paint scheme on the Model 3C (Classic American West) was unappealing and too dark. The applicant agreed to modify the paint scheme for Model 3C (Classic American West). 4. Equestrian Fencing: The Committee was not supportive of the applicant's proposal for using equestrian fencing along the private equestrian trails and recommended that they provide either solid decorative walls or a combination wall in which the bottom 3 feet was a solid decorative wall and the top half was open wrought iron fencing with decorative pilasters. All the gates would need to be view-obscuring wrought iron fencing material. The meeting concluded with the Committee recommending that the applicant work with staff and return to a regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting to review the changes. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger, Henderson Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Etiwanda Specific Plan Part ll. Chapter 5 (b) Such existing structures shall be incorporated into the design of new development wherever possible. On lots of one acre or more, these structures shall not be included in density calculations, and will not reduce the number of new dwellings permitted. (c) In the OP and CS/OL Districts, such structures may be converted to non- residential uses, subject to the provisions of the OP and CS/OL Districts, respectively. .500 Move-Ons .501 General: Except as specified below, move-ons for residential purposes shall be subject to regulations in effect elsewhere in the City, in accordance with the Development • Code. .502 Move-ons within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District: In addition to meeting city-wide criteria, structures to be moved into the E/OL District must be of significant architectural or historical merit or must otherwise reinforce the character of Etiwanda Avenue. .503 Move-ons within the Community Service Overlay District: • Provisions of.401 and .402 shall prevail, except that such structures may also be used for limited impact non-residential purposes, subject to the limitations of the • CS/OL District, Section 5.25.400. • ..600 Residential Projects of Five Dwellings or More Developed Under Basic Development Standards (Figure 5-2) .601 the project shall be designed in a manner that is sensitive to, and compatible with, the character of the surrounding area. .602 While no specific architectural style is required, dwelling design shall incorporate at least some elements of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, such as the following: Traditional materials Building masses broken into smaller components Verandas/porches Dormers/cupolas Variety in roof lines; large roof projections Garages de-emphasized (Side-on, detached) - Bay windows Field stone foundations or veneers Prominent Chimneys .603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on all elevations visible from public • areas. • 5-34 4/96 Attachment • 24 TN STREET _ - // \ ; . Qi SUMMm Avg. 7 1 ic Ake____ / (I ROUTE 30 IUGVLLAND AVE ME*6 :7".." ./ r , ,, CTORIA /J 7 �C \1 / bi ii ARK LA /S *�� _ h�/ VICTORIA AVE. _ 660 , 0 ]66D SQUTNFRN/ ACIFli RR 41 1 Ale ,ILAsELN.3 g A. *In*** ** Notable Structures cOQ MUER AVE �_i W :;;;:;;; House .fpci ,,, : -Th /fir ;� ,,.'` Foothill blvd. S rN ii I <l l / J /11 ' ARROW HWY. , (title figure) II aI I NOTABLE 5- 4a Y al j STRUCTURES L, rul z:. -- .-------t'L- .... i ..t.,Ailte, ‘ aliiiiimmilf 1 liviiiii ! 1 ri 1 11111 ll'iri-c1W-a■-•:5C: \\kr!I it I I I i I I ill i 1 'frill I i I I ilIL '!1 '""---°1-7------ 11-: I ----; — ' ---7--ti ... --7 r•r• ,i - i ■ , 1-,:ritill 1 7-11 1 ILL . 7 1,, li 1 1 i , . ! I I, Ir. ___ ._ ii , i__ , . , ; J It 11 _ji irl.174, ill 1 _ i -1 ;41i-el= ;1 , 1 Iti/Noissa r - II so7------1 I ---- I I:I .• i h { 1, I _ i : : :-.1.7, •: . . ( 1 i lis.,..-11 =.2 - - - - tin sware-a•maraseanipz,:., __._- p a Jo et seiskt...litage -- trwab itAidor skates:*-gnat-7- -- ,-2 - , -il• liege: _4.--fre i ...490i,frajeaji,ibileAltio sat--.: lisico..0:40614§,soiw. v._ c,..,...tersdowitiesaf,-..e.4 et?- ..4......___Ing! _:40b- tigia-1.44. • tet------e -ebt ... - • .. flir'. icer".----- Seigkee:-• ---..„__•ell__ .....,es--....-- A _________---,,,,... .th,.....“---.•- —-.rift.t........Y•diLn...:-..-A.,,>- --______--------. ---,, .-7- - -- - ' ... - -ei ti . .•--.....1...,:t.'7".." '.---`-'46---- -e."1 rt....-..-2-4---.,_.---_-__---.--.7-_4", _a„..__ _ _ a.--z-3.-r-...-- .-.. .-e. -,-..-.1---.ca.__s.„..--......„-----atre__:-___.... - __ fieldstone foundations, veneers . - C 51' a, • : --L: A -- :-, i ::, e.i- -a , , A ••::: 43 a• 1--•-•'-4' -.- • ' -:, -4%-A 174 - t:--Tt—I'' -181' ,,„.: '-':,'S ''' 4 SA ..t" -.7 -;-•---X1- i -t. -- e t;.'-'-0' 4 - 0— '' - , - fieldstone walls, - -7___-- •• ••,_„ „,,,,,,t, F. f. 2 detailing : ie,---- .4'mr: .. _c ., , ...!., - . , ! li....._,:.___,....,,__ f...--..7..n. .... _weit. ..t.....„. ,nit 'at,- -, - - --r.•7 Mt ak SwAtt-,% •••••_3-.. •, -CA- , , •-,....re. ere i VCIet :••fa% 4.-c., .,,. _ • -- ,.. ,_ .....,, zteario4. v . . ,,,,-0444-E, 1 ' - -- al- i■---..____ ! tfl iv voil ca......, , Is: -7- ,_:,__: • 4!,--- , 3 ttr4-,:--.--;.-L. .c.,a • r - a, --1 ,ii. , 7, -.4a•.-..-„, -t.------T. 0,-* ---IIM artotallti. - - -a Alidliii•' "-fit stp,tip . .._ , -. •-• -. .-Thl '-' .- lanZ,-,"lirN. -- lair letarlagliect."-__„../..--""‘;%Or. _ _ -Ht _ . ---z ---,---:-.-- - --t-----ff---;-:::------a Etiwanda Specific Plan Part (I, Chapter 5 Traditional materials Building masses broken into smaller components Verandas/porches - Dormers/cupolas - Variety in roof lines; large roof projections Garages de-emphasized (Side-on, detached) Bay windows Field stone foundations or veneers Prominent Chimneys .603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on all elevations visible from public areas. • .604 Excessive repetition of single family structures with identical floor plans and elevations shall be discouraged. Foot prints and elevations shall be varied per Figure 5-45. .605 In the ER and VL Districts, front yard setbacks along public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet. • .606 At least 50 percent of all garages within single family tracts shall be detached, side- on, or set behind front part of dwelling. • .607 Driveways shall not exceed 16 feet in width through public parkway frontages. .608 Two-story structures should not be planned for corner parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used. .609 At least 50 percent of dwellings shall not be plotted parallel to the street frontage. (This does not apply to properties within the Etiwanda South Overlay District.) .610 Property lines should be staggered as much as possible to create variety. (This does not apply to properties within the Etiwanda South Overlay District.) .700 Residential Proiects of Five Dwellings or More Developed Under Optional Development Standards (Figure 5-31 .701 The project shall be designed in a manner that is not only sensitive to, and compatible with the character of Etiwanda, but also reinforces that character through an integrated design and architectural theme. • .702 While no specific architectural style is required, the integrated theme selected shall reflect the traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, including but not limited to the following: (a) Victorian Characteristics: fieldstone foundations street gables and roofline porches and verandas 5-35 4/96 • NOTABLE EXISTING STRUCTURES Assessor's Parcel Etiwanda Ave. Number Current Use (address) 7567 227-181-37 Residence 7491 227-181-25 Residence 7165 227-131-23 Residence 7126 227-111-8 Church 7050 227-101-9 Residence 6956 227-101-5 Residence 6658 227-031-16 Residence 7089 227-121-18 Lumber Yard Office/ Old SPRR Depot 6490 225-171-14 Residence 6295 Chaffey-Garcia House Residence East Ave. address 7082 227-121-24 Residence 6563 227-011-17 Residence 6155 225-191-16 Residence Victoria Ave. (address) 13325 227-141-47 Residence 13483 227-141-43 Residence Imo' "Y.. "/ --/7P//7,,r", -.,Ly',; ,vaT„ bi/-7 F4" I N ‘_i '� -- w r • , ..aic— 41 y / r?%. I 1. Sr ♦ ` 1r i� ti i + rt <R -�.. .1 1 n •w f $x '.59!7 + sR'1 Y.! yr c c__ c ,ut,.v�_ 1 r h. d( �, i -_ � % I\ •A .„,‘ AA. , \ \ , steep gables, , / I / \ . traditional detailing/ / 7 , / S 41/4 r , s•■0•' ' mg a— •m-- •la••ii j/a II Z/ ----- aM"...■".. . - - 'N 1 ....■ - 1§kvb.- ie; "/„." wrar-latittakin, %t' ‘ inlipre dhaNINIZikamk4 dormers, , v- -wk. for Wigarin ■•]•1/4 roofing patterns , ,s tit", - s_sw,veurium, ‘‘allip/e// -A. \‘1,PIP__WIlaiii4 -,:---■ •NIIIINnur ‘' iwri4. • NO weiventior UtillkINcIlk ----1 Ilr-n--A VIM* 4r f:-...;:i II ,•\-- Wevai \ 1111knilor -- lilitelka‘ . fl-willicakii, , \ \ 'zi , vcanna \ t\ti Ai,. • ,- Aw\tvmat ./ \\ — _ - .-_,_---------_-_ - J / A Number of Single Family Minimum Number. of Minimum Number of Dwellings Foot Prints Elevations/Foot Print 5-10 3 2 11-20 4 3 21-40 5 3 41-60 6 4 61-80 7 4 61-100 8 4 Over 100 1 Additional For Each 40 DU's Over 100 Fig. 5- 45 a* Rr 1 . ` .s." % r C err:or --fifr!72:: -- _ _ —' — i[ o II I - . rn - `,,�e' - - traditional materials, -.E - N cupola variety in roof lines, ,— attention to detail 4 - /17 / l' / ail I, Lve :jig; A , - I \4', _-�- li 1 -�- — v _ ----- ��- \„ vertical windows, clapboard siding DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS March 15, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director