HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/12/21 - Agenda Packet - (2) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ¢~c_A~.~o
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 22, 1989 ACTION C~E~S
TO: Rest~ntfal/InsfiCtional
Design Review Co~ittee Larry ~Niel
David 81akesley
Otto Kroutil
Betsy Wei nberger ( A1 ternate )
FROM: Beverly Ni ssen, Associate P1 anner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CO~I~EE MEETING OF DEC~BER 21,198e
The following is a description of proj~ts ~ich require review and
rating by the Design Review Co~fttee. Please review ~e attached
plans, visit the project sites, and write do~ your co~ents using ~e
blank space provided under each proj~t on the atechad sheets. After
the meeting, the consensus of the Co~ittee's concerns will be typed up
as the forml action/reco~endation of the Co~tttee and distributed to
the Co~fssion and Council.
As alw~s, feel free to con~ct the app~priate project mnager (noted
in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting da~, if you
have sp~ific questions related to the scheduled p~jects. Dinner will
be provided between 5:00 - 5:30 p.m., Consent Calendar fte~ will be
revtewd be~een 5:30 p.m. - 6:~ p.m., with the first design review
item being heard at 6:00 p.m. Please notify our depar~ent tf you will
be unable to attend ~e ~eting, or tf you will be la~, so that the
dinner can be properly ordered and ~e necessary arrangsents made.
6:~ - 6:30
(Brett) ENVIRO~ENT~ ASSES~E~ ~ ~ATZVE T~T 14~8 -
WESI[RN PROPERTIES - A residential subdiviSIon and
~1 cond~inium units on 8.67 acres of
land fn ~e Idim Nigh ~nsfty Residential District
(14-24 d~lltng units per ac~), l~at~ at ~e
souffiwst corner of Millikan Avenue and West Greenway
Corridor - APN: 1077~21-16.
6:30 - 7:00
(Brett) DESIGN REVIE14 FOR TRACT 14121 - RHOADES DEVELOPMENT -
The deslgn revlew of bulldlng elevations and detalled
site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting
of 47 single family lots on 9,3 acres of land in the
Low-Medium Density Residential Dtstrtct (4-8 dvelling
units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Com,Jnity,
located at the southwest comer of Highland Avenue and
Nilliken Avenue - APN: 202-211-48,
DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA
DEC)BER 21, I989
Page 2
7:O0 - 7:30
(Steve H.) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 - CALPROP CORPORATION - A
request to change the r~sidential units on Lots 1
through 21 for a previously approved tract map
consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of
land in the Low Residential District {2-4 d~elling units
per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country
Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01
through 23 and 207-641-01 through 15.
BN :m lg
Attachments
cc: Planning Conmnission/City Council
RESIDENTIAL
CONSENT CALEIOAR ITEMS AGEII)A
December 21, 1989
1. DR 13621 - SAHAMA
(Bruce) Review revised building elevations and
Conmnittee Action: The Committee (McNiel, Blakesley and
Kroutil) approved the architectural
modifications as requested by them on
December 7, 1989. The Committee
required that the reveals located on
the side of the garage on Plan 3212
"B", be continued down the entire side
of the garage to the corner. The
Conmnittee made the following
requirements for the project walls:
1. Provide a perimeter six-foot
masonry wall around the project to
match the wall on Hillside Road.
The wall should run on the inside
edge (west side) of the local
equestrian trail and contain gates
to provide trail access. Trail
fencing should be eliminated in
favor of the masonry wall on this
side of the trail.
2. Provide front yard return walls on
all lots to match the perimeter
masonry fence. All other yard
walls shall be masonry with a
finish to match the front yard
return walls. Other yard wall s
need not contain rook pilasters
except as noted herein.
3. The perimeter wall along Hillside
Road should match the wall
directly across the street for
Tract 13877. The Schowalter
monument should also match the
monument on the south side of the
street and should be placed
directly across the street from
it.
4. A dimensioned detail of .the
Schowalter monument shall be
provided with the development
plans for Tract 13621.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Page 2
5. The rock/rail fence detail shall
be revised to substitute the
peeler pole rails with 2" x 6"
rails to emulate the P.V.C. trail
fence rail s.
DESIGN REVIEW COr4~ENTS
6:00 - 6:30 Brett December 21, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TP~ACT 14368 - WESTERN PROPERTIE~
- A residentia] subdivision and design review of lbl condomlnium units
on 8.67 acres of land in the Medium High Density Residential District
(14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of
Milliken Avenue and West Greenway Corridor - APN: 1077-421-16.
Background:
This tract is an extension of Tract 13270, which is a 384-unit apartment
complex under construction to the south. At the August 17, 1989
meeting, the applicant was directed to substantially revise the
architecture and site plan to meet the following concerns:
1. The architecture should be substantially revised to eliminate the
"false" appearance of the dormers, the significant blank elevations
and many other details as well.
2. A stucco low retaining wall should be used to screen the parking
spaces from the Hilliken Avenue streetscape.
3. The fencing, walls, and landscaping south of the underpass should
be constructed so that it is consistent with the Mtlliken Avenue
and Greenway landscaping. '
4. Patios must meet the City standard of 150 square feet for ground
stories and 100 square feet for upper stories.
5. Improved pedestrian connections should be made to Tract 13270 to
better link the two projects together.
6. Significant and substantial. landscaping breaks should be made along
the loop drive aisle. Parking "pods" should be employed to achieve
this. Minimum five feet wide landscape fingers should be provided
between open parking .stalls and enclosed garages.
Staff Comellts:
Based on these concerns and on the revised plans, the' Coemittee should
address the following issues:
1. Additional detailing is still needed along the side and rear
elevations (particularly for Building E - left side, Buildings A
and C - front elevations, and all rear garage elevations).
2. The multi-paned windows should be used throughout.
3. A detail of the chimney cap should be provided.
1
DESIGN REVIEW COF~4ENTS
TT 14368 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
Page 2
4. Per previous comments, additional attention to landscaping,
especially along the main drive aisle should be provided.
Landscape planters in parking a~eas and adjacent to garages should
be a minimum of 6 feet in width. Open parking stalls should not be
sandwiched between garage structures.
5. A "parking court" concept should be provided, with additional
enhanced paving in the parking areas.
6. Open or partially open fencing should be provided along the western
property line, consistent with Tract 13270.
Design Review Cemmmtttee Action:
Members Present: McNiel, Blakesley, Kroutil
Staff Planner: Brett Homer
The Committee recommended the following revisions:
1. The proposed colors were deemed too bold and should be toned
down. A new color and materials sample board should be
provided.
2. Bull dings should contain more than one floor plan type to
provide architectural variation.
3. A perspective rendering was suggested for review.
4. The architectural style should be revised to provide more
detailing, particularly around the stairways. The gas meter
closest to Building B should be painted the building color and
not highlighted. Much more detailing should be provided on the
stairways (see Building B).
5. More variation in roof and plate lines was reconanended. The
Conmntttee felt this would break up the synmnetrical appearance
of the units.
6. The accent score lines should be used in a consistent manner
throughout the project. Multi-paned windows were also
suggested for greater use.
DESIGN REVIEW COI(4ENTS
TT 14368 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
Page 3
7. The garage design needs much more variation and articulation.
The Committee suggested use of a shed or gable roof form and
other changes to the building bulk.
8. The space under the second story decks should be filled-in with
storage space for the garage. These spaces did not need to be
flush with the deck wall, but should not be the depth of the
stairs and deck.
g. The site plan should be revised to incorporate the courtyard
paving and garage approach detail used on previous mul U-family
projects.
The Conmnittee requested that the project return as a full item for
additional review.
DESIGN REVIEW COe~qENTS
6:30 - 7:00 Brett December 21, 1989
DESIGN REVIEW FOR 1RACT 14121 - RHOADES DEVELOPMENT - The design review
,'o"f'~e~tions and detaileor's~a previously approved
tract map consisting of 47 single family lots on 9.3 acres of land in
the Low-Medium Density Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
aC~), of the Victoria Planned Conmnunity, located at the southwest corner
.of'Highland Avenue and Millikan Avenue - APN: 202-211-48.
Staff Comments:
1.., Additional detailing on the side and rear elevations should Ge
I.j, provided. Siding should be used much more extensively on the units
with siding.
,2. Windows should be provided on several of the units with long, blank
~ garage side elevations, (see Plan 3).
3. A larger gable roof element should be provided on the second story
of Plan,2B (front elevation).
4. The side yard return fencing· should be co~atible with the
architecture.
Design Review Comtttee Action:
t4embers Present: McNtel, Blakeslay, Kroutil
Staff P1 anner: Brett Homer
The Conm~ittee recomended approval of the project with the following
modifications:
1. The units with wood siding should have siding on all
elevations, including both sides and rear. The Conmnittee
directed the applicant to work with staff on the small
irregularly shaped areas that could not contain wood siding.
2. Theusq of two different materials on homes with two chimneys
should be avoided. Siding' and brick on the Plan 2 elevation
was acceptable to the Coaetttee; however, similar chimney cap
and spark arrester details were recommended to provide
consistency.
DESIGN REVIEW CO~f4ENTS
DR FOR TR 14121 - RHOADES DEVELOPMENT I
Page 2
3. Return fencing sh,OU,l:d_b,e .a dqcorative masonry ma,i~e. rial .~(stucco
over). Wood gates~were~recOnmnended and limited.-(slope)' areaST
could be constructed of the. heavy wood material. '-' '
4. The deletioh of one lot Was recOm~nded to bring the tract
substantial conformance 'with the required 15 feet,'co~i!hed!.
sideyard setback. A finding could be made thal~ the Plan 2
an innovative product, thus allowing the 10 feet combined.,
setback on the remaining (approximately 20) lots.
The Committee recommended that the: c~ange's~ be brought back i~O'r.' 'review at
the January 4, 1990 meeting. " .:~.. ·
? .: ORIGINAL
DESIGN REVI,EW COMMENTS ' .POOR QUALITY
7:00 - 7:30 Steve H. December 21, 1989
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 - CALPROP COR~RATION - A request'to
Change the' ~es'~dential units on .LotS'c1 ithrOUgh 21 for a p'reviously
appr~vedrtract!map consisting of 38~i~g1~ famil9 lOts'on 15,7 acres of
land in the Low Residential '.Bistric.t' (2;41 'dwelli'ng 'Units per acre),
· lOcated south and east of Red Hill COuntry Club Drive, south of Calle
Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 23 a~d 207-641-01 throu9h
Back'~ rdu nd :: . ~. . .~' ,
:~., ~ ,:,. :.,. _, .,.,
.Te..ntative l:ra6t 10035 was originally appeared-by the Planning:'C6~mission
en' Man:h-25,,',1981. ~e design 'ne~;ie~ for ,Lots 36 through 38 was
approved b'y the Planning Comission .'On May '28, 1986'/with subsequent
design review approval of the remaining lots on January 28, 1987. The
~p'plicant :-'is ' requesting to c:hange -t_he.~ models on~ Lot~S-'l.'21 '-(the south
~ide of Camino Pradera), to 'qa~ge ~lni~s '.to -mee~-'currant market
d~mand~.' t~-,e~iously approved houses.,~ange:-iri'si~from 1!-;.825 to 2,435
~qU:~are' feet~e: The new residenc~.:s 'ar~:--'~i-opos~d 'Setween 2:,548 to '3,169
square feet.
Staff Comments: "!'c'i~--' 'i~.= ":-
ArChitectUre: ~ -~'" '~': :: ',:i*?.
1. The proposed building pads are quite la~'e. th~reby~ '~q'ui~-inb an
extensive amount of cut and fill. The am.ount of grading cou,ld be
'~ redOced-if another step' in the,,building'p'~d~"l-is:~"provided'.;~'.'so the
houses better "fit" the natUral terraln. ,.~.,.-.
3,,~ Due'to the downslope 'lot configurati6h 'and"VtSqbility from Foothill
Boulevard. additional. treatment of' the rear elevations ts
,~ important. · The following itemS: shOUld be cOnsidereJ for softening
the appearance of the houses. especially the rear elevations. as
seen from Foothill Boulevard.
~i~i ~ a~,% ~o~ ~ed~ce the amount Of' 'effeG-tiVe~'bulk: and to- avoid a '~asslve"
~e '.~ c~ :, appeara'nce.' provide roof.' d'eck~ :'and' ~1~~ 'levei' '~lecks~':i~stead of
.... L,.~ ......,
o~erh~ngtng decks.
~':.:b~r.,$¥o~de"drought tolerantS .1.andsca~dtng.,df various h~tghts and
~ *" t~tums'>~o:cPe~t~ .a Vatted Visdal planer '.:'
c)~ "Red~l~ce , ;rITe '.'- height~ dahd ~se oft -:~retain~lng vra;ll'S"' wherever
possdb le; =' .~ '~If necessary., integ'rate~'~t~e~"!~ itS'. 'fou rdat Ion wal 1 s
and ' us~natU~t ,,ma'ter.t~ls~'~or'minii~lze· thelp~.~.v'~tbiltty and
intrusivenes~ into the natural settlf~j~. -.Said :mlls 'Should not
exceed a maXlmui.~' he!gh~ Of'four' (,4) feet In the front yam
area.
3. The deck underlay on Lot 2 should be of an exf.~rior finish that
integrates with the arChitectUre O~ the house on said lot.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
T 10035 - CALPROP CORPCRATION !t ~:-,L. OE)iGgNAL
Page 2
Landscape:
' ' the dr~i.v. eWay~.W~dth~r~bou~d~g!r~dU~lly %aper Off' to...aJmaxi!nun~width
of 18 fe,et.at ~he' ~!~,iye,,.appn):ach~.j.,ffh~r~ver possible. .
O(h es'~ ~' '
1. The proposed G~ading Ordinance was reviewed by
Commission on December 13. 1989. Approval of the proposed
· Qqdinance., could .',,have seMe~l) :lml)lications.. on ~h~s,~ project-m&~
z ~:. ~ev~,si~ns.3to;!, the -~oy~Pa.ltl ¢gncept ,of ai;he houses as_.ptopOsedcqnay be
-i:-, :~equ!red. qjndgg~:a .nu,mber..~ofi~ri_ances:,,for ~e~backs and
..:;, ,.Commitstee. may Tw._is~h ~te? c.on.s~ider, 9.how~, the. increased~ he tght
, re-sidences r,~,f, fec i~s b;the -:a~e~.~,,fr,e.m, an · aesthetic., desjg!n.re!lat~
De s i9 n Revtew Co mmm tttee Act ion: ' 17:
Members Pnesent: llcNiel, Blakesley, Kroutil
.~ ..-. geturn jWa~l,]S~and.,,Comb.tnatton:+ reta~n. tng./b locl~! v~l l's .:shou.ld
I-, , d,es. ing'ed in .:such a way as qOt ..robe an. obtrusive e,lement!cin the
! ,,: ~ overall: c~nceptual. arohltec-tural and landscape design lof the
'ject
2. All 98rage elevations factn9 streets should be upgraded
. , .... ~:, ,t nc lude 8.rch tJ;ectu ~al. ds:~,..t 1: c~h,at :i. ls.:-¢ons~s bent~ with: the h lgh
ic, L,.;~ 'z'~.ev~e,!:.~ off :,,a,rcht.tec~ural./:detail! presented. :.::on~,-:>t.h~,;: pn)posed
' ex ter 1o P e leme qt~S p. rov.~d. ed eq!ith~ Lo~ ~'2~.:,~s 1de rice ~
.,, .,~,..~ Var~t~nces~,. f,.qr.- .jf, rOn~.I yard .~e. tbacks..:,p;overall a:h~t~hts'. and
. ~ ,aqce.s sor~: structure , '.se,L(bqcks ..~11;1-~5e ~onstde:~el~ Ebefore the
~ ~ P1