Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/09/21 - Agenda Packet - (2) CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 25, 1989 ACTION CO~ENTS TO: Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee Larry McNiel David Blakesley Otto Kroutil Betsy Weinberger {Alternate} FROM: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21~ 1989 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee and distributed to the Commission and Council. As always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Dinner will be provided between 5:00 - 5:30 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:00 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting, or if you will be late, so that the dinner can be properly ordered and the necessary arrangements made. 6:00 - 6:30 (Bev) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 - STANDARD PACIFIC - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 6, 7, and 8 of a previously County approved map consisting of 1.25 single family lots on 55.7 acres of land north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road. APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27.. DESIGN REVIEW AGENDA _.~ SEPTEMBER 21, 1989 ~ Page 2 6:30 - 7:00 (Brett) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of 394 condominium units on 23.5 acres of land in the Medium-High Density Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Spruce Avenue. APN: 1077-421-13. BN:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Con~nission/City Council RESIDENTIAI./INSTIllJllONAL CONSE~rr CALENDAR IIEiqS AX~ENDA September 21, 1989 1. 1T 12462 - JENIEL (Tom) Revised elevations. Committee Action: Revised elevation was not acceptable. Design should reflect original approval. 2. l'F 12420 - FIR~'F F/UqILY (Tom) Revised elevation for recreation building. Committee Action: Revised elevations were approved. 3. l'F 13303 - LEWIS {Steve R.) New product for previously approved design review. Committee Action: The Committee (Blakesley, McNiel, Kroutil} did not recommend approval of the proposed replacement for Plan 1, but recommended that the applicant make the following changes and bring the item back to the Committee for review: 1} A "C" elevation should be added to the two already proposed to create more variety among the Plan I units. ~re variation in the colors of the units should be added. 2) Enhanced elevations on all sides of Plan i should be incorporated. This would include siding around windows, and pop-out windows. CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA SEPTEMBER 21, 1989 Page 2 3) Rear and side elevations should be completely enhanced on the homes which face the perimeter streets, interior streets and trails within the tract. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00-- 6:30 Bev Septe~er 21, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 - STANDARD PACIFIC - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 6, 7, and 8 of a previously County approved map consisting of 1.25 single family lots on 55.7 acres of land north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road. APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27. Background: Tract 13565 was approved by 'the County of San Bernardino and includes 10 phases. Phases 1-4 are a~ready under construction and Phases 5, 7, and 8 were reviewed and approved by the Design Review Con~nittee on August 17, 1989, and September 7, 1989. An Annexation and Development Agreement was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 16, 1988 and December 7, 1988 respectively. Standard Pacific is now submitting a design review for Phases 6, 7, and 8 (125 lots) only. The approved lots range in size from 9,011 to 21,663 square feet, average lot size for Phases 6, 7, and 8 is 9,949 square feet. Staff Comnents: Site Plan: 1. Streetside landscaping and irrigation is required. Corner side yards should be provided with irrigation and groundcover or turf at minimum. 2. View fencing should not be painted beige in color, but should be painted a less noticable color. 3. Corner side yard lots should be provided with 8:15 gallon trees minimum. 4. Paseo walkways should be landscaped with six (6) box size trees to provide greater delineation. 5. Paseo walkways should be widened at the street. Paseos should be somewhat curvilinear, rather than straight. Architecture: The site is located in neighborhood Theme III of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This section requires the architectural styles of either California Ranch, Monterey, San Juan and Santa Barbara Revival style of architect0re as the primary group. The applicant has chosen to provide 50 percent Santa Barbara Revival and 25 percent each Monterey and California Ranch. The attached Table provides a list of those architectural elements which should comprise each architectural style. DESIGN REVIEW C04MENTS TT 13565 - STANDARD PACIFIC Page 2 1. Plan 1 a) Elements missing from California Ranch include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12, covered entry with open trellis and front and/or rear porch. b) Elements missing from Monterey include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12, covered veranda, recessed and covered entry, and exposed rafters. c) Elements missing from Santa Barbara Revival include: 5:12 roof pitch, courtyard entry with wrought iron gate, and accent shutters. 2. Plan 2 a) Elements missing from .California Ranch include: porches at front and/or rear, accent shutters, and 4:12 breaking to 3:12 roof pitch over front and rear porches. b) Elements missing from Monterey include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12, large verandas below and balconies above in front and rear and vertical siding to differentiate between first and second floors. c) Elements missing from Santa Barbara Revival include: 5:12 roof pitch, small balconies front and/or rear, and arched windows over entry doors. 3. Plan 3 a) Elements missing from California Ranch include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12 over front and rear porches, porches at front and/or rear, and shutters at front windows. b) Elements missing from the Monterey elevation include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12, large verandas with balconies above on front and/or rear, and siding to differentiate first and second stories. c) Elements missing from the Santa Barbara Revival elevation include: 5:12 roof pitch, courtyard entry with wrought iron gate, arched windows above entry door and shutters to accent windows front and rear. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13565 - STA~ARD PACIFIC Page 3 4. Plan 4 a) Elements missing from the California Ranch elevation include: roof pitch of 4:12 breaking to 3:12 over front and rear porches, shutters on primary windows in front, exposed rafters, and porch at ground level. b) Elements missing from the Monterey elevation include: 4:12 roof pitch breaking to 3:12, large verandas below with balconies above on front and rear. c) Elements missing from the Santa Barbara Revival include: 5:12 roof pitch, balconies, accent shutters and courtyard entry with wrought iron gate. 5. The Con~ittee should discuss whether sufficient articulation has been provided on all sides of each elevation. Design Review Conmittee Action: Members Present: David Blakesley, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen The Conmnittee {Blakesley, McNiel, Kroutil} approved the project with the following conditions: 1. Corner side yard landscaping should include irrigation and either groundcover or turf. 2. View fencing should be black in color. 3. Corner side yard lots should be provided with eight {8} 15-gallon trees. 4. Paseo walkways should be landscaped with six (6} 24" box size trees. An easement should be provided on each side of the sidewalk {approximately 10' on either side) allowing the City the right to prohibit fencing in this area. 5. All river rock should be of native stone. 6. Balconies should be added to the Santa Barbara Revival elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 1'~ 13565 - STANDARD PACIFIC Page 4 In addition, the following modifications should return to the Design Review Committee on the Consent Calendar for further review: 1. On Plan 4, rock should be added to the chimneys of the California Ranch elevation. 2. Plan 2 should be revised to provide consistent material on the trim and chimneys. 3. Wrought iron should be added to the Santa Barbara Revival elevations of Plan 4. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Brett September 21, 1989 ENVIRO~4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of 394 condominium units on 23.5 acres of land in the Medium-High Density Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Spruce Avenue. APN: 1077-421-13. Background: This project was most recently reviewed by the Comnittee on March 30, 1989. At that time, the applicant was directed to revise the plans to address the following concerns: 1. More variety in the building architecture should be provided. Additional building types were suggested to provide variation in the massing, bulk, and form of the three building types. The Committee again expressed its concern over the "samehess" of the building elevations and expressed its displeasure with what it felt were only minor cosmetic changes to the architecture. 2. Building setbacks from the perimeter streets should be increased, particularly for Buildings 9, 10, 17, and 21. Setbacks should be dimensioned from the furthest projection of the buildings, such as the second story overhang on all No. 5 units. 3. Details of the covered parking buildings should be provided. These structures should reflect the architectural design of the residential buildings. 4. The recreation building should be relocated to "open up" the views to the park from the open space spine. Staff Comments: Based on the previous reviews and staff's review of the revised plans, the Committee should address the following concerns: 1. Setbacks from perimeter streets should be increased significantly. The Design Review Committee previously directed the applicant to do this on the first review date. 2. Some buildings need to be setback further from each other. Examples are Buildings 2 and 4, 41 and 50, 22 and 23, 21 and 25, and especially 44 and 45 which are only 6 feet apart. 3. Low walls or berming/landscaping should be provided where parking aisles terminate by perimeter streets. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Page 2 4. Where landscape fingers are provided, paved walks should be eliminated. As an alternative, a 4-6 feet wide landscape area should be provided on one or both sides of a walk within the landscape finger. 5. The drive aisle south of Building 20 could be removed and landscaped. Building lg could get access from the southerly drive aisle which services Building 18. 6. Buildings 36 and 12 should be relocated so that they are not completely surrounded by drive aisles. 7. It appears that the large turnaround north of Building 26 is not needed. If the parking is reoriented, a large landscape area can be provided. 8. Enclosed garages should be separated from open parking stalls by a minimum 5 feet wide planter. 9. During previous reviews, the Con~nittee expressed its concern with the "symmetry" of the elevations, particularly of the rear elevation of Building Types A and B {Sheets 13 and 17). It appears additional minor changes may be needed. 10. Landscape planters outside the garages should be enlarged so that the plantings are not obstructed by second story overhangs. Design Review Comnittee Action: Members Present: David Blakesley, Larry McNiel, Otto Kroutil Staff Planner: Brett Hornet The Conmnittee requested to review revised plans addressing the following items of concern: 1. Turf block should be utilized across drive aisles to eliminate the "island" buildings {36 and 12). 2. The buildings at the corners of Spruce and Elm and Spruce and Church should be reoriented to open the corners up. 3. Low walls in combination with retaining walls should be used at the end of drive aisles facing perimeter streets. The walls should have approximately 12" exposed to the street and should have a cap. 4. Extra landscaping and tree planting should be installed outside street facing patios. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 1'[ 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Page 3 5. If 5-6 feet high walls are needed for acoustical purposes on.patio walls along the street, glazing should be used on the top portion to maintain the low patio wall concept. 6. Enhanced paving should be used in the drive aisle intersection north of Building 26. 7. An additional reveal or "step-back" should be used in the half- round arch above the second story windows. 8. The tile accent band below the second story windows should be used more extensively on all buildings, particularly below the center window on building Type B (front elevation). 9. Colored concrete aprons should be used outside garages between raised planter areas. The planter widths should be extended one and a half feet in width on each side of the drive aisles, thus maintaining a 26 feet drive aisle width. 10. Walks can be eliminated or relocated in some areas of the site plan to provide greater planting areas.