HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/07 - Agenda PacketDATE:
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
May 12, 1992
ACTION COMS
Residential/Institutional
Design Review Committee
Wendy Vallette
Peter Tolstoy
Dan Coleman
John Melcher (Alternate)
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 7, 1992
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/recor~nendation 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 p.m. - 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between
5:45 p.m. - 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:40
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.
6:40 - 7:00
(Anna-Lisa)
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES -
Review of the revised recreation building elevations and
recreation facilities within a previously approved condominium
project, located at the northeast corner of Church Street and
Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-13.
7:10 - 8:00
(Steve H.)
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 LEWIS HOMES The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a
previously recorded tract map consisting of 129 lots on 25.29
acres located within the Victoria Planned Community in the
LOw-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
located west of Kenyon Way, north of Ellena West, and south of
the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 227-671-01 through 42
and 227-681-01 through 87.
SH:mlg
Attachments
cc: Planning Commission/City Council
RESIDENTIAL
CONSENT CALENDAR 1T~MS AGENDA
May 7, 1992
DR 14365, & DR 14407 LEWIS HOMES
(Steve R.) Review of revised details.
Conunittee Action:
The Cormnittee (Vallette, Melcher,
Coleman) approved the design, as
submitted, for the bay window of the
center plotted units of Plan 303 as
well as the band of moulding on the
zero lot line wall.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:40 - 7:00 Anna-Lisa May 7, 1992
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - Review of
the revised recreation building elevations and recreation facilities
within a previously approved condominium project, located at the
northeast corner of Church Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-13.
Project and Site Description:
Tentative Tract 13717 was approved by the Planning Commission on
February 14, 1990. The tract was approved for the development of
394 condominium units within 52 buildings. There are 4 two-story
building types. The project was designed as two distinct villages, each
with its own set of recreational amenities and architectural scheme.
The units to the north of the site will have a contemporary appearance
with siding, stucco, and flat tile roofing while the units to the south
will have a Mediterranean style with stucco and S-tile roofs.
Background:
Since the project's approval, the applicant has decided to market the
tract as a "for sale" product type instead of rental units due to
economic and market conditions. In accordance with this decision, they
have scaled down the recreational building (from 6,306 square feet to
2,772 square feet), redesigned the recreation areas, modified the Spruce
Avenue entry, and relocated two buildings to eliminate the rental office
and increase open space. The Commission reviewed these proposed
modifications on February 13, 1991, and conditionally approved them (see
revised site plan, Exhibit "D"). Final architectural revisions for the
recreation building were not reviewed or approved. In addition, the
Planning Division has reviewed plan checks of the rough grading plans
and building elevations for the project which are nearing completion.
Also, the project has received final map approval from the City
Council. The project is not subject to the new multi-family standards
currently in place.
Since the modification to the site plan (February 14, 1991), the
recreation building has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on
three separate occasions, July 18, 1991 (McNiel, Tolstoy, Coleman),
October 17, 1991 (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman), and January 2, 1992
(Vallette, Tolstoy, Buller).
The Design Review Committee conceptually approved the proposed
recreation amenity package but could not reach a consensus on whether or
not the redesigned recreation building was consistent with the
originally approved design. They recomended that the project be
reviewed by the Planning Co~unission. The project was reviewed by the
Commission (McNiel, Melcher, Vallette) on February 12, 1992. The
Planning Commission concurred that down-sizing of the recreation
building would be appropriate, but only the area that was originally
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
MAY 7t 1992
Page 2
designated for leasing purposes. The Commission then directed the
applicant to return to the Design Review process for further review of
the recreation building design. Attached are the minutes of the
Commission's discussion on this item.
Staff Comments:
The revised recreation building has been increased in size from
2,772 square feet to 3,319 square feet, exclusive of 493 square feet of
exterior covered area. In addition, the pool restrooms and equipment
had been moved into a separate 353 square foot building.
Major Issues:
The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee
discussion regarding this project:
Should the building integrate the two architectural styles of the
residential buildings? The architecture of the recreation building
has changed radically from the former 2,772 square foot version
which was styled to match the Mediterranean theme of the non-family
units in the southern portion of the project. The revised
recreation building tries to blend the Mediterranean theme with the
more traditional theme associated with the family units in the
northern portion of the site. Therefore, the Mediterranean stucco
exterior of one style is merged with the flat concrete tile roof of
the other style. Both styles feature half round window elements
that are strangely absent here. Staff feels that a single style
would be a more successful design solution.
Has the massing and scale of the building been enlarged enough?
The overall massing was increased by raising the height
approximately 4 feet. This allowed a second row of windows giving
the appearance of a two-story building. The length of the building
was increased approximately 17 feet with a one-story restroom wing
on the right side.
Secondary Issues:
Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,
the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
The individual elements of the building are poorly executed:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
MAY 7, 1992
Page 3
The windows are placed below the dormers rather than the normal
position within the dormer. Therefore, the dormers only
functionally apparent reason is to provide a place for the too
small louver vents. A single larger gable element centered above
the service closet would relate better to the residential
buildings.
The false dormer above the service closet is flattened, and adds
little value as a decoration to the front elevation.
The cupola on top of the pool restroom/equipment building adds too
much emphasis to this minor structure as it relates to the main
recreation building.
The wood trellis across the rear elevation projects only I to
2 feet from the building face (Assembly Room). Likewise, the wood
columns across the rear elevations, which support the hip roof of
the Exercise Room, project only 1 to 2 feet. These elements should
project enough for someone to walk underneath.
The smallish windows on the right hand side of the front elevation,
adjoining the main building entry, unfortunately convey exactly
what this portion of the building is: a restroom. More attention
is needed to dressing up this portion of the building because of
its importance flanking the main entry. One possible solution
would be to use full height windows (frosted glass) to match those
in the Office on the opposite side of the main entry.
The built-up stucco wainscot should be continuous around the
building rather than stopping and starting as shown. In addition,
the 5-foot height of the wainscot appears too high for the building
giving it a "bottom heavy" feel.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Wendy Vallette, John Melcher, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez
The Committee reviewed the revised plans and recommended that the plans
be revised to address the following:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES
MAY 7, 1992
Page 4
The Committee was concerned that the proposed Cape Cod
architectural style of the recreation building would not blend
harmoniously with the primary contemporary style of the
dwellings. The Committee recommended that the applicant submit
perspective drawings of the recreation building at the project
entrance. The perspective drawings should incorporate the adjacent
dwelling structures located directly north and south.
The windows within the dormer element on the front elevation should
be redesigned to be in better proportion with the louver elements
directly above.
The dormer above the service closet should be redesigned or
eliminated. As it is currently designed, the dormer adds little
value as a decoration to the front of the elevation.
The wood trellis across the rear elevation, adjacent to the
exercise room, should extend out to provide a shade area.
The 5-foot built-up wainscot should be redesigned to be
proportionate to the building massing. As it is currently
designed, the height and color of the wainscot contributes heavily
to the buildings "bottom heavy" feel.
In addition to offering the above listed comments, the Committee
conceptually approved all of the recreation areas except the primary
recreation building. Once plans have been revised for the recreation
building, the project should be rescheduled for the next available
Design Review meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 - 8:00 Steve H. May 7, 1992
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES The design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously recorded
tract map consisting of 129 lots on 25.29 acres located within the
Victoria Planned Community in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling Units per acre), located west of Kenyon Way, north of Ellena
West, and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 227-671-01
through 42 and 227-681-01 through 87.
Design Parameters:
The project site is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad to the
north, an approved single family residential subdivision to the south, a
future park site to the east and a future multiple family development
and/or a church to the west. The site has been rough graded for
building pads and streets and all side yard retaining walls on the
north/south cul-de-sacs have been constructed. In addition, the
perimeter slump stone block wall is built but the wrought iron gate
openings to the trail along the railroad right-of-way have not been
installed. The site is void of any significant vegetation and slopes
from north to south at approximately 3 percent.
Since these lots were recorded, the applicant has attempted to provide
building footprints that meets the technical constraints of these lots
(especially width) while attempting to address concerns raised recently
by the Planning Commission with similar small lot subdivisions. The
two-story models have been previously constructed in the Terra Vista
Rosecrest project and the one-story plan is proposed to break up the
redUndancy of the streetscape, per staffs recommendations.
Background:
Tentative Tract 13753 was approved by the Planning Commission on January
27, 1988. This approval included the subdivision of lots conceptual
grading and street configurations. In addition, a housing prototype was
shown on these lots to assure that the minimum setbacks could be
maintained. At the time this map was processed, the Victoria Community
Plan only required a minimum 5-foot side yard setback on both sides in
this zone. Since that time, the Victoria development standards have
been amended to require minimum side yard setbacks Of 5 and 10 feet.
Since the subdivision occurred prior to this modification, the old
setback standards may be proposed. However, the Committee has the
discretion to recommend greater side yard setbacks in instances where
further compliance with design policy's is needed (i.e., building
separation, RV storage, streetscape variety, etc.).
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
T 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
MAY 7, 1992
Page 2
On June 13, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a detailed site plan
and building elevations for the previous owner. These homes were
significantly larger than the homes proposed with this application and a
majority of the lots were plotted with building pads at the minimum
5-foot side yard setbacks on both sides.
On March 19, 1992, the Planning Commission (McNiel, Melcher, Tolstoy,
Vallette) held a workshop to review the conceptual unit plotting and
streetscape perspectives for this project. Minutes from this meeting
are attached that highlight the topics of discussion that evening.
Staff Comets:
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:
The architecture of the one-story plan, which is the only new
house, should be considered. The house has been designed to be
compatible with the Rosecrest project. Staff feels that the
one-story house is consistent in style and details with the two-
story houses.
The Committee should consider if the side yard building separations
along lots .1 through 20 are appropriate. Greater separation would
require elimination of one lot.
Since the Planning Commission workshop, many footprints have been
plotted with greater front yard setback variation to improve the
streetscape appearance. However, additional setback variation
should be provided to improve the streetscapes. (The shallow
two-story footprints allow for additional front to rear shifting.)
Secondary Issues:
Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
Building footprints should be plotted to allow for the pairing of
driveways to create larger grouped front yard areas.
2. A single story plan should be plotted on lot 21 to open the eastern
entrance to the project.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
T 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
MAY 7, 1992
Page 3
The Committee should consider if the number of lots that have RV
storage access is acceptable. Approximately 40 lots or 3~ percent
have RV storage capability (10 feet or more free and clear on the
garage side with no building pop-outs, mechanical equipment or
slopes) which exceeds the minimum Victoria Community Plan of
25 percent.
Policy Issues:
The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and
should be incorporated into the project design without discussion:
All return and corner side yard walls shall be of a decorative
block material (preferably stucco, of a neutral color, with a
decorative cap) and gates painted to match the return walls.
All retaining walls in public view shall be of a decorative
material or decorative exterior treatment.
Corner side yard walls should be located at least 5 feet behind the
back of the sidewalk to allow planting areas capable of ensuring
adequate area for tree growth.
Decorative hardscape treatments should be used in all driveways as
an accent to break up large areas of concrete.
Accent materials (i.e., brick veneer) should be applied more
extensively on the side elevations to the return walls and chimneys
or removed altogether.
Wood trim around all windows should be a minimum size of 2 inches
by 6 inches.
Front and corner side yard landscaping that will be privately
maintained should be low maintenance and drought tolerant.
Design Review Conmittee Action:
Members Present: Wendy Vallette, John Melcher, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Committee (Vallette, Melcher, Coleman) recommended approval of the
project subject to the following conditions of approval:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
T 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
MAY 7, 1992
Page 4
5.
6.
7.
The design of the one-story plan should be modified and reviewed by
the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building
permits for any residences within the project. The following items
should be addressed in the modified design:
a)
The footprint should have greater vertical plane variation on
the front and side elevations; and
b)
Fireplaces should be relocated to provide a continuous minimum
side yard setback of 5 feet.
The Committee suggested that if this model can be modified to the
satisfaction of the Committee, then the major site planning issue
related to side yard building separations can be eliminated.
The site plan should be modified to increase the variety of front
yard setbacks, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Building footprints should be plotted to allow for the pairing of
driveways to create larger grouped front yard area. A revised site
plan indicating compliance should be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
Brick should be used more extensively on all applicable models to
the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
The pull-through garages on Plan 432 should be replaced with double
hinged doors to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
All column bases should be flush to the ground to avoid giving this
element a "floating" appearance.
All chimney caps should be painted to match the stucco color of
each residence.
On those two-story models proposed with clipped roof lines, they
should be clipped to a greater extent to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
March 19, 1992
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea
STAFF PRESENT:
Nanette Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer; Brad
Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner;
Anthea Hatrig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate
Planner; Otto Kroutil~ Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller,
Associate Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate
Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner.
OWNER/DEVELOPER PRESENT:
Don Thompson, Jary Cockroft, George Chu,
Ernie Parilla; Lewis Homes
· , , · ,
PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW 92-01 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753} - LEWIS HOMES -
Review of conceptual site planning and housing product within a recorded
subdivision within the Victoria Planned Community.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the workshop by explaining the purpose of
the new pre-application review process ~nd the history of its formation. He
then outlined the presentation procedures for the applicant and Commission.
Don Thompson, Lewis Homes, stressed the importance of expediting the
processing of this project if Lewis purchases the recorded tract from the
bank. Me asked the Commissioners to consider waiving design review of the
housing type previously constructed in Lewis' Rosecrest project in order to
concentrate on the unit plotting and the one-story unit design at the future
Design Review Committee meetings. He felt the depth of these recorded lots
and the introduction of the one-story plan will help in giving this project a
more open feeling than that created in Rosecrest.
Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, stated that the Rosecrest product is selling
relatively well in the current economy. He indicated that one of the tw6-
story house designs used in Rosecrest was eliminated for the project and
replaced with a one-story model, per staff's direction.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the proposal and
highlighted potential issues/discussion topics for commission consideration.
Chairman McNiel felt that the unit mix along the south side of Candela Drive
should be modified to produce a more open streetscape appearance and
additional side yard setbacks should be provided to allow for recreational
vehicle storage access to side and rear yards. Me liked the introduction of
the single story plan but did not feel circumventing the design review process
relative to its review was appropriate.
commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern for the minimal side yard setbacks
between units. He felt that the entire project should be closely scrutinized
at Design Review as ideas about development mature. He also indicated that
single story units should be plotted on the corner lots closest to the two
vehicular entrances to the project.
Commissioner Melcher shared similar concerns as the other Commissioners
relative to the plotting of the one-story plan. He felt that the lower
profiles of the one-story plan will reduce the crowded streetscape appearance
and side yard tunnels created by minimal separations between adjacent two-
story units. Me agreed that the one-story plan should be reviewed by the
Design Review Committee. He commended the applicant on the houses built in
their Rosecrest tract and the high percentage of one-story models proposed
within the new project.
commissioner vallette agreed that the one-story plan should be reviewed by the
Design Review committee. she felt that all lots should be plotted to comply
with the current side yard setback requirements (5 feet one side, 10 feet
other side), additional front yard setback variation should be provided given
the extra leeway with the deeper lots, the side yard setbacks for units
adjacent to the railroad should be increased, and the footprint of the one-
story plan should be natrowed to allow for larger side yard setbacks.
Mr. Buller observed that the housing product could technically fit on the lots
and meet the required minimum setbacks; hence, the side yard separation issue
is only one Of design.
commissioner Melcher suggested that the architect clip roof lines on some two-
story homes with small hips to alleviate the concern of continuous roof lines.
Commissioner Vallette asked staff for clarification about the required minimum
side yard setbacks.
Mr. Hayes stated that the tract was &pproved with a product prototype with
5-foot minimum side yard setbacks on both sides, hence this tract was
"grandfathered" with that criteria.
Commissioner Tolstoy stressed the importance of getting the best product
possible from both a site planning and architectural perspective.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 19, 1992
Hr. Buller summarized the Commiesion's concerns. He stated that a majority of
the Commissioners expressed concern with the unit plotting~ especially in
areas where lot widths do not allow for additional side separations with the
proposed units. He noted this issue may be resolvable without adjusting lot
lines or modifying the unit type~ but he reminded the Commission that if the
project moves forward, the changes in side yard setbacks and building
separations will not significantly change from what was presented for this
review. He acknowledged that a majority Of the Commissioners favor the
introduction of the single story plan, provided it is plotted on more lots and
those lots leading into the project. In addition, he stressed the
Commissioners' desire for additional front yard setback variation and
direction to possibly "clip" roof lines on some two-story models (if room
volumes make this possible) to improve the streetscape appearance within the
project. Finally, Mr. Buller concluded that the Commission will place
emphasis on the referenced site planning issues and the architecture of the
one-story plan at the Design Review Committee Meeting.
, · · ·
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 19, 1992