The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012/04/17 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY APRIL 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly Linda Daniels 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) DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA FORMAT AND PROCEDURES. 7:20 p.m. (Steve/Betty) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-00157 - K Hovnanian - The modification of the previously approved Design Review DRC2010-00259 to add a second story on the 9 remaining single-story elevations within a 34.1-acre development 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, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-101-01 through -55, 1087-111-01 through -02, 1087-111-14 through 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, and 1087-111-27 through 1087-111-36. Related files: Development Review DRC2010-00157, Design Review DRC2011-00671, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. 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. 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 April 17, 2012 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT 1, 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 April 4, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 4a_z&all'fiC DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger April 17, 2012 DISCUSSION OF THE DRC AGENDA FORMAT AND PROCEDURES. An oral report will be given at the meeting. Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Fowler April 17, 2012 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-00157 - K Hovnanian - The modification of the previously approved Design Review DRC2010-00259 to add a second story on the 9 remaining single-story elevations within a 34.1-acre development 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, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-101-01 through -55, 1087-111-01 through -02, 1087-111-14 through 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, and 1087-111-27 through 1087-111-36. Related files: Development Review DRC2010-00157, Design Review DRC2011-00671, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. 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 October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2006-00382 for the development of 97 homes on a 34.1-acre site within the 632-unit Master Planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. Of the 97 homes that were approved, only 18 were built before the down-turn in the economy. On October 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a new Development Review DRC2010-00259 for the remaining 79 homes. Because of a shifting demand in the housing market, the applicant, K. Hovnanian Homes, made modifications to their previously approved Development Review by proposing smaller homes, The request for the remaining 79 homes would complete the build-out. On November 2011, the Planning Commission approved Design Review DRC2011-00671, a modification to the previously approved Development Review by plotting a fifth floor plan to the mix, increasing the size of Floor Plan 2 and adding an option to Floor Plan 1. The applicant has been and still 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 that 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 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 vacant land to the west; by single-family homes to the north; by Day Creek Boulevard to the south; and by a portion of Tract 16227, built by K. Hovnanian, 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 Etiwanda North Specific Plan (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 not consistent with the required architectural styles as they only have two styles: one is Bungalow, which is new to the previously approved mix, and the other is Country. The applicant would be required to add two more architectural styles and those styles would be required to be from the following list: Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that this modification include the addition of a second-story on the remaining 9 single-story units left to be DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00157 — K HOVNANIAN April 17, 2012 Page 2 constructed in the tract. This would decrease the percentage of single-story residences to 13 percent or 11 homes that have either been built or are currently under construction. The policy for the City is to maintain at least 25 percent of the homes as single-story units. The applicant requests this change based on the current demand of the housing market in the area, which is dictating larger floor plans. This will increase the floor plan by 770 square feet in the second floor. The design of the second floor allows the applicant to keep the look of a single-story, while adding this additional floor area, as the changes from the original design to this new design is an extended roof plane and windows on the side elevations. The range of floor plans will still be from a 2,605 square foot plan to a 3,727 square foot plan. The new plan will be a two-story plan and proposes two architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are Bungalow and Country. The Bungalow elevation incorporates recessed windows, decorative shutters, and gable ends with shingle siding. The Country style incorporates brick veneer elements, flat tile roof, and balconies. All four sides of all homes have articulation and 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. 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 tract no longer meets the 25 percent single-story requirement by requesting 9 of the 20 single-story homes be allowed to have a second-story added onto them. 2. The submittal is required to have two additional architectural styles per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Those two styles would be required to be chosen from the following three styles: Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The proposed design of the houses does not meet the design regulations under RCMC 17.08.090.D2a (i.e. 360 degree architecture to all elevations). The front elevations include some elements that either disappear or are sparse on the side elevations. Materials, such as siding, stone veneer, wrought iron, and use of faux shutters should be utilized on all elevations and in greater amounts to achieve 360 degree architecture. 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 still requires more elements on walls with long areas of stucco and requires some of the front elevations to be embellished. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00157 — K HOVNANIAN April 17, 2012 Page 3 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. 3. Coach lights on the rear will match the coach lights utilized on the front of the residence. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the application and provide direction for staff. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Steve Fowler Members Present: