HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/12/02 - Agenda Packet - Action THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Sh DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
L% J AGENDA
CTh
„RANCHO • DECEMBER 2,2014 - 7:00 P.M.
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Rains Room
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER I ACTION
Roll Call 7:00 P.M.
II. I
Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X
Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger X
Alternates: Ray Wimberly Frances Howdyshell_
Lou Munoz
III. PROJECT CONSENT ITEMS I
A. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00207 - PLAZA DEVELOPMENTS EAST A. The Committee
AVE LLC - A design review of six single-family residences in conjunction reviewed the revised
with a previously approved 6-lot subdivision on 2.99 acres within the Low architecture for the
(L) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west Project and
recommended
side of East Avenue, approximately 500 feet south of the Victoria Avenue- approval.
APN: 0227-121-33. Related case: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16578.
IV. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS I
The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives.
Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to
20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues
and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design
Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission.
1 of 2
/
t'�`���` DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA
LOW DECEMBER 2, 2014
HO
ONOA
Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as
applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although
the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
B. DRC2013-00914—JWDA-A review of six(6)single-family homes that will B. Approved subject
be constructed in conjunction with a previously approved subdivision within to the revisions
the Low (L) Residential District, located about 200 feet south of Wilson discussed in the
Avenue on the east side of Winchester Court-APNs: 0201-182-36, -37, report and at the
meeting to be verified
and -38. Related case: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18391. with staff prior to
forwarding to the
Planning Commission
for review and action.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS I None.
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.
VI. ADJOURNMENT 17:26P.M.
The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with
the consent of the Committee.
2 of 2
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Mike Smith December 2, 2014
DRC2013-00914 — JWDA - A review of six (6) single-family homes that will be constructed in conjunction
with a previously approved subdivision within the Low (L) Residential District, located about 200 feet
south of Wilson Avenue on the east side of Winchester Court - APNs: 0201-182-36, -37, and -38.
Related case: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18391.
Background: A tentative tract map for the purpose of subdividing the property into six (6) lots for a
single-family residential development, filed by Amin Khan, was approved for this project site by the
Planning Commission on November 10, 2010 (Related case: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18391). To
date, the final map has not been recorded. The property has since been sold to the applicant's client for
the development/construction of the homes.
Site Characteristics: The project site is comprised of three (3) parcels with combined dimensions of
approximately 659 feet (north to south) by approximately 178 feet (east to west) and an approximate
area of 122,000 square feet (2.8 acres). The project site is located approximately 200 feet south of the
intersection of Wilson Avenue and Winchester Court, on the east side of Winchester Court. The site is
partially developed with a single-family residence which has been determined to not be a significant
cultural/historic resource and is pending demolition. To the south, east, and west are single-family
residences. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is Low (L) Residential District.
The subject property slopes north to south. The elevation at the north side is approximately 1,783 feet.
At the south side the elevation is generally approximately 1,767 feet, but because of a significant change
in the slope at the south property line of the site, the elevation is approximately 1,755 feet.
General: The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot of the above-noted
subdivision for a total of six (6) single-family residences. The floor areas of the houses (including the
garages) will range between 4,288 square feet (Plan A) to 5,389 square feet (Plan D). Two (2) of, the
houses (Plan A and D) will be one-story, while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story.
This equates to 33 percent of the lots having single-story houses. This percentage of one- and two-story
homes complies with Section 17.122.010 of the Development Code that requires 25 percent of all
single-family detached units within single-family residential development consisting of four (4) or more
units to be single-story.
As noted previously, the project site is mostly bound by existing residential development. The
subdivision to the south (Tract 10827) is approximately 10 feet lower in elevation than the project site.
Reducing the finished elevations of the proposed subdivision to match Tract 10827 is not possible as the
subdivision to the west (Tract 16421) and Winchester Court have finished elevations that are also higher
than that of Tract 10827. The finished elevations of the project must be at, or near, the same elevation
as the street for practical reasons such as adequate stormwater drainage and homeowner access to
each lot. '
Nevertheless, to mitigate any impact on the properties to the south, staff requested that the applicant
construct a single-story house on Lot 6 so that potential impacts to the existing property owners to the
south, such as the loss of privacy and/or blocked views because of the grade difference, would be
minimized. The staff also requested that the applicant plot the house 10 feet from the south property line
instead of at the minimum required setback line of 5 feet. The other single-story house will be on Lot 1.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00914— JWDA
December 2, 2014
Page 2
The project includes the construction of perimeter and interior property line walls. The wall along the
east property line will be a conventional screen wall of 6 feet in height. The walls proposed along the
north and south property lines will be combination walls comprised of screen walls of 6 feet in height on
top of a retaining wall. The retaining wall height will vary depending on the differences between finished
grades. The combination wall along the south property line of Lot 6 will be constructed adjacent, and
parallel, to an existing property line screen wall. Because of the presence of a concrete V-ditch on the
north side of this existing wall, the proposed wall will be off-set from the existing wall a distance generally
equivalent to the width of the V-ditch. Since the proposed wall includes a retaining wall, the screen
portion of the wall will be slightly higher than the existing wall by approximately 3 feet (Sheet C-3,
Section F-F). Staff recommends that the part of the proposed wall that projects above the existing wall
be an open•wrought iron fence instead to match the existing fence at the top of the wall along the
common property line between Tracts 10827 and 16421.
The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in the
Development Code. The applicant proposes a single architectural theme that incorporates the
form/massing and details derived from Italian architecture. Staff notes to the Committee that the use of a
single theme is consistent with the subdivision located directly to the west (on the opposite side of
Winchester Court). Each house will be largely finished with stucco and, with the exception of Plan B, will
have some stone veneer. Plan B will be exclusively finished with stucco. All plans will have a two-tone
color finish. The roofing will be of barrel tile. The applicant proposes four (4) distinct footprints — Plans
A, B, C, and D — and a reverse footprint of Plan C for a total of five (5) footprints. Plans A and D will be
one-story, while the others will be two-story. Each house will have an articulated footprint/floor plan and
profile with a variety of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Each house will have a front
• entrance comprised of either an enclosed courtyard or a covered porch. A decorative trellis is included
with Plans A and C. There will also be details such as a well-defined decorative molding (i.e. a "belly
band") on Plans B and C, decorative trim around the windows, wrought iron accent features, and
decorative garage doors. With the exception of Plan A, each house will have a chimney. The plotting of
each house will be at a distance from the street that exceeds the minimum 37-foot setback requirement
for the Development District of the project site. The garage doors for Plan B will not face the street. For
Plan D, the doors of one of the garages will face the street, while the door of the other garage will face
the side yard.
The number of available footprints will comply with Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code.
However, the number of elevations do not comply. Per the Development Code, two (2) elevations per
footprint are required. To address this, staff has provided several solutions (see Major Issues below).
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. Per Table 17.122.010-1 of the Development Code, two (2) elevations per footprint are required.
The following is recommended in order for the project to comply with this requirement:
a. Plan B - Revise either "Unit 2" or "Unit 4" so that they are further differentiated from each
other and provide a distinct architectural design theme as follows: incorporate decorative
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00914 —JWDA
December 2, 2014
Page 3
stackstone veneer on the front and rear elevations (of either Unit 2 or Unit 4); use a different
color scheme; and vary the trim and details around the windows and on the second floor
decks.
b. Plan C - Revise either "Unit 3" or "Unit 5" so that they are further differentiated from each
other and provide a distinct architectural design theme as follows: remove the decorative
stackstone veneer from all elevations (of either Unit 3 or Unit 5); use a different color scheme;
and vary the trim and details around the windows and on the second floor decks.
2. All Plans (with stone veneer) — Increase the quantity of stone veneer on the front elevations and
add more stone veneer to the rear elevations to match the quantity of stone veneer that is applied
to the front elevations.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Plan Types A and B — Per Section 17.120.030(A)(1)(c) of the Development Code, "at the primary
building entrance provide changes in roof-form, building massing, additional architectural
articulation to clearly identify the entry location." To accomplish this, shift the fascia of the tower
elements at the entry area of each of these plan types that are on the same plane as, or are
behind, the primary wall plane of the house, forward (westward) so they are more prominent.
2. All Plans — The amount of hardscape in front of each house is excessive and there is no
interruption between the driveway paving and the wall plane of the west elevation of each house.
To address this, provide landscaping in the area immediately adjacent to the wall plane at the front
of each house.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant provide the requisite number of
elevations and distinct architectural themes as required per the Code. If the applicant revises'the
number of elevations to the satisfaction of the Committee, subject to the revisions noted above, staff
recommends that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. If the
applicant does not revise the project to the satisfaction of the Committee, the project will be required to
return to the Design Review Committee for review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Approved subject to the revisions discussed in the report and at the meeting to be verified with staff prior
to forwarding to the Planning Commission for review and action.
Members Present: Fletcher, Oaxaca, and Granger
Staff Planner: Mike Smith
•