Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/12/02 - Agenda Packet THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA hi DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE * J • AGENDA c oNGA DECEMBER 2, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California . ( I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Regular Members: Richard Fletcher_ Francisco Oaxaca _ Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger_ Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Frances Howdyshell_ Lou Munoz II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS 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. 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. A. DRC2013-00914—JW DA-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. 1 oft S I DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA LO41-MJ DECEMBER 2, 2014 RANCHO CUCAMONGA III. 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. IV. ADJOURNMENT 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. I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 24, 2014, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 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 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 stackstone veneer on the front and rear elevations (of either Unit 2 or Unit 4); use a different DRC AGENDA ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00914 — JWDA December 2, 2014 Page 3 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: Staff Planner: Mike Smith • Members Present: