Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/09/14 - Agenda PacketDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. Committee Members Alternates: CONSENT CALENDAR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Nancy Fong Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 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. (Vance/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 0226- 102-17. 7:20 p.m. (Emily/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00428 - OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP - A request to develop a 151,476 square foot warehouse facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located on the south side of 8th Street west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-171-59, 60, and 61. 7:40 p.m. (Emily/Cam) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ - A request to develop one single-family hillside residence totaling 6,006 square feet in the Haven View Estates within the Very Low Residential District, located at 10973 Stallion Way- APN: 1074-551-15. 8:00 p.m. (Emily/Cam) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00143 -ANDREWS & CHAPMAN - A • request to construct atwo-story single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings per acre) -APN: 1061-801-15. DRC AGENDA September 14, 2004 Page 2 • 8:20 p.m. (Donald/Joe) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. -The Design Review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 15single-family lots on 9.23 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Hillside Road - APN:1061-561-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592 and Minor Exception DRC2004-00662. On January 9, 2002, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16262. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. 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. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, • accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 9, 2004, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~J . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy September 14, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ikon Avenue along W ardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0226-102-17. Background/Design Parameters: The Design Review Committee originally reviewed the project on August 3, 2004. The Committee recommended that the applicant revise the project to address the identified issues as shown in the attached DRC Action Comments (Exhibit "A"). Generally, the Committee stated that a number of landscape, architectural design, and site design issues were not resolved. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14759 on November 10, 1999. The applicant is now proceeding with proposals to design homes for the tract. The tract will be developed in four phases. This current application request is for the phase that includes the 93 large lots in the northeast corner of the original tract. The tract is south of Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road. The project is located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan under the Basic Development Standards. • The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on August 10, 2004, which was well attended. The comments were mostly focused on construction impacts, existing easterlywindrow health, and real estate questions. Generally, the audience was satisfied with the applicant's responses. The applicant has been working attentively to resolve the issues raised at the previous DRC meeting. After working with staff, the project has improved substantially. Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The architectural designs show an improved sense of 360-degree design. The applicant, after several meetings with staff, has made an effort to meet the need for richer architectural detail on all elevations. a. Plans One and Two consists of single-story homes. The expanded detailing on the side and rear elevations includes changes in roof pitch and the introduction of pop-outs and roof breaks. The bare wall planes are diminished by the lowered roof pitch and expanded siding. b. Plans Three, Four, and Five consists of two-story homes. A substantial improvementto the side elevations is made by the expansion of siding and the change in roof pitch, as well as the introduction of second-story pop-outs. These pop-outs can be improved by the use of bracketing or corbels in keeping with the particular style. The revised rear • elevations now show balconies, additional pop-outs, and roof breaks, which are beneficial. These new and expanded features enhance the 360-degree architectural quality of the designs. The balconies are proposed on two of each the four styles per plan and will only be used on 50 percent of those houses in those styles. However, the DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. September 14, 2004 • Page 2 Site Plan plots all of these plans with the balcony, so it is unclear which 50 percent will actually have them. The Committee was especially keen on those houses backing up on a street to have this feature. c. The addition of coach lights on some front elevations is proposed. 2. The issue of tree replacement has been partially addressed, but no definitive plan has been offered. a. The replacement of the Eucalyptus windrows on sloped portions of backyard areas is proposed and fulfills the requirements of the tract conditions. b. The Committee required the applicant to replant the Olive tree grove by using the largest nursery-grown and available size non-fruit-bearing trees. The applicant has found 48-inch box trees at a nursery in Arizona. The applicant met with Planning and Parks staff and the location of the Olive trees in the parks was discussed. Although no conclusion was reached at this meeting, it did appear that a number of planting opportunities were found in the parks that would fulfill the tract condition and also not interfere with normal park design and maintenance needs. The key areas were on planned slopes and near boundaries with residential lots in this tract. The applicant desires to separate the tree replacement issue from the Design Review process. However, important site design issues may linger if the trees eventually do not work in the park environments and must be worked into the project in other locations. • c. The placement of the replacement Oak trees may also be accommodated in the park settings in a similar fashion to the Olive trees. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The revised site layout now provides for the interspersing of the required skewed house plotting among the other homes, meets the requirement for single-story or extra deep setbacks for corner houses, and achieves the single driveway/curb-cut for all lots. However, the applicant is not completely satisfied with the effect of the skewing and driveway requirements may have on the marketing of these homes because of the appearance of the skewed homes and maneuvering in the "Y" configured driveways of Plans Four and Five. The model park has been re-designed to only include the large home plans for this portion of the tract. No small house plans are part of this portion of the tract. However, no house has been plotted on Lot 28. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No outstanding policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the proposal and provide comments on the design and continue the item for further review of an improved Landscape Plan. • Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy August 3, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of Wilson Avenue along Wardman-Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0226-102-17. Design Parameters: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14759 on November 10, 1999. The applicant is now proceeding with proposals to design homes for the tract. The tract will be developed in four phases. This current application request is for the phase that includes the 93 large lots in the northeast corner of the original tract. The tract is south of Wilson Avenue at Wardman-Bullock Road. The project is located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan, this portion of the entire tract is developed under the Basic Development Standards and no specific architectural style is required, however, elements of the existing styles found in Etiwanda are required. The other portion of the tract (not a part of this request) is developed under the Optional Development Standards and the Etiwanda Specific Plan suggests the traditional architectural styles for Etiwanda: Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch, any other integrated design style meeting plan intent. Staff Comments: • Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The list of traditional architectural styles given in the Etiwanda Specific Plan does not include "Cottage" and "Early California." Staff worked with the applicant to increase the level of detail of each design. These styles have been approved for other tracts within Etiwanda. 2. The approval for this tract took into account several issues with trees in the site. Mitigation conditions were set for several cases; however, staff can address during plan check. a. The transplanting of a grove of Olive trees elsewhere on the site. These trees are not on the current proposed conceptual landscape plan. b. The replanting of Eucalyptus windrows. No Eucalyptus replanting is proposed on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. The requirement is for 5-gallon trees at 8-foot spacing at a rate of 50 linear feet of windrow per acre. c. The preservation of the Eucalyptus windrow on the easterly boundary of the project. This windrow is not noted on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. d. The Coastal Live Oak tree near the northeast of the site is to be transplanted. No Oak trees are shown on the current proposed conceptual Landscape Plan. 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 Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that at least 50 percent of the dwellings not be plotted parallel to the street. The general intent is to break up the typical monotonous rectilinear pattern by having a great number of the houses sited askew to the street and to each other. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. August 3, 2004 • Page 2 The siting of many of the houses shows little discernable skewing. The skewed houses are bunched together, as well as the parallel houses. Intermingling of the two orientations would be best. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: As this portion of the tract was approved under the Basic Development Standards, and Lots 4, 11, 13, 86, and 89 exceed the maximum lot coverage of 30 percent, the size of the footprints for the houses must be reduced. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the proposal and provide comments on the design and continue the item for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy The project was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to address the following issues: . 1. Olive tree replacements: Work with staff. The non-fruiting variety is okay, but it must be the largest available nursery-grown size and placed in a grove setting. The park spaces are the best locations. 2. Oak tree replacement: Seven minimum 48-inch box size Oak trees are to be placed in the park areas. 3. Eucalyptus windrows: Accepted as presented. 4. Model Park: The small houses should not be in the model park or with the large houses. Small house models should be with the small lots. 5. Corner houses: No small houses are to intermingle in the large lots. Use large single-story plans for corners. 6. Driveways: No double driveways. Only one maximum 16-foot wide driveway may penetrate the parkway. For split garages, use the "Y" configured driveway employed on the cul-de-sacs. 7. Skewed house plotting: The 50 percent minimum required for skewed house plotting should be fully exhibited in the straight sections of street rather than only one or two. 8. Site Plan: Show the porches for all plans on the plotting on the Site Plan, especially Plan 2. 9. Architectural design: The Committee strongly emphasized the need for 360-degree architecture. The side and rear elevations must be greatly enhanced and provided with • substantially richer detail. The front elevation features and details should be exhibited in all situations, but especially along the rear elevations of those homes along Wardman-Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue. An important note was made that either substantial, design- appropriate balconies or an equivalent substantial architectural feature should be placed on DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. August 3, 2004 • Page 3 the rear elevations of the homes along Wardman-Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue, but that most should be balconies. The Committee made it clear that roofline and roof pitch should show much more variation throughout all the plans and that variation in the pitch of the roof truss will be a likely solution. Largetwo-story wall heights on the elevations must be avoided. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Emily Wimer September 14, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00428 - OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP - A request to develop a 151,476 square foot warehouse facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located on the south side of 8th Street west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-171-59, 60, and 61. Design Parameters: The project abuts residential to the east and west; an industrial warehouse building to the south; and 8th Street to the north. Loading docks are proposed along the south side of the building, which will be hidden from the view of the street by the building. The style of warehouse building is a standard tilt-up style construction which relies upon the color variation, glazing, and sandblasted concrete to provide visual interest. The level of architectural quality is a step up from the warehouse building to the south. The building consists of three major office entries located on the north elevation and primarily consist of an aluminum trimmed glazing system with adjoining concrete tilt-up warehouse space and decorative archways at the entries. The applicant is proposing a total of 146,476 square feet of warehouse use and 5,000 square feet of office space. A total of 34 loading docks are proposed on the south side of the property and 42 truck and trailer parking spaces. The applicant has work with staff to provide a large employee eating area on the north elevation, additional shade trees, and two large decorative concrete entries • at the east and west sides of the site. The building has a 360-degree architectural theme which includes enhanced entries, with spandrel wrapped at the east and west elevations, and sandblasting. The large employee eating area includes large shade trees and five tables with seating and a meandering walkway at the front which connects to the two entries at each side. The architectural elements at the office entrances are accentuated and make them clearly identifiable. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve all major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Increase the area of exposed sandblasted concrete to provide more visual interest. Staff suggests repeating the accent panels on the entire east and west elevation. 2. Due to the existing residential uses to the east and west of the property, solid split face block walls (with trim cap) shall be provided up to the front setback area of the proposed site. Where applicable, the developer may "share" the wrought iron fencing to the south of the site • with the industrial buildings to the south. 3. The last truck trailer storage space at the southeast corner of the site is not feasible because trucks will not be able to maneuver around the trash enclosure and motorcycle parking. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00428 - OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP September 14, 2004 • Page 2 Replace with a landscape planter similar in size to the one at the southwest corner. The project only requires 34 truck trailer storage spaces. A total of 41 would be left after deleting this space. 4. To enhance the quality of accent squares of the building, consider quality accent tiles (minimum 16-inch by 16-inch) as shown on the attached exhibit. Minimum 24-inch size (rather than 12 inch as shown) is suggested Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide bicycle racks at the front of the building at a ratio of one rack per 30 spaces shall be provided per the Development Code. 2. Off-site parking for carpool/vanpool, close to the building, shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the total parking area, and shall be designated as such. 3. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from public view. Wherever possible, rooftop equipment shall be placed in the center of the roof to allow for adequate screening. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the revisions stated as secondary issues. • Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer Members Present: From tct't to riglu, per tow: Pr Sun ('iry ~.m: C~rorgetawn. TX. Archicece (."! (~;I'artnera, Inc.; Austin. 'i ?C. Project Kroger Crossroads; Kan°. TX. Architect: CllA Ar,.hicros, Inc.; Houscon,'IX. Projetx: La Avenida; Coronado, CA. Architect. Atstin Design Gawp; San Diego, C.1. Projett: Kelly Creek Elemrntary School; Foreland, OR. Arcltittxz: Dull Olsen Wcdtes Architoca; Porrlattd, OR Project: Stonecrest; Charlotu, NC. Architect: Little & Associates Architects; Charlotte, NC. Projett: Lost Ttee Village Residence; North Palm Beach, FL. Archimcr. Team Plan; West Palm Beach. FL. Projerst College; Amh .Architect: Centerbrook Architeca; Ccnterbrook, CT Project: Nebbie Williams Elementary School; Rotlcwall, TX. Architett: 5HW Group; Dallaz, TX. Project: Prospect Point ParIG Brooklyn, NY Architect. NYC Deparrmrnt of Parks and Rcacation; Fltlslting, NY. Projec7: New Vista Middle School; lanraster, Cr1. Architect: Flcv;elling !S(. Moodv Architects; Las Anl;clcs, (:,A. Project, hfyrrele &~ach Food lion; Myrtle Beach. SC. Architece: BarlcK~ & Ncuhatl Architects. Inc.; Chacranoona, "I'N. Project: Ifacicnd.i Bills Countn~ Cfuh: I_r,iv [aka Pl.. Archit n'a:l,,~~,~~ Orlani~,: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Emily Wimer September 14, 2004 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ - A request to develop one single-family hillside residence totaling 6,006 square feet in the Haven View Estates within the Very Low Residential District, located at 10973 Stallion Way-APN: 1074-551-15. Design Parameters: The project is located on the south side of Stallion Waywithin the Haven View Estates gated community. The project is bordered by existing homes on the east and west sides and a private equestrian trail on the south portion of the property. The square footage of the proposed project is 6,006 square feet. The lot coverage of the property is 17 percent, which is well below the 25 percent maximum allowed. Although the square footage of the house is quite substantial, the applicant has worked with staff to provide terraced planters on both side yard areas, 15 feet of flat useable rear yard area, has reduced the slope of the driveway, and added rockwork to the tuck-under garage and on all four elevations to soften the building mass. The project was conceptually approved with conditions by the Grading Committee. The applicant has proposed afour-car, tuck-under garage. This garage will provide a cut of 7 feet into the natural terrain, and, hence, requires Design Review Committee and Planning Commission approval. The entry of the garage faces towards the west, away from the street/public view. • The applicant has met with staff regarding the placement of the garage and ways to reduce the cut of the natural terrain. Hypothetically, if the garage was raised to accommodate the maximum of 4-feet 11-inches of cut required by the Hillside Ordinance, this would raise the slope ofthe driveway above the 20 percent maximum and would require additional retaining walls on the east side of the property and reduce the driveway width as well. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the natural terrain, and preserve the natural topography. The major concern is the tuck-under garage. Staff believes that the proposed design, with the tuck-under garage is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed project steps with the natural terrain, provides architectural features to minimize building mass and large expanses of concrete, and the garage location is tucked behind the front elevation of the home. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. East elevation -Wrap stone veneer along the entire side (similar to the west elevation). • 2. The graded areas on the north and south elevations of the home should be rounded-off and contoured to blend with the land, avoiding straight, uniform slopes. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ September 14, 2004 Page 2 3. The project will require Landscape Plans to be submitted by a licensed Landscape Architect prior to approval by the Building and Safety Department. Front yard landscaping and slope planting are required. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Haven View Homeowners Association approval is required prior to approval of construction drawings. 2. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face, or slump stone). 3. The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approves the project, subject to the above requirements, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Emily Wimer Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Emily W imer September 14, 2004 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00143-ANDREWS&CHAPMAN-A request toconstructa two-story single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings per acre) - APN: 1061-801-15. Design Parameters: The project is located at the base of the foothills and is bordered by vacant property to the east and west with an existing 40-foot equestrian easement on the north side. The square footage of the proposed project is 5,595 square feet. The lot coverage of the property is 17 percent, which is well below the 25 percent maximum allowed. Although the square footage of the house is quite substantial, the applicant has worked with staff to provide terraced planters on the front and rear yard areas to mitigate the slopes from the driveway and down to the rear yard area. The applicant has proposed a detached garage and motor court located in front of the house, the house has a total of three floor elevations on the main floor. The applicant has also added concrete swales constructed of natural rock material, terraced retaining walls with planter areas, and added the work to the elevations to soften the building mass. The project was conceptually approved with conditions by the Grading Committee. The applicant has proposed afour-car, single-story garage with a 40-foot by 30-foot colored and stamped concrete motor court. This garage will provide feet of cut into the natural terrain, and hence, requires Design Review and Planning Commission approval. The entry of the garage faces towards the east, away from the streeUpublic view. • The applicant has met with staff regarding the placement of the garage and ways to reduce the cut of the natural terrain. If the garage were raised to accommodate the maximum of 4 feet 11 inches of cut required by the Hillside Ordinance, this would raise the slope of the driveway above the 20 percent maximum, and would create the need for additional retaining walls. If the house and garage were pushed back, this would encroach into the useable rear yard area which is already restricted by the 40 equestrian easement. The driveway entry would also enlarge creating additional pavement facing public view. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Grading: Again, the primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the natural terrain, and preserve natural topography. The major concern is the detached garage and motor court. Staff believes that the proposed design, with the tuck under garage, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed project steps with the natural terrain, provides architectural features to minimize the building mass and large expanses of concrete, the garage is oriented to the east, and incorporates windows and architectural detail of the home. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The site plan of the garage illustrates the bay window, however, it is not shown consistently on the elevations. Revise to incorporate details. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00143 -ANDREWS & CHAPMAN September 14, 2004 Page 2 2. The corral area shall be rectangular in size (12 feet by 48 feet) to preserve useable rear yard area. 3. The project will require Landscape Plans to be submitted by a Landscape Architect prior to approval by the Building and Safety Department. Front yard landscaping and slope planting is required. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face, or slumpstone) 2. Because the project is located in a high fire hazard area. fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project, subject to the above requirements, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Emily Wimer Members Present: n . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Donald Granger September 14, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00061 - TOLL BROTHERS, INC. -The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 15 single-family lots on 9.23 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592 and Minor Exception DRC2004-00662. Design Parameters: The project site has a recorded final map (Tract 16262), has been graded, and Alexis Avenue has been paved. The site is bounded on the east by Archibald Avenue; to the south by the historic landmark Demens-Tolstoy Ranch House and an approved 11 lot single-family subdivision; to the west by vacant land; and to the north by existing single-family houses. All properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project consists of four floor plans that range in square footage from 4,466 square feet to 5,864 square feet. Architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor. The project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District, which requires architectural design techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades. The project has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads, with elevation changes ranging from a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum 5.8 feet, thereby meeting the • design goals of the Hillside Overlay District. All plans have variation in the footprints and articulation in the wall planes, thereby avoiding "box on box" building forms. All plans have been designed with roof planes that have strong variation, and are within the 30-foot high building envelope requirement. All horse corrals meet the 70-foot radius requirement from all adjacent dwelling units, and the Community Trail on Archibald Avenue will be required to be installed with the proposed project. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2004, that was attended by five residents. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The Development Code requires 360-degree architectural treatment to all elevations. Although the proposed architectural styles are appropriate to the surrounding area, the elevations should be enhanced with materials and architectural features found on the front elevations in order to adequately convey Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor themes on all elevations. Staff suggests that the following enhancements be made: Santa Barbara Plan, Spanish Colonial Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided light windows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Santa Barbara Plan, Tuscan Elevation: The base stone treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. The stone treatment should also be added to the chimney. Shutters and divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. • September 14, 2004 Page 2 • Santa Barbara Plan, Craftsmen Elevation: The river rock base treatment and wood siding should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. Wood siding should be added to chimney on the left elevation and in the center of the second story to complete the entire wall plane. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear elevations. • Santa Barbara Plan, Mission Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided lightwindows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Santa Barbara Plan, Manor Elevation: The base stone treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. The stone treatment should be added to the chimney. Divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Mission Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided lightwindows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Carlsbad Plan, Manor Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the stone treatment on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Divided light windows • should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Tuscan Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the stone treatment on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Shutters and divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Craftsman Elevation: On the left elevation, wood siding should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the river rock base on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear elevations. • Capistrano Plan, Spanish Colonial Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatmentwith battered cap, divided lightwindows, stucco recesses and decorative wrought iron accents. • Del Verde Plan, Manor Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. Divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Del Verde Plan, Craftsman Elevation: On the right elevation, the stacked stone base treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the garage, and wood siding should be added to the chimney. At the rear elevation, wood siding should be added to the remaining portions of the wall plane on the second story to complete the entire wall plane. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear • elevations. 2. Several plans have second chimneys plotted as options. Should optional chimneys be selected during the construction process, the second chimney should have the same architectural enhancements as the primary chimneys (wood siding, stone, etc.) DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. . September 14, 2004 Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. There are no secondary issues. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and one tree per 150 square feet of area. 2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone may be used. Stone veneers are not permitted. 3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation throughout the subdivision. 4. No wood fencing is allowed. Construct block walls between homes (i.e. along interior side and rear property line) for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 5. Access gates to rear yards should be constructed of a material more durable than wood. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. • 6. Taper three or four-car driveways down to standard two-car width at the street. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that with Major and Secondary Issues addressed to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee, the Committee recommends approval to the Planning Commission. • ' DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTION AGENDA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR Nancy Fong Larry McNiel The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 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. (Vance/Shelley) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 0226- 102-17. 7:20 p.m. (Emily/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00428 - OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP - A request to develop a 151,476 square foot warehouse facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located on the south side of 8th Street west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-171-59, 60, and 61. 7:40 p.m. (Emily/Cam) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ - A request to develop one single-family hillside residence totaling 6,006 square feet in the Haven View Estates within the Very Low Residential District, located at 10973 Stallion Way- APN: 1074-551-15. 8:00 p.m. (Emily/Cam) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00143 -ANDREWS & CHAPMAN - A request to construct atwo-story single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings per acre) -APN: 1061-801-15. DRC ACTION AGENDA September 14, 2004 Page 2 • 8:20 p.m. (Donald/Joe) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. -The Design Review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 15single-family lots on 9.23 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Hillside Road - APN:1061-561-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592 and Minor Exception DRC2004-00662. On January 9, 2002, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16262. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. 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. ADJOURNMENT • C~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy September 14, 2004 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. -The review of site plan and elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 14759, located south of W ilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0226-102-17. Background/Design Parameters: The Design Review Committee originally reviewed the project on August 3, 2004. The Committee recommended that the applicant revise the project to address the identified issues as shown in the attached DRC Action Comments (Exhibit "A"). Generally, the Committee stated that a number of landscape, architectural design, and site design issues were not resolved. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14759 on November 10, 1999. The applicant is now proceeding with proposals to design homes for the tract. The tract will be developed in four phases. This current application request is for the phase that includes the 93 large Tots in the northeast corner of the original tract. The tract is south of Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road. The project is located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan under the Basic Development Standards. • The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on August 10, 2004, which was well attended. The comments were mostly focused on construction impacts, existing easterly windrow health, and real estate questions. Generally, the audience was satisfied with the applicant's responses. The applicant has been working attentively to resolve the issues raised at the previous DRC meeting. After working with staff, the project has improved substantially. Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The architectural designs show an improved sense of 360-degree design. The applicant, after several meetings with staff, has made an effort to meet the need for richer architectural detail on all elevations. a. Plans One and Two consists ofsingle-story homes. The expanded detailing on the side and rear elevations includes changes in roof pitch and the introduction of pop-outs and roof breaks. The bare wall planes are diminished by the lowered roof pitch and expanded siding. b. Plans Three, Four, and Five consists oftwo-story homes. A substantial improvement to the side elevations is made by the expansion of siding and the change in roof pitch, as well as the introduction of second-story pop-outs. These pop-outs can be improved by the use of bracketing or corbels in keeping with the particular style. The revised rear • elevations now show balconies, additional pop-outs, and roof breaks, which are beneficial. These new and expanded features enhance the 360-degree architectural quality of the designs. The balconies are proposed on two of each the four styles per plan and will only be used on 50 percent of those houses in those styles. However, the DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. September 14, 2004 • Page 2 Site Plan plots all of these plans with the balcony, so it is unclear which 50 percent will actually have them. The Committee was especially keen on those houses backing up on a street to have this feature. c. The addition of coach lights on some front elevations is proposed. 2. The issue of tree replacement has been partially addressed, but no definitive plan has been offered. a. The replacement of the Eucalyptus windrows on sloped portions of backyard areas is proposed and fulfills the requirements of the tract conditions. The Committee required the applicant to replant the Olive tree grove by using the largest nursery-grown and available size non-fruit-bearing trees. The applicant has found 48-inch box trees at a nursery in Arizona. The applicant met with Planning and Parks staff and the location of the Olive trees in the parks was discussed. Although no conclusion was reached at this meeting, it did appear that a number of planting opportunities were found in the parks that would fulfill the tract condition and also not interfere with normal park design and maintenance needs. The key areas were on planned slopes and near boundaries with residential lots in this tract. The applicant desires to separate the tree replacement issue from the Design Review process. However, important site design issues may linger if the trees eventually do not work in the park environments and must be worked into the project in other locations. • c. The placement of the replacement Oak trees may also be accommodated in the park settings in a similar fashion to the Olive trees. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The revised site layout now provides for the interspersing of the required skewed house plotting among the other homes, meets the requirement for single-story or extra deep setbacks for corner houses, and achieves the single driveway/curb-cut for all lots. However, the applicant is not completely satisfied with the effect of the skewing and driveway requirements may have on the marketing of these homes because of the appearance of the skewed homes and maneuvering in the "Y" configured driveways of Plans Four and Five. 2. The model park has been re-designed to only include the large home plans for this portion of the tract. No small house plans are part of this portion of the tract. However, no house has been plotted on Lot 28. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: No outstanding policy issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee review the proposal and provide comments on the design and continue the item for further review of an improved Landscape Plan. • DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. September 14, 2004 • Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy 1. Olive tree replacements: Seventy 48-inch box non-fruiting Olive trees (the largest available nursery-grown size) shall be placed in a grove setting in park spaces. Other Olive trees shall be placed in the required slope planting so long as they do not interfere with the required Eucalyptus windrow plantings on those slopes. 2. Oak tree replacement: Seven minimum 48-inch box size Oak trees are to be placed in the park areas. 3. Eucalyptus windrows: The replacement program is accepted as presented. For the existing windrow on the easterly project boundary, the applicant must present a report by a Certified Arborist including a proposed replacement program per the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. Model Park: Lot 28 shall contain an example of the large lot product. 5. Driveways: No double driveways. Per the Etiwanda Specific Plan, only one maximum 16-foot wide driveway may penetrate the parkway per lot. For split garages, use the "Y" configured driveway as presented as Option "A." • 6. Skewed house plotting: Accepted as presented. Architectural design: The Committee was satisfied with the applicant's revisions to the architectural design in respect to the concept of 360-degree architecture. The Committee did require changes for the balcony and rear pop-out features as follows subject to City Planner review and approval: a. The balcony feature on only 50 percent of the rear elevations is acceptable. The bottom of second story pop-out features shall incorporate richer finished appearance. c. Revise the Site Plan to show the houses that will incorporate the balcony feature. On those lots with deeper rear setbacks, provide a roof or other architecturally appropriate cover over the balcony/second floor surface. C~ • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Emily W imer September 14, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00428-OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP - A request to develop a 151,476 square foot warehouse facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located on the south side of 8th Street west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-171-59, 60, and 61. Design Parameters: The project abuts residential to the east and west; an industrial warehouse building to the south; and 8th Street to the north. Loading docks are proposed along the south side of the building, which will be hidden from the view of the street by the building. The style of warehouse building is a standard tilt-up style construction which relies upon the color variation, glazing, and sandblasted concrete to provide visual interest. The level of architectural quality is a step up from the warehouse building to the south. The building consists of three major office entries located on the north elevation and primarily consist of an aluminum trimmed glazing system with adjoining concrete tilt-up warehouse space and decorative archways at the entries. The applicant is proposing a total of 146,476 square feet of warehouse use and 5,000 square feet of office space. A total of 34 loading docks are proposed on the south side of the property and 42 truck and trailer parking spaces. The applicant has work with staff to provide a large employee eating area on the north elevation, additional shade trees, and two large decorative concrete entries • at the east and west sides of the site. The building has a 360-degree architectural theme which includes enhanced entries, with spandrel wrapped at the east and west elevations, and sandblasting. The large employee eating area includes large shade trees and five tables with seating and a meandering walkway at the front which connects to the two entries at each side. The architectural elements at the office entrances are accentuated and make them clearly identifiable. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve all major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Increase the area of exposed sandblasted concrete to provide more visual interest. Staff suggests repeating the accent panels on the entire east and west elevation. 2. Due to the existing residential uses to the east and west of the property, solid split face block walls (with trim cap) shall be provided up to the front setback area of the proposed site. Where applicable, the developer may "share" the wrought iron fencing to the south of the site • with the industrial buildings to the south. 3. The last truck trailer storage space at the southeast corner of the site is not feasible because trucks will not be able to maneuver around the trash enclosure and motorcycle parking. • DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00428 - OAKMONT INDUSTRIAL GROUP September 14, 2004 Page 2 Replace with a landscape planter similar in size to the one at the southwest corner. The project only requires 34 truck trailer storage spaces. A total of 41 would be left after deleting this space. 4. To enhance the quality of accent squares of the building, consider quality accent tiles (minimum 16-inch by 16-inch) as shown on the attached exhibit. Minimum 24-inch size (rather than 12 inch as shown) is suggested Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide bicycle racks at the front of the building at a ratio of one rack per 30 spaces shall be provided per the Development Code. Off-site parking for carpool/vanpool, close to the building, shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the total parking area, and shall be designated as such. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from public view. Wherever possible, rooftop equipment shall be placed in the center of the roof to allow for adequate screening. • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the revisions stated as secondary issues. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee reviewed the plans and requested that the applicant revise the elevations to incorporate additional sandblasted concrete on the east and west elevations of the building. The Committee agreed that the applicant shall provide a block wall, or tilt-up concrete wall on the east and west property boundaries. In the front yard setback, where appropriate, the applicant can use a combination of wrought iron and pilaster fencing. The Committee will review the item as a Consent Calendar item with revised plans available at the meeting • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Emily W imer September 14, 2004 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ - A request to develop one single-family hillside residence totaling 6,006 square feet in the Haven View Estates within the Very Low Residential District, located at 10973 Stallion Way-APN: 1074-551-15. Design Parameters: The project is located on the south side of Stallion Way within the Haven View Estates gated community. The project is bordered by existing homes on the east and west sides and a private equestrian trail on the south portion of the property. The square footage of the proposed project is 6,006 square feet. The lot coverage of the property is 17 percent, which is well below the 25 percent maximum allowed. Although the square footage of the house is quite substantial, the applicant has worked with staff to provide terraced planters on both side yard areas, 15 feet of flat useable rear yard area, has reduced the slope of the driveway, and added rockwork to the tuck-under garage and on all four elevations to soften the building mass. The project was conceptually approved with conditions by the Grading Committee. The applicant has proposed afour-car, tuck-under garage. This garage will provide a cut of 7 feet into the natural terrain, and, hence, requires Design Review Committee and Planning Commission approval. The entry of the garage faces towards the west, away from the streeUpublic view. • The applicant has met with staff regarding the placement of the garage and ways to reduce the cut of the natural terrain. Hypothetically, if the garage was raised to accommodate the maximum of 4-feet 11-inches of cut required by the Hillside Ordinance, this would raise the slope of the driveway above the 20 percent maximum and would require additional retaining walls on the east side of the property and reduce the driveway width as well. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Gradin :The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the natural terrain, and preserve the natural topography. The major concern is the tuck-under garage. Staff believes that the proposed design, with the tuck-under garage is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed project steps with the natural terrain, provides architectural features to minimize building mass and large expanses of concrete, and the garage location is tucked behind the front elevation of the home. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. East elevation -Wrap stone veneer along the entire side (similar to the west elevation). • 2. The graded areas on the north and south elevations of the home should be rounded-off and contoured to blend with the land, avoiding straight, uniform slopes. • DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00122 - ORTIZ September 14, 2004 Page 2 3. The project will require Landscape Plans to be submitted by a licensed Landscape Architect prior to approval by the Building and Safety Department. Front yard landscaping and slope planting are required. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Haven View Homeowners Association approval is required prior to approval of construction drawings. • 2. All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face, or slump stone). 3. The project is located in a high fire hazard area and fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approves the project, subject to the above requirements, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee reviewed the plans for the single-family custom home. The applicant agreed to the secondary issues, which will be revised on the plans. The Committee recommended approval, and the project will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission hearing. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:00 p.m. Emily W imer September 14, 2004 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00143 -ANDREWS & CHAPMAN - A requestto construct a two-story single-family residence in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellings per acre) - APN: 1061-801-15. Design Parameters: The project is located at the base of the foothills and is bordered by vacant property to the east and west with an existing 40-foot equestrian easement on the north side. The square footage of the proposed project is 5,595 square feet. The lot coverage of the property is 17 percent, which is well below the 25 percent maximum allowed. Although the square footage of the house is quite substantial, the applicant has worked with staff to provide terraced planters on the front and rear yard areas to mitigate the slopes from the driveway and down to the rear yard area. The applicant has proposed a detached garage and motor court located in front of the house, the house has a total of three floor elevations on the main floor. The applicant has also added concrete swales constructed of natural rock material, terraced retaining walls with planter areas, and added the work to the elevations to soften the building mass. The project was conceptually approved with conditions by the Grading Committee. The applicant has proposed afour-car, single-story garage with a 40-foot by 30-foot colored and stamped concrete motor court. This garage will provide 8 feet of cut into the natural terrain, and hence, requires Design Review and Planning Commission approval. The entry of the garage faces towards the east, away from the streeUpublic view. • The applicant has met with staff regarding the placement of the garage and ways to reduce the cut of the natural terrain. If the garage were raised to accommodate the maximum of 4 feet 11 inches of cut required by the Hillside Ordinance, this would raise the slope of the driveway above the 20 percent maximum, and would create the need for additional retaining walls. If the house and garage were pushed back, this would encroach into the useable rear yard area which is already restricted by the 40 equestrian easement. The driveway entry would also enlarge creating additional pavement facing public view. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Grading: Again, the primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to minimize grading, utilize architectural design techniques that allow buildings to follow the natural terrain, and preserve natural topography. The major concern is the~detached garage and motor court. Staff believes that the proposed design, with the tuck under garage, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Ordinance because the proposed project steps with the natural terrain, provides architectural features to minimize the building mass and large expanses of concrete, the garage is oriented to the east, and incorporates windows and architectural detail of the home. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The site plan of the garage illustrates the bay window, however, it is not shown consistently on the elevations. Revise to incorporate details. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00143 -ANDREWS & CHAPMAN September 14, 2004 • Page 2 The corral area shall be rectangular in size (12 feet by 48 feet) to preserve useable rear yard area. 3. The project will require Landscape Plans to be submitted by a Landscape Architect prior to approval by the Building and Safety Department. Front yard landscaping and slope planting is required. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative (i.e. stucco, split-face, or slumpstone) Because the project is located in a high fire hazard area. fire retardant plant materials shall be incorporated into the landscape design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project, subject to the above requirements, and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Design Review Committee Action: • Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Emily Wimer The Committee reviewed the plans for the single-family custom home. The applicant agreed to the secondary issues, which will be revised on the plans. The Committee recommended approval, and the project will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission hearing. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Donald Granger September 14, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00061 - TOLL BROTHERS, INC. -The design review of building elevations and detailed Site Plan for 15 single-family lots on 9.23 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Hillside Road - APN:1061-561-02. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592 and Minor Exception DRC2004-00662. Design Parameters: The project site has a recorded final map (Tract 16262), has been graded, and Alexis Avenue has been paved. The site is bounded on the east by Archibald Avenue; to the south by the historic landmark Demens-Tolstoy Ranch House and an approved 11 lot single-family subdivision; to the west by vacant land; and to the north by existing single-family houses. All properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project consists of four floor plans that range in square footage from 4,466 square feet to 5,864 square feet. Architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor. The project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District, which requires architectural design techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades. The project has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads, with elevation changes ranging from a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum 5.8 feet, thereby meeting the • design goals of the Hillside Overlay District. All plans have variation in the footprints and articulation in the wall planes, thereby avoiding "box on box" building forms. All plans have been designed with roof planes that have strong variation, and are within the 30-foot high building envelope requirement. All horse corrals meet the 70-foot radius requirement from all adjacent dwelling units, and the Community Trail on Archibald Avenue will be required to be installed with the proposed project. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2004, that was attended by five residents. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maor Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The Development Code requires 360-degree architectural treatment to all elevations. Although the proposed architectural styles are appropriate to the surrounding area, the elevations should be enhanced with materials and architectural features found on the front elevations in order to adequately convey Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor themes on all elevations. Staff suggests that the following enhancements be made: Santa Barbara Plan, Spanish Colonial Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided light windows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Santa Barbara Plan, Tuscan Elevation: The base stone treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. The stone treatment should also be added to the chimney. Shutters and divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. September 14, 2004 • Page 2 • Santa Barbara Plan, Craftsmen Elevation: The river rock base treatment and wood siding should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. Wood siding should be added to chimney on the left elevation and in the center of the second story to complete the entire wall plane. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear elevations. • Santa Barbara Plan, Mission Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided light windows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Santa Barbara Plan, Manor Elevation: The base stone treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the side elevations on both garages. The stone treatment should be added to the chimney. Divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Mission Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided light windows, stucco recesses, and decorative wrought iron accents. • Carlsbad Plan, Manor Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the stone treatment on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Divided light windows • should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Tuscan Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the stone treatment on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Shutters and divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Carlsbad Plan, Craftsman Elevation: On the left elevation, wood siding should be added to the chimney. On the right elevation, the river rock base on the garage wall plane should be extended to the wall plane of the second story. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear elevations. • Capistrano Plan, Spanish Colonial Elevation: The side and rear elevations should be enhanced with shutters, base treatment with battered cap, divided light windows, stucco recesses and decorative wrought iron accents. • Del Verde Plan, Manor Elevation: On the left elevation, the stone treatment should be added to the chimney. Divided light windows should be added to side and rear elevations. • Del Verde Plan, Craftsman Elevation: On the right elevation, the stacked stone base treatment should be extended to complete the wall plane on the garage, and wood siding should be added to the chimney. At the rear elevation, wood siding should be added to the remaining portions of the wall plane on the second story to complete the entire wall plane. Craftsman style windows should be added to the side and rear elevations. • 2. Several plans have second chimneys plotted as options. Should optional chimneys be selected during the construction process, the second chimney should have the same architectural enhancements as the primary chimneys (wood siding, stone, etc.) DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00061 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC. September 14, 2004 • Page 3 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. There are no secondary issues. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and one tree per 150 square feet of area. 2. River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone maybe used. Stone veneers are not permitted. 3. Provide decorative pavement on driveways. Decorative driveways shall have variation throughout the subdivision. 4. No wood fencing is allowed. Construct block walls between homes (i.e. along interior side and rear property line) for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 5. Access gates to rear yards should be constructed of a material more durable than wood. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. • 6. Taper three or four-car driveways down to standard two-car width at the street. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that with Major and Secondary Issues addressed to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee, the Committee recommends approval to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Fong, McPhail Staff Planner: Donald Granger At the meeting the applicant presented revised drawings. The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff specifically on the following issues: The Committee indicated that although the applicant had made improvements to the side and rear elevations, additional enhancement to the side and rear elevations would be required in orderto meet the 360-degree architectural requirement. The Committee directed the applicant to add substantial amounts of architectural elements to the side and rear elevations, including, but not limited to, divided light windows, recesses, decorative wrought iron accents, corbels, potshelfs, Craftsman style windows, shutters, and arched windows as appropriate to each architectural style. . 2. The Committee requested that the applicant work with staff, using the comments outlined in the September 14, 2004, Design Review Comments as a guide. The Committee requested that the project be scheduled for their review as a regularly scheduled item on Design Review Committee once the enhancements had been completed. The applicant agreed to work with staff and to enhance the side and rear elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~` Brad Buller Secretary ~J •