Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/05/20 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 20, 1997 6:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR 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. 6:00 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-02-WALLNER TOOLING - Review of detailed site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for the construction of a 20,000 square foot addition to an existing 16,000 square foot building on 233 acres of land, located within Subarea 14 (General Industrial)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, at 9076 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-283-007. 6:40 p.m. (Tom) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT- A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. 7:20 p.m. (Tom) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION-A residential subdivision of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street- APN: 207-022-54 and 64. DRC AGENDA May 20, 1997 Page 2 8:00 P.M. (Steve) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10(DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659-2 THROUGH 5)- CENTEX HOMES -The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 92 lots within an approved subdivision (Tentative Tract 12659),which consists of 134 lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue- APN: 225-111-40 and 42; 225-341-30 through 37. 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 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Brent Le Count May 20, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-02 - WALLNER TOOLING - Review of detailed site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for the construction of a 20,000 square foot addition to an existing 16,000 square foot building on 2.33 acres of land, located within Subarea 14 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, at 9076 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-283-007. Background: The Design Review Committee considered the project on May 6, 1997 and requested that the applicant redesign the proposal to meet staff/Committee concerns as indicated below. There is insufficient time for the applicant to provide revised drawings for distribution to the Committee members so plans will be provided at the meeting. The Committee added the following comments: 1. Provide masonry wall along north property line to reduce impact of northerly winds on site. 2. Stucco exterior of exposed foundation on existing and proposed addition to provide visual interest and tie the addition and existing building together visually. 3. The Committee indicated support for expanding the addition to the north by 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Desi'-n Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised project design and recommended approval. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Tom Grahn May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT- A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. Background: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community. Design Parameters: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading. The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor to interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; plans I and 2 have side-slope elevations, while plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations. The floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the 6 different floor plans will result in I I different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. Elevations were not provided for the Plan 3 side-slope elevation because of the design similarity to the Plan 3 uphill-slope elevation. 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. I. Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 (Resolution 90-138) identify that a maximum of 33 percent of the lots shall be front-on garages. There are 40 lots within the tract and therefore a maximum of 13 lots may have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots designed with front- on garages, therefore 3 lots shall be revised to a non front-on garage condition. 2. The applicant has chosen a design alternative that technically results in a garage door that fronts- on to the street on an additional 17 lots. The Plan 2 and 4 side-slope elevations provide a garage located to the rear of the house, from 38 to 46 feet behind the front elevation of the house, and situated behind an optional porte-cochere. It is staffs opinion that these are not front-on garage elevations and would not be subject to the previously identified condition of approval. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. I. Lots 23 and 39 do not meet the front setback requirement. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1997 Page 2 2. Lot 1 does not meet the corner side yard setback for the porte-cochere. 3. Provide door and window stucco surrounds on all elevations. 4. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to the side and rear elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Public Comments: Bruce Ann Hahn felt that the proposed design was not compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: Floor plans are too small and garage doors are facing the street. Bill Angel expressed concerns that side slope front elevations were too narrow as viewed from the street. He also stated that some of the side elevations should be redesigned to break-up the flat two-story vertical plane. He opposed the proposed houses because they did not fill the width of the lot. Desif4n Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Committee felt the proposed project presented a "custom home" feel in the architecture and generous setbacks. The Committee noted only a small number of homes have been built within this large neighborhood. The proposed floor plan sizes were deemed appropriate. The Committee noted that the majority of garage doors do not face the street and, in those situations where they face the street, the garage is typically set back 38 to 46 feet behind the front of the house behind an optional porte-cochere. The Committee recommended approval subject to the following: 1. A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages; therefore, three lots shall be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS i 7:20 p.m. Tom Grahn May 20, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. This project was reviewed at the May 6, 1997 Design Review meeting. At that meeting the Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to revise the project by addressing the following design issues and return to the Design Review Committee for review. 1. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-site amenities. 2. The Committee did not support the proposed architectural style nor the proposed colors. The following comments were presented and should be addressed in any revised submittal: a. The architectural'style appears dated and the proposed colors appear cartoon like. The Committee is not opposed to a craftsman architectural style, but did not support the proposed architecture. b. The street scheme is dominated by garage doors, massive dark roofs, and a heavy wood feel to the front elevation. C. The massive dark roof elements need to be lightened up with a different roof tile color. d. The applicant should explore the use of alternative roof massing to provide additional variety. The Committee felt there was too much of a box design to the elevations and suggested a gable roof facing the street to soften the street scheme. e. The use of roll-up garage doors may be considered. If utilized, they should provide variation in the garage door pattern. f. The Committee expressed concern with the minimal back yards provided for most units. g. Provide more landscaping to soften the project design. Landscaping should meet City standards. h. Explore lighter accent colors. J. Revise the internal driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius of the extreme northwest corner of the project site. The affected driveways, sidewalks, etc., should be extended accordingly. 4. Adequate on-site lighting should be provided and designed in a manner to minimize vandalism. 5. Relocate the proposed trail connection to Cucamonga Creek from between units nine and ten to the recreation area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. DRC COMMENTS TT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION May 20, 1997 Page 2 Attachment: DRC Comments dated May 6, 1997, and DRC Action Comments dated November 19, 1996. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Committee concluded that the project may proceed to the Planning Commission for their consideration, but did not recommend approval due to concerns over the proposed architectural design. The following comments were identified: I. The Committee did not'support the proposed architectural style and therefore did not recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Macias favored the project's architectural style, as it utilized a design style other than Spanish or Mediterranean. Commissioner Bethel did not favor the project architecture for the reasons noted in the May 6, 1997, Design Review Committee Action. 2. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-site amenities, the revised trail location, and the proposed lighting. 3. The Committee did not support the proposed 10-foot rear yard setbacks along the west property line and identified that they could support shifting the project to the east by 5 feet, further reducing the landscape setback along Carnelian Street, to provide an increase in the usable rear yard area. Lots 6 through 13 would be effected by site plan adjustment. 4. The Committee reviewed the revised color scheme and supported the proposed color modification. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 P.M. Steve Hayes May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-10(DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659-2 THROUGH(5) - CENTEX HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 92 lots within an approved subdivision (Tentative Tract 12659), which consists of 134 lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(1-2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-111-40 and 42; 225-341-30 through 37. Desien Parameters: The project site is located in a predominately single family residential area in the northern part of the Etiwanda community. To the north is vacant land and a single family residential subdivision constructed by the same developer processing this application. A Metropolitan Water District easement exists along the south side of Wilson Avenue(old 24th Street), adjacent to this project. To the south, the land is vacant and zoned for single family residential development. A Cucamonga County Water Treatment facility exists to the east and to the west die land is vacant and zoned Very Low Residential within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Currently, Tract 12659-1, which consists of 33 lots at the south and east end of the subdivision, has been completed along with a majority of the improvements within Lot"A". This lettered lot included amenities for equestrian use, such as an arena, tack rooms and other related equestrian facilities. The entire subdivision was at one time cleared of weeds and rough-graded but, a significant amount of time has elapsed as to make this work almost not evident. The site slopes naturally from north to south at approximately 7 percent. A majority of the site proposed for development under this application is void of structures and any significant vegetation, except for the southwest portion of the site, where remnants of a eucalyptus windrow still exists. Background: Tentative Tract 12659 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985. The project was approved by the Commission using the Optional Development Standards for residential development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Essentially, the Optional Development Standards allowed smaller lot sizes smaller (i.e., less than '/ acre) than typically found in the Very Low Residential District in trade for three areas of Common Open Space. Since the average lot size in the subdivision was smaller than those typically found in the equestrian overlay district in the City, the Commission felt it was appropriate for Lot"A" to be designed for equestrian uses in lieu of individual residents providing those facilities on their own lots. The other two lettered lots were intended to be for recreational activities typically found in more passive common open space areas. The subdivision was later split into phases with Tract 12659-1 being constructed by a previous owner. The applicant intends to build the 92 lots under this application, as well as the 5 lots within Tentative Tract 15816, near the southeast corner of the site, as well as the 6 remaining undeveloped lots along Etiwanda Avenue. The applicant has been meeting with the existing homeowners and reactivated the Home Owners Association (HOA). 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. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-l0 - CENTEX HOMES May 20, 1997 Page 2 1. Staff feels that the subdivision design and street layout is still acceptable and the open space relocations preferred over the original concept. The applicant is proposing to develop the balance of the subdivision with essentially the same lot layout that was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The only difference is that Lot"C" has been reduced in size to create Lots 27-29, east of the currently proposed Lot"C".The open space lost by Lots 27-29 is proposed for relocation as Lot "B" to better serve the easterly portion of the tract. 2. The proposed architecture is complimentary and is more detailed than the original phase of development within this subdivision. The proposed architecture would be classified as California ranch or bungalow style and includes features such as: horizontal siding, decorative gable brackets, brick and stone veneer,wood shutters. Staff suggests the following changes to be more consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan design guidelines (see attached): a. Painted wood trim around windows and pot shelves, rather than stucco over foam, on some plans, such as, Plan I C and 2D. b. Real river rock veneer on some elevations. C. More extensive use of decorative brackets underneath gable ends. For example, use on main gables on side elevations. d. Front and wrap-around side porches should become a more dominant element in the overall architectural design. 3. More front yard setback variety should be provided in the plotting of the homes. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. I. Within Lots "B" and "C", any proposed lighting for the tennis, basketball and volleyball courts should be designed to project down to the courts and to not produce significant glare in the rear yards of the adjacent residences. Additional trees should be provided in the open lawn areas of the common open space areas. 2. Units should be re-oriented to not have the driveway cross or be within the equestrian feeder trail (Example: lots 10 and 18 within Phase 5). 3. The wood siding used on the Plan D models should be extended to the ground on the front and return side elevations to give a more finished appearance. 4. On the left side elevation of the Plan 2 side-on garage model, a finish treatment should be provided around the interior side of the garage door area to give a look of completeness. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-10 - CENTEX HOMES May 20, 1997 Page ') 5. Due to the proposed orientation of the swing-in garage models and the proposed location of the ground mounted mechanical units, a uniform screening device, such as a low wall, should be used in situations where the mechanical units will be facing a street. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Retaining walls should be limited to a maximum height of 4 feet and be composed of a decorative material or finish. These walls should not exceed 3 feet in height in the required front yard area. 2. The landscape treatment and multi-purpose trait within the Metropolitan Water District easement area should be designed consistent with the design guidelines within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans incorporating the applicable items from above and any other items the Committee deems appropriate. Once revised, the item should return for further Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The above-referenced Major Issue Nos. 2a, c, and d should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The porches should be added to still maintain the required building separations wherever possible. However, if the inclusion of wrap-around porches into the side yards encroaches into the side yard setback in some situations, the Committee supported the approval of a Minor Exception, given the importance of the porches as a critical architectural element on these homes in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. 2. The above-referenced Major Issue No. 3, Secondary Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and Policy Issue Nos. I and 2, should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and will be recommended as conditions of approval for the project. 3. A P.V.C. or wrought iron fencing material should be used around the interior boundaries of the two common open space areas, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Signs should be posted on the street frontages of the three common open space areas noting that the open space areas are private and only for the use of the residents of the subdivision. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS May 20, 1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary