HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/05/17 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY MAY 17, 2005 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman
Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher 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.
7:00 p.m.
(Vance/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16643 — KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. - A request to
subdivide a 5.02 acre property into 15 numbered lots for the purpose of
developing 15 single-family homes in the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Candlewood
Street and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-031-01, 02, 03, and 04. Related
• Files: Development Review DRC2004-00822, Conditional Use Permit
DRC2004-00825, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00824.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2004-00822 — KB HOMES - A request for review of site plans and
elevations for 15 single-family detached homes on 5.02 acres of land in the
Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the
northeast corner of Candlewood Street and Etiwanda Avenue -
APN: 1100-031-01, 02, 03, and 04.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRC2004-00825-KB HOMES GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC.-A request to
review site plans and elevations for two single-family detached homes fronting
Etiwanda Avenue, a portion of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16643 on 5.02 acres
of land, in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and Low-Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of
Candlewood Street and Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-031-01,02,03,and 04.
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.
• R
( o p.m.
Rzalynne/Cam) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00619 - PADILLA - The
request to develop a single-family residence on 0.55 acre within the Very Low
Residential District (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 10986 Deer
Canyon Drive - APN: 1074-501-09.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
May 17, 2005
Page 2
•
7:30 p.m.
(Doug/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2004-01290-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to develop a
three-story, 179,800 square foot storage facility on 4.33 gross acres of land in
the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located on the north side of Arrow
Route, approximately 700 feet east of 1-15 Freeway-APN: 0229-021-66.
7:50 p.m.
(Doug/Betty) DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00928 - KB HOME -The review of site plan and
elevation for 64 single-family detached residences on 28.7 acres of land in a
recorded Tract 15982, in the Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acres), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson
Avenue -APN: 0225-071-69. Related File: Tract 15982.
8:10 p.m.
(Donald/Willie) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01107 - .TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES,
L.P. - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 23
single-family lots on 17.2 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District
(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the
west side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue — APN: 0225-122-06, 49
and 50. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00466 and Tract Map
SUBTT16113.
8:30 p.m.
(Mike/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00814-SCOTTAND JUREE DEXTER
-A request to construct a two-story single-family residence with a total floor area
of about 6,700 square feet (footprint approximately 5,680 square feet) on a
parcel of 22,823 square feet in the Very Low Residential District located south
of Tackstem Drive on the east side of Cactus Court-APN: 1074-311-06.
8:50 p.m.
(Mike/Mark) HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00003 - AGUIRRE/BRUNO - A
proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence with a floor area of
3,974 square feet(including the garage, patios,and decks)on a parcel of about
12,000 square feet in the Low Residential District, located west of Predera
Court on the north side of Camino Predera —APN: 0207-631-22.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Vance Pomeroy May 17, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16643 — KB HOME
GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. -A request to subdivide a 5.02 acre property into 15 numbered
lots for the purpose of developing 15 single-family homes in the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Candlewood Street and Etiwanda
Avenue - APN: 1100-031-01, 02, 03, and 04. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2004-00822, Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-00825, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00824.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00822 — KB
HOMES GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. -A request for review of site plans and elevations for 15
single-family detached homes on 5.02 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Candlewood Street and Etiwanda
Avenue -APN: 1100-031-01, 02, 03, and 04.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00825 - KB
HOMES GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. -A request to review site plans and elevations for two
single-family detached homes fronting Etiwanda Avenue, a portion of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16643 on 5.02 acres of land, in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Candlewood
• Street and Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 1100-031-01, 02, 03, and 04.
Design Parameters/Background:The Design Review Committee originally reviewed this project at
the March 15, 2005 meeting (DRC Comments attached). At that meeting the DRC continued the
project to give the applicant an opportunity principally to improve the design and appearance of the
house designs, especially along the rear and side elevations. With the additional design
requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the DRC is paying particular emphasis on better
adherence to the concept of 360-degree architecture in massing and materials.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The Design Review Committee directed the applicant to exhibit 360-degree architecture by
extending the materials and massing of the front elevation to the sides and the rear. The
applicant had expressed a desire to make the proposed tract an extension of Tract 16454
(under construction) abutting the proposal to the north. Although the northerly tract is
successful in the exhibition of a rich material pallet that will be duplicated in this proposal, it
does lack a continuity of the use of those materials for the side and rear elevations.
The applicant worked with staff to revise the drawings according to the direction of the
Committee. While the general Floor Plans found in the adjacent tract are used, significant
• improvements are made to the massing and bulkiness of the elevations by using pop-outs,
new gables, broken rooflines, and more extensive use of the siding materials found on the
front elevation.
• DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT16643, DRC2004-00822, AND DRC2004-00825- KB HOMES GREATER LOS ANGELES
May 17, 2005
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project as presented.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Vance Pomeroy
The Committee recommended approval subject to the following:
1. Add appropriate corbels/braces to the pop-outs on design Numbers 3192 and 3315.
2. On design Number 3595, the Spanish elevations should include mullioned windows.
3. On design Number 3595, the optional chimneys should provide decorative enhancement
including the use of stone.
• 4. The sound walls along Candlewood Street should provide a different color or texture on the
lower portion to de-emphasize the height. Horizontal application of darker colors on the
bottom can make the wall 'look" shorter.
5. Plant Spotted Gum replacement trees.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
• 7:10 p.m. Rozalynne Thompson May 17, 2005
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00619 - PADILLA - The request to develop a
single-family residence on 0.55 acre within the Very Low Residential District(0.1 to 2 dwelling units
per acre), located at 10986 Deer Canyon Drive -APN: 1074-501-09.
Design Parameters: The applicant proposes to construct a 4,100 square foot single-family
residence on Lot 22 of Tract 12250-3. The lot size is 24,046 square feet. The proposed house is a
two-story home, with the lower level burrowed into the hillside. The main level consists of
bedrooms, kitchen, living room,family room, 3 %bathrooms, office, and a formal dining room. The
lower level consists of a tucked-under four-car garage.
The design of the proposed residence substantially follows the General Design Guidelines, Hillside
Design Guidelines, and their associated Development Standards. The design of the tiled roof,
which includes a trellis on the rear of the structure and variation in pitch and form, breaks up overall
massing. All elevations are well articulated, and wall planes have been embellished using a variety
of elements such as window surrounds, divided light windows, recessed treatments, columns, and
balustrades. A terraced entry is featured on the south (front) elevation flanked by two columns,
which graduate to the main floor. To mitigate the height of the proposed residence, the applicant
has placed the one-story garage on the side elevation most susceptible to the up-sloped terrain.
The proposed residence is setback over 62 feet from the curb face. The proposed two-story with
tucked under garage/basement is designed with a minimum of three stepped pads that have a total
elevation change of 8 feet over natural grade with a grade change of 7 feet across the pad of the
house. The main floor is raised 8 feet above natural grade. The garage requires a vertical cut of a
maximum of 5 feet and a 5-foot interior wall. The project requires 164 cubic yards of cut and 112
cubic yards of fill.
In the completeness comments dated September 13, 2004, November 30, 2004, and
February 22, 2005, staff expressed concern about the minimal use and ineffective placement of
decorative materials (specifically stone veneer) on all elevations. The applicant met with staff on
March 21, 2004, regarding those issues. Staff suggested that the applicant use stone veneer
substantially on all elevations, use two exterior colors separated by a belly band, and/or add
terraced landscaping to effectively screen the blank stucco walls. The applicant chose to introduce
a bell band and terraced landscaping to minimize the appearance of blank wall planes.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. Grading: The primary issue is whether the proposed project substantially meets the intent of
the Hillside Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Hillside Development Ordinance is
to minimize the impacts of grading and preserve the natural topography. The major concems
are the quantities of earthwork, comprised of 164 cubic yards of cut and 112 cubic yards of fill.
In contrast to conventional "flat pad" design, staff believes the proposed house meets the
• guidelines of the Hillside Development Ordinance by reducing earthwork quantities through
the use of multiple stepped building pads that permit the house to follow the natural terrain.
Also, the effects of grading have been minimized through contouring of slopes and use of
variable gradients to soften their appearance.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00619— MANUEL AND ALICIA PADILLA
• May 17, 2005
Page 2
2. Design:The house is a two-story structure with a tuck-under garage that is cut into the natural
slope. The house fits well within the 30-foot hillside building envelope. Since the design
incorporates a raised main floor, skirt walls will be visible on the east, west, and south
elevations. To mitigate this, the applicant chose to introduce terraced planters and a belly
band to minimize the appearance of blank stucco skirt walls on the front elevation. Should the
Committee believe that the planters and belly band do not adequately break up the vertical
wall planes on that elevation, staff and the applicant may be directed to come up with a
solution to resolve this issue.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Provide additional trim, or other accent feature required with 360-degree architecture on the
east elevation of the four-car garage.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All walls exposed public view, including retaining walls and return walls, shall be decorative
(i.e. stucco, split-face, or slumptsone).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to secondary issues being made a
• condition of approval.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Rozalynne Thompson
The Committee recommended approval with a condition to add a terraced planter 24 inches to 30
inches high to break up wall mass of underneath front decks.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:30 p.m. Doug Fenn May 17, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01290-CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to develop a three-story, 179,800 square foot storage facility on
4.33 gross acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 8), located on the north side of
Arrow Route, approximately 700 feet east of 1-15 Freeway-APN: 0229-021-66.
Design Parameters: The subject site is located north of Arrow Route between 1-15 Freeway and an
existing industrial warehouse building to the west, and vacant land to the east. To the north are
vacant land and the Foothill Marketplace shopping center and to the south is the existing Ameron
Pipe Company. The site had been cleared and regularly disced forweed abatement purposes. The
site presently drains from the north to the south. There are no mature trees on the subject site.
The project is a single-phase development. The project is a 179,800 square foot enclosed
self-storage and recreational vehicle and boat storage facility. There will be no outdoor storage of
the recreational vehicles. The project contains three buildings. Building "A" is the main storage
building and is three stories high. Building "B" is a single-story structure which fronts along Arrow
Route,and Building"C"is a two-story which is located along the east property line. This facility does
• not have a caretaker's residence. ,
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:
1. All of the self-storage buildings need a second primary building material, particularly Buildings
"B" and "C," which will be visually prominent along Arrow Route.
2. The following enhancements are recommendations to improve the buildings:
Building 'W"
a. The additional primary material should be added on vertical elements at the loading
area, and located on the provided horizontal banding and other similar like areas.
b. The applicant must clarify if the windows are vision glass or spandrel.
C. The south elevation which is visible from Arrow Route needs window treatment and
decorative detail elements as provided on the east and west elevations.
d. A detail needs to be provided for the recess panel accents, and enlarged. They are too
small in relation to the mass and size of the building.
• e. The cornice trim should wrap around the entire building.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-01290 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• May 17, 2005
Page 2
Building "B":
a. This building needs architectural treatment like Building "A," at least 140 feet from the
south extending north along the west side of the building, and to transition to the
proposed fagade. Staff also recommends that this enhance treatment must extend from
the north to south of about 120 feet. These portions of the building are visible and need
architectural enhancements.
b. The building should be constructed from tilt-up concrete to match Building "A" and the
adjoining warehouse to the west.
C. The west face of the building needs to be decorative and mimic the office area on the
east side.
d. The smooth concrete block must be deleted from the building as seen from Arrow Route.
Staff recommends concrete tilt up as proposed on Building "A." The accent tile
elements need to be enlarged as recommend on Building "A."
Building "C:
a. This two-story building needs architectural treatment like Building "A," at least 140 feet
from the south extending north along the west side of the building, and to transition to
• the proposed facade. Staff also recommends that this enhance treatment must extend
from the north to south of about 120 feet. These portions of the building are visible and
need architectural enhancements.
b. The building should be constructed from tilt-up concrete to match Building "A" and the
adjoining warehouse.to the west.
C. It is not clear what is proposed along the east side of the building. On Sheet A9, the
east side has a columned facade. Staff would recommend that the block be changed to
decorative material. However, on Sheet Al there is detail depicting a solid wall that
does not match this east side of the building..
d. The north side of the building needs to be modified to match the overall architecture of
the project.
3. Landscape planters must be provided on building fronts that are not roll up door areas.
4. No wrought iron fencing will be permitted on any of the property lines.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Call out the detail and color of the decorative pavement within drive entry throats (outside
public right-of-way).
2. Access gates shall be opaque.
• 3. A detail needs to be provided of the trash enclosure and the walls need to match the
architecture of the project.
4. Roll up doors need to be painted to match the paint scheme of the buildings.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-01290 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• May 17, 2005
Page 3
5. The applicant must delete all signage proposed on the buildings.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee recommended approval of the revised plans presented by the new architect,Jordan
Architects, Inc., subject to working out the details with staff.
•
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:50 p.m. Doug Fenn May 17, 2005
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00928 - KB HOME - The review of site plan and elevations for 64
single-family detached residences on 28.7 acres of land in recorded Tract 15982,in the Low Density
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acres), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard
and Wilson Avenue -APN: 0225-071-69. Related File: Tract 15982.
Design Parameters/Update: The project site has a recorded final map (Tract 15982 house plotting
was previously approved), has been graded and prepared for development. The site is within the
Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development. The subject site is south of a Junior High School and
bordered by the Cucamonga Valley Water District(CVWD)water tank and vacant land to the north
and single-family neighborhoods to the east, south, and west.
The proposed project consists of four floor plans that range in square footage from 3,290 square
feet to 3,404 square feet. Each plan has three different elevation styles. All plans have variation in
the footprints such as side entry garages or wrap-around porches, 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 of the
rears and sides have rich architecture elements that are reflective of the front elevations. In a spirit
• of cooperation to work with the Planning Commission's direction of providing single-story homes,the
applicant decided to exceed the 10 percent minimum. The applicant has provided a single-story
plan that is 20 percent of the house product.
The developer has meet with other neighbors in the area to discuss the project without any adverse
objections from the neighbors.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. Architecture Style: The site is within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood theme area of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Plan requires at least 2/3 of the tract be more than one of
the following primary architectural styles: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. A
maximum of 1/3 of the tract may be any of these secondary architectural styles: Country,
Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. The applicant should revise elevations to label which
architectural styles are being proposed, and provide a summary table of unit mix. Staff
believes the styles are as follows:
Floor Plan Architectural Style
Primary Secondary
260.3290 A San Juan
260.3290 B Bungalow
260.3290 E Ranch
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00928— KB HOME
• May 17, 2005
Page 2
Floor Plan Architectural Style
Primary Secondary
165.3395 A San Juan
165.3395 B Ranch
165.3395 E Country
250.3404 B Bungalow
250.3404 C Ranch
250.3404 E Country
260.3595 A San Juan
260.3595 B Bungalow
260.3595 C Ranch
2. The Development Code requires 360-degree architectural treatment to all elevations with a
specific architectural style. Although the proposed architectural styles are attractive, the
elevations should be enhanced with additional details consistent with the extensive design
guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Staff recommends enhancements, such as:
• a. Plan 260.3290 A— Provide 4:12 roof pitch. Provide entry courtyard with walls.
b. Plan 260.3290 B— Replace stucco with horizontal siding and/or shingles on all sides.
C. Plan 165.3395 A - Provide entry courtyard with walls.
d. Plan 250.3404 B - Replace stucco with horizontal siding and/or shingles on all sides.
e. Plan 260.3595 B -Replace stucco with horizontal siding and/or shingles on all sides.
f. All Plans—Garage door pattern should not be same on all. Provide variety.
g. All Plans - Chimney designs and materials should not be generic. They should reflect
the architectural style of home consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Also,
some floor plans show fireplaces that do not appear on the elevations, such as Plan
165.3395. Plans should be revised for consistency.
Secondary Issues:
1. Because Lots 20 and 30 are corner parcels, it is recommended that a house with a wrap
around porch be located on these corner lots. This is consistent with past direction by the
Design Review Committee.
2. The project site is located in the urban/wildland interface, which is a high fire hazard area;
therefore, require special construction techniques, such as "boxed in" eaves. The designer
• should work with the Fire District to identify how these standards may affect proposed
architecture.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00928 — KB HOME
• May 17, 2005
Page 3
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. 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.
5. Taper three- or four-car driveways down to standard two-car width at the street.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a consent
calendar item to the Design Review Committee.
Design Review Committee Action:
• Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Doug Fenn
The Committee recommended approval of the revised plans and colors presented by the applicant.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:10 P.M. Donald Granger May 17, 2005
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01107 - TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES, L.P. - The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 23 single-family lots on 17.2 acres of land in
the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue—APN: 0225-122-06,49 and 50.
Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2004-00466 and Tract Map SUBTT16113.
Design Parameters: The site is bounded by the extension of Wilson Avenue to the north, the new
Fire Station #176 and a few single-family dwelling units to the south, East Avenue to the east, and
Cucamonga Valley Water District's water treatment plant to the west. The project site has a final
map (SUBTT16113) and has been rough graded. Tract SUBTT16113 was approved on
June 27, 2001, which was prior to an amendment to the Development Code that now requires all
lots within to the Very Low Residential District to have a lot depth of 200 feet. Although several lots
are deficient in meeting the 200-foot depth requirement, the developer has successfully plotted all
corrals to meet the 70-foot radius requirement from all adjacent dwelling units.
The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on March 31, 2004, at Summit Intermediate
School. No residents attended.
• The applicant is proposing three house plans for the project design to meet the requirements of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan,this project is developed under the Basic
Development Standards and no specific architectural style is required; however, the project must
meet the design goals of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant has been working diligently to
resolve the design issues that had been identified by staff during the review process.
The proposed project consists of three floor plans (one 1-story and two 2-story)with 4 architectural
styles that range in square footage from 3,878 to 5,078 square feet. All of the proposed
architectural styles are appropriate to the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
incorporating traditional elements with a rural emphasis. The applicant has made good uses of
porches, traditional materials, and variation in the roof planes. A total of five elevations are
proposed, and include Tuscan, Traditional, Executive Farmhouse, Adobe, and Monterey design
themes. All plans have articulation in the footprints and the wall planes, thereby, avoiding "box on
box" building forms. All plans have been designed with decorative driveways. Most plans have
been designed with front porches, another design goal of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that"at least 50 percent of all garages
within single-family tracts shall be detached, side-on, or set behind the front part of the
• dwelling." Staff agrees with the applicant that the project meets this requirement with the
design of Plan 1 and 3. Plan 1 is comprised of a three-car garage (third car tandem design)
with the garage setback 5 feet behind the front elevation, and Plan 3 has a three-car garage
with the single car garage designed as a side-on. A total of 15 of the 23 lots (65 percent)are
plotted with either Plan 1 or 3.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-01107 —TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES, L.P.
• May 17, 2005
Page 2
2. Overall, staff is pleased with the architectural styles and the efforts made to provide
360-degree architecture and architectural elements that are appropriate the Etiwanda '
neighborhood (porches,traditional materials,divided light windows). All plans have modest to
strong architectural treatment on all elevations in order to provide visual interest. Staff
recommends that following enhancements be made in order to achieve 360-degree
architectural treatment on all plans:
• Plan 2, Tuscan, Front Elevation: Add stone veneer to Bedroom 4 above the garage
• Plan 2, Tuscan, Side Elevations: Add stone veneer to both chimneys
• Plan 2, Traditional, Side Elevations: Add wood siding to both chimneys
• Plan 2, Executive Farmhouse, Side Elevations: Add wood siding to both chimneys
• Plan 3, Tuscan, Front Elevation: Add stone veneer to Bedroom 4 above the garage
• Plan 3, Adobe, Front Elevation: Add brick veneer to Bedroom 4 above the garage
• Plan 3, Adobe, Left Elevation: Add brick veneer to the chimney at the living room
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 6-foot high block walls on Lots 10, 15, and 23 do not comply with the 3-foot height
limitation for walls within the 30-foot front yard setback as measured from right-of-way line(i.e.,
front property line) pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060.K.1. There are two
design options: 1) relocate 6-foot walls at or behind the 30-foot front yard setback, or 2)
redesign walls as a combination of 3-foot split-face with 3-foot high wrought iron atop within
the front yard area.
2. The single 6-foot split-face block wall along East Avenue does not comply with the required
design treatment per Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-28A (see attached): stucco wall, river
rock pilasters with ball finials, and river rock raised planters.
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, native fieldstone.
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.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-01107 —TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES, L.P.
May 17, 2005
Page 3
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned prior to scheduling for
Planning Commission,
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
The Committee recommended approval of the revised plans presented by the applicant.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:30 p.m. Michael Smith May 17, 2005
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00814 - SCOTT AND JUREE DEXTER - A request to
construct a two-story single-family residence with a total floor area of about 6,700 square feet
(footprint approximately 5,680 square feet) on a parcel of 22,823 square feet in the Very Low
Residential District located south of Tackstem Drive on the east side of Cactus Court -
APN: 1074-311-06.
Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Very Low Residential District
and is included in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside
Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and
architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the
character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration.
Following the Committee's review,this Hillside Design Review application will be forward to the City
Planner for review and action.
Design Parameters: The parcels to the north and west are developed with single-family residences.
The property to the south is a single-family residence under construction (Hillside Design Review
DRC2003-00954). The properties to the east are vacant. The topography slopes in a generally
• north to south direction. At the north property line, the existing elevation is about 2,067 feet and
decreases to about 2,053 feet at the south property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a
two-story single-family residence with an attached three-vehicle (two cars and one recreational
vehicle) garage. The house will have a first floor of 5,576 square feet and a second floor of 1,198
square feet. Because the second floor is significantly smaller than the first floor,the house will have
a second floor setback beyond that of the first floor of about 5 feet (north side) and 10 feet (south
side). Architecturally, the house will incorporate wood siding for the majority of its exterior walls and
river rock on the chimneys. The first floor of the house, not including the garage, will have three
stepped pads with finished floor elevations of 2,062 feet, 2,060 feet, and 2,058 feet,for a total step
of 4 feet. The garage will have a finished surface elevation of 2,061.84 feet. The"stepping"will be
consistent with the existing contours and direction of slope.
The depth of excavation or fill will be 5 feet or less, and the earthwork quantity will not exceed 1,500
cubic yards. Along,and parallel to the north property line, the applicant proposes a retaining wall of
4 feet in height which"steps"down to 3 feet in the front yard setback. This wall will be separated by
a minimum of 3 feet from the existing property line screen wall. Similarly, along the south property
line,the applicant proposes a 3-foot high retaining wall. The applicant has indicated that he will use
a wrought iron fence combined with landscaping for screening purposes. Note that although the
Grading Plan indicates an overall height of each wall at 3.5 to 4.5 feet, this measurement includes
the depth of the footings; the exposed height will not exceed the standard for maximum retaining
wall height. The house will have setbacks from the side property lines on the north and south of
21.5 feet and 13.5 feet, respectively. Furthermore, the house will have front and rear yard setbacks
of 59 feet and 70 feet, respectively. The setbacks of the proposed structure exceed the minimum
standards established for this development district. The overall height of the structure will not
exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade. Lot coverage will be about 25 percent; the
maximum permissible in the Very Low Residential District is 25 percent; therefore, no additional
structures can be allowed.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2004-00814 - SCOTT AND JUREE DEXTER `
• May 17, 2005
Page 2
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. The project complies with the design and technical requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations. Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort to satisfy the intent
of this ordinance by incorporating the following features:
a. stepped floors;
b. the second floor"setback"; and
C. setbacks in excess of the minimums required by the Development Code.
2. A Minor Exception is required for any wall between 6 feet and 8 feet in height(RCMC Section
17.04.050.B.1.a.). The 3-foot to 4-foot high retaining wall along the south property line,when
combined with a 6-foot high wrought iron fence or wall, will require the submittal of a Minor
Exception application for review and approval by the City Planner prior to construction. As an
alternative, terraced walls separated by a minimum of 3 feet should be considered.
• Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All of the walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls, shall be decorative (i.e.
stucco, split-face, or slumpstone with a trim cap).
2. Where river rock is used, it shall be real river rock.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as
submitted.
Attachments
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Michael Smith
The applicant was approved as submitted.
•
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:50 p.m. Michael Smith May 17, 2005
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00003-AGUIRRE/BRUNO-A proposal to construct a two-
story single-family residence with a floor area of 3,974 square feet(including the garage, patios,and
decks) on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet in the Low Residential District, located west of
Predera Court on the north side of Camino Predera —APN: 0207-631-22.
Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Low Residential District and is
included in the Hillside Overlay District. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to
minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile,and architectural features of the house are
designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give
consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are
reviewed and approved by the City Planner. However,this project requires the review and approval
by the Planning Commission because more than 5 feet of excavation is proposed.
Design Parameters: The parcels to the north are developed with single-family residences. The
property to the east and west are vacant but are pending development(related file: Hillside Design
Review DRC2004-00375 and DRC2004-00630, respectively). The properties to the south are
vacant. The topography slopes in a generally northwest to southeast direction. The existing
• topography has two distinct slope profiles. At the front of the property, the slope is generally 40
percent (between 2:1 and 3:1). At the front property line, the existing elevation is about 1,304 feet
and rises to about 1,317 feet at a point about 25 feet north, or behind,the front property line. From
there the slope is about 15 percent to the rear property line,which is at a general elevation of about
1,335 feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family residence with an attached 2-car
garage. The first floor of the house, not including the garage, will have two stepped pads with
finished floor elevations of 1,329.5 feet and 1,326.5 feet. The garage will have a finished surface
elevation of 1,322.5 feet. The "stepping"will be consistent with the existing contours and direction
of slope. The depth of excavation, or "cut," that will be required to construct the driveway and a
small portion of the yard area at the northwest corner of the house will exceed 5 feet(Exhibit"A"and
"B"). The house will screen the depth of cut at the northwest portion of the property. However,
excavation for the driveway will be visible from Camino Predera. The applicant proposes a series of
terraced 3-foot high retaining walls, separated by 3 feet, along the south side of the property
adjacent to the driveway. These walls, in conjunction with appropriate landscaping,will reduce the
apparent depth of cut(note that although the Grading Plan indicates an overall height of each wall at
4 feet, the exposed height will be 3 feet). Excavation throughout the rest of the property, including
the building pads,will be less than 5 feet. The house will have setbacks from the side property lines
on the east and west of 16.5 feet and 7 feet, respectively. Furthermore, the house will have front
and rear yard setbacks of 58 feet (to the garage) and 30 feet, respectively. The setbacks of the
proposed structure exceed the minimum standards established for this development district and,as
a result, the visual bulk of the house will be minimized. The overall height of the structure will not
exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade. Lot coverage will be about 23.5 percent; the
maximum permissible in the Low Residential District is 40 percent.
• A neighborhood meeting was held on August 24, 2004. Staff believes all of the concerns have been
addressed by the proposed design.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2005-00003 —AGUIRRE/BRUNO
May 17, 2005
Page 2
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project.
1. In the Hillside Overlay, excavation ("cut") or fill greater than 5 feet requires Planning
Commission approval. Amounts in excess are discouraged and when viable alternatives exist,
staff will suggest to the applicant that they seriously consider those alternatives first. Similarly,
sensitivity to the surrounding neighbors' concerns, such as preservation of their views, and
architectural design compatibility with existing structures in the neighborhood are
recommended. There are two small areas where cut exceeds 5 feet (see Exhibits "A" and
"B"). Staff believes that the following design features adequately address this concern:
a. Stepped floors;
b. setbacks in excess of the minimums required by the Development Code; and
C. relatively compact size.
These solutions are the result of discussions with the applicant and a neighborhood meeting
conducted on August 24, 2004. Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort
to satisfy the intent of this ordinance. The project complies with the technical requirements of
the Hillside Development Regulations.
2. A Minor Exception is required for any wall between 6 feet and 8 feet in height(RCMC Section
17.04.050.B.1.a.). The 3-foot to 4-foot high retaining wall along the west property line,when
combined with a 6-foot high garden wall, will require the submittal of a Minor Exception
application for review and approval by the City Planner prior to construction. As alternative,
terraced walls separated by a minimum of 3 feet should be considered.
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 minimum separation between the driveway pavement and the property line is 5 feet.
Because the radii of the driveway at the southwest corner of the site precludes this separation,
the separation that the applicant has proposed is 3 feet.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All of the walls exposed to public view, including retaining walls, shall be decorative (i.e.
stucco, split-face, or slumpstone with a trim cap).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as
submitted.
Attachments
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2005-00003—AGUIRRE/BRUNO
• May 17, 2005
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman
Staff Planner: Michael Smith
The Committee recommended approval contingent upon enhancements of the north and west
elevations, such as two-tone color and decorative window sill.
•
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
May 17, 2005
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
•