Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/12/06 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY December 6, 1994 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker 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 HAVE BEEN 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. 5:00 p.m. (Nancy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-20- WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT-The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 20 lots within a recorded tract map of 33 lots Tract 10210, in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441-36, 39,4147, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56- 60, 62, 64 and 65. (Resubmittal item). 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 5:00 p.m. Nancy Fong December 6, 1994 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT - The design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 20 lots within a recorded tract map of 33 lots Tract 10210, in the Hillside Residential District, located on the north side of Almond Street at Crestview Place - APN: 200-441-36,39, 41-47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56-60, 62, 64 and 65. (Resubmittal item). BACKGROUND: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Melcher, Coleman) reviewed the project initially at the November 1, 1994 meeting. The Committee did not approve the project because the design did not meet the intent of the Hillside Ordinance and directed the applicant to submit revised plans for their review at the November 15, 1994, DRC meeting. On November 8, 1994, the applicant submitted revised elevations for house Plans 1 and 2, however, a revised site/grading plan was not included. On November 14, 1994, the applicant modified the application by adding 10 more lots for design review. At the November 15, 1994, meeting,the applicant provided a new two story house (plan 3) as well as a revised site/grading plan for the 20 lots to the Committee for review. The Committee continued the item to December 6, 1994, because of the lack of a site/grading plan for reviewing Plans 1 and 2 and because of the new information submitted at the meeting. Attached for the Committee reference are copies of the November 1 and 15, 1994, DRC action comments. The applicant has been diligently working with staff to revise the project and prepare the necessary plans for the Committee review. Attached is a set of the development plans that include the most up-to-date site/grading plan for the 20 lots,the elevations for Plans 1, 2, and 3 with the appropriate roof plans. The applicant addressed the dominance of the 4-car garage by introducing an inside and outside side-on garage entry. STAFF COMMENTS: The following comments are intended to provide an outline fqr Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Site and Grading. The revised plans show the use of stepped foundation, ranging from 1- foot to 3 feet between each step. The amount of 2:1 slopes are minimized and variable slopes of 2:1, 3:1,4:1, 5:1 are being used. Staff believes that the applicant has met the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. However, some improvements can be done to the following lots: a. Provide a deeper front yard setback for Lot 7 so that the transition of the 14 percent driveway slope to the garage is much smoother. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT December 6, 1994 Page 2 b. Lot 4 - Provide additional stepped foundation to take up the grades. Consider using a 3-car instead of a 4-car garage. C. Consider an outside side-on garage for lot 10. d. Provide additional stepped foundation for Lot 23. e. Use a 3-car instead of a 4-car garage for lot 14 to reduce the amount of driveway and provide some usable side yard area. f. Provide a minimum 2 feet step between the living area for the house plan on Lot 15. g. Orient the house plan on Lots 4, 9, 12, 24, and 27 to be more parallel to the contours and reinforce the "custom" feel of the tract. h. Orient the house plan on Lot 10 to face the front of the house to the northerly street to improve views and eliminate undesirable view of neighbor's house to the east. This will require relocating driveway. 2. Elevations. 3 house plans are proposed. Plans 2 and 3 are two-story house and Plan 1 is a one story house. The floor area ranges from 3,360 to 3,902 square feet. 3 elevations are provided for each house plans. All 3 plans have elevations showing the options of a 3-car garage, a 4-car garage or a side-on garage entry. Of the total 20 Lots, 7 have either a 3-car garage and/or side-on entry. The deck design for Plan 2 has been modified to show less of a vertical look. The following changes are recommended for discussion: a. Partial column on right side of entry arch (against BDRM 3) should be treated with stone veneer on exterior type 1 A. b. Add architectural elements and embellish the street side elevation for Plan 1 on Lot 23. C. Add architectural elements to the left elevation of the side-on garage entry for Plans 2 and 3. d. Extend veneer material (i.e., stone or brick) to grade to be similar to column tops. An example of the proper treatment can be seen on exterior type 1 C at Lot 6. e. Repeat stucco over detail underneath eave consistently throughout on exterior type 2A (as was done on 2B), such as on highest gable end and turret. DESIGN REVIEWCOMMENTS DR 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT December 6, 1994 Page 3 f. Second living room window is missing on right side of chimney on right elevations for Plan 3 (refer to floorplan). g. Second dining room window is missing on right elevations for Plan 2 (refer to floorplan). h. Redesign cap element on chimney for exterior type 2B which appears top heavy and out-of-scale with width of chimney stack on front and rear elevations. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Develop typical decking plans for rear and side yards area instead of creating flat yard areas. (This item can be conditioned). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Use decorative cap for retaining walls. (This item can be conditioned). 2. Provide concepts of a 24 by 24 feet corral and a 10-foot wide access to the trail for lots that can accommodate a horse corral. (This item can be conditioned). 3. Design chimney stacks with same stone or brick veneer accent materials. (This item can be conditioned). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the project with conditions to the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Peter Tolstoy, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Nancy Fong At the Committee meeting,the applicant provided design solutions to address staff comments. After reviewing the design solutions, the Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. Provide a deeper front yard setback for Lot 7 so that the transition of the 14 percent driveway slope to the garage is much smoother. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 94-20 - WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT December 6, 1994 Page 4 2. Provide a 2-foot stepped foundation to take up the grades for Lots 4 and 15. 3. Use a 3-car instead of a 4-car garage for Lots 4, 14, 10 and 30. 4. Add raised planters or terraced planters to soften the level pad for Lot 23. 5. Orient the house on Lots 4 and 9 to be more parallel to the contours. 6. The addition of pop-out window treatment to the left and the rear elevations of the garage side of the building for Plan 1C is acceptable. 7. The addition of pop-out window treatment to the street side elevation for Plan 1 on Lot 23 is acceptable. 8. The addition of pop-out window treatment to the left elevation of the side-on garage entry for Plans 2 and 3 is acceptable. 9. The 3 windows treatment on the turrent element for Plan 2 is acceptable. 10. Take out the window at the garage level for the right view of Plan 3B. 11. Use real river rock and not rock veneer. 12. Applicant agreed to show the stucco over detail underneath the eaves consistently for Plan 2. 13. The revised chimney cap design for Plan 2B shown at the meeting is acceptable. 14. Applicant agreed to provide the following: fencing plan for the project showing typical design for side, comer side and rear yards fences; typical decking plans for rear and side yards;concepts of a 24 by 24 feet corral and a 10-foot wide access to the trails for lots that can accommodate a horse corral;and,brick or fieldstone veneer accent materials for chimney stacks. Attachment DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS December 6, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary