Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/14 - Agenda Packet A ACTION AGENDA ,I DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY FEBRUARY 14, 1995 5:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher 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 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS SUBMITTED 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. (Beverly) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 14139-CENTEX- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tract 14139 a residential subdivision of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Ave. and 25th Street. - APN : 225-082-01 5:40 p.m. (Dan) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-03 NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP.-A request to construct single family residences on 12 infill lots in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along 24th Street, 25th Street, and Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102-19, 31; 209-104-16, 18; 209-111- 04, 15, 16; 209-112-26; 209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Application Review 94-05 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. Beverly Luttrell February 14, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 14139 -CENTEX- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tract 14139 a residential subdivision of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Ave. and 25th Street. - APN : 225-082-01 Design Parameters/Background: Tentative Tract 14139 was a custom lot subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1989 and recorded in November 1991. The project was rough graded in early 1992, and no activity has occurred since that time. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted in April 1992. The tract is bordered to the east by Etiwanda Avenue, to the south by approved Tentative Tract 13527, to the west by a Southern California Edison Company easement, and to the north by 25th Street (vacated) and an SCE easement. Lots range in size from 9,339 to 30,435 square feet, with an average lot size of 13,874 square feet. Paseos and greenbelt trails have been provided in certain locations within the subdivision to provide trail connections to Tract 13527 to the south. Access points have also been provided at the north and west tract boundaries to provide access to possible future development within the Etiwanda North area. Also, an enhanced parkway treatment has been provided on Streets A, D and F within the project. Additionally, an on site detention basin was required as an interim drainage solution, and will be located on Lots 1-5 in the southeast corner of the tract. The project was originally conditioned to have the basin reviewed by the Design Review Committee for screening and landscaping issues prior to the issuance of building permits. The basin design and enhanced parkway treatment was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee on June 4, 1992. (See attached comments). The current applicant is proposing to build homes ranging in size from 2,003 to 2,860 square feet. The applicant has provided four car garages on some of the lots. A mix of one and two story homes have been provided. Four floor plans are provided. Tum-in garages have been provided per the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The project falls within the Upper Etiwanda area of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and is required to meet the architectural guidelines noted in the plans which have been attached. 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 four car garage option has occurred on 30 of the 119 lots. In some cases the fourth car option is detached from the main garage, in others the garage is continuous. On certain lots the four car garage dominates the front elevation of the house as well as the lot. See Lots 85, 86, 115, 116, and 118 for example. The applicant should also provide an alternative where a circular driveway is provided to minimize the number of driveways. DRC COMMENTS DR FOR TRACT 14139 - CENTEX February 14, 1995 Page 2 2. The side and rear elevations of Plan 1 are too plain and should be upgraded with additional detailing. There is also not enough variation in the different front elevations of Plan 1. 3. A design for the perimeter wall and entry monumentation was submitted with this application and will be available at the meeting. The design guidelines provided within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan for this particular area, known as Upper Etiwanda, require the use of ashlar cut stone entries and pilasters . The applicant indicates that they will use a fieldstone monument wall with concrete cap, fieldstone pilasters, and sack finish slumpstone perimeter wall. This is not consistent with the design guidelines in the ENSP. Perimeter walls are required to be stucco. A detail of the wall along Etiwanda Ave. and the entry wall to the project should be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The applicant has provided a detail sheet depicting the thematic character of the styles which they are proposing: Bungalow, Monterey, and San Juan. The characteristics of each architectural type generally conform to the guidelines in the ENSP, however, the applicant has not indicated any information regarding roof pitch. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. A precise grading plan was not required for this submittal, since the project has been rough graded. A precise grading plan will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All porches should be wide enough, to be useable (6-8 feet). 3. If brick or stone veneer or wood siding is provided on the front of an elevation it should be provided on portions of the rear and sides as well. 4. All corner side yard walls, return walls and retaining walls within public view should be constructed of a decorative masonry material. 5. View fencing will be required where lots are adjacent to any utility corridors per the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. If river rock is used on any of the elevations, native material should be used rather than simulated. 2. Corner side yard walls should be located at least 5 feet behind the back of the sidewalk in order to provide a planting area. 3. Streetside landscaping (i.e., front yard landscaping) is required per the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The plan requires seeded and irrigated lawns and planting beds with manual irrigation system for shrubs,ground cover and/or vines as well as 3 trees per lot for lots up to 80 feet wide, and 4 trees per lot for lots over 80 feet wide. A landscape and irrigation plan should be submitted, reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. A slope planting and irrigation plan will also be required prior to the issuance of permits DRC COMMENTS DR FOR TRACT 14139 - CENTEX February 14, 1995 Page 3 Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions as deemed appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Beverly Luttrell The Committee did not recommend approval of the elevations as proposed. They felt that they were not reflective of the guidelines within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Committee felt that the elevations did not go far enough with each of the different styles and that they were too simple and plain. They noted that this will be one of the first projects built in the Etiwanda North area and that it would set the standard for the area. They directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the elevations to be in keeping with the architectural styles and specific elements required of the Upper Etiwanda Area. The Committee did not recommend approval of the wall treatment along Etiwanda Ave. or the entry treatment to the project. The applicant requested that they be able to use river rock rather than ashlar cut stone. Staff was directed to look at this request in the context of the different neighborhoods established and determine whether or not this would be acceptable. In an effort to accommodate the applicants time frame, they agreed to review revised plans in two weeks. Because of the rapid turn around time a written staff report for the meeting was not required. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman February 14, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-03 -NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP.-A request to construct single family residences on 12 infill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along 24th Street, 25th Street, and Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102-19, 31; 209-104-16, 18;209-111-04, 15, 16;209-112-26; 209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Application Review 94-05 Background: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Pre-Application Review workshop on January 11, 1995. The Commission praised the craftsman style architecture, front porches, and use of detached garages. Concerns expressed by the Commission included asphalt composition roof material, predominant stucco materials on side and rear elevations, and chimney siding materials. Comments were made that the craftsman style should wrap horizontal siding around all sides and use masonry chimneys. See attached minutes. Design Parameters: The Northtown Housing Development Corp. (NHDC) goal for this project is to provide quality affordable single family detached homes that will positively.influence the community and inspire pride of ownership. The lots are scattered throughout the Northtown area and represent the first phase of NHDC's efforts to acquire and build affordable single family detached housing. The proposed craftsman architecture is based upon the few remaining fine examples of this style in the neighborhood. Much of the housing stock within the Northtown area is pre-1950; unfortunately, many of these older craftsman homes have been modified with rather insensitive stucco-over treatments and aluminum frame windows. 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. Composition versus tile roof material. The Planning Commission has a policy requiring tile roofs on new residences. However, they have approved the use of composition roofing on several other projects, including one Design Award winner, where appropriate for the architectural style. Staff supports the use of composition shingle material as consistent with the craftsman architecture. 2. Stucco versus horizontal siding on side and rear elevations. Commission policy is "if the front is sided, then siding should be used on all elevations". On Plans 1 & 2 the siding is used as an accent material on only 1/2 of the front elevation. On Plan 3 the entire front of the house is sided, and is wrapped around the sides to logical stopping points. Staff supports the use of stucco on the sides and rear elevations to maintain affordability and reduce long term maintenance costs. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-03 -NORTHTOWN February 14, 1995 Page 2 1. A undetermined number of existing trees must be removed; however, consistent with Commission policy existing healthy trees are being preserved whenever possible. A Tree Removal Permit must be considered by the Planning Commission concurrently with the Development Review application. 2. Chimney materials (siding versus masonry) - Consistent with Commission policy, the project features chimney stacks using the same accent materials used on house(i.e.,horizontal siding). 3. Property line walls/fencing should be built to provide private yard areas. Return walls/fencing and comer side walls/fencing should be decorative and compatible with architecture. None are shown on the plans. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Manufactured stone versus real river rock veneer. Commission policy requires that river rock veneer be constructed using native rock. Other types of stone veneers may be manufactured products. (This could be conditioned). 2. All corner lots should have upgraded comer side elevations, such as horizontal siding and windows with mullions and wood trim surrounds. (This could be conditioned). Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to return to DRC prior to Planning Commission, with alternative elevation with all stucco scheme (no horizontal siding). Provide cost differential between siding versus stucco as a percentage of total house construction cost. Also provide photo analysis of houses on adjoining lots. 2. Provide property line and return fencing or walls. Applicant to return to DRC prior to Planning Commission with a fencing plan. Provide analysis of existing fence/wall materials on adjoining lots. 3. Chimney materials may be stucco or siding. 4. Construct sidewalk connections from house front door to public sidewalk, and from house back door to driveway. 5. Use wood trim surrounds on all windows. 6. Composition shingle roof material was acceptable as consistent with architectural style and context. 7. The proposed tree removals are acceptable.