Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/05 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION COMMENTS AND MINUTES WEDNESDAY JULY 5, 1995 4:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Nancy Fong 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 ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROJECT REVIEW ITEM 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. 4:00 p.m. (Alan) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-16 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plans for previously approved Tract Map 12462 consisting of single family lots on 8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan at Summit Avenue and Shoshone Place. APN: 225-401-11, 225-491-12, and 225- 391-15 PUBLIC COMMENT 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 4:00 p.m. Alan Warren July 5, 1995 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-16 -LAUREN DEVELOPMENT- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plans for previously approved Tract Map 12462 consisting of single family lots on 8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan at Summit Avenue and Shoshone Place. APN: 225-401-11, 225-491-12, and 225-391-15 Design Parameters: The proposed residential structures are to be built on the western half of Tract 12462, lots 15 through 27. The tract was approved in 1989 and Phase I (west)was finaled in May 1991. A new developer is going to build Phase II and has proposed different models from those originally approved. Except for Lot 15, the lots on Shoshone Place are separate from the homes built on Roberts Place and Shasta Court. Therefore, strict design continuity between the two phases should not present a critical issue. The applicant is proposing the Victorian style as the design character for this phase. Generally staff believes the proposed architectural features satisfy the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Of note, staff recommended that the applicant conduct a Neighborhood Meeting with other residents within the tract and the neighbors on the opposite side of Summit Avenue to obtain their input. As of the drafting of these comments, the meeting has not be scheduled and it does not appear that the meeting will be held prior to the DRC meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major e: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. It has been Planning Commission policy that if the homes are wrapped with siding on the front, then the whole house should be wrapped in siding. The five plans exhibit only a partial wrapping around the sides. Staff does not have any inherit objection to the partial wrapping as proposed. This partial wrapping is consistent with the completed homes in Phase I and the applicant requests that the homes be approved as proposed. The non-sided elevations in Phase I homes are not significantly visible from the streets and they do not negatively affect the streetscape. However, staff does feel that the change of materials locations could be improved as follows: a. The wood siding should continue to the chimney on the left side and to the corner of the dining room on the right side of Plan 1. b. The wood siding should continue to the corner of the dining room on the right side of Plan 2. C. The wood siding should continue to just beyond the windows on the left side of Plan 3. d. The wood siding should continue to the chimney on the rear side as it wraps around from the left side of Plan 5. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-16 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 5, 1995 Page 2 1 e. On all Plans the vertical wood trim finishing off the end of the siding runs should be incorporated at all stucco corners to tie the rear elevations in with the front elevations. 2. All lots should be provided with decorative return walls or fences between houses. The applicant has requested relief from this requirement desiring to keep and open "estate" feel to the area. Currently all but three common side lot lines in Phase I have return walls. Also, Phase I design review action required rear walls for Lots 16 and 27, to continue the Summit Avenue tract wall around the tract comers. This feature should also be applied to this proposal. 3. A minimum 15-foot setback from equestrian trails is recommended on Lots 17 and 21. This may be achieved by flipping the plotting. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. I. The design review of Phase 1 required "hammer head" driveway turn-arounds for the side on garages off Summit Avenue. Lot 15 has the same garage orientation and should therefore include a "hammer head" turn around. 2. Plans 5 and 5R on Lots 20 and 23 "mirror" each other across the street. Flipping plans between Lots 19 and 20 or between Lots 22 and 23 would alleviate the situation. Staff recommends that one of these alternatives be a condition of approval. 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, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from public streets, should consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap. 2. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Chimney cap treatments should be integrated and treated to be consistent with the chimney, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4. Where drainage lines cross the trails, equestrian bridges should be constructed to City standards. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the modifications herein. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-16 -LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 5, 1995 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Alan Warren The Committee recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. The siding extensions recommended by staff were approved. Key to the acceptance of the elevations (without wrap around siding ) was the use of the 16/20 float finish stucco on the homes. Samples of the stucco and siding are to be provided. The vertical finishing trim was not approved for the stucco comers. 2. The long flat left side elevations of Plan 3 (3 extended) and 4 (4 extended) are to be provided with window/shudder treatments or some form of wall articulation. 3. An alternative design for the front gable of Plan 1 is to be provided for Planning Commission consideration. The use of the rounded "scalloped" accent shingle (without the exposed truss) is to be shown. 4. Return picket fences between houses is required, in lieu of walls or solid fences. 5. Heavy landscaping along the trails from the front of Lots 17 and 21 to the end of the building wall adjacent to the trail is required instead of the 15-foot setback. 6. A hammer head driveway is required for Lot 15. 7. The orientation of the plans of Lots 20 and 23 was approved as proposed by the applicant. 8. All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from public streets, shall consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap. 9. Decorative paving in individual driveways shall consist of broom finish with "shiner" border, as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. Chimney cap treatments shall be coordinated with the architecture (i.e., color), to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 11. Staff is to work with applicant on solution to drainage lines crossing the trails which does not create a liability problem in use of the trail. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS JULY 5, 1995 I PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dat, ��� Dan Coleman Acting Secretary