HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/09/15 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corkran Nicholson
Alternates: Ray Wimberly Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher
CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
7:00 p.m.
(Daniel/Cam) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19043 - HUGO LEPE - A request to subdivide a
property of 2.43 acres into two (2) parcels in the Estates Residential District, within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north side of Amber Lane approximately 370 feet
west from the centerline of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0225-111-37. This action is
categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land divisions.
7:20 p.m.
(Tabe/VVillie) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17512 —
RCM GROUP - A request to subdivide 42,743 square feet of land into 4 parcels in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2006-00214, Variance DRC2007-00964 and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00214 - RCM GROUP - The review of site plans and
elevations for four single-family residences on a 42,743 square foot site in the Low
Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related Files: SUBTPM17512,
Variance DRC2007-00964, and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Daniel Correa September 15, 2009
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19043 - HUGO LEPE - A request to subdivide a property of 2.43 acres
into two (2) parcels in the Estates Residential District, within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north
side of Amber Lane approximately 370 feet west from the centerline of Etiwanda Avenue -
APN: 0225-111-37. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land divisions.
Site Characteristics: The project site is located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The 2.43-acre site is
located on the north side of Amber Lane, west of Etiwanda Avenue. The parcel is generally square in shape
with overall dimensions of approximately 320 feet from east to west and about 330 feet from north to south.
The grade difference between the north and south property lines is approximately 15 feet. The lots to the
north are zoned Very Low Residential, and the lot to the south is zoned Estate Residential and is developed
with a school.
Project Overview: The applicant proposes subdividing the site into 2 lots. There are no existing house(s) or
structure(s) on the property. The lots exceed all City development requirements. Amber Lane presently dead
ends and does not meet the Fire Services vehicle emergency turnaround requirement; therefore, the applicant
has proposed a temporary vehicle turnaround located between the two lots to remain in place until Amber
Lane is fully developed.
The Equestrian Overlay Plan requires that equestrian trail and/or feeders be provided on all lots. The housing
tract to the north has developed a 15-foot wide trail along their southern property line. The applicant has
requested use of the existing trail and was unable to secure consent from all of the property owners. The
applicant proposes constructing a new 15-foot wide trail directly adjacent to the existing trail to meet the trail
requirement.
Staff Comments: Staff concludes that the proposed subdivision will be well-integrated into the overall design
of the existing surrounding lots.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review and action.
Design Review Committee Action: The Committee approved the project as presented.
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson
Staff Planner: Daniel Correa
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag September 15, 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17512 - RCM GROUP - A request to
subdivide 42,743 square feet of land into 4 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related Files:
Development Review DRC2006-00214, Variance DRC2007-00964 and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00214 - RCM GROUP - The review of site plans and elevations for four
single-family residences on a 42,743 square foot site in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Beryl Street - APN: 0202-241-24. Related
Files: SUBTPM17512, Variance DRC2007-00964, and Minor Exception DRC2007-00252.
Site Characteristics: The 42,743 square foot project site is located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road
and Beryl Street. The site is surrounded by existing residential development with the same Residential Low
(L) zoning designation. The site has an approximate 6-percent slope and drains roughly from north to south.
Proiect Overview: The applicant proposes subdividing the 42,743 square foot site into 4 lots. The
Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map were submitted in March of 2006. Staff has determined and
made commitments that while the site is 2 percent (817 square feet) deficient of meeting the density
requirement of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, it meets the intent of the density requirement of the Low
Residential District and is consistent with the surrounding area. Because of the small size and layout of the
project site, the Engineering Department has accepted the applicant's request to develop the site with a
reduced cul-de-sac bulb.
Taken together, the project size, layout, and reduced cul-de-sac lead to one of the lots not being able to meet
the lot width requirement at both the front property line and the front yard setback. The applicant has
submitted a request to reduce the front property line lot width requirement from 40 feet to 22 feet and the lot
width at the front yard setback from 60 feet to 49 feet— 6 inches. The applicant has also submitted a request
for a Minor Exception to construct combination retaining/free standing walls with a measured height of 8 feet.
The retaining walls are necessary because of the grade difference between the project site and the properties
to the north and west.
The sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1-8,678 square feet, Lot 2 - 10,466 square feet,
Lot 3 - 9,059 square feet, and Lot 4-7,602 square feet. The lot average is 8,951 square feet, which is 951
square feet greater than the required 8,000 square foot lot average requirement. Previous staff also
determined that Lots 1 and 2 front Base Line Road, which is classified as a Major Arterial and has a required
streetscape setback of 45 feet from the curb face. The minimum front yard setback in the Residential Low
District is 37 feet +/- 5 feet. All of the lots meet this requirement as well as the side and rear setback
requirements.
Design Comments: The living area of the proposed houses range in size from 2,243 to 2,357 square feet. All
of the houses are single-story designs with attached two-car garages. The project consists of two floor plans
with two different elevations per floor plan. While the applicant has worked with staff to enhance the proposed
designs, staff analysis concludes that the proposed houses are generic and do not meet the City's minimum
architectural design requirements. Staff has directed the applicant to choose a recognizable architectural
style and carry the architectural details associated with that style to all elevations. The plans indicate that
Models B and C are designed to resemble Traditional architecture style, while no architectural style is listed
for Models A and D. Staff is hard pressed to identify a recognizable architectural style in the proposed
designs other than the broad category of California Ranch. Additionally, each design has minimal variation in
either the wall or roof planes on the side and rear elevations, providing little visual interest to these elevations.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTPM17512 AND DRC2009-00214 — RCM GROUP
September 15, 2009
Page 2
Staff is also concerned that the footprints of houses plotted on Lots 3 and 4 (Models A and C) are too large
relative to their lot size. The lot coverage is 36.2 percent for Lot 3 and 39.9 percent for Lot 4 (maximum
permitted lot coverage is 40 percent). While the single-story design helps reduce privacy issues with the
surrounding property owners, it may be advisable to redesign the houses to incorporate a modest second
story element. This would accomplish two objectives: 1) It would help reduce the size of the footprint and 2)
add more variation in the roof plane in order to give them more visual interest.
Major Issues:
1. As discussed above, the elevations do not meet the City's minimum architectural requirements and lack
sufficient variation in the roof and wall planes. The architecture needs to be enhanced in order to meet
the City's design requirements.
Secondary Issues:
1. The footprints of the houses on Lots 3 and 4 are too large, relative to the lot size.
The plotting of the houses on Lots 3 and 4 should be modified to increase the building separation between the
two houses. They are now each set 5 feet back from the property line separating them.
2. Consideration should be giving to reversing the floor plans on Lots 3 and 4 in order to orient the garages
next to each other so that they can share a single drive approach. This will decrease the length of the
driveway on Lot 3 and increase the amount of area available for landscaping.
3. The shed roof over the living room window on Model A appears tacked on. Consideration should be
given to extending the living/dining room in order to provide a change in the wall plane on the rear
elevation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the applicant make architectural changes outlined in the
comments above, and incorporate all comments made by the Design Review Committee into a revised
design. Because of the scope of necessary revisions, staff recommends that the project be rescheduled for a
future Design Review Committee meeting to review revisions made by the applicant prior to being scheduled
for review by the Planning Commission.
Design Review Committee Action:
Both Commissioners Stewart and Munoz felt that the design of the proposed 4-lot subdivision was too intense
for the site and that a 3-lot subdivision would be more appropriate. They pointed out to the applicant that in
order for the project to work in its current configuration, it needed multiple Variances, a deviation from the
standard cul-de-sac design, a Minor Exception for wall heights, and the houses on Lot 3 and 4 to be built with
minimal articulation. All of these signs revealed that the site was being over built. The Commissioners also
felt that the houses fell short of meeting the City's minimum design standards. The applicant stated that the
lots meet or exceed all Development Code standards except for those discussed by the Commissioners and
that the project is not fiscally feasible with fewer than 4 lots. The Commissioners reiterated to the applicant
that they highly recommended that the number of lots in the subdivision be reduced to 3 and that the houses
be redesigned. Though, they also stated that they would consider the current layout if the footprints of the
houses on Lots 3 and 4 were greatly reduced and the houses were redesigned. The meeting concluded with
the Commissioners recommending that the applicant redesign the project and that it be rescheduled for
Design Review Committee review when the changes were made.
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson
Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag