Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/20 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca 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. (Donald) PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT DRC2011-00824 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on the use of metal roof material to simulate composition, tile and barrel tile roofs for dwelling units within Residential Development Districts. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. 7:20 p.m. (Steve) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2010-00318M - RYLAND HOMES - A request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages be two-car garages within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-121-24 through 30; 1087-141-43 through 52, 57; 1087-171-44 through 51; 1087-351-0lthrough 05, 12 through 18, 45, and 46; 1087-361-01 through 30. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger September 20, 2011 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT DRC2011-00824 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on the use of metal roof material to simulate composition, tile and barrel tile roofs for dwelling units within Residential Development Districts. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. Background The current policy of the Planning Department, based on the past direction of the Planning Commission, is not to permit the installation of metal roofs on residential structures. This policy is based on the following two sections of the Development Code: • Section 17.08.040-S: Roofing Materials. All new development within residential districts shall have roofing material made of tile, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles. Other roofing materials such as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, may be approved by the Design Review Committee, if it is determined by the Design Review Committee that the roof material enhances the building design. Roofing materials for additions and accessory structures shall be governed by Section 17.08.0601f, Special Development Criteria. Section 17.08.090-D-2-x (General Design Guidelines): Use roofing material made of tile, slate, copper, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, that will upgrade the character and the visual quality of the structure. Historically, based on the these two sections of the Development Code, the Planning Department's re-roof operating policy for existing single-family homes is like material to like material (e.g., composition to composition) or a material upgrade (e.g., composition to tile). In August of 2011, the Planning Department received a request from a resident who had removed his existing composition roof to install a metal roof that simulates composition. Based upon the existing policy, the Planning staff denied the permit at the counter; the resident subsequently appealed the Planning Director's decision to the Design Review Committee for consideration. At the August 2, 2011, Design Review Committee meeting, the Design Review Committee received testimony from a resident, a metal roofing contractor, and a metal roofing manufacturer regarding the aesthetic, environmental, wind, solar, and energy benefits of metal roofs. Following the testimony and discussion, Chairman Munoz directed staff to prepare a report analyzing the benefits and negative aspects of metal roofs that imitate tile for use on residential dwelling units. Chairman Munoz requested that staff provide a comprehensive analysis of metal roofs that includes the following: • Aesthetics • • Noise . • Structural and wind load requirements DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 2 • Life span and walkability factors • Energy efficiency and green building compatibility • Survey of the surrounding cities regarding polices on the use metal roofs for residential structures The Planning staff surveyed a total of 14 cities, and the information is presented in the tables that follow, along with discussion and analysis. Analysis Table 1 a -YIG1xD[ d7 y G 4 gazio l cn R YD fI 7 , ,,,e eve opu r mu,/ tz,onrczi- Rancho Code permits"imitation tile" Metal roofs currently not permitted by policy on new construction or re-roofs Cucamonga Ontario Code is silent Policy: Review on a case-by-case basis for neighborhood compatibility Irvine Yes Permits the following metal roofs: tile,barrel tile, and composition San Marino Code is silent Policy: San Marino refers requests for metal roofs to the Design Review Committee La Verne Code is silent Policy: Permit the following metal roofs: tile,barrel tile,composition Chino No New roofs: concrete or clay tile; re-roofs must be of like material or better Upland Code is silent Policy: Metal roofs are permitted on new construction and re-roofs _, Fontana Code is silent Policy: Metal roofs require submittal and review. • Claremont Yes Roofs are reviewed with architecture and must be appropriate to architectural style San Dimas Yes Permits all types metal roofs(standing seam,tile, barrel tile,composition) _ Monterey Park Code permits variety of Metals roofs are permitted on new construction and re-roofs residential roof material Yorba Linda Code is silent Metals roofs are permitted on re-roofs Pico Rivera Code permits metal roofs that Metal roofs must be "formed and finished" to accurately simulate. Metals roofs simulate tile,shake or shingle permitted on re-roofs Montclair Code is silent Policy: Review on a case-by-case basis for neighborhood compatibility Arcadia Yes Permits the following metal roofs: tile,barrel tile,composition with conditions Staff selected the above cities based upon the following criteria: adjacency to Rancho Cucamonga (Upland, Fontana, and Ontario); comparable size (Fontana, Ontario and Irvine); reputation for quality and comprehensive architectural review (San Marino, Claremont, San Dimas, and Arcadia); sampling of Southern California (balance of cities). Of the 14 cities surveyed (Table 1), 6 of the cities permit the use of metal roofs by their respective zoning codes (Arcadia, Claremont, Irvine, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, and San Dimas); 7 have zoning codes that are currently "silent" on the use of metal roofs on residential structures (Fontana, Montclair, La Verne, Ontario, San Marino, Upland, and Yorba Linda); and the City of Chino is the only city whose Code does not permit metal roofs (new structures and re-roofs). Of the 7 cities that have zoning codes that are silent on the use of metal roofs for residential structures, all of the cities either have operating polices that either permit metal roofs or review them on a case-by-case basis for neighborhood compatibility. Supplemental Requirements by City City of Upland: Upland permits the removal of a concrete tile roof and the installation of tile, traditional composition or a metal roof that simulates tile or composition. City of San Marino: San Marino's standing protocol for a metal roof request is to refer it to the Design Review Committee for consideration; if approved, it would be added to the list of pre-approved roofing materials. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00824 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 3 City of Claremont: Claremont utilizes a holistic approach and reviews roof material concurrent with the architecture and must make series of findings that the overall design meets standards. City of Arcadia: Arcadia includes a series of conditions of approval to ensure aesthetic quality and architectural authenticity. Building Code Requirements Structural Requirements and Integrity: The Planning staff researched the use of metal roofs with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building and Safety Department and asked a series of questions regarding the installation of structural requirements of metal roofs. Following is summary of the discussion: • Metal roofs are walkable, but additional care must be taken to avoid damaging the roof • Wind clips and the use of battens beneath the metal are required when the manufacturer's specifications require it. • Installations should be done by a contractor familiar with bending metal and the aspects of installing a metal roof that is aesthetically pleasing (i.e., valleys, rake, start of ridge). Quality craftsmanship is critical for the successful installation of a metal roof. • The Uniform Building Code permits up to two layers of roof material to be installed before a complete tear off is required. Since metal is one of the lightest products, it is an ideal choice for re-roofs. • Metal roofs have the potential to mitigate impacts from earthquakes since the lateral loads are substantial, less than other materials, especially concrete tile. The weight per square of the most common residential roof materials is shown in Table 2. Table 2 PRODUCT WGT. PER SQ. (1-SQ. = 100 SQ. FT.) Steel Roofing 125 lbs. Standard (3-Tab) Asphalt Shingles 190 — 215 lbs. Wood Shake/Shingle* 250 — 300 lbs." Heavy Weight Laminated Asphalt Shingles 290 —430 lbs. Clay/Concrete Tiles* 900 — 1200 lbs.* Souce:www.metalroofmart.com Fire, Hail, Wind, and Rain: Metal roofs receive very high scorecard marks for fire, wind and hail resistance. Metal roofs have the highest fire rating (Class A), a non-combustible rating under the Building Code, a 120 mph-plus wind resistance rating (F2 Tornado equivalent), and are impact hail resistant (class IV). One manufacturer, Metro panels, received the highest impact resistance rating from Underwriters Laboratories. According to Metro, except under the most extreme storms, Metro panels show no visible effects from impacting hail stones. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 4 Acoustic Analysis Rain noise: Research indicates that stone-coated metal roofs provide substantial sound attenuation because the stone coating provides energy absorption and the dead air space between the metal roof and decking provide sound attenuation. Non-stone coated metal roofs, however, are known to generation moderate to substantial amounts of noise when measured from close distances (less than 50 feet). Interviews with industry professionals indicate that residential occupants with stone coated metal roofs do not complain about rain generated noise, and that the only likely scenario that would generate a compliant be from an adjacent owner concerned about the noise level emanating from or generated by a non-coated metal roof (e.g., an adjacent barn with corrugated metal roof). Manufacturing Product Types: Metal roofs can virtually emulate all types of traditional residential roofing materials. Metal roofs are available in barrel tile, shake, shingle, and composition. Environmental Impacts and Green Building Manufacturing: Today, many construction materials are recycled for various purposes, including landfill waste reduction and material re-purposing. Metal roofs are made of steel and often use recycled steel in the manufacturing process (up to 30 percent recycled content), which is environmentally sensitive. Solar Absorption/Reflection: Metal roofs receive excellent marks for energy efficiency. A steel roof system moves air both between the shingles and the underlying deck, as well as moving air from vents under the decking. Heated air is allowed to dissipate through the ridgeline as cooler air is drawn through eave vents. Reduced energy bills can result from airflow both under and over the decking. Green Building Score Card: If recycled steel is utilized during the manufacturing process, then metal roofs qualify as green construction building material and score 1-2 points for a LEED® certification. Once installed, metal roofs dissipate heat quickly because of air gaps between the metal and roof deck and the heat loss properties of metal. As such, metal roofs score well for energy efficiency and contribute to lower energy consumption. Once the lifespan of the metal roof has been exhausted, up to 100 percent of the material can be recycled. Construction Field Survey The Planning staff arranged for a field tour of residential structures with metal roofs and conducted a site visit with a residential roofing contractor, The Planning staff surveyed the metal roofs for aesthetics, architectural simulation, color, and weathering. Below is a summary of the type of roofs surveyed and field review comments. Staff used the following rating system in the three evaluation categories: poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. Barrel Tile: Color and material quality: Very Good Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Very Good to Excellent Photo: Exhibit A DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 5 Half Barrel Tile: Color and material quality: Excellent Architectural authenticity: Excellent Installation quality: Excellent Photos: Exhibits B, C, and D Shake: Color and material quality: Very Good Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Very Good to Excellent Photo: Exhibit E Flat Tile: Color and material quality: Excellent Architectural authenticity: Very Good Installation quality: Excellent Photos: Exhibits F and G Table 3 below indicates the roof type from the field survey and any applicable notes. Table 3 City Roof Type Notes/Comments Pomona,Philips Barrel Tile Ranch Pomona, Phillips Half Barrel Tile Ranch Pomona, Phillips Shake Ridge pieces must lie flat/match slope of roof;do not Ranch overlap fascia Pomona, Phillips Flat Tile Must have open cut valleys Ranch Summary Findings and Conclusion: From staff's research, nearly all municipalities either permit the use of metal roofs by Code, policy or on a case-by-case basis if the material is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and compliments the architectural style of the dwelling unit. The City of Arcadia provided useful information to staff in the preparation of this report, including the following 5 conditions of approval that are attached to every roof permit: 1. The roof shall have open cut valleys. 2. A drip-edge overhang shall be provided at the eaves. 3. The edges shall not be exposed more than two inches. 4 The starter of the ridge shall be cut and bent neatly. 5. No trim tiles shall be used on the rake of the gable roof. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00824 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 20, 2011 Page 6 Metal Roof Advantaqes/Disadvantaqes: Staff research concludes that metal roofs, like other roof materials, possess advantages and disadvantages. Below is a summary of the pros and cons: Pros: Durable (25 year plus color/aesthetic lifespan; 50 to 100 year plus functional lifespan); fire-retardant; maintenance free; good scorecard for energy efficiency (34 percent less heat absorption than asphalt shingles; green product (high utilization of recycled metal in manufacturing process-can be 50 percent or more; can be installed over other systems, thus reducing landfill waste); lower energy bills; lighter structural loads, which is advantageous in areas known to experience earthquakes. Cons: Price premium relative to other some materials (i.e., asphalt shingles); some loss of architectural integrity on some types (i.e., barrel tile); installation is more intricate; more care must taken when walking for maintenance purposes or when roof accessibility is required. Staff Recommendation: Re-roofs: Staff finds the use of metal roofs that mimic tile, barrel tile, and shake to be an acceptable material choice for all types residential re-roofs, even if the tear-off material is concrete tile. Should the City of Rancho Cucamonga opt to change its currently policy and permit metal re-roofs, in order to ensure that roof installations meet the desired aesthetic levels the City expects, staff recommends that the five conditions of approval that the City of Arcadia utilizes be attached to roof permits. For re-roofs that propose the use of metal, the Planning Director has the authority to draft a policy based on the input of the Design Review Committee and the current Development Code (Section 17.02.050). New Construction: Should the Committee also conclude that metal roofs are an acceptable material choice for new residential roofs, no Development Code Amendment is required, as the Code currently requires that "tile, or imitation thereof be used and also states the following: "Other roofing materials such as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition shingles, may be approved by the Design Review Committee, if it is determined by the Design Review Committee that the roof material enhances the building design." For re-roofs that propose the use of metal, the Planning Director has the authority to draft a policy based on the input of the Design Review Committee and the current Development Code (Section 17.02.050). Staff also recommends that the Committee receive the report and provide input and direction as the Committee deems appropriate. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee reviewed and received the Staff Report on the use of metal roof material. The Committee tentatively concurred with staffs recommendation affirming the use of metal roofs that mimic tile, barrel tile, and shake to be acceptable, but requested that staff arrange for a field tour prior to making a final decision. Staff will arrange a field tour for the Design Review Committee. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Donald Granger • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Fowler September 20, 2011 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2010-00318M - RYLAND HOMES - A request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages be two-car garages within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-121-24 through 30; 1087-141-43 through 52, 57; 1087-171-44 through 51; 1087-351-0lthrough 05, 12 through 18, 45, and 46; 1087-361-01 through 30. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227-2. Background: On January 12, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2010-00318 for the development of 70 single-family residences on 30.93 acres of land in the master-planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The underlying document that regulates this area is the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). In 2001, a Development Agreement was approved which required that all lots within this Master Planned Community be required to adhere to the • Low Residential District Standards. Development Review DRC2010-00318 was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 5, 2010 (DRC Action Comments — Exhibit A). At that time, the Committee requested that the applicant increase the number of side-on or recessed garages to 30 percent in order to meet the minimum requirement set forth in the ENSP (Exhibit B). The Committee also indicated that side-on garages shall be two-car garages to qualify for this requirement. The applicant returned to Design Review Committee on November 30, 2010 (DRC Action Comments — Exhibit C) and provided 18 two-car garages with side-on design and another 17 with a one-car side on design. The 18 garages did not meet the requirement of 30 percent side-on garages as discussed in the previous Design Review Committee meeting (21 garages are required to meet 30 percent). At the time of the meeting, the applicant came in with a solution and stated they would require Lots 12, 17, and 114 to also be two-car side-on garages, and the Committee agreed to this solution. General: The applicant has started construction of the product that was approved and has stated that they are having trouble selling the homes with the required four-car garages. The attached letter from Ryland Homes dated August 19, 2011, (Exhibit D), is requesting that the requirement of having side-on garages to be two-car garages be eliminated. The applicant is requesting that the one-car, side-on garages fulfill the side-on garage requirement. If this were to occur, the applicant would exceed the minimum requirements. The requirement to have the two-car side-on garages counts towards the percentage requirement that has been utilized throughout the City with all the recent applications that have gone through the Design Review Process. In the ENSP (Exhibit A, Page III-22) there are examples of the garage variations that would count towards this requirement, and none of them indicate that a side-on, single-car garage is acceptable. The graphics do not indicate the size of the garages, but new homes within the City are required to have a two-car garage, and the illustrations suggest that these are two-car garages. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the Committee discussion regarding this project. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00318M — RYLAND HOMES September 20, 2011 Page 2 Major Issues: 1. Staff has utilized the Design Review Committee comments in the past to guide applicants towards a project that will be approved by both DRC and Planning Commission. Staff requests that the Committee review the request to eliminate the requirement of having the side-on garages to be two-car garages and, if the requirement is eliminated, give direction as to what will be acceptable as side-on and recessed garages. Minor Issues: No Minor issues at this time. Policy Issues: No policy issues at this time. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee provide guidance as to the acceptable requirement for recessed and side-on garages in the City. Design Review Committee Action: Representatives from Ryland Homes presented a request to eliminate the requirement for a two-car side-on garage and allow only a one car with the option to allow for the conversion of this garage into a suite in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan for their Vista Heights development in the Rancho Etiwanda Estates area. The Committee members listened to the applicant, reviewed the report, and upheld the requirement that two-car side-on garages are required to meet the side-on garage requirement. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Steve Fowler DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS September 20, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director