Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/06/06 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: June 12, 1991 CITY 0FRANCHOCUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM A.~'~ION COM4B~TS |977 TO: FROM: Residential/Institutional Design Review Con~nittee Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Ha e SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1991 The following is a description of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Conunittee. Please review the attached plans, visit the project sites, and write down your comments using the blank space provided under each project on the attached sheets. After the meeting, the consensus of the Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Conxaittee and distributed to the Commission and Council. As always, feel free to contact the appropriate project manager (noted in parentheses along the left margin), prior to the meeting date, if you have specific questions related to the scheduled projects. Dinner will be provided between 5:00 - 5:45 p.m., Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:45 p.m. 6:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 6:30 p.m. Please notify our department if you will be unable to attend the meeting, or if you will be late, so that the dinner can be properly ordered and the necessary arrangements made. 6:30 - 7:00 (Bev) DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 PHASE 1 ROCKFIELD - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 37 lots of a previously County-approved map consisting of 102 lots on 81.9 acres of land north of Sungnit Avenue, east of Wardman Bullock Road, and south of Henderson Channel - APN: 226-082-26. 7:00 - 7:30 (Scott) TENTATIVE TRACT 13859 MAIN RECREATION BUILDING - LEWIS HOMES Review of the final design for the main recreation building for a 393-unit condominium project, located within the Terra Vista Planned Community at the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421. DRC AGENDA JUNE 6, 1991 Page 2 7:30 - 8:00 (Jerry) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15172 JERRY COCHRAN - The development of a 20-unit condominium complex on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue and Main Street - APN: 207-251-22. 8:00 - 9:00 (Scott) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - THE WATTSON COMPANy - A request for master plan approval of a ±60 acre retail/commercial center containing approximately 550,000 square feet of leasable space and a request for approval of conceptual site plan and building elevations for the Price Club facility in the Regional Related Commercial and Light Industrial designations of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue APN: 229-031-03 thru 13, 15, 16, and 20. Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-03 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 13724. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council RESIDENTIAL CONSEM~ C~r.RNDAR i~EMS AGEMDA June 6, 1991 ~r 14207 --HWANG (Steve H.) Corm~ittee Action: ~ot 27 elevations. The Connittee (Melcher, Coleman) reconunended approval of the p eviously r approved conceptual elevations for Plan 1 "Colonial" on this lot subject to all applicable conditions within the Design Review resolution for the project. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Bev June 6, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 PHASE 1 - ROCKFIELD - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 37 lots of a previously County-approved map consisting of 102 lots on 81.9 acres of land north of Summit Avenue, east of Wardman Bullock Road, and south of Henderson Channel - APN: 226-082-26. Design Parameters: Tract 13564 was approved by the County of San Bernardino and includes five phases. An Annexation and Development Agreement was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga On November 16, 1988 and December 7, 1988 respectively. Rockfield Development is submitting a design review package for Phase 1 (37 lots). The approved lots range in size from 14,026 to 52,942. Average lot size is 17,309 square feet. The Design Review for Phases 2-5 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. The project is located within the proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan area which provides the following guidelines regarding architectural styles: Primary architectural styles to be utilized in this Subarea are Ranch Monterey, San Juan and Santa Barbara Revival. Secondary architectural styles which may be utilized in this Subarea are Victorian, Country and Bungalow. Any combination of primary styles may be utilized, and up to 100 percent of the elevations may be in the primary style. However, a maximum of 1/3 of the secondary group styles may be selected. The applicant has chosen to utilize Country, (secondary theme), and Santa Barbara Revival and Ranch (primary themes) architectural styles. Attached are the required design elements for each of these styles. Staff ~ents: 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. Consistency of architecture with guidelines in proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ~ 13564 PHASE 1 - ROCKFIELD JUNE 6, 1991 Page 2 Plan l; Country: Siding and/or shingles should be used on all four sides. Chimney should be of brick or have a brick veneer with a decorative chimney cap. A front porch should be provided with stick-like porch posts and spindle-like railings. Porches may also be used along the rear. Eave overhangs on this elevation should be 12-inch and 24-inches. Plan 1; Ranch: Flat roof tile should be provided. Wood siding should be provided on all four sides- Chimney cap should be of either brick or stone. Porches should be used at both front and rear. Plan 1; Santa Barbara Revival: Stucco finish should be smooth. Shutters should be used to accent primary windows on both the front and rear windows. Entry should be designed in a courtyard fashion with a front wrought iron gate. The use of courtyard walls is encouraged. This architectural style is best suited to a two-story structure. Plan 2; Country: Siding should be provided on all four sides. Chimney should typically be of brick and brick veneer. Porch along the front should be utilized which has stick-like porch posts and spindle-like railings. The overall elevation should have more of a horizontal look. Plan 2; Ranch: Siding should be used on all four sides. Chimney caps should be of brick or stone. Shutters should be used on primary windows on the front elevation. Plan 4; Country: Siding should be used on all four sides. Chimneys should be made of brick or have a brick veneer with a decorative brick chimney cap. Front porch should be provided with stick-like porch posts and spindle-like railings. Shutters should be used on upper level primary windows on both the front and rear. Plan 4; Ranch: Siding should be used on all four sides of the house- Chimney caps should be of brick or stone. Plan 4; Santa Barbara: Porch should not be provided on the first floor. Small exterior balconies should be provided on some second story windows, preferably over the garage. Entry should be designed in a courtyard fashion with a front wrought iron gate. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13564 pHASE 1 - ROCKFIELD JUNE 6, 1991 Page 3 Plan 5; Country: Siding and/or shingles should be used as an accent on all four sides. Chimneys should be made of brick or have a brick veneer with a decorative brick chimney cap. Front porch should be provided with stick-like porch posts and spindle-like railings. Plan 5; Ranch: Siding should be used as an accent around the base Of the house or under the gable roof on all four sides. Shutters should be used on primary windows on the front elevation, with wood trim surrounds on all other windows on all four sides. Grading appears somewhat excessive in some areas; for instance, the slopes along the southerly Southern California Edison corridor. Steps and/or splits within the houses and stem walls could be utilized to take up some of the grade. (Note: Grading Comnittee will also be discussing this issue.) Streetscape along Wardman Bullock Road should be discussed. Screen walls and flood walls are being proposed which leave little room for any significant landscaping. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Chain link fencing is not acceptable when in public view. instance, see Lots 23, 24, 14 and 15. For Some stucco walls should utilize brick pilasters in order to be consistent with Phases 2-5 of Tract 13564. These types of walls should typically be utilized in corner side yards, while the stucco walls with stucco pilasters should be utilized as front yard return walls. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Any use of river rock shall be of native, natural material, not a man made material. DESIGN REVIEW COM/~ENTS TT 13564 PHASE 1 - ROCKFIELD JUNE 6, 1991 Page 4 To be consistent with Planning Cor~ission policy, where siding is used it should be utilized on all four sides of the house. In addition, where brick, stone or rock veneer is utilized it should be provided at least 3 feet along the side elevations or to some logical stopping point, such as the location of the front yard return wall. Per the Development Agreement, at least four 15-gallon trees per lot shall be provided. Also, four additional accent trees (15-gallon minimum size) shall be provided for each corner lot. Design Review C~mm{ttee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Bev Nissen The Committee (Melcher, McNiel, Coleman) did not recommend approval of the architectural component of the project. The architect indicated that his firm was the author of the architectural guidelines within the proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He indicated they were only intended to be a draft and are filled with many errors. The architect has agreed to revise the draft guidelines to clear up any discrepancies and inconsistencies within the text. The revised draft will be submitted to staff and the elevations will be re-reviewed for consistency with these guidelines. The following items, however, were agreed to be incorporated into the revised plans and/or as conditions of approval: Plan 1; Country: Fireplaces will be provided with a brick veneer. This plan does not lead itself to the use of a porch along the front elevation. Eave overhangs are provided at 12" and 24" as indicated in the draft guidelines. Plan 1; California Ranch: A mix of roof tiles is preferred. This will be addressed by the architect in the revisions. Wood siding will be provided on all four elevations. The type of chimney cap will be addressed by the architect in the revised guidelines. Porches have been used on other plans, but not on Plan 1. The architect will address this issue in future design guidelines. Plan 1; Santa Barbara Revival: The stucco finish may be a smooth sand texture, rather than completely smooth. Shutters can be omitted where it appears to be appropriate. Wrought iron gates and courtyard walls will be provided. One-story structures may be provided with this architectural style. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13564 PHASE 1 - ROCKFIELD JUNE 6, 1991 Page 5 Chain link fencing along the channel will be acceptable. Stucco pilasters, rather than brick, ~k~y be used throughout the site. Additional sections, perspective sketches and elevations of the Wardman Bullock Road streetscape should be provided for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The Committee was concerned that the shot-crete wall would not be attractive and that the "scour protection" would not allow sufficient area for tree planting- The solutions provided should also address how maintenance personnel will gain access to the slope. The applicant has agreed to wrap any siding back to the front yard return wall. Sidewalks may be property line adjacent except where adjacent to side yards of Lots 18 and 32, where they may be curb adjacent due to slo[~ constraints. 9. Driveways will be modified to be as close to radial or 90 degrees as possible. Country ROOF PITCH: 6:12 ROOF MATERIAL AND COLOR: Flat concrete tile ranging in color from light brown to black. OVERHANGS: 12" and 24" PARALLEL VS. OPPOSING GABLES: 75% parallel gables with 25% opposing gables. SIDING: Siding on all four sides. May also use shingles as accent with the siding. STUCCO FINISH AND COLOR: Stucco, when seen, is a sand finish and color normally matches the siding color. CHII~INEYS: Chimneys are normally made of brick or have a brick veneer with a decorative brick chimney cap. PORCHES: California Country homes have extensive use of front porches with sticklike porch posts and spindle-like railings. Porches can also be used in the rear of the house along the first floor. BALCONIES: None. WINDOW TREATMENTS: Shutters are used on upper level primary windows on both the front and rear. Panes are normally shown only on the front windows. Wood trim surrounds on all other windows on all four sides. DOORS: Entry doors are simple with simple wood surrounds so as not to conflict with the decorative detailing. Sidelights are used but no windows over the front doors. ENTRY: The entry is covered by the front porch. Entry is normally raised one or two steps. COLOR PALETTE: The siding should be in pastel colors ranging from white and yellow to pale blue and gray. Wood trim, fascias, porch supports, and garage doors are done in white. Accent colors are found on doors, shutters, vents and decorative shingles. III-28 DRAFt VERTICAL VS. HORIZONTAL: Architectural elements tend to have a horizontal look with 75 % horizontal and 25 % vertical. GARAGE LOCATION: Can either have front or side entry garages. Garage may also be detached. III-29 DRAFt Ranch ROOF PITCH: 4:12 breaking to 3:12 over front and rear porches. ROOF MATERIAL AND COLOR: Flat concrete tile ranging in color from reddish brown and terra-cotta to brown and tobacco. OVERHANGS: 30" at both hips and gables. PARALLEL VS. OPPOSING GABLES: 90% parallel gables with 10% opposing gables. SIDING: Used as an accent around the base of the house or under gable roof on all four sides can be used with stucco. STUCCO FINISH AND COLOR: Stucco finish is smooth and color ranges from white to light brown. CHI/~,INEYS: Stucco chimneys with stucco covered chimney caps of brick or stone. PORCHES: Porches are used both on the front and the rear of the houses, and are at ground level with no steps. BALCONIES: None. WINDOW TREATI~IENTS: Shutters are used on primary windows on the front elevation. Wood trim surrounds are used on all windows on all sides. DOORS: Entry doors are simple with wood surrounds and side lights. Shutters are occasionally used on the sides of the entry door. ENTRY: The entry is normally covered by the front porch. Often times an open trellis above adds light to the entry. COLOR PALETIE: Wood trim, fascias, exposed rafters, porch-roof supports, and garage doors are normally earthtone colors ranging from light beige to brown. Siding is an accent but is usually the same color as the stucco. VERTICAL VS. HORIZONTAL: The architectural elements present a strong horizontal form. 95% horizontal with a 5% vertical. This style is best suited for one story homes. GARAGE LOCATION: Can either have front or side entry garagei. Garage may also be detached. III-35 DRAFF Santa Barbara Revival ROOF PITCH: 5:12 ROOF MATERLM~ AND COLOR: Clay or concrete "S"barrel tile ranging in color from reddish orange to deep terra-cotta. OVERHANGS: Tight rakes ad 12' caves. PARALLEL VS. OPPOSING GABLES: 50% parallel gables with 50% opposing gables. SIDING: None. STUCCO FINISH AND COLOR: Stucco is smooth and ranges in color from white, off white, buff to beige. CHIMNEYS: Stucco chimney with detailed chimney caps. PORCHES: No first floor porches. ' BALCONIES: Small exterior balconies project out the rear and the front. Front balconies are often found over the garage to break up front exterior. WINDOW TREATMENTS: Shutters are used to accent primary windows on both the front and rear windows. Windows are often time recessed with stucco surrounds (can be used on all four sides of the exterior). Other windows, on all four sides, have simple wood trim surrounds. DOORS: Entry doors are sometimes recessed or simply have wood trim surrounds. Arched windows are sometimes found over the entry door. ENTRY: The entry is normally covered and is commonly designed in a courtyard fashion with a front wrought iron gate. The use of courtyard walls is encouraged. COLOR PALETIE: Wood trim, fascias and shutters are done in a variety of colors; white, brown, 'Santa Barbara Blue', beige, etc. Shutters are often painted in a slightly contrasting or accent color. Accent colors are frequently brilliant shades of blue, aqua, ochre and red. VERTICAL VS. HORIZONTAL: The architectural elements are 70% vertical with 30% horizontal. Form is best suited for two story structures. GARAGE LOCATION: Best suited for front entry garage. May have a detached garage. III-44 DRAFF DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Scott June 6, 1991 TENTATIVE TRACT 13859 MAIN RECREATION BUILDING - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the final design for the main recreation building for a 393-unit condominium project, located within the Terra Vista Planned Community at the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street APN: 1077-421. Background: In approving Tentative Tract 13859, the Planning Commission placed a condition on the project requiring the final design of the main recreation building to return to the Design Review Committee for approval. The areas to be considered in the final design were are follows: 1. The circular tower element shall remain. An overhead trellis or roof element shall extent further along the right hand side of the pool side elevation. A chimney shall be provided between the two large windows on the right side elevation. The Commission directed the applicant to architecturally upgrade and enhance the entire right hand side of the pool side elevation. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted revised plans to address the condition of approval. The plans incorporate the following elements: The circular tower element has been retained and a curved roof and wall element has been introduced at the first floor level. An overhead trellis has been added at the balcony on the pool side elevation. In-lieu of installing a chimney on the right elevation, the windows have been re-configured, additional variation in the roof planes have been incorporated, and the tower element has been carried from the front elevation around to the right elevation. The right side of the pool side elevation has been modified to provide stairs to break the mass of the elevation and to incorporate the use of quiones (reveals in the stucco) and a vine trellis. Additionally, the utility room doors are located under the stairway landing to somewhat screen the door. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 13859 - LEWIS HOMES JUNE 6, 1991 Page 2 With the modifications included in the revised plans, staff feels that the recreation building design creates much more interest than the original submittal. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee approved the recreation building design as submitted by the architect. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 Jerry June 6, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15172 - JERRY COCHRAN - The development of a 20-unit condominium complex on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue and Main Street APN: 207-251-22. Background: This project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1988 as Design Review 88-03. The most recent Planning Commission action was on August 8, 1990, when a time extension and modifications to the conditions of approval were approved. Several plan checks have been complete on this apartment project and the applicant is close to pulling building permits. The current review is required because a subdivision map has been filed, which would allow these units to be sold as condominiums. The plans reflect compliance with the conditions of approval and previous Design Review reco~unendations. Staff Comments: No specific design comments are offered due to the number of previous reviews the project has been through. The Committee however, does have the latitude to make any recommendation thought appropriate to bring the project into conformance with current design standards. Design Review Comm{ttee Acrid: Members Present: Staff Planner: Jerry Guarracino