Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/06/20 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: TO: July 1, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM i~ION FROM: Residential/Imstitutioual Design Review Co~nittee Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve Hayes,~Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1991 The following is a description Of projects which require review and rating by the Design Review Committee. 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 Comittee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recommendation of the Committee 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 (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SANAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 73 single family lots and 13 lettered lots on 113.2 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051- 07, 55, 56, and 57. 7:00 - 7:15 (Shintu) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - Presentation of the Engineering Division's Fiscal Year 91/92 Capital Improvement Budget DRC AGENDA JUNE 20, 1991 Page 2 7:15 - 8:30 (Bruce) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recon~nends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Scott June 20, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SANAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 73 single family lots and 13 lettered lots on 113.2 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Desiga Parameters: The site is situated at the northwest corner of the City at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest. The western 18 acres of the site is within the Cucamonga Wash. A portion of the Cucamonga Fault enters the site from the east. Several Eucalyptus trees are located on-site. A major escarpment cuts through the site from the north to east, bisecting the site into an upper and lower mesa. The variances in the slope of the property occur from one area to another. A breakdown of the slope of the property (excluding the Wash and Fault areas) is as follows: 0 - 5% 3.49 acres 5 - 10% 19.82 acres 10 - 15% 33.32 acres 15 - 20% 16.54 acres 20 - 25% 4.96 acres 25 - 30% 2.15 acres Over 30% 10.58 acres In that the majority of the site is in excess of 8% slope, the property is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. Because of the location of the site in relation to the National Forest and Cucamonga Wash, the project is environmentally sensitive. AS a result, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the site. The Draft EIR was presented to the Commission on June 12, 1991 as a public hearing to receive input from adjacent property owners and effected governmental agencies. The outcome of the EIR process could result in changes to the project and/or additional conditions of approval to mitigate the potential impacts of the project. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: DESIGN REVIEW COF~4ENTS · T 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS JUNE 20, 1991 Page 2 The applicant is proposing 73 single family lots that average just over one acre in area. The majority of the lots are configured in a long, narrow fashion. Because of the terrain on which lots are being proposed and the guidelines of the Hillside Development Ordinance, staff suggests the following modifications to the project: Larger lots should be provided in the northeast corner of the site to minimize the impact to the areas in excess of 20% slope. Lots should be configured with wider frontages to allow greater Opportunities for building placement and driveway locations to minimize grading. The City standard for street grades is generally 12% maximum with the allowance for 15% grades for short distances. In areas where the slope of the property are less than 12%, meeting the City's standards does not pose a problem. On sites with a variety of slope conditions, achieving the City standard often results in extensive cuts or fills of the terrain. Such is the case with this property. Several streets can not be placed on the natural terrain and meet the requirements. TO address the concerns raised in item numbers 1 and 2 above, the EIR for the site considered three options (attached) to the design proposed. Two of the options suggested a cluster development with lots being located outside of any area in excess of 15%. The lots were in the ~/2 to 3/4-acre range. The third option proposed a large-lot subdivision with lots averaging 3.24 acres. The Design Review Committee should review these options in determining the appropriate development of this site and in recognition of comments 1 and 2 above. It should be noted that the options proposed in the EIR would have to be modified to provide a second means of access to the eastern portion of the site. The access to the existing road into Cucamonga Canyon does not meet the City's requirements. The applicant is proposing building plans that are designed with stem walls and steps within the unit. While this is consistent with the Hillside Ordinance, staff feels that the floor plans should be further designed to adapt to the changes in conditions on individual lots to a greater degree than can be accommodated with the standardized plans. DESIGN REVIEW COF~4ENTS ~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS JUNE 20, 1991 Page 3 The applicant is proposing to use private streets within a great majority of the project. The applicant is proposing a street width of 36 feet from curb to curb (consistent with City policy) within a 40-foot right-of-way. DUring the review of the "Scope of Services" for the EIR, the Commission discussed the use of private streets within the project with mixed views. If the Conwaission allows the use of private streets within this subdivision, several design aspects should be considered: The Development Code requires that private streets shall be gated with turn-around areas provided at the intersection with the public streets. This has been consistently applied to other projects with private streets. If gates are required, a public street will have to be provided at the southeast corner of the project to connect Crestview with Skyline in order to meet the City's requirement for two means of access. The streets, although private, should be designed to public street standards, including a 60-foot right-of-way and parkways on both sides of the street. This will provide level areas for people to easily enter and exit their cars, allow for the planting of street trees at the street, and allow for the possibility of sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. (No sidewalks are being proposed with the project. It has been the policy of the City to require sidewalks on one side of the street in the equestrian area, especially along school routes.) This will also provide for a street that is designed to City standard in the event that the City must take over the maintenance in the future. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Con~nittee will discuss the following secondary issues: The mass and orientation of the units should be designed to blend in more with the natural terrain in the following areas: Large expanses of walls and roofs should be broken into smaller elements and/or planes. The downhill elevations should incorporate a stepped-back approach. This is especially critical of the downhill side of the units where two-story elements extend virtually straight up. DESIGN REVIEW CO~ENTS ~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS JUNE 20, 1991 Page 4 Buildings should be designed to run parallel with the contours rather than perpendicular to the contours. Greater use of raised decks should be incorporated to provide usable yard areas and minimize grading. In conjunction with the subdivision application, the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception application to exceed the maximum height limit within the Hillside area. The maximum height permitted under the Hillside Development Ordinance is 30 feet; the applicant is proposing 33 feet for some units. Under normal circumstances, the Minor Exception would be approved by the City Planner. Because the application is being submitted in conjunction with a new project, the Design Review Co~nittee and the Planning Commission may wish to provide direction to the applicant and the City Planner on the acceptability of this request. In the northeast portion of the site, the applicant is proposing to use shared driveways. Under the Hillside Ordinance, this is an acceptable practice. Staff, however, does have some reservations abut the use of shared driveways do to potential conflicts between neighbors once the units are occupied. Direction should be provided from the Design Review Committee on the desirability of the shared drives. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The fireplace chimneys should be finished with stone, brick, or siding consistent with the elements being used on the building. Architectural treatment should be provided on all elevations (360 degrees) consistent with the front elevations to include, but not limited to, the following: The use of timbers, river rock veneer as a foundation element, mullions within all windows, etc. b- Chimney bases should be proportional to the height of the chimney. 3- All slopes should be rounded to create a more natural appearance. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS T~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS JUNE 20, 1991 Page 5 Greater variation and undulation should be provided in the manufactured street and pad slopes to soften their appearance and avoid the "engineered" look. 5- All river rock veneer should be natural Stone. Any improved drainage swales should be designed with native stone lining to provide a natural appearance. Design Review Co~ttee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposal and did not recommend approval. The Comittee directed the applicant to revise the plans to consider the following: The design of the proposal represents a "forced" hillside development wherein a flat land approach is being applied to a hillside area. The project should be redesigned to consider a more comprehensive approach to development of the hillside area through: More sensitivity to street and lot layout in relation to grading, siting of units/lots, special features of the project (i.e., fire hazard, environmentally sensitive areas, etc.). b. Customizing of units/floor plans to fit lot constraints (grading, views, orientations, etc.). Reduction of the building mass through steps in the 2nd floor consistent with the 1st floor, or other appropriate architectural features/designs. One-story elements at front elevation, particularly on uphill lots, could be used to reduce massive appearance. Larger lots should be provided at the northeast corner of the site to minimize the impact to areas in excess of 20 percent slope. The street section should be as unobtrusive as possible through minimal, flat parkways and the elimination of sidewalks. 4. A transition should be provided from the public streets to the private streets. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS ~ 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS JUNE 20, 1991 Page 6 The exterior building materials should consist of native/indigenous materials. Stucco and rock should be expanded while the use of brick and siding should be minimized. The applicant was encouraged to develop sketches/overlays for staff review to address these concerns prior to revising the total development package. The Design Review Committee also expressed concern over whether the Hillside Ordinance was achieving the type of development in the hillside area that was envisioned during the review and adoption of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission may wish to review the Ordinance in the future to determine if it is fulfilling the City's objectives. LEGEND · 73 dwelling units · 0.50 Acre mlnlnyJm Jot size Alternative Standard Development Concept: Study A T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR 076~BTM01 1/91 210 420 Feet Exhibit 7 LEGEND · 73 dwelling unils · 0.46 Ax:m minimum lot size · 0.67 Arm average lot size 62 8 Ac · En~mnmenblly Su~rior AI~ ~._._.-.-.-.-.~._.~_a i ~._._.~.,.;.r~.~.~.i~.i;.~_ Alternative Cluster Development Concept: Study B T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR 210 .'20 Feel Exhibit 8 LEGEND · 25 dwelling uniJs · 2.0 Acre minimum lot size 0,7,$8TM01 1/91 dyC "' Concept: Stu ...... d ~,o :~o ,, T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR Exhibit 9