Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/08/08 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM August 14, 1991 ACTION CO~4ENTS Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee Suzanne Chitlea Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner 1977 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 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 Committee's concerns will be typed up as the formal action/recon~nendation 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 (Anna-Lisa) PROJECT CANCR~.R~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14476 KNITTER AND ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision and design review of 8 single family lots on 2.39 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of London and Church Streets - APN: 1077-311-74. 7:00 - 7:30 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATI%~E TRACT 14858 J.M. WILSON AND ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 6 single family lots on 5.48 acres of land in the Very LOw Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Carnelian Street north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1062'041'24- Related Tree Removal Permit No. 91-03. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council RESIDENTIAL CONSM CALENDAR ITemS AGENDA AUguSt 8, 1991 T~ 14475 - SA~AMA (Scott) Committee Action: Ravised elevations. The Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the new Plan 4000 and Plan 5000. The Committee felt that the massing of Plan 4000 was acceptable but the Plan 5000 needed additional work to bring the mass and scale of the building down. Also, the Committee stated that the Mediterranean style was not appropriate for this area. The building should be designed with a rustic theme, utilizing natural materials and colors, flat roof tile, etc. Revised plans should be resubmitted for further Committee review. PR 91-20 - RUM DESIGN GROUP (Steve H. ) Committee Action: Courtesy review of ma{ntenance/boathouse building. The Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) recommended that the following items be incorporated into the revised plans: The finish material should be a painted slumpblock with grouting to downplay the horizontal and vertical elements of the building walls, similar to other City maintained park buildings throughout the City. The color of the painted block and color and style of the gray tile should be clarified on the revised plans. The floor plan and building elevations should show screen walls or offset entrances for the restrooms to hide the restroom doors. CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA AUGUST 8, 1991 Page 2 3- DR 90--12 --VA~RT,A (Steve H.) Cor~uittee Action: The cupola should be squared to the narrower width dimensions, include a pyramid shaped tiled roof element and not include any metal louvers. A weather vain should be added to the top of the cupola. The trash enclosure should include a wood trellis cover, man door, etc., typical of other enclosures within con~nercial centers within the City. Also, the trash enclosure walls should show vertical plane variations, similar in depth to the variations provided on the building and the maintenance yard perimeter wall. The pilaster sizes and locations and cap materials should be clarified on the site plan. Revised plans for hillside residence. The Co~nittee (chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the revised architectural and site plans and did not recommend approval as presented. The Committee recommended that the following items be incorporated into revised plans for further Consent Calendar review: The residence should be redesigned to "fit" within the required building envelope, as specified by the Hillside Development Ordinance. Furthermore, in redesigning the residence, the intent of the Ordinance (promoting aestically pleasing viewsheds, etc.) should be met by treating each finish floor of the residence as a CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA AUGUST 8, 1991 Page 3 separate building "block" to break up the expanses of similar roof lines. The Committee felt the Mediterranean architectural theme was acceptable, provided all previous comments related to architectural detailing are included on the elevations (window treatment, garage doors, etc.). Any new above ground swales, brow ditches and channels should be treated with a naturized, aestically pleasing treatment. Additional specimen size trees should be provided downslope from the residence to reduce the effective bulk of the structure. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Anna-Lisa August 8, 1991 E CAMCRnn'm~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14476 - KNITTER AND ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision and design review of 8 single family lots on 2.39 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of London and Church Streets - APN: 1077-311-74. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing an eight lot subdivision with lots ranging in size from 7,204 square feet to 13,922 square feet. TWo floor plans are proposed and two basic elevations with three different architectural treatments to each elevation. All plans offer either a 3-car garage or a 2-car garage with a bonus area/den. Associated with the project is the request for the removal of eight (8) Eucalyptus globulus (Blue GUm) trees. The majority of the trees are located along the projects northern boundary. The trees, as indicated by the arborist study, are in poor health as a result of severe pruning and environmental conditions in the last year. Staff Co~nents: The side and rear elevations should contain as much detail and articulation as the front elevations. Although window trim pieces and pop-out window details have been added, some of the elevations still appear flat and lack movement. All boundary and interior wall structures within the project should be of permanent decorative materials. Desi~ Review Comettee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Anna-Lisa Hernandez DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Steve R. August 8, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14858 - J.M. WILSON AND ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 6 single family lots on 5.48 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Carnelian Street north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1062-041-24. Related Tree Removal Permit No- 91-03. Design Parameters: The site is bounded by Carnelian Street on the west, single family homes to the north, and a flood control channel on the east. Existing equestrian trails run along the west side of the flood control channel, the south side of the tract to the north, and a community trail is planned for the west side of Carnelian Street. Staff Comments: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 5 1/2 acre site into 6 custom lots; homes are not proposed at this time. An existing home is located on Lot 6. The Redevelopment Agency is planning to build a fire station on Lot 1, which is separated from the remaining lots by "A" Street. This separation should reduce the number of conflicts between the station and adjacent residential uses. An arborist report identified 92 trees, 59 of which should be removed for arboricultural reasons. The remaining trees are primarily located along the perimeters of the lots and it does not appear that their location will conflict with the proposed development or future homes. The Trails Committee is scheduled to review the project on August 28, 1991. The applicant has proposed a flag for Lot 5. The creation of a flag lot eliminates the need for a driveway on Carnelian Street while preserving the existing home and pool. Staff supports the use of a flag lot as long as the future home is oriented towards Carnelian Street. The design of the tract's trails is of some concern and will be discussed by the Trails Committee. Design Review C~M~ttee Action: Members Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff planner: Steve Ross DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS · ~f 14858 - J.M. WILSON & ASSOCIATES AUGUST 8, 1991 Page 2 The Committee made the following comments and recommended approval to the Planning Commission: The property line between Lots 3 and 4 should be adjusted to reduce the front yard area of Lot 4 and increase the yard for Lot 3. The northerly boundary wall along the south side of the equestrian trail should be slumpstone with pilasters and a cap. Decorative gates should also be provided for access to the equestrian trail. The chain link fence along the flood control property line should be replaced with a decorative wrought iron fence supported by columns which match the northerly wall, subject to the approval of the Flood Control District. The Fire District should be consulted regarding their perimeter wall requirements if a fire station is constructed on Lot 1. Although Lot 5 will not be allowed a driveway on Carnelian Street, the tract should be conditioned to require that the future home be oriented towards the street, and that a front yard setback be maintained along the Carnelian Street frontage, eliminating the need for a wall and maintaining an open streetscape similar to what is existing. The flag should also maintain a required front yard setback at "A" Street to eliminate the possibility of walls over 3 feet within 37 feet of the curb face. A wall or wrought iron fence should be plotted along the boundary between Lots 5 and 6 to avoid any confusion between those property owners.