Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/09/05 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM September 10, 1991 ACTION Residential/Institutional Design Review Conunittee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 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 Conunittee'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 (Steve R.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A residential subdivision and design review of 18 townhome units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. 7:00 - 7:30 (Steve H.) COURTESY REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U.S. HOMES - The courtesy review of a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2 acres Of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Development Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of East DRC AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 2 Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227-191- 15, 227-181-24; and 227-261-11. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Steve R. September 5, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 SHIBATA - A residential subdivision and design review of 18 townhome units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct 18 units on a 1.37 acre site in the Medium Residential zone. The project density is 13.6 dwelling units per acre and must comply with the requirements of the Optional Development Standards. The site is bounded on the north by high density senior apartments, on the east by the approved Tentative Tract 14679, 19th Street to the south, and a single family home on the west. Several significant trees exist on-site, all of which can be transplanted elsewhere on the site to avoid conflicts with the proposed improvements. Major Issues: Due to the City's driveway spacing requirements, the driveway for Tract 15247 is the only one which will be allowed between Tract 12305 (the existing Alta Loma Woods), and the Inland Area Fellowship Church (at the corner of 19th and Amethyst). The underdeveloped Lot 6, between Tract 12305 and the project site will not be allowed to have a driveway on 19th Street when it is fully developed. Because access for Lot 6 through the Alta Loma Woods driveway is unlikely and the applicant has provided no evidence to support this possibility, Tract 15247 must allow Lot 6 to access across its site to 19th Street. The applicant feels that this requirement places an unreasonable burden on his property and has proposed that the required access area be used as a recreational facility until the access is needed. Staff strongly disagrees with the proposal and has stated that the required access must be provided when Tract 15247 is developed. The proposed site plan for Tract 15247 has not been designed to utilize the emergency access provided by the adjacent Tract 14679, which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 1991. Although a secondary access to the tract was not required by the Fire District, the Design Review Con~nittee felt that an emergency connection Should be provided for future development west of the tract. The Design Review Committee should discuss whether such a connection is necessary. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 15247 - SHIBATA SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 2 The proposed recreation area does not comply with the Optional Development Standards. A large open lawn area should be provided to meet the intent of the recreational area/facility requirement. The pool, currently squeezed into the northeast corner of the site, should be relocated closer to the center of the development to become an integral part of the project. Secondary Issues: Although the project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the revised multi-family standards, the Committee should consider whether it should be revised to comply with the new standards. Below are some of the conflicts with the revised standards: The minimum site area required for development in the Medium Residential District is proposed to change from zero to 3 acres under Basic Standards, and from zero to 5 acres under Optional Standards. Existing lots of record smaller than the minimum acreage will be allowed to develop under Basic Standards only at the lowest end of the permitted density range. Because the site area is only 1.37 acres, the density of the proposed tract would have to be reduced substantially. b e As part of the revised standards, a 20-foot separation from building to curb at the entry will be required, and the separation from building to curb on corners will be 15 feet. Additional visitor parking spaces should be provided on-site because no parking is allowed along 19th Street. The parking spaces shown at the end of the drive aisle should be relocated elsewhere due to difficulty on turning around. Open view fencing may be more desirable than a wall dividing the two projects. Even if a wall is preferred, open fencing and a gate may be appropriate adjacent to the common open space of Tract 14679 to create the appearance of a larger open area and to allow possible access between the projects. Policy Issues: 1. 360 degree architectural treatment has been provided. Desig~ Review Comettee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steven Ross DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 15247 - SHIBATA SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Pge 3 The applicant arrived with a revised site plan which addressed the access issues by connecting to the adjacent properties. The revised plan reduced the number of units from 18 to 17, resulting in a reduction in the net density from 13.2 to 12.4 dwelling units per acre. The two three-unit buildings at the north end of the site did not meet the minimum interior site boundary setback of 20 feet- After studying the revised site plan, the Committee made the following comments regarding the new proposal: 1. The northerly building must meet the required 20-foot setback. Additional parking spaces should be provided on-site because parking is not permitted on 19th Street. The trash enclosure in the recreation area should be relocated elsewhere on the site, possibly south of the drive aisle near the easterly property line. The trash enclosure should be decorative and should include an overhead trellis structure. An arbor or other shade structure should be provided in the recreation area. In addition, pool fencing should be adequately set back from the drive aisle to insure that it does not become a primary visual element. A fenced or walled enclosure should be provided for the pool equipment, and an outdoor shower should also be provided. If the northerly three-unit buildings are combined into one six-unit building, a significant landscaping planter should still be provided between the two halves of the building at the end of the central drive aisle to make the building appear as two and to soften its impact. The proposed cabana structures between the three-unit buildings on the eastern side of the drive aisle should be replaced with trees due to the limited separation between the buildings. To mitigate the amount of hardscape along the drive aisles, the size of the landscape planters between garage doors should b~ increased as much as possible. Significant shrubs and trees should be planted to soften the drive aisle. Members of the Design Review Committee stated that they were pleased with the proposed architecture. Due to the substantial difference between the previous site plan and the one which was presented at the meeting, and the extent of the design comments, the Committee stated that the project would have to return to the Design Review Committee as a full item to allow for additional review of the project. DESIGN REVIEW CO~4ENTS 7:00 - 7:30 Steve H. September 5, 1991 COURTESY REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U.S. HOMES - The courtesy review of a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Development Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227-191-15, 227- 181-24; and 227-261-11. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Abstract: The purpose of tonight's meeting is to allow an opportunity for the development team and the Committee to discuss the major design issues associated with the project. If time permits, any secondary design and policy issues of question may be discussed. Following the meeting, the applicant will then have the opportunity to revise the plan package based on Committee recommendations for the formal Design Review Committee meeting preliminarily scheduled for September 19, 1991. The overall intent of the time schedule is for the development team to receive input on the major design issues from the Committee prior to the Planning Commission hearing of September 25, 1991. As you may recall, this project was continued specifically to the September 25th Planning Commission meeting from the April 24, 1991 meeting to allow the applicant approximately 150 days to process the project through the Development Review process. The project will be scheduled for the September 25th Planning Commission meeting regardless of the project status at that time. Background: This project was formally submitted on May 17, 1989, after being reviewed as a preliminary review in December of 1988 and February of 1989. Following formal submittal, the application was deemed incomplete on five separate occasions, most recently in July, 1991. As a courtesy to the developer, the project was reviewed by the Grading, Technical Review, and Design Review Comittees in October of 1989 with the provision that the project would again be reviewed by the Committees once deemed complete. The developer has been working with staff to resolve all completeness items. Design Parameters: The 82 acre project area is bounded partially by East Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Miller Avenue bisects the site in the northern third of the project and the Devore Freeway forms the project boundary near the northwest corner of the site. Several windrows of DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14211 - U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 2 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees (many of which have been infested by the Eucalyptus Borer Beetle) traverse the site. Existing residences fronting Miller Avenue are east Of the project boundaries. Due to the increased runoff anticipated by the development of the project, an interim detention basin will be located at the south end of the site, adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. Adjacent to and east of this basin is a 450-foot wide utility easement. The site slopes from north to south at roughly 3 percent. Given the numerous adjacent undeveloped parcels and irregular slope of the project, staff required that a conceptual master plan for the future development of these parcels be prepared. This plan will be available at the Design Review meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Conunittee discussion: Major Issues: Site Plan: Cul-de-sac streets "D" and "M" should be shortened and the lots fronting these cul-de-sacs should "fan" (narrow at the street, wider in the rear) to avoid the concern of side yards adjacent to a number of rear yards. %~ne current proposal includes the development of single family detached units north of Miller Avenue. At the present time, some of this area is zoned Medium Residential, which only allows single family detached housing under the Optional Development Standards set forth in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. (The applicant has submitted an Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment to allow single family detached housing in the Medium Residential Zone under the basic standards.) Notwithstanding any direction on the amendment, the Committee may wish to consider if, given the close proximity of the Devore Freeway, if the proposed conventional layout is appropriate or; 1) should the Optional Development standards be applied (i.e., smaller lots in trade for common open space areas) or should a different type of development (condominiums, duplexes, etc.) be proposed in this area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14211 -U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 3 Grading: In general, the proposed grading concept is of a conventional design using flat pads throughout. By doing this, unnecessary cut/fills, retaining walls and "engineered" 2:1 slopes are being proposed. Given the relatively flat topography of the site, the grading scheme should be revised to be more sensitive to the natural grade by eliminating unnecessary retaining walls and steep, man-made slopes. Architecture: A majority of the building elevations are very similar in appearance (building form, material use, etc.) that may result in a lack of architectural variety as seen from streets internal to the project and, even more so, perimeter streets (Miller, Etiwanda, East). Therefore, further embellishment and variety to architectural concept should be provided. Of specific concern is the material use and form similarities between Plans 2654, 2945, and 3234. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Co~unittee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The Committee should consider possible designs for the required Devore Freeway sound attenuation wall, for this project will set the precedent for the future residential projects requiring such walls in the future. Staff will then compare the Comittees recommended designs to Caltrans design criteria. The Miller Avenue and "A" Street walls should be redesigned to add more interest to the streetscape by varying the wall setback with transitions, providing more substantial pilasters (24-inches square) and decorative capping. More attention to architectural detailing (i.e., variety of garage door design, shutters, louvers, material use, etc.) should be incorporated into the building elevations. The secondary entry monument should be redesigned to provide a landscape area between the sidewalk and the sign walls. Also, a cap should be provided on the wall and the pilasters that is aesthetically consistent with the monument design. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14211 -U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 199 1 Page 4 5. The use of decorative hardscape materials within all driveways should be provided. Outstanding Design Issues: The following issues were recommended to be addressed by the Committee (McNiel, Blakesly, Kroutil) at the Courtesy Design Review Committee meeting on October 17, 1989 as follows: Two-story homes should be avoided on all corner lots, particularly on those adjacent to the perimeter streets. Homes facing perimeter streets and interior streets should be oriented so that the flat wall (non-entry or garage side) does not face the street. All side and rear elevations along these streets should also be substantially upgraded with additional siding and roof, fascia, and rafter detailing. A minimum 4-inch cap should be used on the perimeter walls. The stone veneer columns should also be upgraded in design by extending them beyond the wall height. A stone cap similar to the entry monumentation walls should be utilized. The perimeter wall along Etiwanda Avenue should be kept visually open where cul-de-sac streets side onto it. Wrought iron fencing should be utilized if the acoustical study permits it. Paved pedestrian walks should be provided to the Etiwanda sidewalk. The pad elevations along Etiwanda Avenue should be kept as low as possible. Details should be provided on the design of the freeway sound wall to be permitted by Caltrans. Siding and additional detailing should be used more extensively on all side and rear elevations. Additional upgrading of all street facing elevations was recommended, including siding and band bards on the second-story of two-story units and additional roof, fascia, and rafter detailing. Porches should be expanded in size for most of the homes. The porches should be extended in length along garages or living areas. Chimney detailing should be revised so that the entire chimney is constructed of stone or brick. The "patches" of brick and stone should be deleted. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14211 - U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 5 The applicant was instructed to explore design alternatives on the side elevation of Plan 3378. Additional stone work was recommended for the front elevation of Plan 3234. 10. Walls should terminate at least 5 feet behind all sidewalks or at side yard return fencing locations. AS of the most recent submittal to the Planning Division (dated July 26, 1991) only items 4 and 8 from the above list have been addressed. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Co~unission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. Additional lots should have a larger (10-12-foot) side yard setback on the garage sides to allow for vehicular access to the rear yard. 2. A greater variety of front yard setbacks should be provided. 3. Lots which side on to the rear of other lots should be redesigned. If the front of the houses are proposed to be sided the other sides should be wrapped in siding to comply with the requirement for 360 degree architectural treatment. Rear and side elevations of units exposed to perimeter streets should have varied roof designs and detailing to provide a pleasant streetscape view and a high design quality to all elevations. Floor plans with 2-car garages and bonus rooms and/or offset third garage door space should be utilized to mitigate the concern of garages dominating the streetscape. Field stone should be native rock. manufactured products. Other forms of stone may be 8. A neutral color should be selected for all side yard return walls. Accent naturals (i.e., rock, brick) should be utilized to a greater extent on all side and rear elevations. 10. A landscape palette should be selected that is sensitive to microclimatic conditions, will not create maintenance and safety hazards. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14211 - U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 6 11. Additional trees should be planted on all corner lots consistent with the requirements for all other corner lots in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 12. Fencing On corner side yards should be set beck a minimum 5 feet behind any sidewalks. Replotting of residences may be necessary to meet this requirement. Desi~ Review Co-~ttee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee reviewed the project as a courtesy to the development team and recommended that the following items be addressed in the revised plan, which will be formally reviewed by the Committee on September 19, 1991. The site plan should be redesigned to avoid the "grid" pattern proposed throughout the project. Of primary concern was the area south of Miller Avenue. Also, a non-conventional approach to the site planning, possibly utilizing optional development standards, should be implemented for the 10 acre area closest to the freeway. Cul-de-sac streets D, M, K, and T should be shortened in length to allow lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs to "fan", thereby avoiding side/rear yard relationships between lots. The grading plan should be revised to be more sensitive to the natural grade in areas where rear and side yards incorporate large retaining walls in combination with steep slopes. In order to address the Co~mittee's concern of similarity of form of the side and rear of the proposed homes, streetscape plans of the project as seen from Miller and Etiwanda Avenues should be provided for further review of the Committee. The masonite siding should be wrapped entirely around all of the proposed units. Also, the selected base element (rock or brick, as applicable) should be continued to a logical point on each residence (return wall, chimney) as to not appear as a "tacked-on" element. 6. The secondary, outstanding and policy issues will be discussed, as time allows, at the September 19, 1991 meeting.