Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/09/19 - Agenda Packet - (2)DATE: September 24, 1991 CITY OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Rasidential/Institutional Design Review Committee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate) Steve HayeS, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 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/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. 3:30 - 5:00 (Bey) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MASI MASTER pLAN CANCR~.T.~ 6:30 - 7:15 (Steve H.) TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U.S. HOMES - A proposed 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 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. PROJECT DRC AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Page 2 7:15 - 8:00 (Scott) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SANAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 73 single family lots and 13 numbered lots on 113.2 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space District, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. 8:00 (Bev) PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOp - CENTRAL PARK LIBRARy SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:15 Steve H. September 19, 1991 TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U.S. HOMES - A proposed 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 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, ~2, 16, and 32; 227-191-15; 227-181-24; and 227-261-~1. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Abstract: The purpose of tonight's meeting is to formally review the design elements of the above-referenced project. As you may recall, the Committee reviewed the project as a courtesy to the development team on September 5, 1991. Staff has attached a copy of the staff comments from that meeting to prepare the Committee for potential topics of discussion. Staff At the time of comment preparation, revised plans depicting the action of the September 5, 199~ courtesy review meeting had not been received by staff. Therefore, unaddressed issues from the attached comments and new comments generated from the action of the September 5th meeting should be discussed tonight. The revised plans depicting the action of the September 5th meeting will be available at tonight's meeting. Staff will make a brief presentation to highlight the outstanding design issues prior to opening discussion between the Committee and the development team. Design Review Committee Action: Memt~rs Present: Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 - 8:00 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 De,]elopment Districts (3-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively)., located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Dewre 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 Cou~nittee 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 Con~nittee 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 Com~nittee prior to the Planning Con~nission 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 tb4e September 25th Planning Comission 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 Co~nittees in October of 1989 with the provision that the project would again be reviewed by the Co~nittees 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 ~ent8: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for CoEmittee 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. e The 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 Devote 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 ~re 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 Committee 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 Committees 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 ~v~ 14211 - U.S. HOMES SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 Page 4 The use of decorative hardscape materials within all driveways should 'be provided. Outstanding Design Issues: The following issues were recomended to be addressed by the Con~nittee (McNiel, Blakesly, Kroutil) at the Courtesy Design Review Comittee 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 upqraded 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 w~s instructed to explore design alternatives on the side eIevation of Plan 3378. Additional stone work was reco~=aended 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 Comission 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. 7. Field stone should be native rock. Other forms of stone may be manufactured products. 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, 199~ Page 6 11. 12. Additional tree~ should be planted on all corner lots consistent with the requirements for all other corner lots in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Fencing on corner side yards should be set back a minimum 5 feet behind any sidewalks. Replotting of residences may be' necessary to meet this requirement. RESIDENTIAL CONSENT C~T.RNDAR ITEMS AG~DA September 19, 1991 TT 15247 - SHIBA~A (Steve R. ) Committee Action: Review of revised site plan. After reviewing the revised site plan, the Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) stated that the unit plotting was "too tight" and did not provide a "large open lawn area" as required by the Development Code. In the past, the Planning Commission has interpreted "large open lawn area" to be an area large enough to toss a frisbee or throw a ball. The Co~nittee felt that this area should be located adjacent to the pool and tot lot. They concluded that it may be necessary to lower the density of the project in order to have a sufficient amount of useable open space. Other Comments: Sidewalks should be provided adjacent to the two parking stalls at the north end of the site. Sidewalk width should be kept at a minimum due to the limited amount of use they will receive. Special paving treatment should not be applied to the parking space near the recreation area. The design of the arbor and roof connecting the two northerly buildings should be sensitive to the architecture of the buildings. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:15 - 8:00 SCott September 19, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SANAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 72 single family lots and 13 numbered lots on 113.2 acres of land in the Hillside Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space District, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Background: On June 20, 1991, the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Coleman) originally reviewed the development plans. The Committee recommended that the plans be revised to address the following comments: 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.). 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. A transition should be provided from the public streets to the private streets. 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. Following the initial review, the applicant submitted architectural plans (floor plans and elevations) for consideration. On July 18, 1991, the Committee (McNiel, Tolstoy, Coleman) stated that the design of the 3450 and 3500 plans more closely depicted the intent of the Hillside DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS VTT 14475 - SAHAMA SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Page 2 Ordinance. The 5400 plan was approaching the direction previously requested by the Committee. The 4000 and 4300 plans, however, still require additional work to bring the scale and massing Of the buildings down. The applicant should consider greater use of single story units within the project. The Design Review Committee (chitiea, Tolstoy, Coleman) again reviewed revised architectural plans. The Committee considered the new 4000 and 5000 plans. The Committee felt the 4000 plan was acceptable but the 5000 plan needed additional work to bring the scale and mass 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. Staff Comments: The applicant has revised the plans based on the previous Design Review Committee comments. The number of lots at the northeast corner of the site has been reduced by one. Also, the units have to be redesigned to more closely address the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. In considering these revised plan, the Committee should consider the following: The applicant is maintaining the same basic street pattern and lot layout. With this configuration, extensive grading will be necessary at certain locations to install the streets. The reduction of one lot at the northeast corner of the site does not significantly minimize the impact to areas in excess of 20 percent. The units have been redesigned to include steps and stem walls to match existing grade. Additionally, the massing has been scaled down. The tallest unit is 27 feet. With these changes, do the units adequately address the Hillside Ordinance? 4. The Mediterranean Style should be eliminated. Greater use of native/indigenous materials should be incorporated into the designs. Design Review Comm{ttee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Scott Murphy DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS VTT 14475 - SAHAMA SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Page 3 The Committee reviewed the plans and did not recommend approval. The Committee felt the plans should be revised to address the following: Architecture: Generally, the maximum roof pitch should not exceed 6:12. There may, however, be selected lots where 7:12 and 8:12 pitches could be utilized. The Committee expressed reservations about the use of barrel roof tile. The applicant should provide samples of proposed colors. No "glazed" roof tile should be used. The applicant should provide samples utilizing a dull finish. Variation should be provided in the stone type proposed for the elevations (i.e. flagstone, slate, etc.). Samples should be provided for review. Site/Grading Plan: 1. Slopes should be varied to provide a "naturalized" appearance rather than a "manufacturer" look. Greater separation should be provided between units and trails (i.e. Lots 57, 67). The Street "F" and Street "G" cul-de-sac bulbs should be pulled south to minimize the impact to areas in excess of 20 percent, to reduce the grading for driveways, and increase the spacing between driveways.