Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/07/16 - Agenda PacketDATE: July 21, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM ACTION COMS TO: FROM: Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy Dan Coleman John Melcher (Alternate Steve Haye ssociate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 16, 1992 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. Consent Calendar items will be reviewed between 5:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., with the first design review item being heard at 5:40 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. 5:40 - 6:00 (Steve R.) 6:10 - 6:30 (Bey) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-05 - JEFFERY GROUP - The development of a 8,000 square foot single family residence on 0.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reales Street - APN: 1061-80~- 26. DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 87 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a previously approved vesting tract map consisting of 165 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan Avenue and west of Deer Creek Channel APN: 20~-092-~-36; 201-084-1-37; 20~-072-1-7 and 12. DRC AGENDA JULY 16, 1992 Page 2 6:40 - 7:30 (Steve H.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT ~4162 - FAN - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of ~7 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of ~9th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021- 37. SH:mlg Attachments cc: Planning Commission/City Council DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 - 6:00 Steve R. July 16, 1992 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-05 - JEFFERY GROUP - The development of a 8,000 square foot single family residence on 0.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921Reales Street - APN: 1061-801-26. Design Parameters: The property is located at the southeast corner of Reales Street and Laredo Place within a custom lot subdivision. The site is currently vacant and has a slope averaging 15 percent. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks have been installed around the site, and an equestrian trail is located along the southerly property line. The Hillside Development Ordinance requires Planning Con~nission review and approval of projects which have slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent, or propose fills or excavations equal to or exceeding 5 feet in vertical depth. Both of these conditions apply to the proposed project. Staff Oomments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Note: At staff's request, the applicant has submitted a letter describing the project's design and how he has attempted to comply with the standards and the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance (see attached). Major Issues: Staff generally feels that, for the most part, the project complies with the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The applicant's letter details the extensive measures taken to conform. Secondary Issues: Section A-A on Sheet 7 shows 7 feet of excavation for the garage and storage area. The amount of grading should be reduced as much as possible. A 6-foot retaining wall is proposed adjacent driveway as close as 7 feet from the sidewalk. be limited to 3 1/2 feet. to the southerly The height should Sheet 2 of the Landscape Plan indicates a wrought iron fence on top of a retaining wall, placed in front of a slope and another retaining wall. The combination of the walls and the wrought iron fence may appear rather harsh from the street, and should be softened if possible. DESIGN REVIEW COFkMENTS DR 92-05 - JEFFERY GROUP JULY 16, 1992 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Ross The Committee made the following comments and voted to forward the project to the Planning Commission for review without a recommendation of approval or denial: 1. The amount of grading should be reduced as much as possible. The sport court should be moved to the rear of the lot and aligned east-west to reduce the amount of grading required and to reduce the project's impact on the streetscape. The Committee reviewed the conditions where excavations exceed 5 feet, and found those cases to be consistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. Jeffrey Group, Inc. 34179 Golden Lantern, Suite 202 Dana Point, California 92629 Tel. (714) 661-4103 Fax. (714) 661-4797 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW # 92-05 Designers Summary of Compliance to Hillside Design ordinance. In analyzing our design of the DeGler's Residence in conjunction with the guidelines and intent of the "Hillside Development Standards" of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, one must understand that the standards were developed specifically as design Guidelines for new Hillside Subdivisions and the encompassing structures within the subdivision, therefore creating a monolithic design process. The difference in designing the Degter's Residence is that the original subdivision was not designed or developed under the existing Hillside Ordinance, therefore the monolithic design process was broken and individual interpretation of the intent of various sections of the ordinance comes into play because the lot has many existing features that are contrary to the ordinance. Therefore in analyzing our design process our goals were still to comply with the ordinance and the intent of various sections (lot design grades) as closely as possible. Some of our primary Goals included keeping cut and fills to a 5'-0" maximum, gradual height transition of retaining walls and most importantly, designing a visual relief for the corner lot as much as possible while still achieving our clients design requirements. The first major design element utilized in achieving this "visual relief" was to develop an "L" shape residence and then to plot it in a reverse method on a corner lot. Typically on a corner lot the house fronts on the narrow lot dimension and the garage would then side on the longer street frontage therefore visually creating a solid wall element alonG both street frontages. With our reverse "L" method we achieved two goals; First of all we created "visual relief" as one drives North on Laredo Place and secondly we captured the natural Southwest view of the valley, which was an important design Goal to our client. Also, in order to keep the profile of the house as low as possible we lowered the North part of the house (living room & guest bedroom) into the Grade (developing a cut condition) to where the effective height of the roof ridge if projected to the Reales Street frontage, is only approximately 17' above the curb line. Additionally, this area is where a majority of the lot has slopes of 15 to 25% and we were still able to keep the house structure well within the "building envelope" as required under the ordinance (see front elevation sheet #8). Developers · General Contractors · Construction Management · Architecture In continuing on in our effort to achieve "visual relief" from the building mass, we not only "stair stepped" the house floor and roof-line down the lot with the grade, but we also introduced "roof variations", with a majority of the roof- line beinG separate hip roofs rather than one continuous roof, while introducing two Gables and a turret roof. The composite of these roofs are clearly shown on the "rear elevation" on Sheet 8 with the "building envelope" lines indicating again the roof-lines being in compliance with the ordinance and breakinG up of roofs as noted on page 189 of the ordinance. In additionr another aspect of the "visual relief" from the building mass is demonstrated on the right side of the front elevation (sheet 8), where we located a balcony off of the master bedroom. This was a specific design element noted in the ordinance on page 188 as a means to "soften large vertical surfaces". Another design suggestion as noted on page 197 of the "hillside ordinance" is to integrate foundation retaining conditions with walls of adjacent structures. We incorporated this suggestion by utilizing a "tuck under" garage in our design. Another example of our efforts to comply with the ordinance, as noted on page 189, was our design of the "exercise room" and "sun deck" over the "tuck under" Garage. This condition almost duplicates the example described on page 189. Also worth noting as it relates to our design efforts, is the fact that the Garage doors are not visible from the street. In reviewing the continuity of materials on all sides of the residence you will note how very conscious we were of addressing that particular phase of the ordinance (page 206). AlonG the same lines, I would point to our orientation of the residence and pool for protection from the Santa Ana Winds. The exterior treatment of grade transitions and shieldinG by landscapinG of elements along Laredo Place have been again consciously addressed by terracinG with slopes and small incremental stepped retaining walls as suggested in the ordinance. As you move North along Laredo Place the Grades from the sidewalk towards the pool and court have been designed to transition with Gradual steps by the combined use of retaining walls (3' max.) and 2:1 slopes as noted on pages 210 and 211 of the ordinance. Except for a portion of the sport court (N.E. Corner) which has a portion of retaininG wall approximately 8' in height (28' from curb line on Laredo Place) the balance of all cuts and fills comply with the Hillside Ordinance Grading conditions. With the incorporation of underground drainage devices the finished product will greatly reduce the existing cross lot drainage pattern as now exists, which the ordinance (page 212) clearly suggests to minimize. In conclusion, we feel that except for the small area of 8' retaining wall and given the existing gradient conditions along with our clients requirements, that all intentions and the many specific requirements of the ordinance have been complied with or exceeded and therefore request approval of the complete submittal "as is". DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:10 - 6:30 Bev July 16, 1992 DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 87 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a previously approved vesting tract map consisting of 165 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan Avenue and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-092-1-36; 201-084-1-37; 201-072-1-7 and 12. Background: Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1988. At the time of approval, the applicant (Acacia) proposed four floor plans each with three elevations for all 165 lots. The homes ranged in size from 1,685 to 2,162 square feet. A mix of One and two-story elevations was provided. A Design Review application for Phases 1 and 2 was submitted by Homestead Development in 1989 and approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1989. The applicant submitted four floor plans each with three elevations. The homes ranged in size from 2,257 to 2,919 square feet. All of the floor plans were two-story. Four models were constructed on Lots 18-21 along the south tract boundary, but the remainder of the project was never constructed and subsequently sold to Greystone Homes. The submittal by Greystone Homes consists of one ranging in size from 1,701 to 2,537 square feet. having three elevations have been proposed. and two-story models Four floor plans each 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: Since the original architectural elevations were submitted in conjunction with a vesting map, the currently proposed elevations must be in substantial conformance with them. Additional stucco detailing in the form of horizontal bands should be provided, and the detailing around the windows should be stucco rather than wood. Secondary Issues: time permitting, design issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and the Committee will discuss the following secondary DESIGN REVIEW CON~MENTS VT~ 13589 - GREYSTONE JULY 16, 1992 Page 2 The vesting map was originally approved when side yard setbacks for the Low Medium District were 5 feet on each side. Since the date of original approval, the Development Code has been amended to increase side yard setbacks in this District to 5 and 10 feet. The applicant, however, has vesting rights with this application and the original setbacks of 5 feet on each side still apply. The applicant has, in most instances, proposed side yard setbacks well in excess of the minimum requirement. Where feasible, the larger of the two side yard setbacks should be provided at the garage side of the lot to allow vehicular access to the rear yard. ROof planes should be more varied by possibly clipping the corners or some other means. Rear elevations of those units backing up or siding Onto perimeter streets should have greater variation in order to create a varied streetscape. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Some of the driveways should be tapered down to a standard two-car width (16-17 feet) at the street to reduce the amount of concrete along the streetscape. 2. Decorative masonry front yard return walls should be provided between all houses. Design Review Corm{tree Action: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Bev Niesen The Committee (Vallette, Tolstoy, Coleman) did not approve the project and requested the following modifications be reviewed by the Con~nittee prior to scheduling for Planning Commission: More movement should be provided for through the use of enhancements such as, windows and kitchen nooks. the building footprints but not limited to, bay DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS VTT 13589 - GREYSTONE JULY 16, 1992 Page 3 More architectural detailing should be provided for each of the elevations. For example: the size of the vents at the roof peaks are out of scale. Greater detail could be provided for the louvers, shutters and fascies while still keeping within the style of the proposed architecture. There should be more variation in front yard setback. A section/elevation of all walls should be provided. Caps on top of the walls, colors, materials, and height should be indicated on the details. If possible, some of the houses should be reverse plotted on the lots in order to pair driveways and provide larger areas for continuously landscaped front yards. This may not be feasible due to the location of existing curb-cuts, but the possibility should be discussed with Planning and Engineering staff. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 - 7:30 Steve H. July 16, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit ~ APN: 202-021-37. Design Parameters: The 4.7 acre parcel is surrounded by single family residential development on all sides. A Cucamonga County Water District reservoir exists adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. Several mature Eucalyptus trees are located near the west property line. Other trees are scattered throughout the site, all of which are proposed to be removed with development of the property. The proposed street configuration is based on the fixed location of Street "C" at 19th Street, which lines up with Via Serena to the north, and the Street "C" connection with Hamilton Street. Since the project is located at a "gateway" to the City, a City entry monument will be constructed along 19th Street. 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: The proposed architecture is massive and should be scaled down and/or broken up on the side and rear elevations. Of particular concern are the elevations of Lots 1 through 5 as seen from 19th Street, where the "box like" shape would dominate the streetscape and other one-story structures in the area. Also, the massing of the side elevations and the minimal side yard building separations between Lots (i.e., 2 and 3, 9 and 10) would create "tunnels" for sound and large areas without solar access. (Staff has informed the applicant of these concerns and they will be bringing streetscape perspective drawings and color prints of these homes previously built in other areas to the meeting.) Secondary Issues: time permitting, design issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and the Committee will discuss the following secondary Two-story volumes of blank building masses should be upgraded by introducing substantial architectural enhancements (see garage side elevations). DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14162 - FAN JULY 16, 1992 Page 2 Front yard landscaping should be provided by the developer to soften the mass of the homes. Second story bathroom windows on the front elevations should be compatible in design with other windows used on the front elevations. The return walls on Lots 13, 14, and 16 should be pulled back from the street to provide a more open streetscape appearance. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Return walls should have a decorative finish and be constructed of a masonry material. All driveways should be reduced to a maximum width of 16 feet at the drive approach. Corner side yard walls should be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the back of the sidewalk to allow for landscaping between the sidewalk and the walls. On lots providing recreational vehicle storage access, the 10-foot setback area should be free and clear of any obstructions that would preclude access of a vehicle to the side and rear yard (i.e., slopes, retaining walls, air conditioning condensers, overhanging eaves less than 8 feet in height, etc). Building elevation differences between adjacent pads should not exceed 4 feet in height. Retaining walls should not exceed 4 feet in height, unless separated by a minimum 3-foot wide planter area between walls to soften their appearance. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval Of the project subject to the following conditions: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS TT 14162 - FAN JULY 16, 1992 Page 3 The unit on Lot 9 should be replotted to allow for a 20-foot rear yard setback from the west and south property lines. Decorative tiles should be provided under the arched garage elements, above the garage doors. The selected tile should have a subdued appearance and be subject to approval of the Planning Division. The roof pitch should be raised on all models in order to see a greater amount of roof area. A continuous roof element over the front entrance walkway should be incorporated on Plan B, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Architectural elements (such as quoins) should be wrapped around the side elevations to a greater extent, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. All Other secondary and policy design issues should be incorporated into the revised plans for review and approval of the Planning Division.