Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/01/15 - Agenda Packet - Action THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE L% J AGENDA RANCHO CaUCAMONGA JANUARY 15, 2013 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Haven Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER ] ACTION Roll Call 7:00 P.M. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X Jeffrey Bloom _ Donald Granger X Alternates: Frances Howdyshell_ Ray Wimberly Lou Munoz II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-00968 - LENNAR HOMES OF A. Project was CALIFORNIA - A review of a proposal for 43 single-family residences approved with between about 2,200 and 3,500 square feet in conjunction with a conditions. previously approved 43-lot subdivision of 9.58 acres within the Low Medium (LM)Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan(South Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Miller Avenue - APN: 1100-131-01. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466, Conditional Use Permit DRC2012-01097, and Minor Exception DRC2012-01096. On December 10, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that 1 of tar DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA L*-s+J JANUARY 15, 2013 RANCxo CUCAMONGA no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2012-01097 - LENNAR HOMES OF B. Project was CALIFORNIA-A request to construct within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay approved with District 43 single-family residences between about 2,200 and 3,500 square conditions. feet in conjunction with a previously approved 43-lot subdivision of 9.58 acres within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Miller Avenue; APN: 1100-131-01. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466, Development Review DRC2012-00968, and Minor Exception DRC2012-01096. On December 10, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS I None. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. IV. ADJOURNMENT I 8:14 P.M. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 2 of 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith January 15, 2013 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-00968 - LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A review of a proposal for 43 single-family residences between about 2,200 and 3,500 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 43-lot subdivision of 9.58 acres within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Miller Avenue - APN: 1100-131-01. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466, Conditional Use Permit DRC2012-01097, and Minor Exception DRC2012-01096. On December 10, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2012-01097 - LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A request to construct within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District 43 single-family residences between about 2,200 and 3,500 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 43-lot subdivision of 9.58 acres within the Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Miller Avenue; APN: 1100-131-01. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466, Development Review DRC2012-00968, and Minor Exception DRC2012-01096. On December 10, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18466. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. Site Characteristics: The project site is a square parcel of approximately 660 feet (north to south) by 660 feet (east to west) with an area of approximately 417,300 square feet (9.6 acres), located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Miller Avenues. The site is vacant and appears to have been a vineyard. Other vegetation on-site includes short grasses and shrubs. To the north and south, are single-family residences; to the east, is Perdew Elementary School; and across the street is an apartment complex. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties to the north, east, and south is Low Medium (LM) Residential District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the South Overlay; the property to the west, is zoned Medium (M) Residential District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the South Overlay. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately 1,245 feet and 1,233 feet, respectively. General: The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot for a total of forty-three (43) single-family residences. The houses on Lots 2, 4, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, 27, 31, 35, 37, 38, and 43 will be one-story, while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story. This equates to 30 percent of the lots having one-story houses. This mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses be one-story. The garages of twenty-nine (29) of the houses (67 percent of the total number of proposed houses) will be setback from the front part of the house, i.e., the front of the garages will not dominate the front of the house as seen from the street. This will comply with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which requires 50 percent of the garages to be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes its visual presence). All of the houses will have 2-car garages. With the exception of Lot 1, the houses on all corner lots (Lots 20, 21, 31, 37, 38, and 43) will be one-story as required per Section 5.42.608 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The house on Lot 1 will be a two-story model, which is DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2012-00968 AND DRC2012-01097 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA January 15, 2013 Page 2 permitted if increased setbacks are provided — the front setback will be 30 feet from the front property line (the minimum is 20 feet), while the street side setback will be approximately 21 feet from the north side property line (the minimum is 15 feet). Per the Etiwanda Specific Plan, as Lots 20, 21, 37, and 38 are within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay, the houses on these lots will have a building setback from the property line along that street of 30 feet (as opposed to 15 feet). Also, the houses on those lots will have their respective front elevations oriented towards Etiwanda Avenue. To accommodate the increased building setback and orientation, these lots are larger than the other lots with an average area of approximately 14,140 square feet or approximately twice the average area (7,418 square feet) of all the lots. The 1-15 Freeway is aligned diagonally across the northwest corner of the site. The segment of freeway at this location is elevated above grade and overpasses the intersection of the streets that adjoin the project site. There are no sound walls at the top of the freeway embankment or on the overpass to mitigate freeway noise. A private open (outdoor) space that is usable and is not exposed to excessive noise levels is required per the General Plan and Development Code. To fulfill this requirement, a side yard at the east side of each house on Lots 37 through 43 that is 20 feet wide (approximately 10 to 15 feet wider than the typical side yard in the development district of the project site) is proposed. According to a noise analysis submitted by the applicant, the bulk of the house on each lot, in conjunction with perimeter walls, will buffer its corresponding side yard resulting in a noise exposure within these open spaces to a "Normally Acceptable" or"Conditionally Acceptable" level. The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in Section 5.42.600 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant proposes five (5) types of architectural themes (elevations) — Santa Barbara, Bungalow, Ranch, Country, and Monterey. Each house will incorporate a variety of materials to varying degrees. A combination of veneer (brick or stone), wood siding, and stucco finish will be applied to the Bungalow, Country, and Ranch themes. Because of the nature of the themes, the Santa Barbara elevation will be exclusively finished with stucco, while the Monterey will be finished with a combination of brick veneer and stucco. The roofing for all of the houses will be either flat or barrel concrete tile. Each house will have an articulated footprint/floor plan and profile. The applicant proposes three (3) distinct footprints — Plans 1, 2, and 3—and reverse footprints of each for a total of six (6) footprints. Plan 1 will be one-story, while the others will be two-story. The number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-45 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Because the footprints and profiles of each house differ, there will be a variety of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Each house will also have a front entrance comprised of either an enclosed courtyard (Plan 1) or covered porch with an open deck on the second floor (Plan 2), or a combination of both (Plan 3). Depending on the theme, there will also be details such as wood brackets at the roof eaves, decorative trim and shutters around the windows, wrought iron accent features, molding along the top of the stone veneer wainscots, wood shingle siding, and decorative garage doors. Unique to Plan 2 will be a setback of one of the wall planes at the second floor from the wall plane of the first floor directly beneath it of approximately 5 feet. This setback will be continuous along the side elevation where it occurs and will be readily apparent not only from the side where it occurs but also from the front and rear of the house. Chimneys are not proposed. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2012-00968 AND DRC2012-01097 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA January 15, 2013 Page 3 Staff Comments: 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. 1. To ensure that the architecture of each house will be consistent with the design goals and policies of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission including "360-degree architecture," the following shall be provided: a. Bungalow, Ranch, Country, and Monterey (all Plans) — Apply the decorative veneer wainscot to the entire width of the front and rear elevations. At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects with the rear elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at a logical point along the side elevation. At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects with the front elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at the return wall. b. All Themes and all Plans — Provide additional shutters on the windows on both floors on all elevations (it is not necessary to provide them on all windows). c. Lots 20, 21, and 37 —Apply the decorative veneer wainscot to the entire width of the elevation that faces Etiwanda Avenue. d. Lots 38— Apply the decorative veneer wainscot to the entire width of the elevation that faces "C" Court. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. The molding along the top of the stone or brick veneer wainscots shall also be stone or brick and not foam. 2. At Lot 38, the maximum height of the wall at the southeast part of the lot and generally parallel to "C" Court that is within the building setback is 3 feet (measure from finished grade). 3. The Etiwanda Avenue stone curbing shall be restored or reconstructed in conformance with the adopted City standards acceptable to the Historic Preservation Commission. Photographic documentation of the condition of the curbing shall be provided prior to the issuance of Construction Permits per Section 5.25.304 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. At Lots 20, 21, 37, and 38, on-site landscaping (trees and ground cover), walls/fences, and similar improvements in the private yard areas between the houses of each of these lots and Etiwanda Avenue shall be consistent with the design guidelines and standards described in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2012-00968 AND DRC2012-01097 — LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA January 15, 2013 Page 4 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Oaxaca, Granger Staff Planner Mike Smith Staff presented a brief overview of the project and summarized the major/secondary issues relating to the architecture and site development. The applicant's representative followed with a response to the comments report. He requested that the Committee accept the rear elevation of each house without any decorative wainscot veneer. He stated that the price point of the homes and the location of the project site near 1-15 Freeway did not justify the additional veneer. In addition, he indicated that because of the cost of the additional veneer, there would be an impact on the quality/quantity of the features inside the houses. These features, according to the applicant, are of greater value to the homeowner than the veneer on the rear elevation. Furthermore, the veneer on the rear elevations would not be visible. The Committee generally accepted the project as submitted. However, they stated that the City requires "360-degree architecture," i.e. the application of architectural details and decorative features on all elevations of a house, and that it was required for all residential development. They noted that the rear elevations of the houses were too plain and needed enhancement. Following additional discussion, the Committee accepted the absence of a decorative veneer provided that, at a minimum, architectural details such as decorative lights, shutters, and pot shelves at the windows, and more wood trim is added to the rear elevation of each house. The applicant's architect indicated that these enhancements would be feasible. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the rear elevations to include these enhancements. The revisions would be coordinated with, and subject to the acceptance by staff prior to scheduling the project for review by the Planning Commission. Although the revised proposal did not need to be reviewed by the Committee at a follow-up meeting, the Committee requested that any revisions be submitted to them via e-mail for their review and, if necessary, comment.