Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/03/04 - Agenda Packet THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 14.40] AGENDA RAN Cu ONGA MARCH 4, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL To ORDER Roll Call Regular Members: Richard Fletcher_ Francisco Oaxaca Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger Alternates: Ray Wimberly _ Frances Howdyshell_ 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 DRC2013-00743 - KB HOME - A review of a proposal for 76 single-family residences in conjunction with a previously approved 76-lot subdivision of about 53 acres within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east side of East Avenue about 150 feet north of the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) - APNs: 0225-191-03, -04, -13, -15, and -20. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18122, Variance DRC2009-00020, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00224. 1 of 2 • I ia4i DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA .a MARCH 4, 2014 RANCHO CUCAMONGA III. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 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. I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 20, 2014, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • 2 of 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith March 4, 2014 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00743 - KB HOME: - A review of a proposal for 76 single-family residences in conjunction with a previously approved 76-lot subdivision of about 53 acres within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east side of East Avenue about 150 feet north of the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) - APNs: 0225-191-03, -04, -13, -15, and -20. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18122, Variance DRC2009-00020, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00224. Background: The proposed project was reviewed by the Committee on January 28, 2014. The Committee generally accepted the proposal as submitted with some exceptions. The Committee directed the applicant to do the following and submit the proposal for a follow-up review prior to forwarding the application to the Planning Commission for review (Exhibit A): 1. Revise the Spanish Colonial-themed elevations so that they incorporated more features that are characteristic of Spanish Colonial architecture. The features that were requested include arched and/or recessed windows, shutters with curved top edges that match the corresponding arched window, and arched trim above the garage doors; 2. Use stackstone veneer comprised of blocks that have a vertical dimension greater than originally proposed so that each stack is visually 'thicker; 3. Vary the type of rock veneers on the Craftsman-themed elevations. The applicant proposed a stackstone veneer for all houses that had the Craftsman theme. The Committee wanted the houses to have a stone veneer constructed of either fieldstone, river rock, brick, or stackstone veneer; and 4. Add decorative windows on the garage doors. Staff Comments: The applicant agreed to complete the revisions as directed by the Committee. With the exception of Revision #1 as listed above, the revisions can be included as conditions of approval and verified during review of the construction plans by Staff during plan check. Those conditions of approval will read as follows: 1. The minimum vertical dimension of each stack of stackstone rows/blocks shall be 4 inches. 2. The rock veneers on the Craftsman themed elevations shall be varied so that the houses with this theme will have either fieldstone, river rock, brick, or stackstone veneer. The ratio of the veneers that are applied shall be equal throughout the subdivision, i.e. no particular veneer that is used shall be the dominant veneer. Adjoining Craftsman-themed houses shall not have the same type of veneer. 3. All garage doors shall have decorative windows that match the theme of the corresponding house. For Revision #1, the applicant has prepared a new set of plans (for the Spanish Colonial theme only) showing the revisions as directed. Staff conducted a side-by-side comparison of the original and revised plans and has concluded that the applicant has completed the revisions as discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting on January 28, 2014. The applicant has made the following revisions (staff DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR2013-00743 — KB HOME March 3, 2014 Page 2 will provide a set of both the original and revised plans and show the changes that were made to the Committee during the meeting): 1. The majority of the windows that are located beneath a gable roof on all elevations have been revised so that the horizontal edge at the top of each window has been changed to an arc. 2. At windows there were proposed to be recessed into the building wall, then the horizontal soffit above the window now has been changed to an arched soffit. 3. At some of the windows that are located beneath a gable roof on all elevations, the top edge of the rectangular foam trim has been changed to include a curvilinear/arced top edge. 4. Where there were rectangular shutters at the above-noted windows, the shutters now have an arced top edge that 'reflects' the adjoining window. 5. At garages that are located beneath a gable roof, the top edge of the rectangular foam trim has been changed to include a curvilinear/arced top edge, or, if recessed, the top edge of the soffit is now arched. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved with the above-noted revisions incorporated by the applicant and those recommended by staff and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith January 28, 2014 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00743 - KB HOME - A review of a proposal for 78 single-family residences in conjunction with a previously approved 78-lot subdivision of about 53 acres within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east side of East Avenue, about 150 feet north of the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) - APN: 0225-191-03, -04, -13, -15, and -20. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18122, Variance 2009-00020, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00224. On November 9,2011, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18122. 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. • • Backarounc(: A tentative tract map for the purpose of subdividing the property into seventy-six (78) lots for single-family residential development, filed by Chaffy),Joint Union High School District, was approved. for this,project site by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2011 (Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18122):. To date, the final map has not been recorded. The property has since been sold,to KB Home for the development/construction of the homes _ Site Characteristics: The project site is a f vacant, rectangular-shaped property with an area of approximately 2.4 million square feet (53 scree). overall dimensions of the site are approximately • 2,500 feet"(east to west) by approximately 940 feet.(north to south): The area of the. lots that will comprise the above-noted subdivision range between_21,780 square feet to 38,890 square'feet (the • minimum lot area is 20,000 square feat). The minimum average lot area is 25,230 square feet (the. minimum average lot area is 25,000 square feet).1 The depth of each lot will be at least 200 feet, and the. width of each lot will meet the required 90-foot dimension: Ail Iots:will be conventional, i.e. rectangular in• , shape,which will allow'conventional house plotting. - • To the north and west of the project site, are single-family residences. To the south, is a vacant parcel owned by Caltrans and used by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for access to their facilities further to the east. Beyond this parcel Is the Foothill Freeway (SR-210). The properties to the east are vacant. The zoning of the property and all the surrounding properties is Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plant General: The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot of the above-noted subdivision for a total of seventy-six (76) single-family residences. The floor areas of the houses will . range between 3,381 square feet (Plan 1)to 4,508 square feet (Plan 4): Thirty-eight (38) of the houses will be one-story; while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story. This equates to 50 percent of the lots having single-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 single-story. The garages of sixty-four(64) of the houses (80.6 percent of the total number of proposed houses)will be setback from the front part of the house or will not face towards the street, i.e., they are °side entry' garages. This will comply with Section 5.42.608 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which requires that 50 percent of the garages be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes its visual presence (as seen from the street). The houses on all corner lots (Lots 1, 17, 20 through 23, 28, 29, 40, 41, 52, 53, 64, 85, and 78)win be single-story as required per Section 5.42.608 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA DRC2013-00743—KB HOME January 28, 2014 Page 2 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 four (4) types of architectural themes(elevations)—Spanish, Colonial, Cottage, and Farmhouse. Each house will incorporate a variety of materiels to varying degrees. Depending on the theme, the Colonial, Cottage, and Farmhouse will have a combination of stone veneer, board and batt siding, lap siding, and stucco finish. Because of the nature of the theme, the Spanish elevation will be exclusively finished with stucco. The roofing will be either flat or barrel concrete tile. Each house will have an articulated footprintfloor plan and profile. The applicant proposes four (4) distinct footprints — Plans 1, 2, 2x, 3, and 4 — and reverse footprints of each for a total of ten (10) footprints. Plans 1, 2, and 2x 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 wilt be a variety of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Each house will have a front entrance comprised of either an enclosed courtyard or a covered porch.. Potential homeowners have the option of a casita attached to the house (Plan 2x). Depending on the theme,there will also be details such as wood brackets/rafters tails at the roof eaves,decorative trim and shutters around the windows, wrought iron accent features, corbels, molding along the top of the stone veneer wainscots, wood shingle siding, and decorative garage doors. Chimneys are not proposed • Staff Comment,: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Malor Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this Mist None. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. None. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Deakin Review Committee Action: Staff presented a brief overview and background of the project and summarized the design characteristics of the proposed houses. The Committee generally accepted the proposal as submitted with some exceptions. The Committee directed the applicant to revise the Spanish Colonial themed elevations so that they incorporated more features that are characteristic of Spanish Colonial architecture. The features that were requested include arched and/or recessed windows, shutters with curved top edges that match the corresponding arched window, and arched trim above the garage doors. The Committee requested that the stackstone veneer be comprised of blocks that were thicker, i.e. the vertical dimension of each stack should be Increased. Also, the Committee requested that the applicant vary the type of rock veneers on the Craftsman themed elevations. The applicant proposed a DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA DRC2013-00743—KB HOME January 28, 2014 Page 3 stackstone veneer for all houses that had the Craftsman theme. The Committee wanted the houses to have a stone veneer constructed of either fieldstone, river rock, brick, or stackstone veneer. The applicant was directed to revise the proposal as noted and submit the proposal for a follow-up review by the Committee prior to forwarding the application to the Planning Commission for review. Lastly, the Committee directed the applicant to add decorative windows on the garage doors. Members Present Fletcher, Oaxaca, Granger Staff Planner. Mike Smith •