HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03 - Minutes
Design Review Committee
Meeting Agenda
June 3, 2025
FINAL MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
New Time: 6:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on June 3, 2025. The meeting was called to order by
Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m.
Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Daniels
Staff Present: Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner
B. Public Communications
Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments,
closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2025.
Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote as presented.
D. Project Review Items
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, & DESIGN REVIEW – HAMILTON
LAND DEVELOPMENT – A request to subdivide 1.02 acres of land into 19 numbered lots and
1 lettered lot including site plan and design review of 19 single-family, detached residential
units with 1 unit set aside for Very Low affordable housing for a site located between 19th
Street and Hamilton Street in the Medium Residential (M) zone at 10295 19th Street; APN:
1076-121-17 (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249). The
project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill
Development Projects.
Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee. The applicant, Matt Hamilton, was
present and no members of the public were in attendance. Both Committee Members provided
their concerns on the project and the applicant’s utilization of State Density Bonus Law, with
very limited questions for both staff and the applicant. Committee Member provided comments
on the lack of affordability in comparison to the number of waivers requested, parking issues,
lack of open space, the sidewalk being only on one side of the development, how the vehicular
gate can be allowed, if they need to have a public street, limited landscaping, and repetitive
design. Committee Member voiced concerns of the site being too small to accommodate 19
units, lack of parking, legality of waivers requested, limited enhancements to corner units, and
the need for a ratio of single- and two-story units. Committee Member also expressed that while
the design of an individual unit was sufficient, repeating the same design for the entirety of the
development was too monotonous. It was suggested that minimal changes be made to each
unit for some variety in window placement and other accent details. Also stated was increased
contrast in the two-color options would be better.
The applicant responded that they believed the cohesive design was a better option for this
size development and that he would consider the minor detail changes for each unit. The
Committee Members also agreed that there was a lack of amenities in the open space area
and asked if the developer would be providing any. The applicant responded that he has seen
with previous projects that the amenities would not be utilized and that residents would rather
be in their own backyards. The applicant also addressed the parking concerns by stating that
households with more than two cars would not be purchasing these homes and that the HOA
would uphold the requirement to park within the garages. The Committee Members expressed
that visitors would create a strain on the adjacent school and parking lot in addition to the
surrounding streets which allow for street parking. They also noted that the HOA could
technically be run solely by the residents, which could lead to them park illegally in the drive
aisle as there would not be enforcement.
Despite concerns with the project, it was recommended the item move forward to the full
Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval as proposed by the applicant due to
the nature of the project being a State Density Bonus Law application.
Recommended approval to PC. 2-0 Vote.
E. Adjournment
Principal Planner McPherson adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant