No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/10/15 - Agenda PacketI a C. m a m n z �c v n r a � 3 a rn � -t r a � z o z cn n c o v a 's N N O Z zi { �. CITY OF 1 l � 12A1 \CHO a:CAiVIOitY'u1 PLAiN'ITIl\G COvLNESSION t AGENTDA 1977 MiiNDAY, OCTrBER 1i, 1984 6:30 P.M. RANG::; CUCAMONGA NEIGH30RHOOD CENTER - ROOM #3 9791 ARROW HIGHWAr. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA REi.Eld OF TERRA VISTA AREA DEVELOPMENT STUDY MEETING OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this workshop is to obtain the full Planning Commission's input and guidance regarding the "Area Development Study" prepared by Lewis Homes for a portion of the Terra Vista master planned community. Follwing an oral presentation by staff, the Commission will discuss each of the topics listed below individually. Introductory comments and staff report 6:30 - 5:45 by Dan Coleman, Associate Planner I. Land Use /Density Transition 6:45 - 7:15 II. Housing Product Types 7:15 - 7:45 III. Community Trails 7:45 - 8:15 IV. Neighbonccod Concept 8:15 - 8:45 Adjourn. to October 24, 1984 regular Planning Commission meeting 8:45 L 11 1 E I . , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 1984 TO: Chairmen, Members of the Planning Cor,¢nission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner 8y: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNINS COMltISSFON IdORKSHOP - TEP.RA VISTA AREA PLANS The purpose of this workshop is to receive the Planning Commission's input on the , Area Development Study" submitted by Lewis Homes for a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Community. This report presents an analysis of this "area plan" regarding the following topics: I. Land 'Use /Density Transition II. Housing Product Types III. Community Trails IV. Neighborhood Concept The Area Development Study is intended to provide master planning of an area, and address the relationship of land uses, circulation and infra- structure. Therefore, this area plan process should ensure a harmonious relationship between existing and proposed uses, and to coordinate and promote the community improvement efforts of the developer and public resources. While the concept of a "planned community" implies master p' -wing beyond the boundaries of each individual tract development, it is not intended to dictate specific solutions. Rather, it should establish certain site plan relationships to implement the goals of the Terra Vista Community Plan. I Land Use /Density Transition Background The Terra Vista Land use plan, Figure 111-1 7, indicates four residential density categories providing a range of building intensities from 4 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre. Further, each C 11 Planning Commission October 15, 1984 Page 2 Workshop - Terra Vista Area Plans that allows flexibility to deal with various site constraints and opportunities. The imo lamentation of the Communit Plan re uires careful management of the enmity exibi ity to_avoi con acts etween The General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan encourage proper transition of density between adjacent land uses. Because of the density flexibility permitted by the Community Plan, conflicts may arise when sites are planned without sensitivity to compatibility with adjacent land uses. This is particularly true of the Medium Residential density category which has a 4 -14 (du /ac) range within Terra Vista. For example, Tract 12364, is a single family detached project planned ?t the bottom of the Medium density range - 4.83 (du /ac). Tract 12402, shares a common boundary vith Tract 12364 and is planned at 19.2 (du /ac). 11 other words, tract 12364 was planned at a Low - Medium density adjacent to a Medium -High density project. Tract 12364 should have been planned as an attached product at the upper end of the Medium density range for proper transition of density and compatibility with the 2 -story apartments. A good example of adequate transition or gradation of density is along the east side of Deer Creek Channel, where densities range from 4.33 dwelling units per acre along Baseline to 9 -11 dwelling units per acre along Church. However, there are several areas where proposed densities may conflict, as shown on Exhibit "A ". A detailed analysis of each of these areas will be presented at the workshop. During the adoption of the City's new Development Code, all areas indicated on the General Plan as Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) were redesignated Low - Medium (4 -8 dulac) or Medium (8 -14 du /ac) to eliminate the former broad density range that had created land use compatibility conflicts. Nine out of the twelve Medium Residential (4 -10 du /ac) category areas within Neighborhood 1, have been effectiyRly redesignated to Low - Medium (4 -8 du /ac) to build at a lower density in response to market demand for single family housing. { within the total area included in the area plan, nine out of fourteen Medium Residential sites are proposed to be used as Low- Medium, and four are proposed for Medium -High Residential, as shown in Exhibit °B". In some instances, this has created land %ise compatiblity conflicts. Issues: 1. Does the area plan provide proper transition of density between land uses? C Planning Commission October 15, 1984 Page 3 Workshop - Terra Vista Area Plans 2. Should the Planned Community text allow for adjustments of the land uses (LM, M, M.H, H)? 3. Should the Planned Community text be amended to change Medium Residential density range from 4 -14 dwellings per acre to 8 -14 dwellings per acre and adjust the land use plan accordingly? II. Housing Product Types MimBackground: The City's General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan. s encourage the full range of housing types serving all income groups. in Terra Vista, this goal is: "reflected in the neighborhood units, where provision has been made for housing densities ranging from Low - Medium to high density. Physically, this translates into bu" din types ranging from singe -famin t rau n i h- ens t my ti- �ami1 v housir.•. with the full range of opportunities or Each neighborhood then, was intended to feature a full range of housing types and densities. The density ranges and probable housing types are given in table III -1. Each density range category permits a variety of housing types pursuant to the Community Plan regulations. These probable housing types may change due to market demand or new technologies and merely indicate the major types of housing. To further illustrate the relationship of density to housing type, Exhibit "C ", presents graphic examples of the major housing product types and their relative densities. The proposed area plan and previously approved projects utilize the flexibility of the Community Plan to redesignate a site one land use (density) category up or down. The attached Exhibit "8" indicates areas that have redesignated to the next higher density range. Based upon the approved or proposed densitites indicated on the area plan, also indicated are Medium (4 -14 du /ac) areas effectivly being developed as Low - Mediums (4 -8 dulac) residential. The application of this flexibility has not resulted in the availability of the full range of housi!eg types but rather, the "ends of the E Planning Commission October 15, 1984 Page 4 Workshop - Terra Vista Area Plans spectrum" (e.g. - single family detached or multi - family apartments). This is particularly true in the Medium Residential category, as previously discussed. During review of Victoria Groves, the Commission recommended that the Medium Residential Category be used to provide more variety in product types, including duplex, triplex, fourplex, patio homes, mobile homes, etc. To address this concern, the plan introduces some new product types, such as the Village Green series (9 -11 du /ac) single family attached /detached and rental townhouses (16 -19 du /ac). A summary of the product types proposed or under construction is attached for your consideration. Issues: 1. To what extent should the Area Plan be adhered to providing a full range of housing product types and densities? 2. Does the area plan meet the intent of the Planned Community text and General Plan in providing adequate variety of housing types and densities serving all income groups? III. Co=iunity Trails Background: The Terra Vista Trail Plan, Figure IV -23, illustrates various ccmunity trails which are designed to link neighborhoods to open spacedrecreational amenities, schools and commercial areas. A major grees-way spine traverses Terra Vista from northeast to southwest, providing a "park -like" environment for pedestrians and bicyclists with minimal exposure to vehicular traffic. Secondary greenway trails extend out from the major spine into all parts of Terra Vista. As in Victoria, these second%iry greLnways may be "passeos" (separated frem traffic) or expanded parkways i itiguous to the street system. Detailed cross sections indicating trail widths and design features are provided in the Community Plan and have been attached for your consideration. Tne area plan appears consistent with the Terra Vista trail system plan, except for providing a "passeo" trail connection from Terra Vista Parkway (Junior High School site) to the trail bridge across Deer Creek Channel, as shown in Exhibit "O". However, during review of Victoria Groves, the Commission's direction is that greenways adjacent to streets were in conflict with the intent of the Community Plan to provide 11 Planning Commission October 15, 1984 Page 5 Workshop - Terra Vista Area Plans greenways as a transition between land uses. Further, the Commission also indicated that side -on cul -de -sacs adjacent to the trails is the preferred design solution, as shown in Exhibit "E ". This occurs very little within the planning area. The Commission indicated that where greenways are adjacent to streets, they must be substantial in width. The Terra Vista Community Plan indicates that when trails adjoin streets, six feet of landscaping is added on the outside of the sidewalk. The sidewalk width is increased from four to six feet to acconodate bicycles and pedestrians. Issues - 1. Is the proposed area plan consistent with the intent of the Planned Community text in tens of trail location? 2. Should trails be located in other areas (e.g. - between land uses, contiguous to graded areas)? 3. Does the area plan provide the proper relationship between the dwelling units and trails (e.g. - rear -on versus side -on)? 4. If the trails are located contiguous to the street system, are the Design Standards in the Planned Community text adequate in terms of: a. Minimum trail width. b. Amenities (e. - sidewalks, bike paths, lighting, seating, etc. IY. meighborhood Concept Background: The Terre Vista Planned Community was conceived as 'a series of planned, interrelated neighborhoods, linked together by common recreational and institutional functions. The greenway system is both the focus of and the division between individual neighborhoods." These four neighborhoods are identified in Figure III -8. The proposed area plan includes portions of two neighborhoods. The neighborhoods share common characteristics, while other characteristics are unique to each neighborhood. These unique characteristics "give each neighborhood its distinct identity within the Conn.-Unity (and) are also essential to the L11 E p Planning Commission October 15, 19814 Page 6 Workshop - Terra Vista Area Plans concept". These characteristics include residential density emphasis, non - residential uses, and landscaping treatment, as illustrated below: .. 8a Lim Re- J w 'd HIGHER DENSITY Ida" Ps� NEIGHBORHOODS FIGURE 11K High,I,OW,iiy Neighbo hmIft Nan FeoThM Boulevard and LowerDemiry N ighyaAgod: Nan Bas Line ROW NEtGHBORS006 5 FIGURE IIIQ Four Neighoorhooa, DefinW by Gnl i. 0 and Major Al M.Sk Neighborhood identity can also be created through design features and marketing techniques, such as architectural theme, perimeter fencing and street furniture, neighborhood village name (e.g. "Victoria Windrows "). Landscaping is a major factor in establishing neighborhood character. Each neighborhood was intended to be distinguished by a neighborhood theme tree on each neighborhood collector road and, in visible greenway areas, as shown in Figure IV -1. This concept is being implemented through the Terra Vista landscape supplement. The supplement also contains details for perimeter walls and fencing, street furnitkure and signing. Architecturally, the projects under construction or proposed, represent a blend of architectural styles, such as, traditional, Spanish, New England, and Victorian. The Terra Vista Community plan does not discuss the architectural character or theme of each neighborhood. Practically, it would be difficult to establish a design theme for such a large area with potentially diverse product types. The developer would prefer to consider Terra Vista as a neighborhood unit in itself, and has established a marketing /advertising approach on this premise. Therefore, neighborhoods are not distinguished individually by name (ie - Victoria Windrows); rather each tract has a marketing name (ie - Las Flores). L E Planning Commission Workshop - Terra Vista: Area Plans October 15, 1984 Page 7 Issues: 1. Does the area plan create a sense of neighborhood identity and adequately distinguish the character of the individual neighborhoods? 2. What are the design features which could improve the unique and distinct character of each neighborhood? f Area Oevelopment Study Figure III -17 - Land Use Plan Table III -I - Density /Housing Types Figure IV -23 - Trail System Figure IV -22 - Trail Types A & B Figure IV -33 - Trail Types C,D, and E Figure III -8 - Neighborhoods Figure IV -1 - Landscape Plan List of Product Types Exhibit "A" - Land Use Conflicts Exhibit "B" - Land Use Redesignations Exhibit "C" - Housing Types Exhibit "O" - Trail System Exhibit "E" - Trail Sketch E P ti .DPI sti c, 137am mm AREA DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA DEVElOQl10 eNT STUDY LIMED AREA DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA DEVElOQl10 eNT STUDY Ll 11 w J C3 Q F L a) C 0 d v C d L d s a m ^1 L L � C V ro �C L 0 L ay L c m � t E =� o = V Ln y V Z N LU �a F F �o Z Z wN G= J Q 1 F Z Z w Q a w C VI tf i I C T U C a >. 3: O -, N N I . >. Q a7 •• C .a yl _ O O m c1' C-L V 0 « O Tv TaoE a N L v 9N o CLM U L C J C) - ri M t y O w a y O T LL os= oU c�• - =v;�o «. w m O ° E ° C t u E mF U V U V CJ N C C L - J r C C) « E O m C L' O 3 O m C C) O ro C 0-0 0. in0Q ) OQ =QU I-- Q7 E QU 00 a7 C7 a m� 7 C ro m� m E � L U O i M1 L '" r m Q C m c C3 o T u T aCi C L w 'O c C- C) m a7 C m m E L o T C C) T L1. m s V In N m m. L m� M N= 1« a a1 m m O- >mm ro c V N - C = oom° cd o > N O C m G � aL.aa V L.a « 0 C ma C) L >'`� E .+ V C•� 'C a T �F- 7 In L C ° n m y o z -0 "U — o C°t°Iam�La1 m o «L c y � ° d N — > >ca iTm m U J «O a) C ,9 �� L SS VI tf i I C T U C a >. 3: O -, N N I . >. Q a7 •• C .a yl _ O O m c1' C-L V 0 « O O C a 73 E 0 U L C J C) - _ p t y O w a y O V "O' p «. w m O t O L C) L 00 C C r d ro �+ 0 mC 0 ayd «•.. .N+ o `a v Sc F a7 C7 a m� 7 C ro m� m E 1 y O i M1 L '" C m c C3 o T u T aCi w 'O c C- C) m a7 C m m E L o T C L°> « O V In m m. L m� L N= 1« a a1 m m O- >mm ro c V N - c>.Ln n oom° cd o > E a.= m aL.aa V L.a « 0 C ma C) L >'`� ca .+ V C•� L « c v c °—°v �F- 7 In L C ° n m y i7 ° 0 3 -0 "U — o C°t°Iam�La1 «L c N — > >ca iTm m O .M W1.-«ro «O a) C ,9 L of O m=- d C y O m'. E y V V y^ ` C aN V •L9 C In Ln 0 7 r 7 i V) m v$ m v o i 01 T m 0 °+ CL o m «.0 ai o ._ Vd m oyEd E - I:. Qa o °L� «= da7 C+� °CCC rd cw r�°Om dV a v V dC CU .�-+ r a7 - V L•aU me a) a;— y C1 7 o co -a i In N o vl my y E In C. 0 d � oTa cC �� " c �o m 3 ate; c r_ � d oLrn E L eu L `9 0 L aa)i j ro C = O C u_ ro mW0Lmoc U >s, Cm > m�ta?tEcco3C EL CL 0. V13v «a1 « «O «� -c— Qm o 0 0 • N 11 El W m V I Z� O O m Y ¢ Q tt i7 =�QZ O RL J I O C zm -RiI O mms m Q Ul W pc F -c ZWn0 Q ct C5 p F !LZ aO O=z CiC7G U F- m M {O W � ill Cr{- _ cc j M C m Z� O O Y O O I O C Un O 6 A OO wwm V d C O C O Q1 C � � U G 1 W � ill W _ cc j M C m �J�% � V m wI Q V W N N m 3 ; c m % W �� q t 0 = O I O C Un d � O r N O {L wwm V d C O C O Q1 O O � U G 1 W � ill W _ cc 1 O �J�% � V m wI ` - W C 3 ; c V Y % W 0 aji Q m C. } F F A a 0 :I I T R 3 a m 0 _ Y m U m 'O Q 07 m O. T / F .W F- ca a Q m G T F r n 3 LLA H J 1 2 � � m C7 - � H C E I >.cJ i w N C7 -m- >.E >.N I a �' L y v. o .... mON =Y «.0 =' m -a7m- mo_t ^:.a muo0 O. y'D `O �. 3F N« C N C 3 E L C-0 o E m 'C.. L? t mnn o o`'`om�a) a), �WCL �EO> m�ON N >` N N m Q N C) U m« m 0 CM E O L C .- m C .i: 0 L O � m r- o 'p m Y v) Ln , 1 m� O m - "O' 0 � •�+ 3 L�� T C-) w i c m u Ct� of CL) 3 -== y m y Cw Cwt D1� L a, Q - �i Q.+ Q,a Y •- 3 m 3 L m C C O N— C. i V « a� L da a� m� ° 7 . m 3 N3 c N o c) QN Ns i CY m F rn U cCp > 'O U L CL voi N ° w _C v a 7 al m � o a i U m > O r v .m+ C C o N N p L a U N C C y L O a= N C7 N— Y m D m N> w .T. O C p C "a a� S 0 C m m "' "O v _ Y O d t y C O o t- p N CL __ >« C m y U m m M > 7 C L N >dL« a -"L c ccn „E� -o m O C) a O i N E t- OL N— co U T O w L. m d L C 3 N L« C « m m a m C m 3 °; E i« O E l m o T m t m E >. N a) .°.+ m C m L L 'D m m- C O N N C m m �.' {- ..L+ U �+C7 m O. Ly 7L.m..mm mi.J ym m =CL Nm y U C 3 0 O 0 �' c E .0 N .. tm CL L y a -a V Q. 7 �, N C Y L LO, « .O « d E F m ac7 C 0 C L y° m L C 01 ej N C m y u m m O L m m m m rnym o C a L a� fn aii� « 7 p,� E m L m - 3 N Y a— Y« > o p C' 0 = m o c 3 o N m N i C X- N y iC C �p �"� m C/ - �.- m C �+ U 3 �6S aci o .. L m >-o d �= m y s -uti C u =u,L- i rocc- mV- �2�oaC>i��Q i3 ayLcyo W� '^� t7 E o m d ym0 m s. �t -�_ u 33pa -'•-� ._ I� Yap v�uL o oE- Lim3LC�uLOC «wi° °Lai pa�'^mr� °(n ® in 0 N L L t o> c m u> G'O a1 C m a¢ o d ?) C- O -_ p° tLd ¢T3:«, F F- acr gtmmF - my -0-0 3.0 mca'iQ> y F=- �stli- cuEC�v a �^J L 'y7 o c 0 L 0 M a C N v C _ 0 C �Y U � 0. = Y C L O Q V a .m. c _ o ac o u cad w a ®c« G L � f E iD i L 0 m % W = C C O Q T M e w v V' '^ O O `m m V .0 iD I M bm L CI L L Q T m�� oN M m�N -4 e d en of ? d aE - M m % W = C C O Q M e O C ` L L(4.t{ N �f `m m V .0 011 q T m � tJJ s c3 G m a U R = C ti OI 0 e (BIa r L(4.t{ ciI c `m m V .0 iD I WI bm L CI L L Q T H 4 F m�N e en 011 q T m � tJJ s c3 G m a U R N am a a a co C1 v C9 N m a r ti OI 0 e o r n ciI c `m m V m � ' �J Q T H 4 F N am a a a co C1 v C9 N m a r F- .16: Z Z J } O Q < u. Z [L uj � wuCa �' y'n Z >��0 4 d Z LLA U. � �� wm C u�J O F UJ zE) �~ ZQ O �> 1 n S } 1.• S Q o `tw Us m az Qcn � �? Q i C-71 to Q �_ O CC z o CL i F Z Z Z o _� �Q o �Z ai wS w O O j O` O O© z� iS- ri a a ur a 0Q JO .s U� U nn�I 7 to v� I °o� S We • � a m g I s�•°•••••e•o••+ i ss• •••••+eo°+•4 !�i••••� IF LLI ri �t • I �,�0 ce 7 • � .Iw = I A fi • >q • O 6'I• wa' �� r O « us aontojai uj s • o • v) • • • •p Z uj Lu�,. � � Q � 1 F uj ' � iii e'�•• _ `� \.. • ! CD •Ao •u Q cj: vl Z • • cn 4) J `* �a O O y %Qu q7 ; LID U; N til Z' •1 � - o • 1�� > �1 '- L iERRA VISTA PROD;lcT TYPE NORTHI EST QUAMANT Oxford Series Village Series (detached) TOTALS 245 Mu1t�i iy Adult Series Family Series Executive Series Seniors Series M lage Series (attached) 'Townhouse Series (rentals) TOTALS Possible Duplex /Triplex Series Fourplex Series GRAND TOTAL (est- ia7 9:9 147 = 1311 152 (est.) Selling Under Const• (est.) 718 or Sald Or Mapped Planned S'nal_ e� Family_ (est.) 160 6000 Series 72 73 138 480 5000 Series 100 301 4000 Series Oxford Series Village Series (detached) TOTALS 245 Mu1t�i iy Adult Series Family Series Executive Series Seniors Series M lage Series (attached) 'Townhouse Series (rentals) TOTALS Possible Duplex /Triplex Series Fourplex Series GRAND TOTAL (est- ia7 9:9 147 = 1311 152 (est.) 250 272 (est.) 718 128 (est.) 128 170 (est.) 160 ___ (est.) 292 ?22 1628 = Z_3S2 This tabulation is an estimate only and is intended only as a generai overview cf approximate unit generation. AREA PLA ING MAP SKS:jgc (10/4/84) 3661 - r Land use statistics re Terra Vista Area Development Plan km: 10/4/84 For the "area" shown_ on our Area Development Plan, the Terra Vista Commumity Plan showed the following densities and assumed dwelling unit counts. The dwelling units counts (from Figure VI -2 of the Community Plan) were derived for general planning purposes and simply represent the midpoint of -the density range for the indicated land use. Land Use Dwelling Unit Count LM 4 parcels totalling 597 DU M 8 parcels totalling 1,551 DU Mg 3 parcels totalling 1,009 DU 15 3,157 DU To convert these land use counts into product types, the "M" units have to be assigned to various product types since this density range encompasses several possible types of dwellings. Exactly this type of computation had to be made in the Community Plan, and it appears in Table VI -1. Tte Community Plan assumed that in the M density range, 3/8 of the units would be single family detached, 4/8 would be attached, and 1/8 would be multifamily. This yields the following: Portion of D'J Count Total M Units Product Type by Product 3/8 Detached, total 582 4/8 Attached, to t:a1 775 1/8 Multifamily 194 1,551 Putting these two calculations together, the Community Plan assumed the following distribution of product types in the "area" covered by our Area Development Plan: conmimity Plan Assumed Product Type Distribution Land Use Attached Multifamily Total im _Detached 597 597 M 582 775 194 1,551 MS 1,009 11009 1,179 775 1,203 3,157 For the northwest "neichborhood" of Terra Vista, as shown on Figure III -8 of the Community Plan, the corresponding figures are as follows. Community Plan Assumed Product Type Distribution Land Use Detached 'Attached Multifamily Total LM 658 658 M 612 815 204 1,631 361 361 MH 1,270 815 565 2,650 u To assign the various products indicated on our Area Development Plan to these categories requires some thought, because some unusual types of dwellings are involved. We believe the appropriate breakdown for the "area" is as follows: 1. Detached would include all the units indicated in the 4000, 5000, and 6000 Series homes, totalling 991 units. 2. Attached would include the Village Green series attached townhomes (372 units) : the Village Green units which may be detached but are of the same character and impact as the attached units (147 units); and the senior housing (330 units) , which is a special case and which will affect the neighborhood much less than other multifamily or attached projects; for a total of 849 units. Perhaps the tern "transitional" would be a better label for this category, since these various types of homes, whether actually "attached" or not, are all in a middle ground between conventional single family and conventional multifamily, and will provide good transitions as well as variety. 3. Multifamily would include the ::nits so identified, totalling 1,648 units. Using the same breakdown, the corresponding figures for the "neighborhood" are 1,375 detached, 687 attached /transitional, and 680 multifamily units. These figures include some units shown on the Area Development Plan, some projects submitted separately or already under construction, and an assumed midrange density in one location where no plans have been developed yet (southeast corner Base Line and Haven). The attached sheet compares our plans with the assumptions used in the Community Plan. 0 1A 4 'J 11 Comparison of proposed development with Community Plan assumptions_ 1. For the "area" shown on the Area Develonment Plan: Comnnniity Plan assumed 1,179 DU Detached 775 DU Attached 1,203 DU Multifamily 3,157 DU 687 Proposed development 991 DU Detached 849 DU Att./trans- 1,648 DU Mult.Lfamily 3,488 DU 687 As indicated, the overall total number of units for this area is up about 10% from the Community Plan assumptions. This is mainly due to inclusion of the senior housing project and the increased density associated with it (which accounts for 232 of the 331 -unit difference). within this total, the slight shift toward the upper density ranaPs is partly in response to staff requests to deemphasize single fWaily detached and partly because this area happens to include locations which adjoin future downtown commercial and office development. 2. For the "neighborhood" as shown in Figu_ -e IIZ -8 of tie Crsmmuiity Plan: Community Plan assumed Proposed devel_c-ient 1,270 DU Detached 1,375 DU Detacr.'d 815 DU Attached 687 DU Att. /trans. 565 DU Multifamily 680 DU Multifamily 2,650 DU 2,742 DU For the neighborhood as a whole, the total number of nits varies only 3% from the Community Plan planning assumptions, and the distribution of product types closely parallels the Coamanity Plan parameters. C.� r i_EV�lS HOMES 1156 Nol?h Mountar+ ^ enum / P.C. Box 670 / UPS. CA 99766 / 714 M0971 October 5, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9340 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Tim Seedle Subject: Terra Vista Area Development Map Dear Mr. 8eedle: OCT t o 1234 AZ J F71i Regarding the northwest quadrant of Terra Vista and our map submitted to your office October 4, 1984, the following is an approximate comparison with the Terra Vista community plan text. 1. Comparison of Map with the Ma Map As Submitted 10/4/84 S.F_D. 1138 Units ATT_ 702 Units MF.* 1648 Units ing Area of TVCP as Su TVCP 1179 Units 775 Units 1203 Units PROJECTED TOTAL -3488 Units 3157 Units *Note: the submitted map assumes densities not yet finalized. 2. Comparison m Map As Submitted 10/4/84 S.F.D. 680 Uni� " ATT. 687 Units MF. 1375 U 1-s PROJECTED TOTAL - 2: 'z , - TVCP 565 Units 815 Units 1270 Units 2650 Units 9 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department October 5, l984 Page 2 In Comparison No. 1, the 10/4/84 map, as submitted, contains portions of two neighborhoods and this is simply a comparison of the total units of each type between the TVCP and the 10/4,/84 map. in Comparison No. 2, the portion of the 10/4184 map in the first neighborhood (see Fig. III -8) is compared to the TVCP for that same portion. You will note that although the number of units of each type, and the total number of units vary, the map of 10/4/84 compares quite favorably with the pro- jections of the Terra Vista community plan. As you can see, the largest vari- ance is in the multi - family category. This s due, in a large part, to the schematic nature of our planning in these MH areas through 10/4/84. If you have any questions regarding these areas, please call either Kay Matlock or myself at (714) 985 -0971. Sincerely, LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA STAN BELL /AIA SKB:jgc cc: Kay Matlock John Melcher E - i i u u • r4i��i RV. (Fly OY (ANOW Mr•YI���A•�N rl�t JrH D e A- M4 E .89 Wes' AREA DEVELOPMEtdT STUDY r E V j� s OF T6- IMA - �17' �Cl�' �n use�t�� CITY OF RP Ni�CHO CUG LMONGA : Z-1 rA jxj., 1 NG D[i�EM Eac UNT SCALE: '° pa OR E N 8 O �m 8- �C 0 OVA n m N ON I i- Iwo A� C c� J FA7& 1 ow M � a J ' )1 . 1 i ~R 1 ;[Tl ' � 1 i � N • 1 .. � '� 1, A 1 V' j • C 0 r, L J �I',51NG �IhIL�� ilk 5EccfJPA? -r "fly -A(t_ AREA DEVELOPMENT STUDY Owl mil- ,. � � _. _ . ' _' I'' 1 ��... `- a I,_ y J,J ,r,- 'F K \ J �. 1 t { * 1. `' J � p�1, �` Y .; � '��, , , 4 , �