HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/09/10 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
September 10, 1997
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel
ABSENT: William Bethel, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Michael Vairin, Steve Cameron, Terri Sacco, Fieldstone
Communities, Inc.; Bradley Hay, Hunsaker and Associates; Brett
French and Denise Ashton, David Evans and Associates
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-12 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES. INC. - The review of
conceptual subdivision mapping, site planning, and street scene elevations for a proposed 229-
lot single family residential subdivision (Tentative Tract 15814) on approximately 35 acres of
land in the Low Medium Residential Development District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located
at the southwest comer of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the meeting by introducing the development team to the Planning
Commissioners. He then bdefly explained the function and format of the Pre-Application Review
process.
Michael Vaidn, Fieldstone Communities, Inc., 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-100, Ontado,
provided a bdef orientation of the site and an explanation regarding the compatibility of the proposed
development with the existing neighborhood. He indicated a desire to utilize innovative development
standards for approximately one-half of the project site. Mr. Vaidn described how the "Home Fitting"
program will work and explained that all proposed units will be two-story.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, outlined concerns which staff felt the Planning Commission should
consider in their analysis of the project.
Mr. Bullet asked the applicant if they would be willing to pursue an option of providing front porches.
Mr. Vairin responded affirmatively.
Commissioner McNeil asked what type of variation is proposed in the front yard building setbacks.
Mr. Vaidn stated that there would be up to a 5-foot variation on either side of the average front yard
setback.
Commissioner McNeil recommended the applicant explore the idea of recessing the garages on
some units to provide a more vaded streetscape. He felt the project, as proposed, did not appear
innovative.
Commissioner Macias noted his concern with the project's street scene elevations and felt a greater
variation will be needed to provide a more interesting and less crowded appearance. He, too, felt
that the project could not yet be called "innovative," given the information available at the time of the
meeting.
Chairman Barker stated that, although the applicant has made an attempt at innovation, garages still
seem to be a dominant element along the streetscapes and a solution should be provided to address
this concern. He agreed with staff and suggested the repetitive grid pattern of the site plan be
modified and that the houses have useable front porches with a variety of rooflines and materials.
He felt that a stronger entry statement should be provided, especially along Rochester Avenue, and
that issues related to sound attenuation need to be addressed.
Mr. Vairin presented possible options, such as larger, fiat rear yards, as a means to achieve the
"innovative," smaller-lot concept proposed for the northern half of the site.
Commissioner McNeil reiterated that his most significant concern is the size of the building
separations and that something should be done to give a more "open" feel to the neighborhood.
Chairman Barker felt that the primary issue relates to visual streetscapes and will require a
resolution.
Mr. Bullet summarized the comments and issues of the Planning Commissioners and gave the
developer direction in the preparation of the submittal of a formal application. He also offered the
option of having another Pre-Application Review meeting with all five commissioners prior to the
formal submittal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- September 10, 1997