Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/03/10 - Agenda Packet - Adjourned WEDNESDAY MARCH 10, 1993 8:00 P.M. PLANNING CO~ISSION WORKSHOP RANCHO CUC/kMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUC~ONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette Commissioner Melcher II. Introduction tII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT.. ~796 - b~iWtS DEVELOPMENT CQ.. - A residential subdivision 'and design review of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Density Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-32. IV. Adjournment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 1993 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Plannin~g Commission FROM: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ~..~ SUBJF_L'T: TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 - LEWIS DEVELQPM~NT CO. A residential subdivision and design review of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Residential designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-32. On March 2, 1993, the Design Review Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) considered the plans for the above-referenced project. During the discussion of the project, several issues arose to which no concensus could be reached by the Committee. Because no concensus could be reached, the Committee suggested that the project be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a workshop. The Committee felt that this approach would provide the applicant with the best direction for proceeding with the project. Because of the short notice for the Commission workshop, staff did not have an opportunity to prepare a staff report for the Commission's consideration. We have, however, enclosed the Design Review Committee comments prepared by staff for the project and will provide the Commission with an oral presentation at the workshop. The main issues raised by the Committee included: 1. The transition of density from the single family residential project to the east. 2. The trail width along the eastern edge of the project. 2. The architecture of the project. 3. Providing focal points/statements at the project entries. 4. The amount and configuration of the central open space area. Plans for the project were distributed with the previous Design Review Committee packets. If you need an additional set of the plans, please contact me. 6:10 - 7:00 Scott Murphy March 2, 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13796 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A residential subdivision and design review of 111 condominium units on 7.92 acres of land in the Medium Density Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 227-151-32. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to develop the remaining vacant parcel on the south side of Mountain View Drive between Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway. The parcel is bordered on the west by the Montecito Apartments (19.1 dwelling units per acre), on the east by the Rosecrest single family development (6.9 dwelling units per acre), and on the south by the East Greenway Trail. A trail connection is required along the east side of the project. Staff Comments: The following are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Ma~or Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussions regarding this project: 1. Variation should be provided in the 6-plex buildings to break the roof ridge line and the overall building symmetry. 2. Trail width - As previously mentioned, the Terra Vista Community Plan requires a trail connection (Type "D") along the east side of the project. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot wide trail which meets the minimum width required by the Community Plan. However, staff recommends the trail width be expanded for the following reasons: a. The existing development to the east was approved at a density one-half that of the proposed project. A wider trail will provide greater opportunity for landscape buffering/screening between the single family detached and multi-family units. Similar width trails offer limited opportunities for landscape placement to create a buffer or screen. b. The 15-foot wide trail creates a "tunnel effect" with walls and/or structures on both sides. c. Existing 15-foot wide trails within Terra Vista have not provided adequate space for trees and sidewalks. The Trails Advisory Committee has reviewed the ~lan and recommends a trail with an average width of 25 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. DRC COMMENTS TT 13796 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. March 2, 1993 Page 2 3. Streetscape setback - In reviewing the lines-of-sight for the two entries, the Engineering Division has expressed concern about visibility from the easterly driveway looking west. As can be seen on the site and landscape plans, the line-of-sight is located at the northern end of Building 20 and on the inside of the curb. As a result of this situation, use of shrubs and trees may be reduced. Depending on the final landscape design of this area, additional setbacks may be necessary to install sufficient landscaping to soften the buildings and create a more desirable streetscape. Secondary Issues: Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary issues: 1. With the proposal, the applicant is proposing to provide wrought iron fencing at entry courts and between buildings. If this approach is desired, why not gate the project entrance drives and remove the interior fencing? 2. The Building 2 placement should be re-evaluated to eliminate the driveways at the corner of the intersecting drive aisles. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Variation should be provided in the garage door designs. · Staff Reco~en~ation: Staff recommends that revised plans be submitted for additional Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Scott Murphy