HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/06/22 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
June 22, 2005
Vice Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 9:50 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail, Pam
Stewart
ABSENT: Rich Macias
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James,
Senior Civil Engineer.
NEW BUSINESS
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01270 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC - A
request to develop 142 single family detached homes in a gated community on 20 acres of land
in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side
Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street - APN: 0209-092-04. Related Files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17382 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-01280.
Mr. Mark Thomas,William Lyons Homes, introduced the Development team members;John Young
and Staci Lin of Lewis Operation Companies, Denise Ashton, Planner and Architect for WM.
Hezmalhalch, and Rich Krumwiede,Architerra Design Group. Mr.Thomas gave an overview of the
Project and Ms. Ashton followed up with a detailed description on the evolution of the site design.
Brad Buller, gave a brief presentation on the issues staff would like to get feedback on which
included: Master Plan (Office—Residential Interface and Physical relationship), Mixed Residential
Concept, ascending density as a transition and buffer, internal circulation and open space
relationship.
Commissioner McNiel expressed a concern with visitor parking needs being above and beyond the
street parking being proposed. He asked to see a thorough parking analysis.
Commissioner Fletcher questioned the adequacy of a bermed landscape buffer as an adequate
transition between land uses. Mark Thomas indicated they are only proposing 15 feet on the
residential side and 20 feet with future office development. Commissioner Fletcher was more
concerned what the office users would be looking at than the residential portion of the project, and
that if the transition was adequately addressed it would have negative consequences on the office
area and he preferred the office area be built first.
Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Fletcher and indicated the project residential
component appeared too dense and the focus should be more on the office design. She
commented that the residential section has a row house appearance, which is not very attractive.
She said the design lacks a centerpiece, but appears to be heading in the right direction if the
buffer/interface is addressed and the appearance of overbuilding the site is handled.
Commissioner McPhail indicated a mixed-use transition is a good concept,but she shared the other
Commissioner's concerns with visitor parking, density, and the more generous use of open space.
She also requested more details on the side yards and the use of a courtyard design through the
use of decorative pavement edging, landscaping, and walls.
Brad Buller, City Planner asked the Commission to comment whether the use of 2 housing products
in the same housing development would be considered innovative for the purpose of using the City
Development Code Optional Standards.
Commissioner McNiel, with the concurrence of Commissioner McPhail, indicated that the use of 2
residential product types does not by itself meet the intent of the innovative product type design and
that creating for design excitement and a more sufficient buffer other than a tree strip is needed.
They also agreed the site is being over built.
All the Commissioners concurred that the project was not meeting the intent of the innovative
product provisions, and that integration of the office and residential products into a seamless
environment would be the desired means to achieve an innovative product.
Mr. Buller suggested the Commission agree to hold another workshop if the applicant wanted to
present further design concepts.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjoumed at 10:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,ice
Bra:Wer V
Secretary
Approved: June 27, 2005
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 22, 2005