Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/10/22 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 22, 1997 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Michael Vairin, Steve Cameron, and Terri Sacco o Fieldstone Communities, Inc.; Bradley Hay - Hunsaker and Associates; Brett French - 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 corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 & 13. Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the meeting by summarizing the previous workshop and the purpose of the second meeting, which was to allow the development team to receive comments from a greater number of Commissioners relative to the revised conceptual plans. Michael Vairin, Fieldstone Communities, Inc., presented the revised plans for the project to the Planning Commission pointing out that the number of units had been reduced to 191 and highlighting the modifications that attempted to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the previous Pre-Application Review meeting. Mr. Vairin summarized the information contained in the table comparing the previous submittal with the new proposal, which he felt helps make the project be classified as "innovative." He explained in detail howthe proposed front courtyard concept would be administered. He noted that all front yard landscaping will be provided by the developer, addressing a previous concern of the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the developer for clarification about the proposed front courtyard/porch areas and what would be the minimum treatment in cases where the buyers did not either want or could not afford additional amenities within these areas. Mr. Vaidn stated that the minimum treatment would be concrete stepping stones or a pad area with a Iow wall or fence with pilasters. Mr. Bullet asked the minimum size of this area. Mr. Vairin responded that it would be a minimum 10 feet by 10 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what the perimeter wall treatment is proposed. Mr. Vaidn stated that the Victoria theme wall would be used along the project perimeters. Commissioner Tolstoy noted his concerns with calling the project "innovative" when a front-on garage was being utilized on every house within the project. Mr. Vairin highlighted the architectural exhibits from the previous meeting and explained how the garages were designed so that they do not dominate the streetscape. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, outlined staff's concerns with the revised plans that the Planning Commission should consider in their analysis of the project. Chairman Barker pointed out the lack of vehicle parking areas given the current design of the cul-de- sac streets, where curb cuts and driveways dominate the streetscape. Commissioner Bethel indicated he was looking forward to the formal development package and how the appearance of the landscape concepts, building elevations, and front porch areas work out. He stated that he was expecting even the basic design of the courtyard area to be something different from the normal front porch and something to give this project a cedain uniqueness. He noted his concern with traffic flow in the cul-de-sac areas where a large number of driveways are proposed in a relatively small area. He did not object to the unique interior design concepts involved with the "home fitting" program, but noted his concern with the relatively Iow ceiling heights proposed on most homes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any cross-lot drainage will be proposed for any portion of the site. Mr. Vairin responded that no cross-lot drainage is proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that another point of vehicular access may be needed for the project and asked if a different access plan that eliminates access to Highland Avenue could be pursued. Mr. Bullet recommended that this access not be eliminated given the constraints on the other street frontages. Chairman Barker recommended that another access be provided that serves for emergency purposes only. Commissioner Macias expressed his agreement with the previous comments of the other Commissioners relative to access and the limited amount of parking in the cul-de sacs. He was looking forward to a plan that will give a better feel of the typical street scene with the project. He also stressed the importance of sensitivity in the design of the courtyards and porches and expressed his desire for variation in the elevations and garage doors. Chairman Barker felt some of the pie-shaped Jots on the south side of the subdivision are awkward and should be redesigned in a way that would also allow for more parking on the cul-de-sac or knuckle areas. The Commission raised the question to staff regarding any policies on the number of houses that are served by one vehicular access point. Mr. Buller replied there is no written policy regarding that issue. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- October 22, 1997 Chairman Barker noted that ease of access (everyday and emergency) should be a primary concern in subdivision design. Commissioner Macias noted that drivers have a tendency to cut corners on knuckles and curves when driving and thought lessening the number of turns is desirable. Chairman Barker acknowledged that the revised plans address some of the previous concerns raised by the Commission and are substantially better then the plans seen at the original Pre- Application Review. 'ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~? B~ Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- October 22, 1997