Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/07/23 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '-- Adjourned Meeting July 23, 1997 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:15 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: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-05 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The review of conceptual plans for the Village of Independence within the Terra Vista Planned Community, consisting of 541 dwelling units on 84 acres of land, located south of Base Line Road, west of Rochester Avenue, north of Church Street, and east of Terra Vista Parkway East and Mountain View Drive. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. Pat Loy, Lewis Homes, gave a presentation of the village concept. Ne provided a statistical analysis of the village concept compared to three multi-family projects within Terra Vista. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, commented upon the overall concept. He indicated that staff felt that the applicant was on the right track and appreciated the benefits of being able to plan for an entire village all at once as opposed to tracl-by-tract review. He stated that the overall concept was sound, particularly the four distinct neighborhood units arranged along a central circulation spine. He indicated that the major issue is the land use compatibility of the gas station. He explained that the concept plan proposes a local interior residential street across most of the common property line with the gas station and that only two lots would share a common property line. He noted that during the Commission's odginal deliberations regarding the station, there was great concern with buffering residences from this intense commercial use with its attendant traffic, noise, glare, and loitering. He noted that up to 50 feet of landscape buffer was discussed between the planned apartments and the gas station. He said that the buffer was not adequate in the village concept plans. He identified the following minor issues that staff felt could be addressed through the continued refinement of the village concept plans: 1. Site Plan/Circulation a. The central spine needs further study to address adequate sight lines on the inside of the curve. The west side of the spine should be upgraded to a Trail Type 'E' with a 6 foot sidewalk. b. The village common is surrounded by streets and has multiple intersections in close proximity which is a traffic safety concern. Also, staff suggested eliminating front-on lots on the street west of the village common to avoid drivers backing out of driveways onto the street near intersections. c. Plotting of units appears to be very uniform with a minimum 18 foot driveway. The intent was to create a variety of front yard shapes or varied setbacks. 2. Park - The park concept was last reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission in 1990. City requirements for certain park features have changed. For example, a 90 foot baseball field, full court basketball, and at least 25 parking spaces should be provided. Since this is the last park within Terra Vista, an analysis of park land dedication for the entire planned community is needed and adjustments to park acreage as necessary. 3. Architecture a. The elevations are not consistent with Lewis' stated intent "that each neighborhood area express its own unique character which could include a variety of architectural styles and scale." All of the houses appear to be the same architectural style. b. All of the houses are bulky 2 story with straight walls that may overwhelm the street. c. Eight out of the nine floor plans have the garage in the same location which is closest to the street. The garages will dominate the streetscene. d. Side and rear elevations need architectural treatment. In some cases there is no feature other than a small window or two on a side elevation to break up the straight 2 story walls. The plans should provide $60 degree architecture. 4. Development Standards - The proposed concept is consistent with the existing standards except for one product which is proposed with a $,000 square foot minimum lot area; whereas, the Terra Vista Community Plan currently requires a 3,500 square foot minimum lot area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the public community trail will be located. Mr. Coleman replied that the trail will continue around the perimeter of the village from the terminus of the Major Greenway Trail eastedy along Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street to Rochester Avenue. Commissioner Bethel asked what type of fencing would be ~rovided along the school and park boundary. Mr. Buller replied that 6 foot block walls are standard; however, in some cases a combination of Iow walls with wrought iron view fencing has been used near public parks. Mr. Loy indicated that Lewis is considering installing gates to provide direct access for each homeowner that backs up to the park. Commissioner Macias inquired about what po[icy exists regarding gated communities in terms of their function, location, and compatibility. Mr. Buller explained that in the past it was considered inappropriate for 10 acre in-fill sites surrounded by non-gated neighborhoods, but could be appropriate for larger sites. He stated that Terra Vista has one existing gated community at the corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road. Commissioner Tolstoy reminded the Commission that the City's General Plan encourages flexibility to allow different housing products. Commissioner Macias felt uncomfortable with the gated community concept. He expressed a desire for a sense of community. He felt that this gated community is a divisive land use mechanism. He asked when the park would be built. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- July 23, 1997 Mr. Bullet replied that the public park phasing would be tied to occupancy release of a certain, as yet to be determined, number of houses. .: . Commissioner Macias thought the park should be built in the first phase as a concession for gated community. He asked how the village construction will be phased. Mr. Loy indicated that no decisions have been made by Lewis regarding phasing; however, they will probably initially offer all four housing products. Commissioner Macias agreed with staff's concerns regarding the gas station land use compatibility and buffering. He stated that the architecture is not impressive. He said the elevations appear interchangeable, plain. He felt that the overall village impression is favorable. He indicated confidence that the same quality can be achieved without gating the community. Emie Gorrill, Lewis Homes, indicated that the elevations were French and Italian Mediterranean style. He stated that textural variations could be included to distinguish the products. Commissioner Bethel said that he agreed with staff's concerns regarding circulation conflicts around the village commons. He asked when it would be built? Mr. Loy replied that phasing had not been determined yet. Start Bell, Lewis Homes, indicated that it will probably be within first or second phase. Commissioner Bethel stated that the village commons had potential danger of children chasing balls rolling out onto streets. He felt that the gas station would hinder sales of nearby lots. He questioned how a gas station would be buffered. He observed that the streetscene would be nothing but garage doors. He was concerned about the separation of homes from the school and park. He said he liked the separate neighborhoods and different housing products. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that flexibility is important. He supported gating the community. He indicated that Rochester Avenue should be completed from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard with this development. He said he was opposed to a gas station with the concept as presented due to inadequate buffering. He stated that the public park should be built in the earliest phases and noted that the configuration may change to meet City's latest criteria. He felt that the product was good provided that the garage door issue is addressed. He suggested that side entry garages were a possibility. He stated that architectural treatment on all sides of the houses is extremely important because of proximity to neighbors' homes, even when not visible from the street. He saw the village concept as a great opportunity for an alternative to the apartments and condominiums that could be built on this site. He expressed concern with potential for Lewis Homes to attempt transferring this density somewhere else within Terra Vista. He questioned what the solution might be. He was pleased that the project does not include auto courts because he felt neighbors sharing a common driveway does not work. Chairman Barker indicated that it was mandatory that Lewis use all their design skills, particularly in the architecture, to address the Commission's concerns with the small lot product. He stated that he liked the village common as a good focal point, the entry statements, and the ability to comprehensibly plan this large of an area. He indicated that view fencing has not always been successful along public park edges, but that he suppods the idea, as well as the use of gates into each backyard. He said that he was not opposed to a gas station, but that the design must mitigate the compatibility and buffering issues. He felt that garage doors should not dominate the streetscene and encouraged the applicant to offer creative solutions. He expressed concern with small lot area and how units will fit. He indicated that attention should be paid to designing the streets so they don't appear as a parking lot. He recommended building the public park as early as possible. He said that the front yard landscaping concept is good. He suggested creative landscape designs, such as curvilinear entry walks and plant differences between lots. He recommended that the four PC Adjourned Minutes -3- July 23, 1997 products be distinct in their design, yet not clashing. He stated that trails should be useful and identifiable. He indicated that Lewis Homes has a good reputation as a propedY?.an~ger and he hoped theywould use that experience in setting up a homeowners association:' He stated that the village must be the highest standard of quality possible. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that one of the best features of this village is its large size. He said that he was not opposed to a gas station, but couldn't see how it will be buffered. He recommended that each product neighborhood should be noticeably different. He suggested entry signs. He recommended that porches be large enough to be functional. Commissioner Bethel stated he would prefer the village to appear as a single neighborhood. He explained the importance of providing architectural treatment around all sides of the homes. He stated he did not want to see any flat rear elevations. Mr. Loy requested Commission comments regarding the proposed lot sizes. Chairman Barker referred to a field trip of small lot projects that the Planning Commission took in Orange County. He said that he had not seen anything that sufficiently addressed the Commission's concems with small lots. He indicated that he was very concerned with small lot sizes. He stated that he would also be concerned with large homes being proposed on small lots. Mr. Bullet explained that only one half of the units would be on small lots. He asked the Commission if that was generally acceptable. The Commission agreed that it was. Commissioner Bethel asked how big the backyards are. Mr. Gorrill replied that they would be 15 feet deep across the full width of the lot. Commissioner Tolstoy recommended creative front yard design, such as curving entry walks, different porches, and different pop-out elements. The Commission agreed to another workshop as design evolves. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m.- The Planning Commission adjourned. Resp4~. ctfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- July 23, 1997