Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/12/09 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 5:30 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 COMMISSIONER: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Steven Ross, Assistant Planner PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 92-07 RITTENHOUSE - Review of conceptual site planning for a 3-acre site located on the north side of Base Line Road at the western City limit. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the meeting by explaining the purpose of the pre-application review process. He outlined the presentation procedures for the applicant and Commission and then presented a summary of the site history. Ralph Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse Realtors, Builders, & Developers, began his presentation by discussing the merits of the small lot detached condominium product. He stated that it is preferred by most new home buyers and would be a benefit to the City. He went on to describe the site plan and the proposed floor plans and architecture. Steven Ross, Assistant Planner, began with a brief description of the site context and design of the approved project. He then outlined the major issues related to the proposal. These issues included whether detached units were appropriate for the site, and if so, whether a zone change from Medium to Low- Medium should be pursued. He stated that the project would require major revisions and a reduction in the number of units in order to comply with the Medium Residential District's Optional Development Standards. He noted the project's most significant deficiencies related to open space, recreation area/facility, and building setbacks and separations. Commissioner Vallette asked Mr. Rittenhouse what the proposed square footage of the units would be. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that the size would range from 1,700 to 2,000 square feet. Commissioner Vallette stated that she felt that the homes may be too large considering the smaller lot size. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Rittenhouse what the typical "lot" size would be. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that the "lot" size would be 4,000 to 5,000 square feet and, as a condominium project, each homeowner would own approximately 1/27 of the entire project area. Commissioner Melcher stated that the proposal is similar in concept to several others which have recently come before the Commission for pre-application review. He agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse that detached homes with small private yards are a very popular housing product and constituted a more affordable housing solution because of the reduced Homeowner's Association dues, whereas attached projects are less preferred because of the requisite common walls, reduced private open space, and higher dues required to maintain larger common open space features. He stated that the Commission may want to consider revising the standards of the Development Code to make it easier to build this type of project in the Medium Residential District. Chairman McNiel stated the proposed project was similar in concept to the one at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue where Commissioner Melcher lives. He felt that the units in that project were too close together. He also compared the proposal to an older part of the Victoria Planned Community, where small, single family homes are plotted on small lots. He stated he likes the Victoria project but said that this proposal differed from it because these would be larger, two-story units, which would look like "row housing" which the Commission has spoken out against. He did not feel that the project would be an asset to the City because there would be a reduced landscape setback along Base Line Road at the entrance to the City compared to the approved project. Commission Vallette said she liked the interior streetscape and preferred the proposed architecture to that of the approved project. She suggested that a single story plan be introduced and that the square footage of the units be reduced due to the small size of the lots. Commissioner Tolstoy said that he was not opposed to the product type, but he felt that this site was crowded and required more common open space and amenities. He felt it would be a poor choice to have at the entry to the City. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy and Chairman McNiel about the desirability of the detached, single family units, but she also agreed that the project lacked adequate open space and had a poor entry and streetscape. She stated that the project needed more area to spread the required amenities around. She also made the comment that a greater streetscape setback was needed due to the project's location as an entry to the City. in addition, Commissioner Chitiea stated that the architectural concept was acceptable, but she concluded that she was not comfortable approving the project as it was currently proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 9, 1992 Mr. Buller summarized the Commission's concerns, and asked the Commissioners if they had any additional questions or comments. Commissioner Melcher asked what the Low-Medium Residential development standards would require and if a 5-acre minimum site area would still be required. Mr. Buller referred to a chart exhibiting the differences in the development standards and stated that 5 acres would still be required and that the Commission would have to make the interpretation that master planning the 5-acre site would be sufficient to constitute the 5-acre minimum site area required to develop under the Optional Development Standards. Commissioner Tolstoy reminded the Commission that there is a reason for having the 5-acre minimum requirement. Commissioner Melcher asked why two points of access were not provided. Brad Buller responded that the proposal shows the same emergency measures that the approved project has, including a circular emergency access loop through the site and fire sprinklers in each unit. He stated that it was determined by staff that only one access point was necessary because of the small number of units being served by the driveway off Base Line Road. Chairman McNiel felt that it was not necessary to revise the City's development standards. He stated that he was opposed to a small lot development at the City's western entrance and preferred that the development of the site be similar to that to the west. In addition, he stated that he had little faith in the maintenance of small lot subdivisions over time. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Commission has been asked before how to deal with small lot subdivisions in the Medium Residential District. He again suggested there should be new or revised standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City had spent a lot of time creating the development standards that are in place. Chairman McNiel added that the City's standards have been tested over time and he felt that the result has been very good. Mr. Rittenhouse interjected that his proposal was not a small lot subdivision, but a condominium project, where all property owners would own a percentage of the entire project. He added that the maintenance of all common areas would be paid for by Homeowner°s Association dues. He also said that the building setback from Base Line Road was the same as that of the previously approved project. Mr. Buller checked the streetscape and noted that the proposed detached homes were set at least 10 feet closer to the street than the approved project. It was also noted that the perimeter wall had approximately a 20-foot setback from the curb. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 9, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked Chairman McNiel if he liked the approved project more than what was proposed. Chairman McNiel responded that he did. Mr. Buller concluded the meeting by summarizing the Commission's concerns and stating that a Development District Amendment and a General Plan Amendment must be submitted if the applicant wished to continue with the proposal. In addition, he cautioned the applicant that although a majority of the Commissioners preferred detached housing, they were not in favor of the project as proposed because of the reduced setbacks within the project and along Base Line Road, the reduced amount of common open space, and the lack of recreational amenities. He encouraged the applicant to work with staff in order to design a project more acceptable to the Commission. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 9, 1992