Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/06/04 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 4, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:35 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: Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner. OTHERS PRESF~NT: Steve Kabel, R and K Homes, Inc.; Loren Smets, The Smets Architectural Group; Bill Humphrey and Mark Bertone, Madole Engineers. , , , , , PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 92-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - Review of the conceptual site planning for a 25 acre site located west of Vineyard Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the workshop by explaining the purpose of the Pre-Application review process and the history of its formation. He then outlined the presentation procedures for the applicant and Commission and presented a summary of the site history. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the proposed site plan and highlighted potential discussion topics for Commission consideration. Loren Smets, Smets Architectural Group, addressed staff's issues as outlined by Mr. Hayes. He shared the positive and negative aspects of alternative lot design approaches (zero lot line, Z lot, etc.) and commented that the proposed center plot, cluster approach made the most sense for this site. He indicated that the common open space areas were planned around existing healthy native tree areas and that the amount of common open space complies with the requirements for single family development in the Low Medium Residential Zone, where the proposed product type is normally found. Mr. Buller again summarized staff's concerns. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the project can be approved with private streets and single family lots, then the single product type plotted centrally on the lots was acceptable in this area. He asked if a 36-foot pavement width was a minimum width requirement. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that a 36-foot pavement width is required in order to allow vehicular parking on both sides of the street. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the visitor parking spaces on the cul-de- sac streets be deleted. He felt that the 35 percent common open space was not intended for this product type and 10 percent was acceptable in this situation. He liked the cul-de-sac street design and felt it was an outstanding approach to planning the site. He suggested that the southerly dogleg be at more of an angle, as the Arrow Route entrance appeared "squeezed." He also felt vehicular parking should be limited to one side of the vehicular spine street. Commissioner Chitiea felt the product type and cul-de-sac street design had merit, but the streets should be designed to meet the City's criteria for local public streets. She stressed that open space should be common open space equally accessible to all residents within the project. She favored the variation of lot shapes along the cul-de-sac streets and the barbecue pits in the common open space areas. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the streets could be private but he felt they should be designed to meet current local public street standards. He also liked the ' short cul-de-sac street design approach, creating small neighborhoods within a neighborhood, and the barbecues in common open space areas. He felt that the cul-de-sac streets need vehicular parking areas, the streets should meander to a greater extent and the Arrow Route entrance should be upgraded. He summarized by expressing his satisfaction with the site planning approach, in that he thought it was a good solution for a difficult property. Commissioner Vallette shared similar comments relative to her acceptance of the proposed product type, her concern that streets should be designed to local public street standards, and the needed enhancement of the Arrow entry. Overall, she felt the project had merit as proposed. Chairman McNiel expressed his concern with the view created by having a considerable number of garage doors in areas where homes are proposed to front onto the vehicular spine. He suggested that some units could become attached duplexes or zero lot line homes with shared driveways in these areas to break up the garage door repetition. He observed that a "T" intersection may work better in areas where tight radius curves are proposed. He agreed that the cul-de-sac street design was an acceptable design approach and liked the common open space design. Mr. Buller summarized the Commission's comments by observing that they supported the site planning approach if duplex or triplex unit plans for lots that front the main vehicular spine are incorporated and all streets are designed to meet local public street standards. He indicated the Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 4, 1992 Commissioners had mixed feelings about the common open space requirement but a variance could be processed to allow for the proposed reduction. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, summarized the history behind the revised multiple family development standards, stating that the common open space percentage requirement was based on the assumption that multiple family development would occur in the Medium Residential Zone. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that flexibility should be considered in this situation. Mr. Buller closed by stating the Commissions consensus for upgrading the Arrow Route vehicular entrance, undulating the central spine to a greater extent, and the overall acceptance of the cul-de-sac street/unit cluster approach. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet- Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 4, 1992