Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/03/19 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 19, 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, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Nanette Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner. OWNER/DEVELOPER PRESENT: Don Thompson, Jary Cockroft, George Chu, Ernie Parilla; Lewis Homes , , , , PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW 92-01 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753~ - LEWIS HOMES - Review of conceptual site planning and housing product within a recorded subdivision within the Victoria Planned Community. Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the workshop by explaining the purpose of the new pre-application review process ~nd the history of its formation. He then outlined the presentation procedures for the applicant and Commission. Don Thompson,. Lewis Homes, stressed the importance of expediting the processing of this project if Lewis purchases the recorded tract from the bank. He asked the Commissioners to consider waiving design review of the housing type previously constructed in Lewis' Rosecrest project in order to concentrate on the unit plotting and the one-story unit design at the future Design Review Committee meetings. He felt the depth of these recorded lots and the introduction of the one-story plan will help in giving this project a more open feeling than that created in Rosecrest. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, stated that the Rosecrest product is selling relatively well in the current economy. He indicated that one of the two- story house designs used in Rosecrest was eliminated for the project and replaced with a one-story model, per staff's direction. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the proposal and highlighted potential issues/discussion topics for Commission consideration. Chairman McNiel felt that the unit mix along the south side of Candela Drive should be modified to produce a more open streetscape appearance and additional side yard setbacks should be provided to allow for recreational vehicle storage access to side and rear yards. He liked the introduction of the single story plan but did not feel circumventing the design review process relative to its review was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern for the minimal side yard setbacks between units. He felt that the entire project should be closely scrutinized at Design Review as ideas about development mature. He also indicated that single story units should be plotted on the corner lots closest to the two vehicular entrances to the project. Commissioner Melcher shared similar concerns as the other Commissioners relative to the plotting of the one-story plan. He felt that the lower profiles of the one-story plan will reduce the crowded streetscape appearance and side yard tunnels created by minimal separations between adjacent two- story units. He agreed that the one-story plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. He commended the applicant on the houses built in their Rosecrest tract and the high percentage of one-story models proposed within the new project. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the one-story plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. She felt that all lots should be plotted to comply with the current side yard setback requirements (5 feet one side, 10 feet other side), additional front yard setback variation should be provided given the extra leeway with the deeper lots, the side yard setbacks for units adjacent to the railroad should be increased, and the footprint of the one- story plan should be narrowed to allow for larger side yard setbacks. Mr. Buller observed that the housing product could technically fit on the lots and meet the required minimum setbacks; hence, the side yard separation issue is only one of design. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the architect clip roof lines on some two- story homes with small hips to alleviate the concern of continuous roof lines. Commissioner Vallette asked staff for clarification about the required minimum side yard setbacks. Mr. Hayes stated that the tract was approved with a product prototype with 5-foot minimum side yard setbacks on both sides, hence this tract was "grandfathered" with that criteria. Commissioner Tolstoy stressed the importance of getting the best product possible from both a site planning and architectural perspective. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 19, 1992 Mr. Buller summarized the Commission's concerns. He etated that a majority of the Commissioners expressed concern with the unit plotting~ especially in areas where lot widths do not allow for additional side separations with the proposed units. He noted this issue may be resolvable without adjusting lot lines or modifying the unit type~ but he reminded the Commission that if the project moves forward, the changes in side yard setbacks and building separations will not significantly change from what was presented for this review. He acknowledged that a majority of the Commissioners favor the introduction of the single story plan, provided it is plotted on more lots and those lots leading into the project. In addition, he stressed the Commissioners' desire for additional front yard setback variation and direction to possibly "clip" roof lines on some two-story models (if room volumes make this possible) to improve the streetscape appearance within the project. Finally, Mr. Bullet concluded that the Commission will place emphasis on the referenced site planning issues and the architecture of the one-story plan at the Design Review Committee Meeting. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 19, 1992