Planning commission defers recommendation on 76.55‑acre Rock Springs mixed‑use rezoning amid engineering, floodplain and design questions

The La Verne Planning Commission deferred action March 25 on a rezoning request from Equitable Property Company, LLC for 76.55 acres west of Walden (Waldron) Road and south of Blair Road known in the submittal as the Rock Springs mixed‑use development. Commission members said several engineering, drainage and design items must be resolved before the commission will forward a recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

The concept plan presented would rezone the parcels to PDR with an R‑3 base (high‑density residential) and proposes a mix of housing and commercial uses. The developer materials described roughly 600+ dwelling units overall (the presentation included an approximate total of “614 dwelling units” and also showed parcel subtotals of 336 units on the north parcel and 242 units on the south parcel), single‑family lots in the northwest corner, and about 208,000 square feet of commercial, retail and office space overall. The design book reserves roughly 2 acres for a future fire station and shows amenities including a clubhouse, pool, walking trail and playground. The presentation estimated total development investment at about $244,000,000.

Why it matters: the rezoning would change low‑density housing land to a planned density residential district on a large tract adjacent to existing subdivisions and Rock Springs Elementary School, affecting traffic, stormwater infrastructure and neighborhood buffers.

Key staff concerns and outstanding items

- Stormwater and floodplain work: city engineering and the applicant disagreed on the completeness of the concept‑level stormwater submittal. Staff flagged missing hydraulic calculations required by the city’s stormwater management ordinance for concept plans; the applicant said producing fully detailed hydraulic calculations at the concept stage is difficult without completed FEMA flood elevations and a full site design. The applicant’s engineer, Jay Fulmer, said the team had budget estimates for the required floodplain work and related studies, and noted, “we've gotten budgets of about $40,000 to $50,000 to do those studies,” adding larger, more detailed work would require additional time and expense.

- Capacity of utilities: staff reported initial studies by the city utilities engineer, Scott Tatalovich, indicated the system could accommodate the project’s requested density but would bring the system close to capacity. Engineering staff cautioned that denser rezonings of adjacent properties could push the system beyond its limits.

- Traffic and public improvements: the submitted traffic study was reviewed and found acceptable, but staff recommended discussing with the developer whether the developer would pay for an additional signal recommended at the intersection of Waldron Road and Snowdrop Avenue (in addition to a signal the city is placing at Blair Road). City staff suggested this cost should be confirmed as developer‑funded or handled through a proposed TIF with the Industrial Development Board and the county.

- Design standards and materials: commissioners and staff asked for clearer, binding definitions of the masonry and primary materials referenced in the design book. The design book lists permitted primary materials (brick, stone, cast stone, EIFS in the list) and secondary materials (stucco, smooth metal panels, cementitious panels/hardie), and sets percentage targets (for some product types) for masonry versus cementitious materials. Paul Bass, the project architect, said the team would “clearly delineate” masonry products in the booklet so future enforcement is straightforward.

- Density, private‑community questions and approvals: the plan relies heavily on multifamily units; staff noted the current zoning language limits multifamily shares to approximately 30% unless the project qualifies as a private, managed community. The applicant argued most multifamily areas would have controlled access and unified management documents; legal staff was asked to research whether a privately managed multifamily complex (not a homeowners association) would satisfy the ordinance’s private‑community requirement. Commissioners also noted that PDR/ R‑3 base rules in the ordinance limit building height to three stories and that, depending on the base district rules at the time of building permit/site plan submittal, the project may need Board of Zoning Appeals or other approvals.

- Parking and use mix: the applicant described a mixed‑use parking strategy—typical multifamily ratios of about 1.2–1.3 spaces per unit plus a guest factor and use of daytime retail parking to absorb daytime demand. The design book shows outparcels and a “jewel box” retail area where the applicant is requesting flexibility for takeout/drive‑through or walk‑up service windows; planning staff and several commissioners indicated that flexibility could be approved at the concept stage but that individual site plans would still be reviewed for stacking, circulation and buffering.

Commission feedback and next steps

Commissioners and staff walked through a numbered list of staff comments and the applicant’s responses. Commissioners asked the applicant to supply clearer material definitions and to provide draft governing documents that outline the proposed management and access controls. City engineering and the applicant’s engineers agreed to continue the hydraulic and floodplain analyses; city staff noted the concept‑plan level stormwater items required by ordinance are narrower than full construction calculations but must be provided to show preliminary detention locations and capacity.

After questions and discussion, commissioners voted to defer the item and directed the applicant to work with city staff to resolve the engineering, stormwater/floodplain, materials and legal questions before the commission forwards a recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Action: The commission made and seconded a motion to defer the recommendation; the motion passed. (Mover and second were not recorded in the meeting transcript.)

Ending: The applicant said it will continue design work and submit revised materials addressing staff’s checklist items before returning to a future workshop or regular meeting for further review.