Upland planning commission weighs setback, open space and parking for Buffalo Grove plan

Upland’s Planning Commission on Tuesday held a design workshop on the Buffalo Grove Specific Plan, a proposed 72‑unit detached‑home development at 1812–1816 West Foothill Boulevard, during which staff and the developer sought input on three design issues: street setback, open space and parking.

Joshua Winter, the city’s staff planner, said the project — proposed by Century Communities on the former Buffalo Inn site — would place buildings about 40 feet back from the curb, including a five‑foot parkway, five‑foot sidewalk, a 10‑foot planter, a perimeter block wall and about 20 feet of landscaping. Winter said the project’s common open space totals about 5,800 square feet and the full site provides roughly 24,800 square feet of combined private and common open space, a hair below the 25,000‑square‑foot benchmark the staff used for comparison with Upland’s municipal code.

"The common open space is about 5,800 square feet," Winter said, describing the planned picnic and barbecue seating and a flex lawn intended for families.

Century Communities’ project manager Brian Taylor said the builder envisions the product for first‑time homebuyers and has opted not to include a pool or spa so HOA dues remain lower. "At this point, we have decided not to go with the pool or spa," Taylor said, adding that the firm added 14 parking stalls to the plan after discussions with staff.

Commissioners focused on three recurring concerns. First, several members said the 40‑foot setback would be acceptable if the developer provided denser, taller landscaping to reduce the visual scale of the three‑story buildings facing the busy Foothill Boulevard. One commissioner urged considering a larger, 60‑foot setback, similar to nearby Foothill Walk and Magnolias developments.

Second, commissioners questioned the amount and character of common open space. Winter explained that because the project emphasizes private yards and balconies, common open space averages about 80 square feet per dwelling — substantially less than the 250 square feet per unit used in the municipal code comparison. Commissioners asked whether the commission should direct the applicant to increase common open space, with several suggesting reducing the unit count as one way to expand central amenities.

Third, parking drew sustained concern: the specific plan requires two covered garage spaces per unit plus 0.5 guest spaces, but there is no on‑street parking on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioners warned that households with multiple vehicles and the common practice of using garages for storage could drive overflow parking pressures. "Because you can't park on Foothill Boulevard, does the project site provide adequate parking?" one commissioner asked.

Taylor said the developer seeks to limit HOA costs for buyers and believes the added stalls and HOA enforcement (guest‑parking rules and a parking committee) will be sufficient. He also provided unit sizes: Plan 1 at about 1,695 sq ft, Plan 2 at about 1,776 sq ft, and Plan 3 at about 1,958 sq ft, and confirmed bedroom mixes to show likely vehicle demand.

Other technical constraints emerged in the discussion. Staff noted the plan currently shows a proposed sewer lift station in the site’s southwest corner because of grade and sewer alignment; securing an off‑site easement to avoid a lift station could create room for additional parking or open space, but that solution remains unresolved.

No formal action or vote on design changes occurred at the workshop. Commissioners thanked staff and the developer for the presentation and asked staff and Century Communities to explore denser frontage landscaping, the potential for a larger setback or fewer units to expand common open space, and options for additional on‑site parking. The commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m.