Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/11/08 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 8, 1995 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA III. IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Lumpp Announcements Approval of Minutes September 13, 1995, Special Meeting Public Hearings Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 95-03 - CAMPOS - A request to remove, relocate, or demolish two single family residences previously designated as local historic landmarks, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues at 9634 and 9642 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-153-08 and 09. Related files: Variance 95-06, Development Review 93-15, and Variance 94-04. VI. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. Commission Business VIII. Adjournment 1, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certiff that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 2, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 8, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scoff Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 95-03 - CAMPOS - A request to remove, relocate, or demolish two single family residences previously designated as local historic landmarks, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues at 9634 and 9642 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208- 153-08 and 09. BACKGROUND: On August 10, 1994, the Historic Preservation Commission designated four single family residences on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman ..Avenues as local landmarks. While individually the structures do not represent a significant architectural contribution, the Commission determined that the homes dedve their significance from the setting and context in which they are located. This block represents one of the last remaining tracts of housing from the 1910s and 1920s that has not been demolished. Also, the block is a remnant of "Old Cucamonga" and an area within the sphere of influence of John Klusman, a prominent local businessman. The Landmark Designation was affirmed by the City Council on October 5, 1994. On January 11, 1995, the Historic Preservation Commission considered Landmark Alteration Permit No. 94-04 for the conversion of the four residences to commercial uses. The conversion included the installation of handicap ramps, hardscape changes, outdoor furniture, and parking areas. Because the conversion concurred with the adaptive reuse goals of the Commission, the Landmark Alteration Permit was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. ANALYSIS: After receiving approval on the Development Review application and Landmark Alteration Permit in January of 1995, the applicant began working with the prospective tenant of the cafe building. Upon reviewing the approved plans, the tenant informed the applicant that the restaurant was not viable given the parking deficiency. The lending institution indicated that they would not provide a construction loan unless additional parking was provided. As a result, the applicant began exploring alternative site layouts. The applicant is proposing the removal of the two easterly houses. Parking would be provided in an east-west orientation (see Exhibit "C"), separating the remaining historic structures from the cafe. With the house removals, the drive approach from Foothill Boulevard would be relocated to the west side of the site (see Exhibit "C"). The drive aisle and the parking at the rear of the site would remain as previously approved. RELOCATION POTENTIAL: Recognizing that the Histodc Preservation Commission may not allow the structures to be demolished, the applicant has indicated her willingness to relocate the structures to other suitable properties. In reviewing the revised Development Review application on October 17, 1995, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Melcher, Fong) suggested that the HPC STAFF REPORT LAP 95-03 - CAMPOS November 8, 1995 Page 2 applicant determine a suitable relocation site prior to the Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Ideally, from a historic preservation perspective, the structures would be relocated to a nearby site; however, few vacant lots exist in the neighborhood (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant has been in contact with a couple of potential property owners, including the Redevelopment Agency. As of the writing of this report, staff is unaware of any final destination for the homes. Even with the relocation of the structures, the facts and findings on which the Landmark Designation was granted will be compromised. As previously mentioned, the Landmark Designation was found appropriate because of the setting and context of the structures. With the odginal approval, 40 percent of the Foothill Boulevard streetscape/frontage structures were being altered within the site. The removal of two structures will result in approximately 70 percent of the Foothill Boulevard streetscape/frontage structures being altered. Parking will now occupy 40 percent of the frontage compared to 12 percent from the original application. The total number of structures will be reduced from eight to six. In short, the setting and context of the Landmark Designation will be lost. ALTERNATIVES: In considering the existing site layout, staff believes alternatives to removal should be pursued to provide the square footage necessary for the restaurant, a greater number of parking spaces, and the retention of all four structures, including the following: A. Adaptive reuse of one or both houses to serve as the restaurant. B. Pursue other restaurant tenants that do not require a larger building and more parking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: At this time, the applicant has provided little data on the relocation of the houses other than to say that relocation is possible. Ideally, the applicant would provide an economic analysis to demonstrate that retention of the houses is not feasible and a relocation plan for the houses. Also, as mentioned previously, staff believes there may be alternatives available that have not been completely explored. With either one of the alternatives or the relocation of the houses, an environmental assessment (including public advertisement) will be necessary. The full scope of the relocation plan and/or alternatives, including potential mitigation measures, can be evaluated at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission conduct a public hearing on the relocation of the houses and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial, readvertise the item for the required environmental assessment, and reschedule the item for public hearing. Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Location Map Approved Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Applicant's Letter Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report of July 13, 1994 ? ~V81HO~IV z Z k Campos Service Corporation 5711 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90038 COMPLETE INSURANCE SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND PERSONAL LINE BOOKKEEPING AND INCOME TAX City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 August 01, 1995 ATTN: Mr. Scott Murphy Associate Planner Re: Property: Owner: Planned Project 9618-9656 Foothill Blvd. Ana M. Campos Dear Mr. Murphy: Enclosed please find a proposed change to the original plans submitted to you in March 1995. The reason of this change is because I am confronted with numerous difficulties to complete the project and I am requesting the city of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, to consider the changes due to the following: The reason of this action is mainly because the lessee, King Taco Restaurants, a well known chain of restaurants would not accept the lease as presented on the original plans. The structure as well as the available parking is too constricted and needs to be amplified in order to be profitable and for the company to be able to pay the rent. On the other hand, the bank who is processing the loan has informed me that the loan will not be economically feasible due to the size of the restaurant and its limited parking space. At this point I do not have any other alternative but to make some changes to continue with my extensive and very costly project. It is my utmost sincere hope that you would accept these changes from the initial project proposal. As you know, I, as well as the city have invested much time, effort, and money into the success of this project. I thank you for your patience, help and understanding. I hope these changes will be accepted and approved so I can complete my project. Very truly yours, ,, 1/ ~-- PHONE (213) 463-6036 · (~ 6~3-6146 · 1213) 463-6368 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: July 13, 1994 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner LANDMARK DESIGNATION 94-02 CAMPOS - Consideration of an application to designate 9618, 9626, 9634, and 9642 Foothill Boulevard as either an Historic Landmark or an Historic Point of Interest - APN: 208-153-08, 09, 10, and 11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residential; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3) South - Fast food restaurant; Specialty Corm~ercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3) East - Abandoned gas station; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3) West - Single family residential; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3) Be General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Commercial East - Commercial West - Commercial Ce Site Characteristics: The site is presently developed with four single family residences and a cafe. None of the structures are presently occupied. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is requesting the designation of four single-story bungalows on Foothill Boulevard as an Historic Landmark. House No. 1 is located at 9618 Foothill Boulevard, consists of 1,065 square feet, and was constructed in 1917. House No. 2, located at 9626 Foothill Boulevard, was also constructed in 1917 and totals 958 square feet in area. House No. 3, 9634 Foothill HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LD 94-02 - CAMPOS July 13, 1994 Page 2 Boulevard, is the oldest in the group dating back to 1916 and has 1,296 square feet in area. Finally, House No. 4, 9642 Foothill Boulevard, has 1,550 square feet and was constructed in 1927. The units were used as residences until the end of 1993. The houses are now vacant. Estacia Court Historic Overlay District: In 1990, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the possibility of creating an Historic Overlay District for the block bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Archibald Avenue, Estacia Court, and Klusman Avenue. This area came to be known as "Estacia Court." The Co~nission noted that the real significance of the area was the spatial arrangement and the setting of the structures. At that time, however, the Commission felt that other priorities should be pursued and that preservation of Estacia Court might be completed on a case-by-case basis rather than by the creation of an overlay district. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: During the creation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP), the City identified the potential historic value of the structures within the Specific Plan area. A number of policies are included in the FBSP to address the cultural and historical impact of Foothill Boulevard. These policies include: 1. Promote commercial clusters sensitive to the historical characteristics. 2. Establish land uses to complement existing cultural and historical resources. Require new projects to incorporate existing cultural and historical structures. To address these policies, the FBSP selected a "Specialty Commercial" designation to "promote a special landmark quality or create a special ambience unique to a particular subarea." Because the FBSP identified the Foothill bungalows as "notable structures," the Specialty Commercial designation was applied to this block. Historical Significance: All four of the structures were surveyed in 1987. Houses No. 1, 2, and 4 were considered potential local landmarks. House No. 3 was listed as "surveyed, undetermined significance." Individually, the four houses do not represent a significant architectural contribution. The houses derive their significance from the context and setting of the houses. These units were part of the block identified as "Old Cucamonga." In the 1930s, John Klusman's sphere of influence extended to this area as he purchased a number of the houses in the Estacia Court block. He later built a number of bungalows along Foothill Boulevard to the west of the block. The majority of these homes were used by area workers. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LD 94-02 - CAMPOS July 13, 1994 Page 3 Over the years, the widening of Foothill Boulevard has seen the demolition of a number of homes along the corridor. The redevelopment of the commercial properties has also resulted in the removal of many of the Foothill bungalows. The Estacia Court block is one of the last intact examples of housing development from the late 1910s and early 1920s and of the Craftsman bungalow architectural style. Further, the block represents a portion of the "Old Cucamonga" downtown that has not been redeveloped. Pending Development Application: The applicant has submitted development plans for the site to include the removal of the diner and the restoration of the four houses and their conversion to commercial uses. If the Historic Preservation Co~nission designates the four houses as Landmarks, a Landmark Alteration Permit will be processed with the Development Review. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Historic Preservation Commission to recommend designation of the properties as Landmarks, facts to support the following findings may be made: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. The proposed Landmark is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare and the proposed Landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. The proposed Landmark was connected to someone renowned, important, or a local personality. B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: The proposed Landmark materially character of the neighborhood. benefits the historic The proposed Landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. As identified in the analysis, staff believes that facts to'support the findings can be made for each and every finding required. The craftsman bungalows in this area were indicative of the homes of the later 1910s and the 1920s. Because of the improvements to Foothill Boulevard, many of these early homes have been demolished. Estacia Court represents one of the remaining neighborhoods that is virtually intact from the original neighborhood. Designating the buildings as a Landmark will HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LD 94-02 - CAMPOS July 13, 1994 Page 4 reinforce their historical significance in the block and surrounding neighborhood. The site was also under John Klusman's control and influence during the 1930s. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Landmark designation is exempt under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of Landmark Designation 94-02 to the City Council. BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Building Photographs Resolution Recommending Approval A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: _~ / Date of Photo View Looking Date of Photo Page oi~Jge LJH3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: Date of Photo View Leo. king Date of Photo Page Page__ LJH3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: View Looking Date of Photo J-~ View Looking Date of Photo Page of~a~ LJH3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: View Looking ~O~-~ · Date of Photo ~'~ View Looking Date of Photo Page__ of Page LJH3