Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/14 - Agenda Packet - (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY DECEMBER 14, 2010 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca CONSENT CALENDAR (Consent items will be heard at 7 p.m.) NO ITEMS SUBMITTED. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Donald) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on tandem parking, required parking ratios and additional parking requirements beyond the minimum parking requirements for multi-family projects. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. 7:20 p.m. (Mayuko/Hunter) MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00465 - ELOY VAZQUEZ - A request to construct one (1) new single-family dwelling unit in the Low Residential District at 10377 26th Street - APN: 0209-121-28. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. 7:40 p.m. (James) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT AND POLICY DIRECTION DRC2010-00961 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Planning Director's report on the status of applicants requesting plan check submittal to the Building and Safety Department prior to receiving entitlement approval and a policy direction request regarding the scheduling of Design Review resubmittals in order to permit adequate review periods. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. THIS WILL BE AN ORAL REPORT. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may • receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT I, Gail Elwood, Office Specialist II for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 1, 2010, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. r .sh cc • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Donald Granger December 14, 2010 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on tandem parking, required parking ratios and additional parking requirements beyond the minimum parking requirements for multi-family projects. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. Background: At the November 2, 2010, Design Review Committee meeting, Chairman Munoz directed staff to prepare a report analyzing tandem parking, required parking ratios, and parking requirements for multi-family housing. Specifically, Chairman Munoz directed staff to provide a comparative analysis of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's multi-family parking requirements in order to determine how the City ranks vis-à-vis other comparable municipalities with similar characteristics. The Planning staff surveyed a total of 10 cities, and the information is presented in the tables that follow, along with discussion and analysis. Tandem Parking: Tandem parking is defined as the ability to park two vehicles nose to end in a single file without providing independent access. Advantages include the ability to park two cars within a garage where development constraints preclude traditional two-car garages where vehicles park adjacent to each other. Disadvantages include decreased functionality, as the ability to ensure that the two tandem off-street parking spaces are being used is inhibited by the lack of independent access by both vehicles. The Planning staff surveyed a total of 10 cities and inquired if tandem parking is permitted. Table 1 summarizes the results of the survey. Table 1 Tandem Parking City Permitted Notes Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Tandem parking permitted only for target units in silent affordable housing projects Ontario No Tandem parking permitted only for mobile homes Irvine Yes Must be assigned to the same unit Pasadena Yes Must be assigned to the same unit; up to 30 percent of required spaces may be tandem Chino No Tandem parking permitted only as surplus parking Fontana Yes Must be assigned to the same unit; up to 30 percent of required spaces may be tandem City of San Bernardino No City of Riverside No Tandem parking permitted only for single-family units Upland No Anaheim No Required parking for residents may not be charged a fee Santa Ana No Of the 10 cities surveyed, only 3 (Irvine, Pasadena and Fontana) permit tandem parking for multi-family projects. Of these 3, Pasadena and Irvine limit the amount of tandem parking to 30 percent of the required spaces. DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 14, 2010 Page 2 Multi-Family Parking Ratios: Staff surveyed the same 10 cities for the required parking ratios for multi-family projects. Table 2 indicates the results of the survey. Table 2 City 8 Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Guest Population Parking Rancho 1.3 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 1.8 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.3 spaces/unit . 1 open Cucamonga (1 garage or (1 garage or (1 garage or (2 garage or (2 garage or space/4 (178,000) carport space) carport space) carport space) carport spaces) carport spaces) units Ontario 1.5 spaces/unit 1.75 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 3-50 units: 1 (1 garage or (1 garage or (1 garage or (2 garage or (2 garage or space/4 (174,000) carport space) carport space) carport space) carport spaces) carport spaces) units' Irvine 1.0 space/unit 1.4 space/unit 1.6 space/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 space/unit 1 space/4 (217,000) (1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) units Pasadena Min. 10 unit 1 covered space per unit less than 650 2 covered spaces per unit 650 square feet or larger threshold. 1 square feet space/10 (151,000) units Chino 1 garage space/unit 1.5 garage 2.0 garage 2.0 garage 2.0 garage 1 space/10 (84,000) spaces/unit spaces/unit spaces/unit,plus spaces/unit,plus units .5 uncovered .5 uncovered spaces/unit spaces/unit Fontana 1.5 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 1 space/3 (1 space within (1 space within (1 space within (1 space within (1 space within units (190,000) garage) garage) garage and 1 garage and 1 garage and 1 covered space) covered space) covered space) City of San 1.5 covered/unit 1.5 covered/unit 2.0 2.5 covered/unit 2.5 covered/unit 1 space/5 Bernardino covered/unit • units (204,000) City of 1.5 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit None Riverside' (304,000) Upland 2.0 spaces unit, 1 2.0 spaces unit, 2.0 spaces unit, 2.0 spaces unit, 1 2.0 spaces unit, 1 .5 space per space within a 1 space within a 1 space within space within a space within a unit (76,000) garage or carport garage or a garage or garage or carport garage or carport carport carport Anaheim 1.25 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.25 3.0 spaces/unit 3.5 spaces/unit 1 space/4 spaces/unit units (353,000) Santa Ana 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 3.0 spaces/unit 4.0 spaces/unit 5.0 spaces/unit 1 space/4 units (357,000) 51-100 units: 1 space/5units; 100+units: 1 space/6units. z One parking space in a fully enclosed garage shall be required for at least 40 percent of the total number of dwelling units in a multiple family development. At least 75 percent of the total required spaces shall be in a fully enclosed garage or carport. Additional Parking Requirements: Only 1 city surveyed had additional required parking requirements beyond vehicular and guest stalls. The City of Ontario requires recreational vehicle parking for multi-family projects with greater than 21 units at the following ratio: 1 space per 20 units up to 100 units; 1 space per 6 units for 100+ unit projects. It should be noted, however, that the City of Ontario permits additional guest parking in lieu of the required recreational vehicle parking at the discretion of the developer. . DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00899— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 14, 2010 Page 3 Private Side Supplied Data: Lewis Companies owns and operates thousands of multi-family unit apartment communities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Since Lewis Companies has such vast experience with owning and successfully managing apartment communities, including guest passes and enclosed garage parking enforcement plans, Lewis Companies was willing to share its parking data. This information proved to be extremely valuable, as it provides "real world" data from a multi-family community within the City. Lewis provided data for Carmel, a 291-unit project located in the Terra Vista Planned Community that was constructed in the early 2000s. The table indicates the unit type and average number of vehicles by unit type. Table 3 Average Number Unit Type Number Percentage Make-up Vehicles by Unit Type 1 bedroom units 57 19 percent 1.37 2 bedroom units 192 65 percent 1.68 3 bedroom units 42 16 percent 1.74 As Table 3 illustrates, all unit types average less than 2 cars. Hypothetical 100-unit project scenario: In order to illustrate how the parking ratios of the 10 surveyed cities would line up in a side-by-side comparison to City of Rancho Cucamonga's multi-parking family requirement, staff conducted an analysis of the total parking demand based upon a 100-unit hypothetical project. Since the total amount of required parking is based off various ratios that vary based upon unit type, the 100-unit hypothetical project was based off the following unit breakdown in order to create the most realistic comparison (Table 4): Table 4 Unit Type Quantity Studios 20 1 bedroom units 30 2 bedroom units 30 3 bedroom units 20 Total: 100 Units • DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00899— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 14, 2010 Page 4 Table 5 shows the results.in ascending order of required parking spaces for the 10 cities surveyed. Table 5 • City Required Required Required Total Average Garage/Carport Open Guest Number of Spaces/Unit Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Required Irvine 100 50 25 175 1.75 City of 131 44 0 175 1.75 Riverside Pasadena 175 0 10 185 1.85 Chino 165 10 10 185 1.85 Rancho Cucamonga 120 45 25 190 1.90 Ontario 100 73 20 193 1.93 City of San 185 0 20 205 2.05 Bernardino Fontana 150 35 33 218 2.18 Anaheim 0 213 25 238 2.38 Upland 100 100 50 250 2.5 Santa Ana 0 270 25 295 2.95 ANALYSIS: As indicated in Table 4, the total amount of required parking varies substantially, from a low of 175 stalls (Irvine and Riverside) to a high of 295 stalls (Santa Ana), a difference of 120 stalls. The statistical mean for total stalls required is 209; the mean for average stalls per unit is 2.10. The City of Rancho Cucamonga ranks 7th of the 11 cities that were surveyed, with respect to having the most intense parking requirements, behind the City of Ontario by 3 stalls, which is at the midpoint (6th) on the spectrum. When compared with theoretical parking rates, actual parking generation rates vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, some of which include community demographics, average household size, proximity to public transportation, and whether or not the community is urban or suburban. Providing ample off-street parking is critical for both the aesthetic value of a community and for public safety. Excess surface parking also has adverse consequences, which include wasted land, heat islands, lack of incentives to use alternative transportation and the high cost of site improvements for an unused parking stall. The Planning staff surveyed four cities (Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and San Dimas) and inquired whether or not additional parking has been imposed on multi-family projects above the minimum parking requirements. All four cities reported that only the minimum parking ratios were required of development projects. • DRC AGENDA DRC2010-00899 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 14, 2010 Page 5 In analyzing the above data and with the hypothetical 100-unit example, if multi-family parking ratios for the City of Rancho Cucamonga were increased, the most logical place would be in the following 3 areas: 1) increase the 1.3 spaces/unit for studios to 1.5 spaces; 2) increase the 1.8 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit to 2.0; and 3) increase the guest parking requirement from 1 space/4 units to 1 space/3 units. Using the 100-unit project scenario, Table 6 indicates the number of parking stalls required under the current Development Code for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the number with proposed increased parking ratios. Table 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga.Existinq Required Open and Required Guest Total Number of vs.Proposed Parking Ratios Garage Spaces Parking Spaces Required Current Development Code 165 25 190 Proposed change of for studios to 1.5 spaces/unit,2 bedroom from 1.8 to 2.0 175 33 208 • and guest parking from 1 space/4 units to 1 space/3 units Difference +10 +8 +18 CONCLUSION: With the City of Rancho Cucamonga ranking near the midpoint of the spectrum and coupled with the data for the Carmel project provided by Lewis Companies, staff concludes that the City's required parking ratios need little augmentation, if any. If any of the required parking ratios are increased, staff recommends that the increased parking requirements outlined in Table 2 for studios, 1 bedroom units and guest parking would be the most logical and reasonable enhancements to the Development Code. If the parking ratios were increased at 208, stalls the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be at the top of the middle band width of the surveyed cities, only eclipsed by Anaheim, Upland, and Santa Ana, which have the most intense parking requirements. The Planning Department is in the initial stages of exploring the viability of a comprehensive Development Code Update. The Development Code Update would be the first major overhaul since it was first adopted in 1983 and would involve evaluating every development standard for consistency and appropriate application. Since the above changes are rather minimal and would result in approximately a 10 percent increase in the overall number of stalls, one possibility is to incorporate the proposed changes in the Development Code update. The Development Code update will also provide an opportunity to include a section discussing tandem parking (technical dimensions, etc.) since it is presently silent in this . area for conventional projects, with the only exception of affordable housing projects allowing tandem parking. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee receive the report and provide input and direction as the Committee deems appropriate. • • Desiqn Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Donald Granger Members Present: :;uasaid sJagwaol ew!feNeN oNnlep :Jauueld blelS :uo!loy aau!wwo0 ma!Aed ub!sea •s;uawwoo °Hoge ay; o; loafgns pano.dde aq loafajd ail ;al; spuawwooei lle43 :uo!lepuawwooaa JelS •poogjogq6!au uMOlypoN an ;o °wail lemloal!Uoie pags!Igelsa all luaw!Idwoo Heys sainlxal pue 's!e!Jalew '5.Oloo Ily L •uo!ssnos!p ;nol;!M u6!sap ;oafojd ai; ow! pa;ejodioou! eq p!nols pue Ao!Iod uo!ss!wwo0 6u!uueld ;o Jallew e we swat! 6u!MoIIol ail :sanss! no!Iod 'Hem 6u!u!elw q6!l e Aq pa;oedw! eq Aew loafoid pesodojd all;o ;sem ay; 04 paleool asnoq 6u!ls!xe all •; :uo!ssnos!p Jol sanss! AJepuooes !wanes pa!;!luap! seq}leis :sanss! AJepuOOeg •poogJogq6!eu 6u!punauns ail iolew of am;oa;!yoie aqi 6u!s!nw uo gels w;!M J(Ilua6!I!p pwIJOM seq ;ueo!Idde eta •sanss! Jofew ou we °Jail :sanss! Jo!eW •; •uO!ssnos!p aall!wwo0 .104 au!Ilno ue ep!AOJd of papualu! we s;uawwoo 6u!MOII0I ayl :s;uawwo0 ;leis •e6eJe6 6u!oel-ep!s a o; a6BJe6 ;UOJ4 paloafoJd al; 6u4snfpe pue 'saueld Item Nue!q to aoueJeadde ay' uallos o; saJnlea; Ieinloal!loje eilxe 6u!ppe 'NooJ JONJ Iew 6u!ppe U6nojq; auop uaaq seq situ_ loafojd all o; s;uewala aiAls-uewslleio Auew se aleiodioou! Ojllels l;!M 6upIJoM uaaq seq lueogdde ail :ub!saa IeJnloal!ioJy pue uogduosaa loa!oJd •e6uoweonO 40 my); awl;o uo!IJOd waylnos ay; se s08g1 ale! ay; u! ue6aq go!gM 'poogjogi6!au uMOlU4JON ay; 40 luawdolanap A Jee an o; lue}Jodp aJe saouep!sej Jap!o al; 40 °wog 'sic)! MaJJeu uo l!s pue 'Jehews we poogiogq5!au s!il u! sawoy ail ;o lso!nl •s0£6l• Pue sOZ6l• all u! 4I!nq sawoq aI is uewsueio pue 'sMole6ung 'sebego0 Auew su!eluoo ewe sNI „•easy Ja;oeiegO poogJogy6!aN uMo;y4JoN„ pesodoid ayl u!il!M paleool s! pue '(oe/np y-z) Ie!luap!sab Mot paleu6!sep s! (pedoid loafgns all :sJa;aweJed ub!saa EO£91 uo!loa3 seu!Iep!nO V020 a;e;g Japun uo!ldwaxa c ssela a se se!}!Ienb pue MelAGJ V090 WOJ; ;dwexe /lleo!Jo6eleo s! ;oafoid awl leyl pau!WJalap seq llelg •9Z-1Z1•-60Z0 :Ndy- leeJiS U193 LL£06 le 1°!Jls!a le!luap!se 1 Mot awl u! l!un 6u!IIaMp vwel-e Su!s Mau (�) auo lonJ;suoO of ;senbei V - Z3f1OZVA A013 - 99400-0 60ZOid0 M31/0l 1N3Wd013A3a 2]ONIW 01.03 '171• Jagweoaa ew!feNeN oNnAeI/g 'tut' OZ:L SINBWWOO M31/Gel NoIS3a DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. James Troyer December 14, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT AND POLICY DIRECTION DRC2010-00961 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Planning Director's report on the status of applicants requesting plan check submittal to the Building and Safety Department prior to receiving entitlement approval and a policy direction request regarding the scheduling of Design Review resubmittals in order to permit adequate review periods. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. THIS WILL BE AN ORAL REPORT. Staff Recommendation: Staff invites discussion and requests direction. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: James Troyer Members Present: