Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-23-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF WNCHO CUCAMONCA THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2015 - 4:30 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center RAINS ROOM 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _ • Munoz_ Macias _ Fletcher II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises,or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. F[7�- III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRE APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00802-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A review of the site plan and elevations for a proposed 183-unit, multi-family apartment complex on 4.45 acres of land in the Mixed Use(MU)District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD), located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue; APNs: 1077-601-13 and 1077-601-14. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 Ri+NCHO Page 2 CAMON IV. ADJOURNMENT 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 17, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 RANCHO M Page 3 documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us VicinityMap Planning Commission Workshop* September 23 , 2015 --i r---------- I I f" • I E .Q o 1 C I E 0 E i CL l I IV I S — L C � Ia � I WAMEM NN� Mow re 19th Sty i Base Line Base Line irJ Church Church Foothill; ; Foothill N Arrow Id �' 1e i Arrow as c jJrsey 8thOG w i ° Z' 0 y c 6th w C7 6th - 7 Y L _ A 4th Q 2 -- 2 _ 4th Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Item A: Pre- Application Review DRC2015-00802 STAFF-REPORT L PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 23, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PRE APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00802 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A review of the site plan and elevations for a proposed 183-unit multi-family apartment complex on 4.45 acres of land in the Mixed Use (MU) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD), located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue; APN: 1077-601-13 and 1077-601-14. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input and direction to the applicant regarding the proposed project. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Pre-Application Review Process: The Pre-Application Review process is intended to promote quality development and to facilitate the development review process. Although a Pre- Application Review is not required, it allows an applicant to present conceptual plan designs to the Planning Commission during the early stages of concept plan preparation prior to the formal application and to receive broad, general comments and direction from the Planning Commission. The meeting is not a forum for debate and no formal decision is made. After the meeting, staff prepares general minutes of the meeting that are sent to the applicant. B. Project Description: The applicant, Charles Joseph Associates/Fore Property Company, is proposing to demolish 3 existing buildings and to develop a 4-story, 183-unit multi-family apartment complex at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue (Exhibit A). C. Site Characteristics: The project site is comprised of two parcels that make up a generally rectangular-shaped project area situated at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue. The southerly half of the site contains a liquor store (Shop & Go), a short term hotel, and a closed night club (Rock the Keys). The northerly half of the site is vacant. The property to the north contains single-family residential; to the east is the Villaggio on Route 66 apartment complex (DRC2006-00633) and an existing single-family residential house that has been used for commercial uses; to the south is a multi-tenant office building and restaurant (Kick Back Jacks); and to the west is commercial (Xtreme Autosound) and an older multi-family residential complex. The site slopes generally from north to south, and has no landscape features except for a few trees located near the north property line and throughout the existing parking areas. C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Mixed Use (Subarea 4) North - Low Residential (2—4 dwelling units per acre) South - General Commercial East - Mixed Use (Subarea 4) West - General Commercial and Low Residential (2 —4 dwelling units per acre) Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00802 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 23, 2015 Page 2 D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residential; Low Residential (L) District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial (Restaurant and Office); Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD) East - Multi-Family Apartments; Mixed Use (MU) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD) West - Commercial and Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential; Commercial Office(CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD) and Low Residential (L) District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) BACKGROUND: A. Previous Mixed Use District Actions: . On February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 and Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634 amending the land use district from Community Commercial (CC) to Mixed Use (MU) for 17.0 acres located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue (including the project site); these applications were subsequently approved by the City Council on March 5, 2008. At the February 13, 2008, meeting, the Planning Commission also approved Development Review DRC2006-00633 for the development of the Villaggio on Route 66, a 166-unit apartment complex on 10.5 acres. This apartment complex was completed in 2009 and includes both market rate and workforce units (35 units and 131 units, respectively), and the workforce units are provided at a variety of affordability tiers. B. Proposed Mixed Use District Development Standards: The City is in the process of establishing Mixed Use (MU) development standards. Phase 1 of the Mixed Use standards will establish land use mix, density, setback, height, and use standards applicable to all Mixed Use land use districts. Phase 2 will further define Mixed Use (MU) development standards, but will evaluate the relationship between adjacent districts, determine what additional development standards should be applicable to each district, and establish a village concept so that districts within close proximity to each other will have appropriate development standards. The Phase 1 Mixed Use development standards have not been adopted, but have been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and are tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration in October 2016. C. Site Context.and Transit.Environment: With respect to future transit, the General Plan identifies policies and goals to establish Mixed Use areas and higher intensity "urban centers" where there are convenient modes of transportation or future transit stops within identified areas and along identified corridors. These policies encourage the support of projects that are designed to facilitate access to multiple modes of transportation and reduce total vehicle miles traveled by automobiles. Within the Community Mobility element of the General Plan, a future Bus Rapid Transit expansion is identified along Foothill Boulevard. Transit stops have been generally identified at major intersections along Foothill Boulevard. Per the General Plan Transit Plan the project sits almost dead center to both the Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue stops. Staff received a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) grant for the Compass Blueprint project and prepared an additional study of the future BRT route. That study was Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00802 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 23, 2015 Page 3 presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in 2013. The proposed project will increase the residential units and potential ridership of future transit opportunities. Although this site is not identified as a proposed BRT stop it is within '/z mile of the two future stops. Project sites within % to '/2 mile of transit stops can be considered as TOD sites and would still be considered a TOD. PROJECT ANALYSIS: A. General Plan: The General Plan Mixed Use land use designation permits both commercial and multi-family residential land uses. General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU-5 (Exhibit B), identifies that a total of 210 units could be developed on the 17 acres of this Mixed Use District; a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The Villaggio apartment complex provided 166 units at a density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre, leaving a balance of 44 units available for the remaining 6.5 acres of this district. In addition, adding the proposed 183 units to the existing 166 units within the district will create a total of 349 apartment units; an overall district density of 20.52 dwelling units per acre and a project density of 41.12 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the maximum density of 20 units per acre. Development of the project site at the proposed number of units and the project density will require an amendment to Table LU-5 of the General Plan. However, the City is in the process of establishing Mixed Use (MU) District development standards and will process a General Plan Amendment with the intent to remove the Mixed Use Land Use tables of the General Plan (LU-2 to LU-14), thus making the density analysis not applicable. Additionally, the proposed Mixed Use development standards require a minimum of two types of land uses, including commercial, office, institutional, residential, or live/work. The proposed project proposes only one land use, which will need to be addressed by the applicant. B. Development Code: The Development Code establishes land use percentages for each Mixed Use District in Table 17.36.020-1 (Exhibit C). For this Mixed Use District, Table 17.36.020-1 establishes a district residential percentage of 0-62 percent, a commercial percentage of 0-100 percent, and an average density range of 20 dwelling units per acre. Adding the proposed 5.28- acre mixed use project to the existing 10.5-acre residential component of the district will result in 15.78 acres of residential land use. This results in a residential percentage of 0%-93% over the 17-acre Mixed Use District, far in excess of the permitted 0%-62%, and will require the submittal of a Development District Amendment to amend Table 17.36.020-1 of the Development Code. Again, the City is in the process of establishing Mixed Use (MU) District development standards and will process a Development Code Amendment with the intent to remove the Mixed Use Land Use percentages contained in the Development Code, thus making this density analysis not applicable. However, the proposed standards include a maximum density of 50 dwelling units to the acre within the Mixed Use zoning district. The proposed project would be consistent with this requirement. With respect.to the other proposed changes to the Development Code shown in Exhibit D, Exhibit E provides a comparison between the proposed Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts and the proposed project. As shown in Exhibit E, there are a few discrepancies that will need to be addressed by the applicant. Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00802— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 23, 2015 Page 4 C. Foothill Boulevard Design Standards: The project site is located within the Foothill Boulevard Overlay District (FBOD) and Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP). These two documents provide unique design guidelines for this project. The FBOD identifies the project site as the "Hermosa Intersection" and is identified as a minor"activity center" that encourages pedestrian orientation. The scale is envisioned to be 3-stories with the first floor oriented toward the pedestrian. The community design palette for this area of Foothill Boulevard includes contemporary interpretations of the winery or barn prototypes with stucco, wood, brick, or stone walls, pitched or flat roofs for 3-story structures of wood, slate, or metal in earthtones, and a variety of accents such as exposed rafter tails warm color accents, towers/cupolas, covered walkways, vine arbors, and similar features. The VIP will require design improvements to address site improvements consistent with the Hermosa Avenue Activity Center (Exhibit F). These design elements include unifying streetscape elements, large parkway with turf and meandering sidewalk, low rock wall planters in the corner setback, paved corners, paved crosswalk, Route 66 icons within the right-of-way, historic pedestrian level light poles, and streetscape furniture. Currently, a VIP Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area Prototype, with enhanced parkway features, widened sidewalk, Crape Myrtle trees, street furniture, accent paving, Route 66 logo, and brick pavers in the median were installed as part of the Villaggio apartment complex. All projects in this vicinity will be required to provide the enhancements as noted in the VIP. D. Site Layout: The applicant submitted a preliminary layout that proposes a generally rectangular shaped apartment building with an interior courtyard. The 4-story apartment building is situated in the southwest corner of the project site adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue. Driveway access is provided at both street frontages. Parking is provided in the northern and easterly portions of the project site, adjacent to the existing single-family homes to the north and the apartment complex to the east. The club house, fitness center, and leasing office are situated on the first floor adjacent to Foothill Boulevard; these uses total approximately 6,100 square feet. A total of 183 apartment units are proposed; no secondary use is included. Residential units are provided in a mix of 92 one-bedroom apartments, 83 two-bedroom apartments, and 8 three-bedroom apartments. The Site Plan places the units in a rigid rectangular pattern, with units fronting east to west onto Foothill Boulevard, units fronting north to south onto Hermosa Avenue, and then squared off with a row of units crossing east to west through the middle of the site, and finally units crossing north/south near the eastern boundary of the site. The middle of the building provides a courtyard, with a pool and other common open space areas. Building setbacks are proposed at 20 feet for Foothill Boulevard and 15 feet for Hermosa Avenue. Issues for discussion include relocating the club house, fitness center, and leasing office to an interior area of the project and providing commercial tenant spaces along the buildings Foothill frontage, incorporating the existing residential structure east of the project Foothill Boulevard frontage into the project through shared parking area, driveway, and pedestrian access, and revising the Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue project driveway locations. E. Parkin: The proposal would provide 313 parking spaces for the 183 units, which is 68 fewer spaces than required by the existing Development Code. In addition, 251 parking spaces are required to be covered in a garage or carport and 184 are proposed to be covered, which is 67 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00802 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 23, 2015 Page 5 fewer than required by the existing Development Code. The proposed Mixed Use (MU) District does not include a specific parking requirement, but rather requires the applicant to propose their parking based on the results of a Traffic Study, which could consider such things as the unit mix, proximity to transportation alternatives, bicycle parking, etc. In addition, providing a Mixed Use development with another land use, such as commercial square footage, will require additional parking spaces since general retail uses require 4 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet. However, the commercial uses are expected to serve both the new community and adjacent residents and the retail parking could potentially be used in the overnight hours by residents thereby potentially alleviating the residential parking demand. The proposed parking spaces are provided throughout the site with carriage, carport and uncovered parking. Carriage parking buildings are located to the north of the project site, carports are situated along to the north project boundary, along the east project boundary, and to the east of the apartment building. The proposal also includes tandem parking, which places one row of uncovered parking space adjacent to a row of carriage or carport parking spaces. These tandem spaces would be restricted to those units with multiple assigned parking spaces to avoid tenant conflict, but the design of the tandem parking is not consistent with the Development Code aisle requirements. Planning issues for discussion related to parking include: mixing the parking and residential buildings throughout the project site, rather than the concentrated locations proposed, eliminating tandem parking, providing a higher percentage of covered parking, and requiring a parking study. F. Architectural Desiqn and Landscaping. The design of the buildings is contemporary and utilizes a variety of materials including wood or metal siding, stucco, and glass. Balconies are provided for private open space. The building is of a general rectangular shape, with flat roofs, and little articulation in the building plane. The flat roof adds to the contemporary architectural design. Suggested architectural revisions include incorporating items from the Foothill Boulevard Overlay District community design palette, stepping back the 4th floor, adding more articulation in the building plane to provide depth and shadow to the visual feel of the buildings, and enhancing the building materials. CONCLUSION: The applicant is seeking input as to what the City would like to see regarding the project. Based upon Staffs analysis, the suggested areas of discussion include- 1. nclude:1. Mix of land uses. 2. Consistency with proposed Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts. 3. Site layout. 4. Parking. 5. Architectural style and design. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00802—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 23, 2015 Page 6 Following the workshop the applicant will be provided minutes of the meeting to assist them in the preparation of their full submittal package in the future. Respectfully submitted, Candyce �B rnett Planning Director CB:TG/Is Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Plans Exhibit B—General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-5 Exhibit C — Development Code Table 17.36.020-1 Exhibit D— Proposed Development Code Table 17.36.020-2 Exhibit E — Comparison Table Exhibit F — Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan Exhibits I and Q Exhibit G — Draft Formal Application Submittal Requirements and Special Studies Exhibit H — Draft Technical Requirements/Comments Page 6 x DI LV ; M u _ 1 w 7 _ I t N ,e J °4UYSJ YYGIRN ._ •4ANxYl�IIfW ' FOOTHILL BOULEVARD •.,,.,, i -- 0 Al w'r er loon• FOOTHILL & HERMOSA RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL SLTEPLAN I`C FORE PROPERTY COMPANY ARCHITECTS ORANGE IZI B1 B1U3 t OD VIII d i1 ' ' Ildu ! tIi1II .rL ._, d ❑ d - _ r , -nom FOOTHILL BLVD-ELEVATION ,. _ FOOTHILL & HERMOSA RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA CONCEPT ELEVATION -� FORE PROPERTY COMPANY ARCHITECTS ORANGE -_-- —=yooL ec�we �>e� i f ael.r.v Woo ? lie i\ W1 ,. will. - mom lk '� 4 ,....n..'PM811Iyhad 3- al 7Zkj 1.7 07 * . �j � a 1 • t '.v R;1 'i A r> � err.a 1 . sd rr I FR PROPERTY • Average.Oen creslPwelLn Uni Office—professional, 85%-87% 45-47 acres 47 acres medical corporate offices 6.5-8.1 acres 6.5 acresr� Residential 12%-15OX 6.5 @ 24-30 du/acre or 30 dcres IIT 8.1 @ 14-24 du/ac 195 du 113-195 Totals 100% 53.5 acres 53.5 acres Note: 1. Indicates target density, not a range.Actual density may increase up to 30 du/oc as long as the total of 195 dwelling units is not exceeded. Mixed Use: Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue This site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue (#4 on Figure LU-3). A Master Plan was approved and implemented for the site, which includes a 10.5-acre, 166-unit workforce multi-unit housing project, an existing restaurant at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue, and commercial, office, and restaurant land use at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Table LU-5 specifies the uses and range of development allowed. Table 1_11-S: Maui Use: Foothill Boulevard betvvce tg Iirrmosa ' Avenue and Center Avenu Residential Medium/ Residential 10.5 acres @ Medium High 0%-62% 0-10.5 acres 20 du/acre (Up to 20 dwelling units per acre)' 210 du Commercial—Retail and restaurant 0%-100% 0-17 acres 17 acres Note: 1. This Mixed Use site may consist of a mix of Medium to Medium High Residential uses, which may include multi-unit housing of up to 20 dwelling units per acre developed subject to the applicable density range requirements. EXHIBITB y Design, and Historic Resources J G A GENERAL PLAN LU-27 Page 11 Article III, Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE SITES Land Use Mix Mixed Use Sites E � a Wo; Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 21-36% 20-41% 5-12% 4-14 du/ac Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and 25-35% 10-15% 30-50% 0-10% 14 du/ac Haven Avenue) Terra Vista 12-15% 85-87% 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa 0-62% 0-100% 20 du/ac Avenue and Center Avenue Foothill Boulevard between Archibald 67-70% 30-33% 15-30 Avenue and Hellman Avenue du/ac Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and 30-40% 60-70% 30 du/ac Hampshire Street Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 26-50% 40-60% 6-10% 4% 24--30 du/ac Industrial Area Specific Plan 11-22% 15-25% 40-60% 7.5% 28 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek 70-75% 25-30% 14 du/ac Channel Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 0-100% 0-100% 8-14 8-14 Western Gateway(Bear Gulch Area) 30-50% 50-70% 14 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga 0-100% 0-100% 8-14 Channel Site du/ac 4 Historic Alta Loma(Amethyst Site) 0-100% 0-100% 14-2 4-2 Section 17.36.030 Development Standards for Commercial and Office Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. B. Commercial and Office Districts Described. As identified in Chapter 17.26 (Establishment of Zoning Districts), the city includes six (6) Commercial and Office Zoning Districts: EXHIBIT C Page 12 Table 17.36.02.0-1 Mixed Use Development'Standards Development Standard/ MU Zoning District Site/Lot Area (minimum)') n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a Allowed Density(dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 50 units/acre Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following Land Use Mixl2l types of-land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks(3)(4) Street Yard (Major/Special Boulevard) Vary between 50% -75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) Vary between 50% -75% reduction of streetscape requirements i Street Yard (Local Streets) Vary between 75% - 100% reduction of streetscape requirements Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or 0 feet(') industrial) Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side(adjacent to commercial 5 feet or industrial) Distance Between Buildings i Primary Buildings Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height(maximum in feet)(6) Primary Buildings 75 feet maximum Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Floor Area Ratio(maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor Area Ratio 11.0 max Open Space Requirement(minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit See Section 17.36.020 (D)for additional requirements Recreation Area/Facilit Y Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces i Per Table 17.64.050-1 All Mixed Use projects shall provide a parking study. i Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record,parcels less than 3 acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. EXHIBIT Page 13 (3) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (4) Shall apply to buildings,parking and landscaping. (5) Must meet minimum Building Codes. ' (6) All buildings within 100 feet of LM, L, or VL Districts shall not exceed 25 feet;however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and shall be determined on a case by case basis. Section 17.36.020 D. Other Miscellaneous Mixed Use Development Standards 1. Front and/or corner side setbacks do not count. Required front and/or corner side setbacks shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. 2. Required perimeter and parking landscape area shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement, but is counted towards landscape. 3. A maximum of 30 percent of the total requirement for open space shall be counted toward required private open space area. Additional private open space area will not count towards total requirement for open space. 4. Each private open space shall have a minimum width and depth of 6 feet. 5. This maximum 30 percent requirement may be modified by not more than 5 percent if determined to be necessary during Design Review. 6. Each common open space shall have at least one minimum dimension of 15 feet and 'the other dimensions shall be at least 6 feet, except for.private open space (e.g., balconies or patios). a. Open space shall include both indoor/interior space and outdoor open space. b. Open space can be in the form of private open space (e.g., balconies) or common open space (e.g., pool or side or rear setback areas.) C. An indoor recreational room of up to 600 square feet may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. d. A utility easement may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement if it is properly landscaped in compliance with Chapter 17.56 (Landscaping). Page 14 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND PROPOSED PROJECT Criteria Proposed Development Code Proposed Project Consistent? Site/Lot Area n/a I Need lot coverage n/a (minimum) Lot Width/Depth n/a 262 feet/615 feet n/a (minimum) ' Density no minimum/50 du/ac maximum 41 du/ac Yes i Land Use Mix project shall incorporate a 1 land use proposed; No; needs secondary i minimum of two(2)of the residential land use following types of land use: commercial, office, institutional, residential, live/work Street Yard Setback vary between 50%-75% ; Foothill 1;t floor setback is No; 2rfloor needs (Foothill) reduction of streetscape 20 feet; 2^d floor setback I greater setback requirements(12.5 to 18.75 feet is 20 feet; parking is for 1 SI floor; 25 to 37.5 feet for setback 25 feet 2 d floor; 22.5 to 33.75 feet for I parking) i Street Yard Setback vary between 50%-75% I 15 feet Yes (Hermosa) reduction of streetscape requirements (5 to 7.5 feet) I ! Interior Side Setback I match side yard of adjacent ! over 50 feet Yes I base district(25 feet) Rear Yard Match rear yard of adjacent over 50 feet Yes district(20 feet) Building Height I 75 feet @ 48–54 feet Yes I Floor Area Ratio I 1.0 maximum Need building square TBD: the applicant will footage need to provide building square footage Landscape Area 10% minimum Need landscape square TBD: the applicant will footage need to provide landscape square footage Open Space Minimum of 150 square feet/unit i Need open space TBD: the applicant will information need to provide open � Recreation Per Section 17.36.010 E Pool, spa, courtyard, i space square footage Yes Area/Facility (minimum 5 amenities) fitness room, club room Parking Per Table 17.64.050-1 and 1-313' parking spaces are ' TBD; the applicant will parking study(381 stalls iproposed; 184 are need to provide a required and 251 must be j covered and 70 are open I parking study covered) tandem spaces ! EXHIBIT E Page 15 foothill Boulevard - Historic Route bc`. HERMOSA AVENUE ACTIVITY CENTER Tlrtnttt� Streetscape Unifying F7emonts W EXISTING ELEMENTS: �� I I txtsnnc -Large Parkways with Turf and Meandering Sidewalk Buuowe -Low Rork Wall/Planters in the Corner Setback EXISTING vnnztnc ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO HELP UNIFY: -Large Parkways with Turfand Meandering Sidewalk I{rve t.nmers with Brick Style Pavers -- --- -— „ •Low Rock Wall/Planters in the Corner Setback Wave Corners -Rive Crosswalks it ith Accent Paving Material Matching the Color of the Existing Concrete Rivers in the Medians �� 1 '___ - _,,, - � -Route 66[cons within Landscape/Sidewalk R.O.W. Duplicale the Streetscape Pattern from -Special Artwork or District Identification at the S.I..Corner(On the Other 3 Corners), - all 4 corners with Meandering Sidewalk, Icon Placement, I� J --- --Crosswalks Paved in Accent Pavin *Historic Pedestrian I evel Light Poles low Kock Wall,Planters,Etc. b MaterialMatching the Color of the Existing Concrete -Paint all Traffic Control Hardware and Pavers in the Medians Streetscape Furniture a Consistent Color Add Low River-Rock Wall/Planter FOOTHILL BOULEVARD -All North and South bound intersecting streets - - - - -- -- should have Route 66 and district identification incorporated on to the Foothill Blvd,streetname Utili>c Existing Parkway for Placemen[ signs of Three Route 66 Icons(See Palette -interior of Intersection Paved in Dark Colored CD of Alternatives) I 24"Wide Concrete Banding Accent paving Material Matching the Herring .a --- .. _-__ Bone Pattern of the Concrete Pryers in the Median m *See Palette for Choices of Icons,Special Artwork Opportunity for Placement of Special _ �ExistingSidewalk Features,Street Furniture and Accent Paving Artwork or District Identification W �---Existing Landscaped Area on all 4 Corners- Q * Ultimate Right-of-Way and Traffic Lanes Shall Be Q Low Rock Wall Per City's General Plan Circulation Element t O Planter Area WE%ISTING BUIIDING I s , awns •w Exhibit x.v�n • • - --- --- — Foothill Rvvlovard Hirfnris• PF+frf� ,4�r Informal Clusters of Tues, Rolling Rut Berms and Meandering Sidewalk'^ TYPICAL SUBURBAN PARKWAY \\ flan View and I(ovation f` tr I'arla,re Setback Widths Vary u _ (16Minimum) Single Globe Acorn Style Street .....fff Lights at Approx 120'O.C. FOOTHILL BLVD --Gape Myrtles and Rhus hncea with Low Ground Cover and Shrubs'* ^See City Standards for Requinvl Widths **Refer to Foothill Blvd.Spccnir flan, \\ Suburban Parkway and Median Standards `—Double Globe Median Street Light for Additional Accent Lighting(optional) at Approx 120'on Center where Feasible Parkway. Setback Widths Vary 116 Minimum) PLAN VIEW Double Globe Median Street Light fur to Additional Accent Lighting(optional) m at Approx 120'on Center where Feasible a Informal Clusters of Trees,Rolling Turf '- �1 { Informal Clusters of Trees,Rolling Turf ="': Sid ** Berms and Meandering Sidewalk** S Berms and Meanderin gewalk Single Ie Globe Acorn Style Street rr + Single Globe Acorn Style Street g Y '- a Lights(Banners optional) Lights(Banners optional) �p t Crape Myrtlesand Rhus lancea with Low Ground Cover and Shrubs** l t f . s+5in Wide i–6,Wide Sidewalk* I _ Sidewalk* _ _ – II Izrkway Setback Existing Travel Lanus Median lR' t Existing Travel lanes Parkway setback I Ei'Minimum ELEVATION 16' .Minimum •� A. Formal Application Submittal Requirements: The applicant will be subject to review and approval of a Design Review application. The following applications/documents (and associated fees)will be required at the time of formal submittal (fees subject to change): 1. Design Review - Residential (for review of the technical and design characteristics of the project): $10,862.00 2. Environmental Assessment, Initial Study- Part 1: $2,769.00 3. Sign Permit (for Notice of Filing Signs): $125.00 4. Deposit for three (2) Notice of Filing Signs (one on Foothill Boulevard and one (1) on Hermosa Avenue for supplemental public notification purposes):. $613.00 per sign 5. General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to be determined. B. Special Studies: The following special studies will be required at the time of formal submittal: 1. Air Quality Study (including an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and local significance thresholds). 2. Cultural Resources Report. 3. Arborist Report. 4. Biological Study. 5. Noise Study. 6. Parking Study. 7. Photometric Study. NOTE: Additional special studies may be required following the formal submittal and prior to determining the application to as complete. EXHIBIT G Page 18 A. Draft Technical Requirements/Comments — Engineering: 1. Provide a trip generation and trip distribution for the difference between the existing amount of trips generated compared to the ultimate amount of trips generated. If the difference is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips to any intersection, then a Traffic Impact Analysis will be required. 2. Development application shall show all existing improvements including existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks, catch basins, driveways and existing pavement widths on adjacent and across the street properties for a distance of 200 feet beyond the limits of the subject site. Show existing medians, overhead utility poles, streetlights and traffic signal locations. Provide typical street sections and distances to nearest cross streets. a. Site Plan shall include existing drainage courses on-site and storm drains on . frontage streets. b. Conceptual Grading Plan shall include existing features within and 100 feet beyond all site boundaries (label to remain or be removed) — natural ground, trees, structures, parking lots, drainage courses, streets, trails, slopes, etc. C. Site Utilization Map shall indicate all parcels and streets within a 600-foot radius. 3. Assessor's Parcel Map indicates the existing right-of-way for Hermosa Avenue is 44 feet, not 33 feet as shown, with corner cutoff right-of-way at the intersection. Hermosa is a Secondary Arterial and will need to be widened to 32 feet from curb to centerline if that is not currently the case. 4. Minimum driveway spacing on Arterial streets is 300 feet, measured between driveway centerlines. Access shall be provided for the parcel to the east along Foothill Boulevard so that their existing driveway can be removed upon redevelopment of the adjacent property. 5. Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements will include: a. Widening for a right turn lane and dedication of additional rights-of-way. b. Parkway improvements shall be in conformance with the Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan, including streetlights and an in-lieu fee for special pavers within the intersection. C. No median breaks in the existing Foothill median. 6. Driveways on both streets shall be at least 200 feet from the signalized intersection, measured from the intersection curb return to the near edge of the driveway. a. Drive approaches shall be at least 35 feet wide, measured at the right-of-way line, and conform to our commercial standard. b. Hermosa drive approach shall align with existing driveway or street on the west side of the street, or be offset consistent with the City's Driveway Policy. EXHIBIT H Page 19 C. Gated entrances shall conform to our Residential Project Gated Entrance design guide, which includes a turn-around area outside the gate for visitors failing to gain access without backing into the public street. 7. Modify the existing traffic signal as needed. 8. Existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground on both streets along the entire frontage of the existing parcel, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. B. Draft Technical Requirements/Comments — Building and Safety: 1. No Comments at this time. C. Draft Technical Requirements/Comments — Building and Safety (Grading): 1. This project does not appear to meet with low impact development (LID) requirements of the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit. All buildings and impervious areas are at the low side of the site. This does not allow for the infiltration of storm water into the soil. The project will need to include LID principles with the next submittal package. D. Draft Technical Requirements/Comments — Fire Construction Services: 1. No Comments at this time. Page 20 NOTICE OF SPECIAL (MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold. a Special Meeting. on Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. in.the Rains Room at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, for the purpose of: A.. CALL TO ORDER B. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC C. ITEMS OF BUSINESS PREAPPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00802 - CHARLES JOS.EHP ASSOCIATES _A review of the site plan and elevations for a proposed 183-unit multi-family apartment complex on 4.45 acres of land in the Mixed Use (MU) District, Foothill Boulevard Overlay District( FBOD) , located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue; APNs: 107760113 and 107760114. The Commission will give general comments and direction with respect to the conceptual plans. D. ADJOURNMENT s Ravenel Wimberly September15, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2015 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-IN SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you. ojiaey`jl�40' P NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM W.Awze7 044'aez jg&� 2. \�1,v,jwk 5+- -rk &,1"' 64731�� 3. GJ �/ �J f2�� C q 1f 4. �'LI 1 ►Nl)Fa FASToi� 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Schrader, Lois From: Wimberly, Ray <rwimberly@hss.sbcounty.gov> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:41 PM To: Schrader, Lois Cc: Burnett, Candyce; Wimberly, Ray Subject: RE: 9-23 Notice of SpecialMeeting Attachments: 9-23 Notice of Special Meeting.pdf Thank You Lady Lois and Team. Please find attached my signed request of you to hold this Special Meeting. Thank You In Advance. Ravenel N. Wimberly Human Services Information,Technology&Support Division CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This — - ------- communication contains legal privileged and SAN BERNARDINO Business Systems Analyst III confidential information sunt solely for the _COUNTY ----------------...........-.----------.------.. use of the intended recipient.If you are not Phone:909.386.1981 1 Fax:909.386.3785 1 Mobile:626.641.5056 the intended recipient of this communication RWittebesly(a�hss_ShE, aq-q-tyt,.4oy wwvv.S$County.gOv you are not authorized to use it in any manner.except to immediately destroy it and Our job is to create a county in which those who notify the sender. reside and invest can prosper and achieve well- being. From: Schrader, Lois [mailto:Lois.Sch rader@cityofrc.us] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:28 PM To: Wimberly, Ray Cc: Burnett, Candyce Subject: 9-23 Notice of SpecialMeeting Hello Chairman Wimberly: Next week we will hold the afternoon workshop (special meeting) at 4:30 in the afternoon. There will not be a regular meeting at 7:00pm (no items). The Brown Act requires you as Chairman to call for the special meeting. If you would be so kind as to sign the attached form and send it back to me with an email requesting the Commission conduct the special meeting at the time and place I noted in the attached notice. The signed notice will then be posted in our windows and on the internet along with the special meeting agenda. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thanks! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This communication contains confidential information sent solely for the use of the intended recipient.If you are not the intended recipient of this communication,you are not authorized to use it in any manner,except to immediately destroy it and notify the sender. 1 or�tc4 CHO CA.0 ;A:,IFoatvuA. Pre-Application Review DRC2015=00802 Charles Joseph Associates/Fore Properties Planning Commission Workshop September 23, 2015 f Pre-Application Review DRC201' 5=00802 - Proposed Apartment Units s X MQNG tFoU A proposed development of an apartment complex at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue. The proposal includes: rs • A four-story, 183-unit apartment complex on 4.45 acres. — Provides 92 one-bedroom, 83 two-bedroom, and 8 three-bedroom units. — Will require the demolition of the 3 buildings on-site. 313 parking spaces with gated access off of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue. — Carriage, carport, tandem, and open parking spaces. — 187 covered (either garage or carport). • Recreational amenities — Central courtyard with pool and open space. • Club, fitness center, and leasing office. 7111 ID It -,4t - t r-A 1 14) rL 1, 71 C-0 PT _Z7 F F ID ,tl 14QJ oj OW �l oO��C�JOO �] �ac�oOO �� 1m ��'� � - .I `��`` �- � �t .-` •Miff s a a � L r EYM TT- Bl Ut 7 i i-!TLi I 41 1-1 F 17� r r . Ll ll llklliz ri 1 r L FOOTHILL BLVD-ELEVATION FOOTHILL & HERMCSA RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA CONCEPT ELEVATION FORE PROPERTY COMPANY ARCHITECTS ORANGE 14-0- -CESF.(RAhGE, CAUll)RAJA#:jig 1 Recommendations �Co '3 �j�,/�(�I��(w�C\j��}j',/`�v,LAS U!iF i-lpp'i.AAV b�,jtY eG At ' ALI i� • Mix of land uses — Provide a minimum of 2 types of land uses. — Include commercial, office, institutional, residential, or live/work. — Project provides only 1 land use. • Consistency with proposed Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts — Street yard setback for 2nd floor. — Standards for Floor Area Ratio, Landscape Area, Open Space, and parking. Recommendations "AN , C- ,t'J(;AMON.GAOf • Site Layout — Relocate club, fitness center and leasing office and provide a commercial tenant adjacent the Foothill Boulevard frontage. — Incorporate the existing residential structure east of the project into site for shared parking, driveway, and pedestrian access. Revise the Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue driveway locations. • Parking — Mix parking and residential buildings throughout the site. — Eliminate tandem parking. — Provide more covered parking. — Require a parking study. Recommendations A XT 11C,UPON �: • Architectural style and design g — Incorporate items from the Foothill Boulevard Overlay District community design palate. — Step back the 4t" floor. — Provide additional articulation in the building plane. — Enhance building materials.