Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-22 Supplementals - PC-HPCCITY OF V J1 � 'is, xa.o RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUL 2 12020 �00FREI4+ R►('%"fm�''-o) -vtw , -�d LtS,-e,. ma(- -�4 Sad e4 � ©� OU C � a KAw.\)rk'4k4 p 1no�-Q PU4- a` ,6\,4\ --vcvk L%�)" P CoaC-) -1,.�L _ ho c- ak\ +6-L 54-a e )kr�p r4-S 6j 61 A!cN AG O,v\4�S -� cam AV"� "O-k-A kk'�,g�1n , 4\-44 toouo� 5c �,jh 6W a A6u-1 Cacde.h Y�vcbar. -06r�4 kj, G,,4 -�-b SLA- haw w\av&y j C-6 c 24vt\s y\40\94v� -Cw - V-� o�s a A-eaca-ki- �-i S+ k�4*c-f 4 Qa%A \ -�a r \8 ycS - T 4Nq Wk Ck Qj a 1-\k uaKl,a -� y 9�,yr5 ay.� vv4vk kAV�0a Gtk $q10 -�G c ol-b\�tS -� K,8-� • Vicar• o\ -nv 6\6- 4WLkA,NC Yov > �AIZZ6{A ay iraON McPherson, Sean From: Barrett, Wendy <WBarrett@curtis1000.com> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 3:13 PM To: McPherson, Sean Subject: Carden Arbor View School Project CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network.. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe Hi Sean, I'm one of the neighbors directly behind this project. I'm planning on joining the zoom call on 7/22, but I wasn't sure if you had any plans on discussing the wall that will be built at the South end of the playground area, which would be directly behind our current fence, just curious how high that wall will be. Thanks! Wendy Barrett Cell: 909/579-7569 C Cy�CU 4Fn JUG 112 CAM�N ; F/�F� , 000 p1Mi*1 McPherson, Sean From: Barbara A Harris <barbara.a.harris@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 8:40 AM To: McPherson, Sean Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Carden Abor School This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you Lrecognize the sender and know the content is safe.' Dear Mr. McPherson, I received the Notice of Public Hearing and while I have no objection to the building of a school on the corner of Beryl and 19th Street, I do have a serious concern about the traffic it will bring and the lack of a left turn signal on the North/South intersection. This year already there have been several accidents and the increased traffic will only increase the number of incidents. With increased numbers of children in the area, we are already a main corridor for Alta Loma Middle School and Alta Loma High School, I fear that cars will not be the only casualty. I urge you therefore, to make the addition of a left turn signal a condition of the building plan. Sincerely, Barbara A Harris C/TyOF R4�CH �C!/r �FC JV� 11 ?0?0 1 McPherson, Sean From: Alaine Lowell <alainel@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 6:21 PM To: McPherson, Sean Subject: Proposal for conditional. use and tree removal, scheduled July 22, 2020 WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.. Hi Sean McPherson, I received a Notice of Public Hearing, dated July 7th. Because of previous commitments I will not be able to view the meeting via zoom. Could you forward me information on this planned project. Thank you, Alaine Lowell 4201 Via Marisol #325 Los Angeles, CA 90042 (626) 484-1848 C/�OF Rq yC yOC McPherson, Sean From: Kimberly ONeil <billknk@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 7:21 AM To: McPherson, Sean H�CU� ? C44f , Subject: Safety Concern for Carden Arbor View Scho���/1i�o �2Q?Q C' I CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or oven attachm961Y Yt1A&voul the sender and know the content is Sean McPherson, We would like to state my concerns for the Carden Arbor View School project. There is a significant safety concern at the Beryl Street and 19th Street intersection. Currently there are no left turn arrows in the North or South direction on Beryl Street. We have lived in this area for over 30 years and own a Sunscape condominium on 19th Street, as well as a home just South of 19th Street off of Beryl Street. We have witnessed many accidents and close calls over the years. There is limited visibility when traveling North on Beryl Street and attempting to make a left hand turn onto 19th Street. Just north of the intersection across from the CBC Church the road dips down making visibility limited. This makes it hard to gauge when it is safe to execute a left turn. We have also observed drivers becoming impatient with pedestrians and students in the crosswalk because they are in a hurry to make a left turn on the green light. Beryl is quite busy at specific times servicing both Alta Loma Junior High School and Alta Loma High School. There are also several churches and a couple of parks off of Beryl Street, and the Carden Arbor project would add even more strain and congestion on this road without the North and South left turn arrows. People are often in a rush to pick up their children from these schools, we don't want to see any more accidents when there is a way to prevent them. Sincerely, William & Kimberly O'Neil 1 Carden Arbor View School Primary Case#: DRC2019-00864 July 22, 2020 Project Background • Who: Carden Arbor View School/WLC Architects • What: Request to develop an 18,500 square foot private school (K-8) with 13 classrooms, staff and aftercare areas, kitchen and lunch areas and outdoor play areas. • Where: Southwest corner of 19t"and Beryl Streets • When: Application submitted on 10/29/2019; Neighborhood meeting held on 5/21/2020, and the Design Review Committee meeting held on 6/16/2020 property r». p y s 1 1 r ,r 7 r p I ! �r YP F f r Goo le Earth` ,k CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Irm Facing West (from existing parking lot along Beryl St.) ..A.,��t> . �' .,, • {'�^m`s x LL`�"... �,,,. - - ate"% .. .",«cixt.�'Sti CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F K Facing North (from existing parking lot along Beryl St.) w i115FW ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �I r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Charles Stoebe House — 6710 Beryl Street (to remain) Proposed Project • Design Review to allow the constriction of a new 18,500 square foot building; Note that the existing historic Stoebe House is to remain and be used as office space. • Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a private academic school. • A Tree Removal Permit to allow tree removals, including 8 Heritage Trees. Development Standards a-A.W.M. A.W. 35 Feet 156 feet (proposed school) Yes 35 Feet 35 feet, 2 inches (proposed Yes school) 20 Feet 76 feet, 2 inches Yes Varies. Ranges from 5/10 Feet approximately 95 feet to Yes 176 feet 15 Feet 19 feet Yes 40 Percent 15.8 Percent Yes 35 Feet Maximum 28 feet Yes Provided RatioParking Parking 2 per classroom 26 spaces 49 spaces I i LOT 26 Existin Site Pin EXISTING SITE PLAN — "MI I SOULHERN CALFORNIA exxcs�esnrea_e xrre im I SITE LEGEND ORC2019-00864 E%I5TING SITE LAYOUT. EXISTING SITE AREA SUMMARY ERISTING PARKING TABULATION � n a so wre er oEurmmx � xemuxs in- cnec�: are �caf: � israx OVERALL IXIIITNG SITE PLAN REQ'0 PARKING CALCULATIONS A1.4 • I �PIAX�C�JUR�. _ _ NEW K8 CAMPUS a a T iG¢oU 6 '" I r SITE LEGEND o Z PLAY GROUNO'�• - r7 FIRE LANE - 26' C R. j' s — — — — — — — — — - - DRC2019/-00006 44 BLDG. CODE ANALYSIS s tr '. EXISYING NEIG IBORIMG RESIDENCE NEW PARKING TABULATION mum x�r'rwNc oxs�ar�niw�n m vncuun EXtONG SINCTLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Txea�ritsmwNc scws an I I N I i I LOT 30 LOT 31 LOT 32 LOT 33 NEW SITE PLAN 1 REQ. PARKING CALCULATIONS _ NEW SITE LAYOUT G�Irr � b �.�-�-n PROIECf Mi1HRl91'.61x ........ MONUMENT SIGN 4 TYP PARKING STALLS 3 NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE 2 SITE AREA SUMMARY I Proposed EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION MAW WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ns �mm �­ m � u LEGEND Architectural Design • Vernacular in style, with the roof pitch intended to match that of the Victorian -style Stoebe House; • Stucco, pressed board siding, natural stone veneer accent walls on all elevations. Exposed wood eaves, wood braces and vinyl doors/windows painted white. Asphalt shingle roof proposed to match existing Stoebe House; • Work proposed to Stoebe House will be limited to ordinary maintenance and repair. Weathered/deteriorated siding to be replaced "like for like," and structure proposed to be re - roofed with asphalt shingle. CARDEN ARBOR VIEW SCHOOL � ; GL�"!' • � � it � � �'1 ,�'S�i Y iI'_ i' � lh�.. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA River Rock A,*.. FlIt'll, CA (900) 351 .296 . .. . . ........... Grey Granite CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Conditional Use Permit • Subject to Development Code Section 17.30.030-1, Private Academic Schools are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; • Generally, school hour! graders, and 8:30 a.m. Care program provides day. A summer school 2:45 p.m. range from 7:55 a.m. -3:00 p.m. for 11t — 8th - 2:30 p.m. for Kindergartners. Extended Child after -school care until 6:30 p.m. every school program is also offered between 9:00 a.m. — • Proposed conditions include, but are not limited to: parking management, any future alterations to the Stoebe House, and the project achieving code compliance, etc. Tree Removal Permit • Arborist Report prepared for project identified 42 trees on -site, 32 of which will be removed, including 8 heritage trees; • Half of heritage trees are either dead (2) or are in poor health (2). The other 4 heritage trees, while generally healthy, the applicant proposes to remove these trees in order to accommodate the proposed project; • Development Code Section 17.16.080.1 provides "Factors to Consider," when considering the removal of heritage trees. Pursuant to this section of the code, removal of the trees is justified in order for economic enjoyment of property. Public Art Requirement • This project is subject to the public art requirement and will be required to provide public art on the site with a minimum value of $1 per square foot ($18,500) or pay an equal in -lieu free to the City's public art funds. Interdepartmental Review • The Fire, Engineering and Building &Safety Departments have reviewed the project and have provided general comments which are included as conditions of approval. Environmental Review • Project qualifies for Categorical Exemption as a Class 32 Infill Development; • Applicant commissioned various studies, including: • Traffic Impact Analysis; • Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum; • Air Quality & Grennhouse Gas Technical Memorandum; • Biological Resources Technical Report; • Cultural Resources Assessment • Arborist Report Noticing • Notices were published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on July 7, 2020, and mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (313 property owners) on July 8, 2020. • Staff has received emails and phone calls from multiple property owners expressing questions and concerns of the proposed project. Notably, most inquiries involve traffic at 19t"and Beryl Street. Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of the subject project application through the adoption of the subject resolutions and Conditions of Approval. Questions/Comments? 7 AEJ no A IL mms a w ft� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Overview • The Planning Commission approved DRC2018-00784 on March 13, 2019, for the development of 135 for -sale units; • The project consists entirely of two -bedroom units, divided into three different floorplans; • Units range in size from 979 to 1,239 square feet and are within 6 and 9-unit buildings; • The New Home Company has completed 3 buildings of the approved 19 buildings. Modification Request • New Home is requesting to modify Plan 2A (1,164 square feet), to add a 218 square foot flex office and Plan 3A (1,263 square feet) to add a 198 square foot third bedroom; • Of the 135 approved units, they are requesting that 37 units include a flex -office and 37 units include a third bedroom. Revised Floorplan Total Square Footage 995 981 Bed/Bath Count Unit Count 38 7 1A (No Change) 2/2 1 (No Change) 2/2 2A (built) 1,164 2/2.5 3A (built) 1,263 2/2 3 3X (built) 1,237 2/2 full, 2 half 2 3Y built 1,251 2 2 full 2 half 3 24 2Z 1,382 2/2.5 + flex office 3 r 3Z 1,461 3/2.5 37 w am �-qs —.ddor Rp CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Genesis for Modification Request • The change is being requested based on slow sales and feedback prospective home buyers who are moving from 1- and 2-bedroom apartments and are looking for a third bedroom; • With the addition of the flex office/third bedroom, they believe they will have a more competitive project; • The applicant has informed staff that they plan to sell the units with the added floor area at the same price as the existing offerings; • They have provided a 3-bedroom Market Demand Analysis which outlines the market preference for larger units (greater than two bedrooms). UNIT 2Z - 3RD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN B!A'e IVY SPACE FOR SRIDHN RAHGE EBOW L "D)c MCROWAIE ABOVE PROMISE ROL[) MCRING AT WALL LGGAI1GNTfGR - . TOWa B0.R6T.P. BOIOFP M.PI eT—� cc EoVrr3r' ` - KITCH. XEC_M_— J, '.E.'' _ III t5 _____ '-'��• P'i7-CLG �' la' D TO ABOVE GREAT RM, DOOROA GLm T4 DOORMO7C! L TRH :.. Ta IuvElsauTo¢s PFR ACOUMAL REPORT UNIT 2 GARAGE CLG-10 - ABPAABOVE RFDINREQ 1asm 771-T _nnuRa�eln.n �� jlillll i! nmununlnn Myu �■—I_II IIIIIIIIIIIINI�1 - - s_Ma wscm /;'l hBVF%i: 1tb BapcEaC \"�?% YB�FFt s1ELF8ElOW '- OANCW ABOVE CDADI OdluP -A m.. �. �M SmBBG OR AOBERM of a -Pt a-iP a n YifBf F SFS: nEVAIA FOR AIAIFRW ]}.1P UNIT 2 & 2Z - 2ND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PIu%i R TLG SOFFa A&M ALh.RE: I b ALNEPED SR CIG.l IL K. '�EF®t SCR sToj ai zzY Ta} r-iol• UNIT 2 & 2Z - 1ST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN BED. 2 YO ac. BED. 3 cww�R ��� ac, F.sPa�l CH.BIIIIg164P saNG r-----rti LAU. d U LAN 3Z �3-.� - 1— � PROPCfSIXO PACNIG Af WALL ' LGCATIGNS FOF —>PACFEpRSLOF�P w A o BA.2 :NSF r" mWa F.as�r. rldG�. Nf.P9! RRNGEBElOW6 ?AIERCWAYE re I.C. sPEc..rn- -, •s ^'.R C w�Roo � ___�I Ph5[s IIPPEe p:�+roy 9ieel - AFnEI; M.BA. 2,1RON `' HALL 1 KITCH. � r o 0 soiNG . ' �CBFSPc 9d0.G. _ �SpHf BPtn'lXOWERJi F - 5 PERIPEC.W eIL NGX MIN. SNFi4 ---- -- au sG�NT 9PLWRRNF - a .aXIGNwRN — -- olwlc 0 F: TPG NGfrPG � - CRNCPTSFLOW P mcw r-r sa} v-roq UNIT 3Z - 3RD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A vE a 'l 1O01 WALL -- -- �NnctawvF GREAT - - RM. W FA Y HS IZ im - 9'-0 CIG. DEG 3� �_>) r R3ASf01F oEcc 4 I I la i iIP USOW _ P GFN[3RIr19l61AP � M1fRIF➢ AOPRG OP PLN® GaNpPS aNriE �� 511]RE VBJ. a [3EVATI0H5 FOR kF W000 RC6R�, •/ZXIGH VdiBIAi SSEIFPElG1R. NIN RAZING S# SOf®?IFT P-Iq UNIT 3 & 3Z - 2ND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN � ua•=1•-0• ur=ram• Z100L 0*4 N W N MRL RAca I _ _ m MVEi60 "ASS UNIT3 GARAGE AWlRRtFS j _ , -- I --- A WIEaERW'O.SH i I Cd.PO511E I STOP. OR nexnGE fMTV�A TS i,;-1I 0 ACCESS19LE Ibcwt�a RT -,c PDR: OPT. PDR ES _ aPislT� � j Y.rnc wwca Noss '----•I I - ��} uraol I. t-i t I MISS SiGNE AEII vB mzpT. M. PER HFVS. tB 4B td FY } ti UNIT 3 & 3Z - 1ST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 ia• = 1W 965 Npr R -vr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Analysis • Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and is concerned that allowing the addition of a third bedroom/flex office, will reduce the diversity of unit types within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan area as well as the long-term affordability to individuals at the lower end of the income strata; • While the applicant states that they will not raise the cost of the units with the third bedrooms/flex office spaces, the additional bedroom (added square footage) will, over time, increase the cost of the units, making them less affordable to future home buyers; • Higher house prices can lead to overcrowded living conditions, an overextension of a household's financial resources, and situations where young families and seniors cannot afford to live near their jobs or other family members Housing Element The City's Housing Element goes include several goals promoting the creation of a variety of housing types: • Goal HE-1 provides that the City shall, "Allow and create new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations." • GOAL HE-2 states that the City shall "Provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low, low-, and moderate -income households and special needs groups." Housing Cost: To illustrate how high housing costs impact the typical family, staff calculated the maximum housing cost a household earning up to 120% the county median income could afford: • Based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 2020 median income for Riverside -San Bernardino - Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is $75,300. • A household of four earning 120% of the county median income is approximately $90,360. • Based on this annual income a household of four is able to qualify for a $390,000 mortgage, assuming a 5% down payment and a fixed rate at 3.875% on a 30-year term. • The base price of a two -bedroom unit being sold by The New Home Company at The Resort is $391,067, which is only slightly below that which would be affordable to a family of four earning the median income. Parking • The additional spaces. bedroom does not require any additional parking • While the additional bedroom does not increase the required parking, experience has shown that the increased bedroom counts add to the parking demand by creating the opportunity for renting these rooms out to help cover the monthly expenses. Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Parking Ratio (per unit) Required Parking Provided Parking Resident Parking 61 2 2 122 130 74 3 2 148 148 Guest/Visitor Parking 135 n/a 1 (per 3 units) 45 53 Total Parking 315 323 Surplus Parking 8 Spaces Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Deny Design Review Modification DRC2020-00192 and direct staff to draft Resolution of Denial to be acted upon at a future Planning Commission meeting. rina ry Mnu-ca nn Pr :rr�rr�r•r���r•�������rw�r���r�i�rr�r: IlllEl111 111111111 — 4FI mw P:::::::::14 I11111111 — 1111�' Iloll ■.. loll 11 loll loll loll •• II ••• 11 ••• ... ..■ 11 loll 11 loll ... loll !1 •,• 11 ••• •• ..r m®m loll 11 ®mm loll loll II WHOM 11 ••• ■.� r loll 11 loll 11 ••• 11 loll ..■ ..l 11 ... .. ■■ II .. .. ■.. .ww ■.■ ■.■ :: ■■ 11 11 ■■ .. �� .■ ■.■ ■■ .. :: 11 ■■ ■.. ■■ Poll ■.. ■■ 0 11 ■■ ww ■■ ■■ ■.. ■■ .. �� .. .: �� .. ..� ■.■ �� 1111[II71 111111111 Sir 111111111 � e 1111/1/11 111111111 I11111111 11111' IN IN me a I.—H. me mus . . ■ .■.. ...■.■ ■ IV on 00, am H. man a .. ■.■ 1. won NOR .. ■ii .. mono mono .i ■ mono a I mono .,.I a a mono ..� ■.■ ■ WHY IS THE CITY EVALUATING I NCLUSIONARY HOUSING? Current General Plan GOAL HE-2: Provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low, low-, and moderate -income households and special needs groups. Program HE —11 Inclusionary Ordinance Establish a Committee to evaluate the adoption of an Inclusionary Ordinance as a means to create opportunities for the development of affordable housing units. i i HOUSING MARKET ENVIRONMENT • Critical shortage of both housing and affordable housing • Housing prices and rental rates have increased beyond levels of affordability. • State of California mandates (i.e. RHNA, Legislative Housing Package) • Lack of local funding. ii _M INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMMITTEE Randell Lewis Jim Manning Clemente Mojica Eunice Bobert Brandon Birtcher Don Smith Linda Daniels Lewis Operating Corp. Manning Homes Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services (NPHS) Orange Housing Development Corp. Birtcher Development Healthy RC N/A 1 11 11 lolrinr Illrsull _ IlllEl111 111111111 111111111 in nu in ... ... .tw wa. MEN Now MEN Igo man Multi -family home builder Single-family home builder Non-profit single-family service provider Non-profit multi -family service provider Business (Industrial Developer) Community based org. Resident INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMMITTEE The Inclusionary Housing Committee was created to answer two fundamental questions: 1. Should the City of Rancho Cucamonga have an Inclusionary Housing Policy? YES 2. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga is required to have an Inclusionary Housing Policy by State, what should the policy look like? _M mom i i IH COMMITTEE MEETINGS • Meeting # 1 March 17, 2020: Goal — Introduction and Fact Finding. Action — Roundtable discussion and provide additional info. as needed. • Meeting # 2 April 14, 2020: Goal — Review best practices policies for inclusionary housing. Action — Discuss pros and cons. • Meeting # 3 May 11, 2020: Goal — Review Committee's policy ideas. Action — Shortlist list policy ideas. • Meeting # 4 June 16, 2020: Goal — Review shortlist of policy ideas. Action — Select preferred approach. i i PROGRAM STRUCTURE IDEAS • Type of development • Project threshold size Percentage of units which much be affordable • Affordability levels Program should apply to both rental, and ownership. Be sensitive to market condition to large acre ownership developments. All projects should participate; Projects of 10+ units should comply with ordinance. 15% of total project should be affordable. Household Income should not exceed 80% of AMI for multi -family and 120% of AMI for single-family. 1 11 11 l.lrinr Illrsull IlllEl111 I FllEllll 111111111 _, o un nu nu na man IV in PROGRAM STRUCTURE IDEAS • Duration of requirement • Design standards • Incentives • Compliance Alternatives Multi -family should be in perpetuity and single-family should be 55-years. Comparable and reasonable design while being flexible. Density bonus; parking reduction; expedited processing; other zoning variances Compliance alternative should be provided to large acre home development where IH is not feasible. Multi -family projects should produce on site units. Alternatives include: In -lieu fees; land dedication; acquisition and rehab �ilq 11 lolrinr :21NNll IlllEl111 I FllEllll 111111111 ... ...me... ... II11EI111� I lllEllll 111111111 11111111' Men� v _ 111111111� 111111111 I11111111 IH 1lIH' 19 = V MI = V ■rr ■rr ■no■ „ ■mo• �' rar rrr moil „ nono■ rrr m®m molimol � � ®9m or � ■momo �, rrr ono iii „ ■no■ ■rr ■rr ■rr Noww ■i■ ■i■ ■■ f■ rrr rwr nor ■i■ 1� rrr ■rr �� moil ■rr mono ww mono onmoil mono rr ::: rr iiO ■i■ ■ I lolrinr uuum IlErsull uluull IlllEl111 1[IIEII II I FllEllll � I11111111 1111l1111 � Ililllill I1Il11 R' o IH 1lIH' WIT II FIB' ■rr ■rr ara rar rrr go m®m man me ■rr ■rr ■rr rar rar MEN a.r ■rr or .rr .■ rrr r.r ■■ ill's ■■ 11 11 N U � 11 ,. .. 11 .. .. 11 .. .. ■.. , , ■.■ Chase Partners LTD. DRC2020-00026 July 22, 2020 Project Description Who: Chase Partners LTD What: A request to construct a 22,870 square foot commercial warehouse shell building on a vacant site of 1.08 acres. Where: Southwest corner of 6t" Street and Hyssop Drive Entitlements: Design Review DRC2020-00026 r t W Stanley Steemer� Comfort Pedic Mattress{ i r q,� ti' Factory & showroom lenrIces th th S 1h St . « �tIY;St T _ f : y • � �. If ? arm Tessie " � • � �. I .Ca6gnets, inc u Vega Industnes ' .T w � � d I, Inland alleys r,i Products RV Services nenca I� -_ - Porarily dosed Cambria DC Showroom southern 6alifornia... r osP Fulfillment o" &•Printing MA Ontario Winn lso'n Ci +s Harainge mmer r Industrial Supl)ly Insura ce'Services�' !lain Street Decor i ,' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .. i` ,�. .►ate•.. ._,-• � .E Yw�` -., �66 Aff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .��--�_ rs ,r' i� :� ,' Project Overview Setbacks Development Proposed 6 Requirements Front Yard Interior Side/Street Side Yard Rear Yard F/oorArea Ratio Building Height 35' 35' 5' / 25' 5' / 25' 0' 0' 50% - 60% 50% 75' Max 36' Type of Use r91 LA Square Footage Parking Ratio I # of Spaces Required # of Spaces Provided CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r V i � y �v -v -v -L �v -Y -v -v �v ♦ - � Y 18 Y � 15 it ill S ill LON a 12O i BLDIG. 23,380I SF 9150 s� I Dri�� WAREHOUSE 18,990 SF - I E Gl K i �I � I I I 0 0 I I I I I I I I 10 FFIC v7 1,510 SF o N =• `o yr - 0 o 0 2, -P OHD • • w • ❑9 z4 II o ... „ _ ,o rwr rm HC HC ,z NORTH Design Overview • The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, with each facade painted a palette of four (4) colors; • The building elevations will contain a combination of blue reflective vision glazing, vertical ribbed metal panels, Fitzgerald Formliner concrete patterns, and panel reveals; • The southeast elevation, which will be visible along Hyssop Drive, contains a significant amount of window glazing; • The required 600 square foot employee outdoor eating area will be located along the west property line and will include a metal lattice shade cover, two (2) dining tables, and trash receptacles. • The proposed building height is 36 ft. .,Ml 7::@ �� ■1■ Jim 1 ■■ 6 oil y� 10 r�r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D E 6 0 F m=� 6th Street Elevation ck CJ Vilest Elevation B A -71 South Elevation Public Correspondence • Public notifications for all public meetings were conducted in accordance with the Code requirements. • The following public meeting was held: • Design Review Meeting (June 16, 2020) Environmental Review This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section: • The project qualifies as a State CEQA Guidelines Development Projects Class 32 exemption under Section 15332 - In -Fill Public Correspondence • This project is subject to the public art requirement and will be required to provide public art on the site with a minimum values of $22,870 or pay an in -lieu free to the City's public art funds. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Approve Design Review adoption of the attached Conditions. D RC2020-00026 through Resolution of Approval the with PRESE\TATION Oi1TI,INE • • • • C C PtHPOSE OF TODAY I s �IEETING C r r' r"'Awn - .. T ..aulp1w - �•.^i -yY��� :fir: �: �•� . ' r — Current Floorplan Total Square Fgotage - Bed/Bath Count 1A - 995 2/2' 1X 981 _ 2/2 2A 11164 2/2.5 3A 11263 2/2 3X 1,237 2/2 full, 2 half 3Y 11251 2/? full, 2 half PLAN IAR . A First Floor Walisr vrindows, doors, stairs. -ding h� 'I decks and parches vary per ae-va�ion and buoldin, �ocahon_ 995 Square Feet 2 Bedrooms 2 Baths B E:D MASTER Limn BEDROOM I E R Y� 1J D YYLL - -- J I _LL I�SrHTBER I T~- lip-itn ==~ XUl Ply ��� ,,,�E70 Second Floor { PLAN 2A 1 1,164 Square Feet 1 2 Bedrooms 1 2.5 Baths -CAR TANDEM GARAGE ENTRY First Floor Walls, windows, doors, stairs, ceiling hei hts dec6 and porches.ary per elevolion and building �ocation. Second Floor PLAN I 1,263 Square Feet First Floor '•jls, wisdom, doors, stairs, €ail ingg heigghts decks and porafaes wary per elevation andbuil�Ing lv€nlian. Bedrooms Up to 2 Full & 2 He Second Floor Accessible Entry and AaoassiUe Rywder mm w 11 ri -.I 1p�m wIlIff-amol-'s got - - --------- - ^ L7.w PETS HFFB �1.aRK1;'1' A--\ALYSIS REPORT Competitors Aspire at The Resort L — ;J y M Veranda at Day Creek Square may° Lumiri at The Resort NEWMAM The Rows at Terra Vista Reeb Development Consulting THE RESORT BEDROOM lot--\t BY NEIGHBORHOOD THE RESORT - C L)P ENT BEDROOM COUNT BY COMMUNITY rnrnunity Product Type I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Total N-Cuffrent Attached 135 135 pi re Atka ch e d 65 .52 117 Enliven Atka ch e d 46 3' 80 Lurnin Detached 66 33 99 Tempo Detached so 31 81 Apartments Attached 438 374 55 867 G rarer Tots 1 438 574 269 98 1379 Percent by Bedroom Count 32 =_ 20 1 THE RESORT BEDROOM lot--\t BY NEIGHBORHOOD THE RESORT - BEDROOM COUNT BY COMMUNITY WITH PROPOSED NOVA PLAN CHANGE Community Product Type 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Total Nova - Proposed Attached 98 37 135 Aspire Attached 65 52 117 Enliven Attached 46 34 80 Lumin Detached 66 33 99 Tempo Detached 50 31 81 Apartments Attached 438 374 55 867 Grand Total 438 537 306 98 1379 Percent by Bedroom Count 32% 39% 22% 7% 100 Front Elevation Side Elevation Compariso n Rear Elevation Comparison • UNIT 2Z - 3RD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UNIT 2 & 2Z - 2ND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UNIT 2 & 2I - 1 ST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 f4" = 1'-0" 1f4"= 1'-0" L@ BED, 2 BED. 3 —IF CAS "ET r. CEMENTmaus LAP SIDING Ex. ca cv r-----n LAID_ 1 1�1 9'-0"CLG. —_---_ _ lli "p Hs L----- is PROY DE SOLID BACKING AT WALL LOCATIONS FOR SPACE FOR SLIDE'1T B A , 2d6B I Iz II TOWEL BAR & Tk RANGEBaOW & F3 II I HOLDER. HT. PER ROM WICROWAVE 2 -. C _:__ . I 1. C . / SPEC.. TYP. ABOVE Fv ! 7'- " CLti f _ IH3 32rx6U' HMIR_ - C WfROI] LJ P SPECS -° j 9,10 "p ---- *� I1 4 i _______ ° xy.BA. xS11501 M f4. .�2}., .1 us HALL / G - KITCH.. 1' _, a ` --- dBLSF( 9-0"CLG. X SUING II y - ? �sa. 51 4 HIS50 y I I 5 7s I 'Wf DISPC6AL C OPTI _-- -- -CHASE 36'x6C'SHOWER = -. I + •' i I ------ --- . 5 �� PER SPEC. Wi +42 HIGH MIN- 7 --- L 1 = TEMP.GL *-GUA�RD,TIIIYP{rc. --- --- F-a SOR EwOLOSLRE III +42-HIGH MIN OPEN TO GUARD. TYP. BELOW OPEN TO ABOVE ' ryz, 1 s� 1.I1G01 LWALL +�FLOORABOVE GREAT 9'-0" CLG�. Ks M.BED. CARPET `CLLEQ 3 >;3_s I ELASTOMERI DECK.` Q N I I 45 S F k I i2 30�0 3H I_ _1 1 3D�0 F OEMEMTIOU6L4P-7- ------------------------ ON --------- - --� Ill PIC, CANOPYBELOW MU SUING OR ADHERED CANOPY ABOVE— F'} Tpa MULL=D 1 ry POST BELOW ELEVAnONSSEESTONE R. S&6 WOOD POST I +4 H ONS FOR ,L MATERIAL SHELFTIELOW,---j MH_Ull 4'-7' 1H D' T-T SLOPED s'JFT. 5 �4'-I D' '-1- UNIT 3Z - 3RD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UNIT 3 & 3Z - 2ND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN BASE & UPPER CAB NETS SOFFT @ t7'-Id' t CAI I CL( BM SECT. GAR DR. 12 WTEW. GL.TOPPAID DOOR MOTOR &TRACKS TANL TOHAVEISOLATOPR WATER IACOUSCALREOR UNIT 3 GARAGE CIG.Hf.YhR� --------- -i- I I I � - I I 1 I I I I _1_J I I II I I I Yfi I 'ACPAb VER II -------- ADUL RISERS I II OAT II I r WHERE REGD-SEE 1 6 6� ii C0mPOSTTE L -A --- --- BLDG_PLANS I I - - R SiCR, OR :'TORAGE i xxRu rc NIT 3 '} 13j8'1HK.DR_ ACCESSIBLE TRY TIGHTFnNG PDR/CIPT. P'DR, C J fT-VARIES W� SELFCLOSER `4 _ :arse ti I I I I iLy CEMEHTITICW�r LAP SUING s-�r a'-1 ---- -- - ADHERED STONE VEnEEF SOFFT. HT_ PER ELFlS. ra xa ET-T UNIT 3 & 3Z - 1 ST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/4"= 1'-0" 1f4'= 1'4Y" iIf= 1'-0" Revised Flvorplan Total Square Footage Bed/Bath Count Unit Count 1A (No Change) 995 2/2 38 IX (No Change) 981 2/2 7 ZA (built) 1,164 2/2.5 8 3A (built) 11263 2/2 3 3X built) L237 2/2 full, 2 half 2 3Y (built) L251 2/2 full, 2 half 3 -2-,4 2Z L382 2/2.5 +flex Office 37 &4 3Z L461 3/2.5 37 Residence 1 Reside ne 1 X Residence Residence ❑ Residence 3X ❑ Residence 3Y N OVA RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEbV MORNING PLACE F a