Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-22 -Minutes - HPC-PC Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda June 22, 2022 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on June 22, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling and Commissioner Daniels; Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Mathew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development, Interim Planning Director; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; Brian Sandona, Sr. Civil Engineer; Darleen Cervera, Executive Assistant II; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chair Dopp opened public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2022. Motion to adopt by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried 5-0 vote. D. Public Hearings D1. VARIANCE – KERMIT SMITH (APPLICANT) – Consideration of a Variance to allow for deficient lot depth for parcels identified as APNs: 0225-181-35, 0225-181-38 and 0225-181-39 located in the Very Low Residential District (VL). This request is related to a proposed lot line adjustment and lot merger, and no development is proposed as part of this application. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt under CEQA Section 15305 – Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations. Variance DRC2022-00205 Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Kermit Smith, Applicant, and daughter Nicole thanked Commissioners for evaluating their variance and lot merger. Nichole mentioned they are residents and would like to stay in this area. Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing and hearing no one, closed Public Hearing HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 2 of 7 FINAL Commissioner Morales stated this makes sense because the way the lots are. Nothing wrong with it. It’s the right thing to do. Chair Dopp asked is it assumed the entrance for the house will face north. Sean McPherson answered that the frontage of the empty parcel would be off Chickasaw. With no other comments from Commissioners, Chair Dopp asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Daniels; Second motion by Vice Chair Williams. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolution 22-18, DRC2022-00205. D2. DESIGN REVIEW - 8500 HAVEN, LLC – A request for a site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 248 apartments and 23,750 square feet of commercial space on a vacant parcel roughly 9.37 acres in size, and a request for a minor exception for a reduction in the required parking for the proposed mixed-use development. The project is located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route within the Corridor 1 (CO1) mixed-use zone. APNs: 0209-092-09, -13. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Design Review DRC2021- 00200, Minor Exception DRC2022-00232. David Eoff, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Followed by a brief presentation by the applicant. Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing Commissioner Daniels asked regarding the minor exception, which one is staff recommending, is it the angled parking or 90 degree. David Eoff answered that the angled parking increases the deficit and staff is recommending approval of the increased deficit with the angled parking. A minor exception up to 62 stalls. Winston Chang, Architect, presented commissioners with a presentation and available to answer questions. Vice Chair Williams asked about the trees and what size will they start off with. Winston Change answered that they will vary. He said about approximately 14-foot canopy. They try to get the biggest trees they can. Commissioner Daniels asked was there any thought of 3-bedrooms. Winston Chang replied yes but depending on how the market reacts. Right now, it is saying two- bedroom units. If it changes, this project has the ability to adapt to it. Chair Dopp mentioned regarding the shed, looking at the parking plan by numbers, he asked is it assumed that residents would use those ports for parking and not for storage. Winston Chang responded that is a good question. How do people use their garages…. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 3 of 7 FINAL Chair Dopp stated that part of the parking numbers is contingent on those 13 garages being used for parking. He just wanted to make sure that is part of the plan that they are actually used for parking. We have had development issues with other projects. Winston Chang replied the intended uses is definitely for people to park their cars in. He said we wanted to make sure we offer garages for those apartments who have that expensive car. We will be able to capture that person. The intent here with all these variations is to lease every single square foot through and through because we deal with a lot of different people in the market. Chair Dopp stated with the restaurant bases on the northeast corner, he asked do you have a type of restaurant uses you are looking at for the second floor. Winston Chang answered it will probably attract a nice restaurant. Probably a very nice steak house on the corner, given that we designed it there will be a valet. He said that is their vision for it. They are at the mercy of the market. Chair Dopp closed Public Hearing. Commissioner Morales stated looking at the park area between Market Hall Building #1 and Haven Building #2, there is oval grass in the middle. He mentioned to make it more welcoming place a nice tree in the middle and wrap benches around the tree planter and facing out. He asked, if possible, they would consider it. A place where people can sit down and gather. Especially, being close to the restaurant. Winston Chang responded they would look into it. It’s a good idea. Only challenge it would make it a single use space. Commissioner Morales mentioned he was given alternative designs at the Design Review Committee meeting. He said he likes the Elevation Option #2 because it’s such a big building. We want to break up the massing there. Almost makes it into three buildings. Regarding Chair Dopp’s concern about the garage storage use. He asked couldn’t you write it in the rules for tenants they cannot use it for storage, so it gets enforced. It’s a simple fix. Winston Chang replied he likes all the options. There is an advantage to staying with what they got. He said it is a perfectly valid suggestion and he agrees with it 100%. There are just different ways of looking at it. Commissioner Daniels asked about the west property line parking structures are pulled 6 ft. off the property line. His concern is a security issue. Will it be gated off. Winston Chang replied each individual building has it’s dedicated parking that is very close. He said even up towards commercial, it’s separated so they are not competing with each other. He said safety is their number one concern. He explained when you come to the back 6 ft., it is basically a shade structure that is open to the wall and by end of day is not closed in. We will be okay with it. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to summarize parking issue, including 22 parking spaces on the street. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 4 of 7 FINAL David Eoff explained that the total deficit right now with 90-degree parking along the north side road is a deficit of 47 stalls. He said all 47 stalls are within the commercial parking category. The residents have strived to provide all the required residential parking and the residential visitor. In the past, that is where we see most of the problems because it’s the overnight guests, residents and they have more cars because they live there and that results in spillover parking. With all the residential parking being met on top of the parking management plan, there is less of a concern with that type of impact happening. The commercial aspect of it is a bit of a different aspect in the residential because the business is closed. If there is spillover parking, it will unlikely be due to commercial use. The deficit at 47 seems reasonable. It’s a 7.4%, minor exception allows you to go up to 25. They are not asking for the full 25, just what they need to make the project work. The angled parking however, it is a great feature, it does create a larger deficit because of the design and the size and space that is needed to provide angled parking. These stalls are at a 60-degree angle. They designed it to accommodate the angled parking, but it just comes at the cost of 15 extra stalls. It really comes down to pros and cons of including that angled parking and at the price of 15 stalls. If there is a parking problem, we would get the call first, then we would call the applicant and ask how we can fix that. Chair Dopp asked will the street parking spaces be metered or open to the public free to use. David Eoff answered they will be open to the public. Commissioner Boling asked for clarity with the 22 parking stalls, will that be time restricted parking or unlimited. Matthew Burris answered that they have not talked about that detail specifically. Right now, it’s generally open. He said part of the parking management plan, we have the ability to adjust it. That is City owned parking, so we have direct control on managing those spaces. Vice Chair Williams stated she likes Option 3. She said just changing the colors gives it a much different feel. She expressed concern of the parking and said to lose any parking, is a huge loss. She would be reluctant to take away any parking to get the angled parking. Chair Dopp asked for Commissioners to express comments on the following questions from staff: • Architectural design to Building 2 - Haven Ave. • Parking Commissioner Boling stated that Option 3 with the steel canopies, distinctive color scheme really breaks that large building into pleasant segments. It visually appears to be 3 buildings. Given the surrounding already built environment that predominantly has flat roofs. There are not very many buildings in the area that have pitched roofs. Looking at a more urban progressive design, Option 3 hits those marks. Commissioner Morales explained he liked Option 2 because he knew it went along with their theme of the mountains. Now hearing everyone’s comments, he likes Option 3. Commissioner Daniels expressed his preference is Option 3 as well. Chair Dopp stated the consensus is Option 3. Moving on to parking issue. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 5 of 7 FINAL Commissioner Boling stated he appreciates the intent infusing the streets characteristics with angled parking. However, the shortage of parking will be exasperated as well as that short distance of north south street and in his opinion does not warrant giving up those 15 spaces. Commissioner Morales stated he sees good points on both. He said the angled parking along that promenade are good because it goes with our new General Plan, but this does not have to conform to the new General Plan. He said he liked the angled parking but, in this case, because the parking there is a slight parking deficit, he would prefer the original parking instead of the angled. Commissioner Daniels stated he is all for getting as much parking for commercial as possible. In this case, he would go along with what Commission wants to do with having the 90 degree to allow more parking. Chair Dopp mentioned there is not much of a movement to go angled at this time but asked if it is possible to go angled down the line of a development enhancement in the future. Matthew Burris mentioned to answer your question “in the future”, it largely conforms to the vision of the General Plan, but it also has to be designed under our old mixed-use standards. It’s bridging the old standards and the new General Plan. Vision is right on point. Also, the first urban project in what the General Plan identifies as a new downtown area is around our Civic Center. As the blocks around start to develop and area becomes more walkable, there would be less need for parking. Char Dopp asked, in the future, if parking numbers change and styles change, is it plausible they can come back to us and ask for an exception to the parking and switch it to diagonal even if it is cost prohibitive. Matthew Burris answered absolutely. He said we try very hard to accommodate all requests. Chair Dopp stated it looks like we will go with the 90 degree on the parking. Commissioner Morales stated he has no additional comments. Mentioned it’s a nice project. Thanked applicant for working with staff on this big first one like this on Haven Avenue. It’s important to us on getting it right. Hopefully, take another look at putting a tree with benches around. Thanked Staff for all their work and commented it was a good presentation. He said it’s a good start on our vision for the future. Commissioner Boling expressed his appreciation for the developer and architect for really taking a hard look at what the adjacent neighbors would be concerned about and being able to step down those buildings on the west side. Taking into consideration their views as well as the office building to the south. He commented they hit upon a density that works for this site. Although, the density could have been up to a maximum of 50 units per acre. You are just over half of that. He said we appreciate you taking into consideration with the limitation of side order. Balancing that with what the Council’s vision for the urban environment. Commissioner Daniels expressed it is a very good project. Excited to see it develop. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 6 of 7 FINAL Chair Dopp stated this is getting closer to the benchmarks that we look for in the General Plan. It sounds like you spent a lot of time on the retail/office component. You have a lot of different options for people, which is appreciated. He said the fact that entirety of Haven Avenue is activated will be a big benefit to us and past Commission and Council is really what we are looking for out of those corridors. He expressed he liked the studio complex. He has not seen studio apartments at 800 square ft., with private decks. It will be interesting and unique. Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney, stated before we entertain a motion, she wanted to clarify with staff and also suggest we take into motion each resolution separately. She asked David Eoff if there are specific revisions to make, given that they are going with that perpendicular parking to Resolution 22-19 as that resolution has been drafted. David Eoff answered yes. We have an alternate resolution that limits the reduction to 47 stalls which is reflective of the 90 degree parking in that promenade area. We need to be specific to that deficit, a minor exception of 47 stalls only. The original resolution allowed up to 62. Serita Young clarified for the Commission. The resolution originally distributed the title contains reference of 62 parking stalls. To the revision, has a reference to 47 parking stalls. That would be the amended resolution. She suggested to entertain a motion to approve Resolution 22-19 with the suggested amendments by staff. Chair Dopp asked for a motion for a Minor Exception to reduce the required parking to 47 parking stalls. Motion by Vice Chair Williams; Second motion by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolutions 22-19, DRC2022-00232 with suggested amendments by staff. Serita Young explained the second resolution you are approving the application subject to every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval. She just wanted to make sure that motion to adopt that resolution also states, for the record, that Condition #28 specifically indicates the project has to be built in accordance with approved plans. Chair Dopp asked for a motion for Design Review DRC2021-00200. Motion by Commissioner Boling; Second motion by Commissioner Daniels. Adoption of Resolutions 22-20, Condition #28 approved plans would be elevations presented in Option #3. E. Director Announcements - None F. Commission Announcements Commissioner Daniels stated that some of the Planning Commission’s decision of an appeal went to the Council relating to environmental and requested an update. Matthew Burris provided an update as follows: • Appeal for Lewis Group (Milliken/Foothill) was withdrawn. • Appeal for Wood Partners Project (Southeast corner of Foothill/Etiwanda) - Scheduled for hearing before City Council next month in July. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 7 of 7 FINAL G. Adjournment Motion by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 8:48p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC July 27, 2022, Meeting.