HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/14 - Agenda Packet ACTION AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY DECEMBER 14, 2010 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
RAINS ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Committee Members: Lou Munoz Ray Wimberly James Troyer Donald Granger
Alternates: Frances Howdyshell Richard Fletcher Francisco Oaxaca
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Consent items will be heard at 7 p.m.)
NO ITEMS SUBMITTED.
PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS
This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding
their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although
the Committee may open the meeting for public input.
7:00 p.m.
(Donald) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A report on tandem parking, required parking ratios
and additional parking requirements beyond the minimum parking requirements for
multi-family projects. The report qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not
result in an intensification of environmental impacts.
7:20 p.m.
(Mayuko/Hunter) MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00465 - ELOY VAZQUEZ - A
request to construct one (1) new single-family dwelling unit in the Low Residential
District at 10377 26th Street - APN: 0209-121-28. Staff has determined that the
project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 3
exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
7:40 p.m.
(James) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT AND POLICY
DIRECTION DRC2010-00961 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Planning
Director's report on the status of applicants requesting plan check submittal to the
Building and Safety Department prior to receiving entitlement approval and a
policy direction request regarding the scheduling of Design Review resubmittals in
order to permit adequate review periods. The report qualifies under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes
and will not result in an intensification of environmental impacts. THIS WILL BE
AN ORAL REPORT.
•
DRC ACTION AGENDA
December 14, 2010
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Donald Granger December 14, 2010
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- A report on tandem parking, required parking ratios and additional parking requirements beyond the
minimum parking requirements for multi-family projects. The report qualifies under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because'the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an
intensification of environmental impacts.
Background: At the November 2, 2010, Design Review Committee meeting, Chairman Munoz directed
staff to prepare a report analyzing tandem parking, required parking ratios, and parking requirements for
multi-family housing. Specifically, Chairman Munoz directed staff to provide a comparative analysis of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga's multi-family parking requirements in order to determine how the City
ranks vis-a-vis other comparable municipalities with similar characteristics. The Planning staff surveyed
a total of 10 cities, and the information is presented in the tables that follow, along with discussion and
analysis.
Tandem Parking: Tandem parking is defined as the ability to park two vehicles nose to end in a single
file without providing independent access. Advantages include the ability to park two cars within a
garage where development constraints preclude traditional two-car garages where vehicles park
adjacent to each other. Disadvantages include decreased functionality, as the ability to ensure that the
two tandem off-street parking spaces are being used is inhibited by the lack of independent access by
both vehicles.
The Planning staff surveyed a total of 10 cities and inquired if tandem parking is permitted. Table 1
summarizes the results of the survey.
Table 1
Tandem Parking
City Permitted Notes
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Tandem parking permitted only for target units in
silent affordable housing projects
Ontario No Tandem parking permitted only for mobile homes
Irvine Yes Must be assigned to the same unit •
Pasadena Yes Must be assigned to the same unit, up to 30 percent of
required spaces may be tandem
Chino No Tandem parking permitted only as surplus parking
Fontana Yes Must be assigned to the same unit; up to 30 percent of
•
required spaces may be tandem
City of San Bernardino No
City of Riverside No Tandem parking permitted only for single-family units
Upland No •
Anaheim No Required parking for residents may not be charged a fee
Santa Ana No
Of the 10 cities surveyed, only 3 (Irvine, Pasadena and Fontana) permit tandem parking for multi-family
projects. Of these 3, Pasadena and Irvine limit the amount of tandem parking to 30 percent of the
required spaces.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2010-00899 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
December 14, 2010
Page 2
Multi-Family Parking Ratios: Staff surveyed the same 10 cities for the required parking ratios for
multi-family projects. Table 2 indicates the results of the survey.
Table 2
City 8, Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Guest
Population Parking
Rancho 1.3 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 1.8 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.3 spaces/unit 1 open
Cucamonga (1 garage or (1 garage or (1 garage or (2 garage or (2 garage or space/4
(178,000) carport space) carport space) carport space) carport spaces) carport spaces) units
Ontario 1.5 spaces/unit 1.75 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 3-50 units: 1
(1 garage or (1 garage or (1 garage or (2 garage or (2 garage or space/4
(174,000) carport space) carport space) carport space) carport spaces) carport spaces) units'
Irvine 1.0 space/unit 1.4 space/unit - 1.6 space/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 space/unit 1 space/4
(217,000)
(1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) (1 covered) units
Pasadena Min. 10 unit
1 covered space per unit less than 650 2 covered spaces per unit 650 square feet or larger threshold. 1
square feet space/10
(151,000) units
Chino 1 garage space/unit 1.5 garage 2.0 garage 2.0 garage 2.0 garage 1 space/10
(84,000) spaces/unit spaces/unit spaces/unit,plus spaces/unit,plus units
.5 uncovered .5 uncovered
spaces/unit spaces/unit
Fontana 1.5 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 1 space/3
(1 space within (1 space within (1 space within (1 space within (1 space within units
(190,000) garage) garage) garage and 1 garage and 1 garage and 1
covered space) covered space) covered space)
City of San 1.5 covered/unit 1.5 covered/unit 2.0 2.5 covered/unit 2.5 covered/unit 1 space/5
Bernardino covered/unit units
(204,000)
City of 1.5 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit - None
Riverside'
(304,000)
Upland 2.0 spaces unit, 1 2,0 spaces unit, 2,0 spaces unit, 2.0 spaces unit, 1 2.0 spaces unit, 1 .5 space per
space within a 1 space within a 1 space within space within a space within a unit
(76,000) garage or carport garage or a garage or garage or carport garage or carport
carport carport
Anaheim 1.25 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 2.25 3.0 spaces/unit 3.5 spaces/unit 1 space/4
spaces/unit units
(353,000)
Santa Ana 2.0 spaces/unit 2.0 spaces/unit 3.0 spaces/unit 4.0 spaces/unit . 5.0 spaces/unit 1 space/4
units
(357,000)
1 51-100 units: 1 space/5units, 100+ units: 1 space/6units.
2 One parking space in a fully enclosed garage shall be required for at least 40 percent of the total number of dwelling
units in a multiple family development. At least 75 percent of the total required spaces shall be in a fully enclosed garage or carport.
Additional Parking Requirements: Only 1 city surveyed had additional required parking requirements
beyond vehicular and guest stalls. The City of Ontario requires recreational vehicle parking for
multi-family projects with greater than 21 units at the following ratio: 1 space per 20 units up to 100 units;
1 space per 6 units for 100+ unit projects. It should be noted, however, that the City of Ontario permits
additional guest parking in lieu of the required recreational vehicle parking at the discretion of the
developer.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
•
DRC2010-00899 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
December 14, 2010
Page 3
Private Side Supplied Data: Lewis Companies owns and operates thousands of multi-family unit
apartment communities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Since Lewis Companies has such vast
experience with owning and successfully managing apartment communities, including guest passes and
enclosed garage parking enforcement plans, Lewis Companies was willing to share its parking data.
This information proved to be extremely valuable, as it provides "real world" data from a multi-family
community within the City.
Lewis provided data for Carmel, a 291-unit project located in the Terra Vista Planned Community that
was constructed in the early 2000s. The table indicates the unit type and average number of vehicles by
unit type.
Table 3
Average Number
Unit Type Number Percentage Make-up Vehicles by Unit
Type
•
1 bedroom units 57 19 percent 1.37
•
2 bedroom units 192 65 percent 1.68
3 bedroom units 42 16 percent 1.74
As Table 3 illustrates, all unit types average less than 2 cars.
Hypothetical 100-unit project scenario: In order to illustrate how the parking ratios of the 10 surveyed
cities would line up in a side-by-side comparison to City of Rancho Cucamonga's multi-parking family
requirement, staff conducted an analysis of the total parking demand based upon a 100-unit hypothetical
project. Since the total amount of required parking is based off various ratios that vary based upon unit
type, the 100-unit hypothetical project was based off the following unit breakdown in order to create the
most realistic comparison (Table 4):
Table 4
Unit Type Quantity
Studios 20
1 bedroom units 30
2 bedroom units 30
3 bedroom units 20
Total: 100 Units
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2010-00899 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
December 14, 2010
Page 4
Table 5 shows the results in ascending order of required parking spaces for the 10 cities surveyed.
Table 5
City, Required Required Required Total Average
Garage/Carport Open Guest Number of Spaces/Unit
Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces
Re uired
Irvine 100 50 25 1.75
City of 131 44 0 175 1.75
Riverside
Pasadena 175 0 10 185 1.85
Chino 165 10 10 185 1.85
Rancho
Cucamonga 120 45 25 190 1.90
Ontario 100 73 20 193 1.93
City of San 185 0 20 205 2.05
Bernardino
Fontana 150 35 33 218 2.18
Anaheim 0 213 25 238 2.38
Upland
100 100 50 250 2.5
Santa Ana
0 270 25 295 2.95
ANALYSIS: As indicated in Table 4, the total amount of required parking varies substantially, from a low
of 175 stalls (Irvine and Riverside) to a high of 295 stalls (Santa Ana), a difference of 120 stalls. The
statistical mean for total stalls required is 209; the mean for average stalls per unit is 2.10. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga ranks 7th of the 11 cities that were surveyed, with respect to having the most
intense parking requirements, behind the City of Ontario by 3 stalls, which is at the midpoint (6th) on the
spectrum.
When compared with theoretical parking rates, actual parking generation rates vary substantially based
upon a variety of factors, some of which include community demographics, average household size,
proximity to public transportation, and whether or not the community is urban or suburban. Providing
ample off-street parking is critical for both the aesthetic value of a community and for public safety.
Excess surface parking also has adverse consequences, which include wasted land, heat islands, lack of
incentives to use alternative transportation and the high cost of site improvements for an unused parking
stall.
The Planning staff surveyed four cities (Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and San Dimas) and inquired whether
or not additional parking has been imposed on multi-family projects above the minimum parking
requirements. All four cities reported that only the minimum parking ratios were required of development
projects.
DRC ACTION AGENDA
•
DRC2010-00899 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
December 14, 2010
Page 5
In analyzing the above data and with the hypothetical 100-unit example, if multi-family parking ratios for
the City of Rancho Cucamonga were increased, the most logical place would be in the following 3 areas:
1) increase the 1.3 spaces/unit for studios to 1.5 spaces; 2) increase the 1.8 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit
to 2.0; and 3) increase the guest parking requirement from 1 space/4 units to 1 space/3 units. Using the
100-unit project scenario, Table 6 indicates the number of parking stalls required under the current
Development Code for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the number with proposed increased parking
ratios.
Table 6
Required Open and Required Guest
City of Rancho Cucamonga Existing Total Number of
Garage Spaces Parking
vs. Proposed Parking Ratios Spaces Required
Current Development Code 165 25 190
•
Proposed change of for studios to 1.5
spaces/unit, 2 bedroom from 1.8 to 2.0 175 33 208
and guest parking from 1 space/4 units
to 1 space/3 units •
Difference +10 +8 +18
CONCLUSION: With the City of Rancho Cucamonga ranking near the midpoint of the spectrum and
coupled with the data for the Carmel project provided by Lewis Companies, staff concludes that the
City's required parking ratios need little augmentation, if any. If any of the required parking ratios are
increased, staff recommends that the increased parking requirements outlined in Table 2 for studios,
1 bedroom units and guest parking would be the most logical and reasonable enhancements to the
Development Code. If the parking ratios were increased at 208, stalls the City of Rancho Cucamonga
would be at the top of the middle band width of the surveyed cities, only eclipsed by Anaheim, Upland,
and Santa Ana, which have the most intense parking requirements.
The Planning Department is in the initial stages of exploring the viability of a comprehensive
Development Code Update. The Development Code Update would be the first major overhaul since it
was first adopted in 1983 and would involve evaluating every development standard for consistency and
appropriate application. Since the above changes are rather minimal and would result in approximately a
10 percent increase in the overall number of stalls, one possibility is to incorporate the proposed changes
in the Development Code update. The Development Code update will also provide an opportunity to
include a section discussing tandem parking (technical dimensions, etc.) since it is presently silent in this
area for conventional projects, with the only exception of affordable housing projects allowing tandem
parking.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee receive the report and provide input
and direction as the Committee deems appropriate.
Design Review Committee Action:
The Committee received the report prepared by staff on tandem parking and parking ratios for
multi-family projects. The Committee concurred with staff's recommendations that the following would be
appropriate changes to be integrated into the upcoming Development Code update: 1) increase the
1.3 spaces/unit for studios to 1.5 spaces; 2) increase the 1.8 spaces for a 2-bedroom unit to 2.0; and
3) increase the guest parking requirement from 1 space/4 units to 1 space/3 units. The Committee
DRC ACTION AGENDA
DRC2010-00899 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
December 14, 2010
Page 6
further directed staff to bring the Design Review Committee report on parking and Committee action
affirming staff's recommendations as a Director's Report to the full Planning Commission for review and
comment at the earliest opportunity.
Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger, Nakajima, Troyer
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Mayuko Nakajima December 14, 2010
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00465 - ELOY VAZQUEZ - A request to construct one (1)
new single-family dwelling unit in the Low Residential District at 10377 26th Street - APN: 0209-121-28.
Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class
3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Design Parameters: The subject property is designated Low Residential (2-4 du/ac), and is located
within the proposed "Northtown Neighborhood Character Area." This area contains many Cottages,
Bungalows, and Craftsman style homes built in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of the homes in this
neighborhood are smaller, and sit on narrow lots. Some of the older residences are important to the
early development of the Northtown neighborhood, which began in the late 1880s as the southern
portion of the town of Cucamonga.
Project Description and Architectural Design: The applicant has been working with staff to incorporate as
many craftsman-style elements to the project. This has been done through adding real river rock, adding
extra architectural features to soften the appearance of blank wall planes, and adjusting the projected
front garage to a side-facing garage.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
1. Major Issues: There are no major issues. The applicant has worked diligently with staff on revising
the architecture to match the surrounding neighborhood.
Secondary Issues: Staff has identified several secondary issues for discussion:
1. The existing house located to the west of the proposed project may be impacted by a high retaining
wall.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. All colors, materials, and textures shall compliment the established architectural theme of the
Northtown neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to the above
comments.
Design Review Committee Action:
The Committee approved the project as presented.
Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger, Nakajima, Troyer
Staff Planner: Mayuko Nakajima
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. James Troyer December 14, 2010
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT AND POLICY DIRECTION
DRC2010-00961 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Planning Director's report on the status of
applicants requesting plan check submittal to the Building and Safety Department prior to receiving
entitlement approval and a policy direction request regarding the scheduling of Design Review
resubmittals in order to permit adequate review periods. The report qualifies under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report is for informational purposes and will not result in an
intensification of environmental impacts. THIS WILL BE AN ORAL REPORT.
Staff Recommendation: Staff invites discussion and requests direction.
Design Review Committee Action:
1. The Committee affirmed staff's request that applicants should not submit plans prior to Design
Review Committee or Planning Commission approval. The Committee reiterated staff's concerns
that when applicants submit plans prior to receiving approval, it is highly problematic for staff and
carries the potential for expending staff resources on plan checking projects that have yet to
receive approval. The Committee stated'that on a very limited basis the Planning Director could
grant exceptions for projects in unusual circumstances.
2. Regarding projects returning to Design Review Committee that do not receive approval on the first
review, the Design Review Committee requested that the planning staff prepare a written analysis
of the applicant's changes and revisions for the Committee to read and review. In order to have
adequate time for planning staff to review the revised submittal and prepare the written report, the
Committee stated that the standard protocol will be a return date of 4 to 6 weeks from the initial
review by the Design Review Committee. The Committee stated that ideally a 6-week period is
optimum, providing the applicant and staff adequate time to prepare quality revisions. For fast
track projects, returning in 4 weeks will be at staffs discretion, provided a written report is
prepared. On a very limited case-by-case basis, only the Planning Director will have the authority
to permit projects to return to Design Review Committee in 2 weeks with only an oral report.
3. The Committee re-affirmed that the first DRC meeting in January of 2011 shall be permanently dark
in order to provide the Committee and staff a period of rest from having to prepare an agenda and
review plans during the Christmas and New Years time frame.
Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger, Nakajima, Troyer
Staff Planner: James Troyer
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DECEMBER 14, 2010
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilan P Cza,.[sv.
KR
James R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director