Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jan-Dec 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting December 9, 1982 Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Adjourned eetin of the Planning Commission f the City of Rancho Cucamonga to, order at 7:05 pm. The meeting d held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Bade Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King there led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: _ David Barker, Larry Mo iel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout Jeff Kind COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Hone STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beadle, Senior Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Paul Rnrr ea , Senior Civil, Engineer "fin Needle, Senior Planner, reviewed the actions of the Commission at their meeting of November 18, 1982. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, presented 'staff's recommendations for specific lard use district boundaries based on last meeting's general a tions Among staffs recommendations on the residential district bound res were to move the Very Low Estate Residential boundaries north to Summit Avenue; the consideration of two alternatives for the C°' pride' strip of Very Low along the crest side of East Avenue; maintaining Law Medium at Miller and Fast; and consideration of an increase to Medium on the ;youth side of Miller, east of Etiwanda. Staff recommended that the Commission select a specific site location for a Neighborhood Commercial cial center in the vicinity of Base Line and East Avenue. Also that the area south of Foothill be designated for light industrial uses and annexed into the ',Industrial Specific Plan boundaries Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mary Catania, Etiwanda,property owner, addressed the Commission and stated her property east of East Avenue should be considered for are increase in density from the current Very Low designation because of the close proximity to flood control and utility lines. Pat Meyer addressed the Commission .Mating that: he was concerned about the density charge to the east side of East Avenue, gust north of the railroad tracks. Mr. Meyer advocated higher density due to the railroad tracks and the close proximity to the freeway. Mrs. Flocker addressed the Commission regarding the property west of East Avenue and advocated Low an an appropriate + n r . Mrs. Flocker also stated that the entire 660 foot strip along the west aide of East Avenue should be zoned Low. Mr. Angellotti addressed the Commission regarding the property at Miller and E i panda and: stated that the property should be zoned Medium dace to the close proximity of the freeway. Cecil Johnson addressed the Commission regarding the property south of the bend at Upper Summit and recommended the Commission consider the density change ;from Very Low to Low, Dale Vanderhuf"f addressed the Commission recommending that property at the northeast corner of Route 30 and East Avenue be designated Low or Low Medium and that areas adjacent to the freeway route should curry this higher density. Don King addressed the Commission regarding the property at the northwest corner, of Etiwanda and Base Line Road. Mr. Ding stated that he advocated a combination or mixed use for that area Larry A:reina e addressed the Commission regarding the property at the northeast part of Eti anda stating that he is part owner of 200 acres with Cecil Johnson and planned to develop this area in a planned unit development, with common horse areas, thin advocated a change in density for this area to Lowy Wayne Blanton addressed the Commission regarding the property along Route 30. r. Blanton advocated d graduated scale moving upward from 10,000 square foot lots to half~ ore development similar to that in Alta Co Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission'regarding the property south of the new high school stating that while he advocated low density in Etiwanda, he could not advocate that density on his property slang the freeway corridor. Rat Gerhardt, president of the Etiwanda Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission regarding the property in the northeast area of Etiwanda and advocated an increase in density from Very Loci to Low. Further, that the property along East Avenue should remain Low. Mrs. Catania. addressed;the Commission regarding the property at East and Summit and requested Low zoning for this propertwy Joe Dilorio addressed the Commission regarding the property in northeastern tiwand , on the north side of Cecil Johnson's property said stated that his Planning Commission Minuted - December 1 d current playa for that property is a one acre lot subdivision. Further, that he would be agreeable to the Low density as requested by Mr. Johnson for ;the south side of the road;, as :long as the property is developed on a planned unit development basis rather than a standard development. `here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the commercial land use staff report to the Commission and requested that a specific site be selected for the , Neighborhood Commercial center in the vicinity of Base Line and East Avenue. Further, that the two to three acre convenience commercial designation at 24th. and East Avenue be kept at a limited level'at this time and if plans for development warrant the expansion of commercial facilities, the Commission could redesignate a site or expand the scope of this site to allow neighborhood commercial facilities. Planning Commission Recessed 8:10 Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King stated that a.' ,logistics problem had developed with the slide presentation proposed to be a part of the commercial designation public hearing and the Commission would postpone the public hearing until after the vote on the residential land. issues. Chairman King theca stated that the first vote to be taken would be concerning the Estate 'Residential designation and asked for discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioner r r asked if the only option at this time is to adjust the dotted area to increase the; density below Summit, or if there is are alternative Chairman King replied that if thane were other alternatives, the Commission should hear ,thee , Commissioner Barker stated them may be other alternatives and one of the problems was the existing ten half-acre lots. The other option for consideration mould be cutting that position out. Commissioner Remp l stated that one thing that must be considered is that the road pattern; is already basically developed, especially east of Etiwanda Avenue Further, that the staff' recommendation is well taken. Commissioner Barker replied that there were arguments to both sides;; however, would recommend that the area of the existing half-acre lots be eliminated with the remaining to be designated Estate` Residential. Commissioner Stout stated that his inclination also would be to eliminate the tees half-acre parcels from the Estate Residential area. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it would be cleaner to go straight across rather than cut that little chunk out and cause confusion. Planning Commission Minutes December 9 , 1982 Commissioner Barker replied that it would be cleaner if the Commission had been able to; start with a clean p1 however, this was not the way it was. Commissioner Re pel replied that if those parcels were eliminated, the road pattern would also have to be changed considerably from what is already established. Also, there already are half-acre lots encircling this area and to bring all of it into conformity would be better than making jagged boundaries. Commissioner Barker stated that it may not look the test from a graphics viewpoint, but was looking for a logical argument that it :is impractical ;and asked Commissioner Rempel if it was impractical to go ahead with an Estate Residential designation on those parcels. Commissioner Rempel replied that Summit Avenue would be a; better boundary than weaving it around so that the people buying in that area would not be bordered by half-acre lots. Chairman King stated that although he agreed with Commissioners r er and Stout that if those tear acres were carved but it would not affect the street pattern surrounding it, he Felt that it to be more logical to out off the Estate Residential designation at Summit. Commissioner McNiel stated that the difficulties the; Commission was having in king a decision in this area is dealing with the inconsistencies which already exist. Further, the elimination of these parcels, from the Estate Residential designation only contributes to the inconsistency therefore would be in favor of Summit Avenue being the cut off point MotionMoved by Rer p 1, seconded by MaNiel, carried, that the Estate Residential designation be continued to Summit Avenue. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempe , McNie3, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Bar er, Stout Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No for the reasons previously stated. Chairman King called for a vote on the area north of the railroad tracks, south of Highland and west of East Avenue and asked for discussion by the Commissioners. Chairman King asked staff wiry they felt the area designated Very Scow west; of East Avenue could not be incorporated into a goad circulation system. Otto i routil. replied that it is not impossible, dust less .than ideal with ghat already exists. Further, that the bC foot strip of land between the two boundaries is wide enough to develop a 10 or 20 acre project, but dues not encourage the two people who own laird next to each other in different laird use designations to work with each other.; Planning Commission Minutes uute - December 9 , 1982 Chairman King stated that the Low designation going down East and along the railroad tracks over to Etiw mid a is appropriate because of the traffic on East and its relationship to the community. However, felt the Very Low the Commission designated at its last meeting was also important in taking every precaution to preserve that area, especially along Etiwanda Avenue and placing more Low would be contrary to that preservation. Commissioner Stout stated that he felt the area should be Very Low as presented in Figure IV-7 of the staff report with no Low west of East Avenue, Sri it was more logical and eliminated the inconsistency of the 660 foot wide strip in the center. Further, that the Commission would either have to increase the density again and place it in the Low designation or decrease it. Also, that by changing the parcel in the center to Low as opposed to changing the entire area to Very Low would make a difference of adding 170 dwelling units. Commissioner Barker stated that rather than raising the entire density to Low, he would agree with Commissioner Stout on this issue. Commissioner cNiel stated that his opinion was that the designation should go to Low. Commissioner Rempel advised that several thousand dwelling units could be added to this plan and still be within the General Plan designation on this area, Motion: Moved by King, seconded by MaNiel, carried, that the land use designation remain as decided previously by the Commission, with only 660 feet of Low on the west side of Fast Avenue. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, McNiel, Barker, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout Commissioner Stout voted No because he felt the designation should be Very Low along the west side of East Avenue. Chairman King stated the next area for vote would be'Fast and Miller and asked for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Stout asked staff if they would go over their recommendation again for this area. Otto Kroutil replied that a request was made at the last meeting regarding the property at East and Miller to reconsider the densities at that location. Further, that if the Commission wished to increase the densities in this area, the most appropriate place would be Miller just east of Etiwanda Avenue, but not at East and Miller because of existing single family homes. Planning Commission Minutes December 9 , 1982 Commissioner Barker stated that he did not think it was appropriate to rise the density in this area Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to retain the Lost Medium density in the area of East and Miller. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel, Hempel, Kira NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Notre Chairman King stated that the next area for vote would be east of East Avenue and north of the railroad tracks, and asked for discussion. Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not see are advantage ire,changing the designation for this area dm issioner Barker agreed with "Commissioner McNiel. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, retain the Low land use designation east of East Avenue and north of the railroad tacks AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Barker, Rempel, Stout, King , NOES. COMMISSIONERS: Norge Chairman King stated the next section for vote would the the Very Low designation south of 24th Street and asked for discussion Commissioner Barker stated that to redesignate 'this area would be pre erenoia treatment to this piece of property Commissioner Stout agreed with Commissioner marker and stated that if this area was proposed for a planned development, it shroud be in units of half-acre or larger Chairman King stated that he felt this area is a little different in that it is surrounded by open space which geographically tends to,separate it from northern Etiwanda and is only appropriate for a Low category if amaster' plan I was required Commissioner Stout stated that he world recommend that the designation remain Very Low and if a well designed seer planned development was submitted, the change in designation could be considered at that time. Commissioner Re el stated that an incentive to submit this type of plan, would have to be given to a developer and that incentive would be the increased density. .Also, that dwelling units per acre does not mean a developer would get four bats to the acre arther, that Low with d planned development designation mould be are appropriate tared use for this area Planning Commission Minutes - December 9 , 1982 Motion: , Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, that the "fiery Lowy designation south of 24th Street be changed to Lowy with a planned development requirement. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ret pel, McNiel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No for their previously stated reasons. Chairman King announced that the next area;for vote would be the northeast corner of East and 1 th and the freeway corridor. Chairman King asked for discussion and stated his preference that the designation remain as is. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously to, retain the land use designation for this area AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, MoNiel, Rerm el, din ROES. COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman King stated the next area for vote would be the property surrounding the park and elementary school, adjacent to Cast Avenue. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barber, carried, to retain the Very Lour designation at this location. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Md iel , Barker, Hempel, Stout NOES* COMMISSIONERS: Kind Chairman King announced that the public hearing regarding the commercial land use designation was new open. Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission regarding the offramp at East Avenue and the area presently zoned Medium bounded on the north by the railroad tracks, south by the freeway, and on the west by a proposed four lane highway. He stated that the Blayney Plan designated this area as Commercial and asked for the Commission's discussion: on this. s. Kleinman addressed the; Commission stating that the proposed Commercial designation south of this property should logically extend to include the property mentioned by Dr. Kleinman. Don King addressed the Commission regarding the area at all four corner°$ of Etiwanda and se Line, with specific proposals for the northwest corner. The Commission viewed a slide presentation by Mr. King which advocated a mixed use designation for this area Planning Commission Minutes December 9 , 1982 Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission regarding the property at Etiwanda and Base tine. Mr. DiIorio stated that he believed there was an out piece of property not shown in the proposal sal raphi cs which is; owned by the Bannano family, and felt it was misleading to show proposed designs when there is a specific out parcel which is not a part of the design. Earthen, that it has always been discussed that four corners of commercial designation is not desirable at any location in the city and if any type of commercial zone is shown, it should be a floating Sarre in which a developer dames in with d specific, realistic proposal which would be voted on as a specific planned development. Mr. DiIorio further stated that with the Victoria Plan and the Specific Par, there is no heed for commercial at this location. Also, this area should have a character that carafes a greater flexibility ibil.it f use ace that it is not strictly residential or office/professional. Chairman King stated that this intersection is one which should establish some font of community identity and entrance and if kept as it now is, the developer would have no impetus to put the money into it in an attempt to develop that identity. Further, that some type,of trade off would have to be established if a community identity is to be developed. . DiIorio agreed with this statement but stated that it was a confusion of two issues in that everyone ne agreed with h the issue of community identity and character, but nothing says that that particulars carrier has to be commercial. Further, perhaps the overlay zones'for Etiwanda Avenue should be considered to see how they might work. Chairman King awed Mr. Dilorio if he thought the overlay for Etiwanda Avenue excludes the possibility of some type of commercial and if tart years down the line it might not be possible that a limited commercial might be appropriate? Mr. Diibriro replied that in the review of the Specific Plan it was suggested that the original Etiwanda core be recreated to bring some commercial along Victoria and that this part of the platy should be discussed in greater details to make sure it is flexible enough so that when a platy does ere in, there will be the incentive to the developer to go ahead with his platy. John Scherb of the Nichren Temple addressed the Commission regarding Etiwanda Avenue and what he termed "creeping commercialism" along that street. Sdherb stated that he did not feel the community could support the commercial :areas being proposed. Further , the Temple would be opposed to any commercial designation on the southeast and southwest corners because it would extend the office ice professional designation n to the south. There were no further comments and the public hearing s closed. . Chairman King asked for discussion and a vote on the shopping center location'" in the vicinity of Base titre and East Avenue. Planning Commission siWcon Minutes December 9 1982 Commissioner Rampr;l stated that because of; access, he felt the location world be batter* on the south side. Chairman Kingdisagreed with this statement stating that the north was the best location because of access to East .Avenue and it is a better configuration in 'terms of usable space and design Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not feel that lot configuration was that important and that Commissioner Rempel madea goad point on the accessibility in that the property on; the south side would have easier access than the property on the north. Chairman King stated his opinion that the property on the :north is designed to 'I serve the people not only to the north, but also has access to Bee Ciao. I Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Rampol, carried, to retain the Neighborhood Commercial designation as shown on the Land Use p at Rasa Liao and East. .YES: COMMISSIONERS: McNial, Rampel, Barker NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Stout Chairman King and Commissioner Stout voted No because they preferred the northern location... Chairman Fling called for the vote and discussion regarding the Neighborhood Commercial designation at Foothill and East ;Avenue. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to retain the Neighborhood Commercial designation as shown on the end Use Flap at Foothill and Easti Avenue. AYES.: COMMISSIONERS: Stout,_ Barker, McNiel, Rampal, Fling NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nona Chairman King called for the vats and discussion regarding the Convenience Commercial at East and Rrtth p Commissioner Stout stated that he thought the plan should state convenience commercial at this time, however, this site may be expanded. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to retain the Convenience Commercial designation as shown on the Fund Use Map with the inclusion in text as mentioned by Commissioner Stout Planning Commission Minutes - December 9 ,' 1 Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, presented the Draft ,Environmental Impact Report to the Commission and requested that the o fission provide staff with direction regarding the FIR's mitigation Treasures dealing 'with a Route 30 access in Etiwanda. Fail Rod ear, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the City Engineer's staff report to the Commissionr regarding impacts of no interchange e at East Avenue. Commissioner Stout asked what the difference would be in trying to add an interchange after the plan has been set by CALTRANS versus deleting 'it? . Rou eau replied that Etiwanda Avenue is the site of the interchange on A TRA. ' original plans, however, during review of the General: Flare it was determined that Ftiwaanda Avenue was not intended to be that major of a corridor. Further, during review of the Victoria Plan, the new Day Creek Boulevard provided are opportunity to move the interchange to the west and that if more access to the freeways was desired, East Avenue should be considered. He further stated that this,concept has not been presented to CALTRANS so interchange access is not guaranteed. Chairman King opened the public hearing . Floo er, Alta Loma resident,- addressed the Commission stating that not giving an interchange to the local residents would create more traffic because they would have to travel the local streets to get to the freeway. Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that he is against the offramp at Fast Avenue because it would make the area heavily congested. Dave Fldcker addressed the Commission and presented the Landowners' Association's position in favor; of an interchange at East or Etiwanda Avenue. Mike Perez addressed the Commission stating that he is against an offramp at East or Ftiwa nda because he wants to keep traffic out of the core There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Chairman King stated that he had always felt than are offramp at Fast Avenue was not appropriate because it would cause more traffic which would not accomplish the purpose of keeping the area ;as .Iowa keyed as possible. However, felt that not having an offramp may do the opposite because it Mould' create more traffic on the local streets. Furthers, that if are offramp, is located on , East Avenue it will help to keep traffic off the local streets,` provided that the land use is not altered in the area surrounding the access. Commissioner Barber stated that the offramp might invite an increase in density- to the sphere of influence and invite more traffic going north and south on East Avenue. Further, that because the Commission does not have all Planning om ission Minutes 1 December 9 , 1982 the information necessary to make a determination, the decision should be deferred until such information is available. Commissioner Rempel agreed but further stated that Etiwanda could experience the same problems which Upland is facing with no access to Campus. Commissioner Rempel requested to go on record as questioning the accuracy of the figures shown in the Engineering staff report and the EIR and stated they were too high and should be verified., Paul Rougeau replied that the standard techniques were used in deriving the figures and did not feel they could be further refined. Commissioner Rempel stated that be would like the figures as they now stand on Archibald, Carnelian and Vineyard because be felt they would show a discrepancy in what is shown in the EIR. Further, that the offramp is essential to Etiwanda. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to place a freeway access ramp at East Avenue. AYES: C"ISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, McNiel, King NOES: C"ISSIONERS: Barker Commissioner Barker voted No because of his previously stated reasons. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed Part II of the Plan, Regulatory Provisions. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Betty Me Nay addressed the Commission and stated she felt there were too many "snails" in the plan as there were already too many restrictions imposed by other agencies. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman King announced that at the next meeting on January 12, 1983, the Commission would further discuss the Environmental Impact Report and further review the Regulatory Provisions of the Specific Plan. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 10:30 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Planning Commission Minutes -11 - December 9 , 1982 Respectfully , A, >� r Planning a ion Minutes -12- December r , 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COWISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 8, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning ConAission was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Jeff King. The meeting was held t< the Lions Park Community Genter, 1 1> Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairmn King then led in the pledge of allegiance. BOLL CALL COWISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael air in, ANNOUNCEMENTS Senior Plannr e City Planner, Rick Gomez , advised that this meeting would adjourn to December 9, 1982 at 7 p.m. for a public hearing on the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Rempel stated that he and Commissioner Barker had attended a Design Review workshop and learned that the City's system for review is the most efficient and best method that could be devised. He indicated that what was shown at the workshop left a lot to be desired. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the October 27, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the November 10, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Re rpel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the CONSENT CALENDAR, adopting Resolution . 82-110 for Parcel map 6726. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 - C - WHEELER - The development of a 12,000 square foot industrial building on 1 .26 acres of Ladd in the Minimum Impact Hay Industrial eateEory (Subarea , located on the east side of Utica, north of Jersey APN 20 P ro. B. PARCEL MAP P 41ONG-W.Al' EE PROPERTIES Revision to Parcel Mp located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue. A change from 8 parcels to 10 parcels AP 1 C} - rl1 . PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE'E 'TRACT 1 IUGH ; residential tract subdivision of 18 lots on 4. acres of land in the R , 1 (Single Family Residential) zone to be located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Highland Avenue A N 201 212 16. City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report for this item and Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, gave a slide presentation of the area involved. Chairman King opened the public hearing. '. Pat Kapp, of J. P., 4app and Associates Civil Engineers, stated that the $30,000 it would take to prepare an E R for this subject property is a "tad" skewed. Mr. Kapp farther stated that Hughes Development has held this land for years, it has always teem.. erred -1 d 00, and the burden should be the a ity °s and not Hughes Development in preparing an EIR. . r. Kapp indicated that this project is a logical use of the lard and hoped that the Planning Commission would approve this subdivision without an EIR requirement. Prather, that if this tract is approved, it would, trigger CAL TRANS into some activity on the property as they were finable to move ahead without Planning Commission approval nor afford the Best of an EI S Chairman in asked W. Kapp if he was aware that the General flan for Rancho Cucamonga provides that a major transportations corridor will go through this property whether or not there is a Foothill Freeway. Mr. Capp replied that he did understand this; however, the point is that the underlying zoning on this property is R-1 , 00 'urwther, that if it is believed that there are mitigating measures, It is up to the Planning Commission to make this determination and not the developers Planning Commission Minutes -2- December d, 1982 There being no further ;questions or comments, the public hearing was chased. Commissioner MnNiel asked what the most recent communication with CALTRANS has been and whether there is any dialogue going on Mr. Kapp stated that there has been some with CALTRANS through the City conduit and that Rich Gomez has forwarded a letter received on December 1 from CAL TRANS concerning the property; however, it did not mention anything specific to the site. Mr. Kapp said that CALTRANS will not have any gone until duly of 1983. Further, that until the City takes some action CALTRANS will not proceed with any appraisals and indicated that what is happening is that the City s takingy a delaying tactic Commissioner Ma Niel awed what has transpired before between CA TRA S and the City. Hopson, City Attorney, replied that what CALTRANS will do, should not be speculated on. He indicated that the 'City cannot compel CALTRANS to buy the property and you must not look at a chicken and egg situation. Hopson cautioned the Commission to look at this project, examining it in the context of what would happen if it were built, because the City is not in a position to buy this land Mr. Hopson stated that in previous sessions Planning and Engineering staffs have stated that the General Plan is premised on some type of east/west transportation corridor which world be within the boundaries of this tract. Further, that it y not be a freeway but a lane limited access road, although the General Plan was adopted; and the City has planned as if it wil.l be a freeway. Mr. Hopson stated that if there is not a freeway' someone must study the impacts of band use of doing something other than a freeway for east/west transportation in the City. r°. Hopson stated,;the lawn in California is that if reasonable men could argue whether or not there will be an impact from an environmental aspect it requires an EIR be done. tr. Hopson stated that if the Commission approves this tract after the environmental process : s completed and if the tract meets and mitigates the EIR impacts, then no matter what CALTRANS does, it will not jeopardize the City's planning by construction on this piece of property. Hopson stated that this is not a: delaying tactic and that in framing; it the ways he has it would be iabsolute folly to approve this tract in any fora or pout something in the ground with which the Commission is not content. Hopson said that if something else other than a freeway is proposed for this land, the Commission could not find consistency with the General Plan to approve this tract. Mr. Hopson stated that the responsibility for the EIR is that of the developer and while it is important for the builder, the City ant$ as the lead agency and controls the worts on the EIR in doing everything but paying for it. Further, that whether it is one acre, five, or 50, it is the developer seeming;to have something done with this property. Mr. Howson stated that this is a recap of a similar situation that occurred about months ago and the law supports the City 's requirement of an EIR. Planning Commission Minutes - December d, 1982 Commissioner a i 1, stated that whatever action the Commission ta es tonight has nothing do with CAPA . Hopson stated: that this is exactly true and the Commission world have to lire this tract so as to preclude any transportation ion n Hopson stated that otherwise, the Commission must determine what goes on this property. r. Gomez, City Planner, stated that negotiations would continue with CA TRA d on this tract and the requirement for an g1P would not stop the negotiations and was the same as the other two tracts which had previously been heard Commissioner tort asked what percentage of the corridor is under CALTRANS as opposed to private ownership Rou eau Senior, Civil Engineer, replied that it is approximately P percent State ownership. Chairman King asked if it is staf,f's recommendation that the EIR be focused along the lines indicated in the staff report. . Gomez replied affirmatively, as outlined in the attachment ,of Part II of the Initial Sturdy. Commissioner Stout stated that when he attended a previous meeting the indication was that a lot of study has been done on the prediction that this would be a freeway corridor and asked if it is still true that ;the City is not planning an alternative to the freeway so that if there were not a freeway the C :t 's flood control plans would still to in of"f'ect: orr earn replied that the flood control can still, go on as planned Commissioner Stout asked if this tract were approved, would it require a General Plan; amendment . Mr. Gomez replied that this would have to occur prior to the approval of any of this in order to define consistency. Commissioner Stout asked that since this is such a large impact on the General Plan wouldn't it require an EIR in any case m Gomez replied that this is what is being considered this evening. . Motion: Moved t ' Stoat, seconded by MNial, carried unanimously, to require a focused EIR relating to land use transportation and ,circulation, socio- economic factors, and population distribution as it relates to Rancho Cucamonga. . Hopson stated that the applicant has the option of appealing the Planning Commission decision requiring a focused EIR to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 4 December , 1982 D. ENVIRONMENTAL MEET AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 I V R - A custom Isar residential subdivision of 96 lots on 86.53 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zone located on the north side of Almond Street at Beryl Street Chairman King stepped down during the hearing of this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice chairman Rempel chaired this portion of the meeting. n Coleman, associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and narrated a slide presentation of this site Mr. Coleman stated that staff bad received several telephone calls expressing concern about this project; however, he indicated that although this property has been proposed for a number of different' developments since incorporation, this is not a condominium development as previously proposed. Commissioner Stout asked what the plans are for Almond because this proposal eliminates the possibility of Almond going across. Coleman replied that Almond Street has already been vacated, that to the west of this project here is an ;approved tract under construction which is providing a dead end cul-de-sac for Almond . Proceeding from that would be a -foot wide community trail.. and 'fire access . Commissioner Stout asked if there is some kind of structure ture that is to link this with other properties. Coleman ,Mated that there is no access from the east because of another channel and private properties. The only ways to get access to the east ofthe site is across the plateau and natural channel. That would paean filling in a portion of this property. Vide chairman Rempel asked if there is any way that someone Haight want to do something north of this tract and should there be some provision for access to; the north. Mr. Coleman stated that Exhibit C proposes a street it the vicinity of the existing residence in the northwest corner and that would earl in a cul-de-sac and could provide access into the hills. Vide chairman Rempel opened the public hearing Stan Sievers, the applicant, gave a brief history of this tract and stated that they have addressed most of staf'fg's concerns and they are resolved to the fact that an EIR will be required. He indicated that his company would like to have the preliminary studies that were dome utilized by the consultant who will prepare the EIR. He indicated that seismic studies, drainage and sail studies have already been dome Planning Commission Minutes - December d, 1982 Mr. Craig Andreiko, 9153 Almond Street, asked about zoning, Demen's drainage, traffic, fire, access to development and the phase 3, plans shown by . Sievers. Vice chairman Rer pel stated that the Commission is not considering this tract tonight but that anything that had previously been heard by the County would o by the wayside' since the City's incorporation Mr. Andreiko asked how the zoning on this property gnat changed. Vice chairman Hempel replied that the zoning had not changed Jim Bowman, representing the Foothill Fire Protection District stated that safety and an emergency access for traffic circulation particularly because of Almond Street have been taken into consideration in this project. He indicated that the Fire District has asked for additional hydrants and water pressure in this area as well as a road for entry to the National Forest to the north. Commissioner Barker stated that there seems to be some confusion as to what options are available and that this tract has not been before the Design Review` Committee. "urather, that the only thing that; the Planning Commission can do tonight is determine whether or not a focused BIR should be required. Commissioner Barker stated that he dial understand what the gentlemen was talking about because during the General Plan hearings these were 1/2 acre bats but should be answered by the FIR. . Hopson stated that the gentleman's comments and questions would be answered by ;the EIR as one of the considerations of whether there should be private or public parks under public facilities. Vice chairman Rer pel stated that every development must contribute something for parks in the :City either through a fund or a contribution of land. Further, that if' the bottom of a gulley is accepted as a park would be a determination by, the Commission and would come up for consideration. Commissioner Stout apologized to the audience for the use of jargon by the Commission. Be explained ghat some of the terms being used meant Commissioner Barker asked if staff recommends a focused FIR if they could indicate how, focused it would be and whether transportation would be included. Coleman replied that it would be a consideration . Vairin stated that this is not to say that staff would not look at a design' for the planning location of a street Planning Commission Minutes - December d, 1982 Mr. Gomez stated that the comments of the applicant relative to previous studies was pertinent and that these studies will not be wasted but be used as part of the report. Commissioner Stout asked where drastic changes to the terrain would be covered in the report. Mr. Coleman replied that this will be done under soils and geology as well as land use and planning. Further, that all the grading plans submitted by the applicant show grading for the street. He indicated that since these will be custom homes, he will be using custom foundations and this must be examined by the EIR. Vice chairman Rempel stated that the old Commission always wanted to see the houses fit the terrain and that there be as little out and fill as possible. Commissioner Stout asked if this will be like Deer Creek. Vice chairman Rempel stated that this would not be as extensive as Deer Creek. Commissioner Barker stated that his only concern is for the spur of Almond and its impact on Beryl. He asked about the channel. Mr. Coleman replied that under the land use and planning focus of the EIR, it would be examined. He stated that if there was a desire to no how many cars would be going down that street this could be added under transportation and will be examined as well. Commissioner Stout asked about the drainage between this tract and the internal transportation of the project itself. Further, be asked if the only entrance is off Beryl and the only way to get there is to go north. Mr. Gomez replied that with this proposal the only access would be by Beryl. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously , to accept Staff's recommendation to require a focused EIR on this project with the additional requirement that transportation also be studied. Mr. Coleman stated that when the EIR is being prepared there will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission to certify the EIR which says, it is complete. Further, at that point the applicant would be able to move forward with final design for this tract based upon what comes out of the EIR and the mitigation measures that may be required. Chairman King returned to the table. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1982 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -0 TENTATIVE TRACT 12305 - RC - A change of zone from R® (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) for the development of 59 condominium emits on 5.24; acres of land located north of 19th Street, east of Hellman venue - APN 01- R, Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report stating that phone calls have been received birth in favor and opposition to this project. Coleman read a letter from Alan Marlow, 9332 19th Street in opposition to the project, that had been received today because of increased traffic and the potential for increased crime. [fir. Coleman also requested that the Commission review a petition circulated by the applicant stating that threw signing have seen the plans for this project and approve of its concept. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. M. Dawson, architect representing the applicant, stated his willingness to respond to any questions Commissioner Stout asked what kind of fencing would be used on the perimeter of this project Dawson replied that it will be a masonry fence at a height of between 5-6 feet. Commissioner tort asked if there are any plans to plaster the fence. Cason replied that no particulars thought has been given to that Commissioner Stout asked if there is any plan to do something between the entry to the project and 19th Street in the area of landscapings Dawson explained drat is proposed Coleman stated that there will be trees along the five-foot planter. Cason stated that their concept 'plan addresses the tree patters and pointed out that they show 384 trees which is approximately 90 trees per, acre, considerably more than, what is required. Farther, that they had reviewed the staff report and see no problem in complying with the condition relative to gees Chairman King stated that as it relates to the portion abutting 19th Street and coming down, given the fact that we are dealing with d five-foot landscape border between the driveway on the north and the abutting property owner, would there be any problems Faith the :idea of on the loner three buildings, each containing three units, knocking one unit off of each so that a larger area could be created in what appears to be a tight corridor. Planning Commission Minutes - December 8, 1982 Mr. Dawson replied that they are ;approximately 9 units per acre on that side and they have been pretty generous with the landscaping element to the west and that five feet is pretty heavily landscaped. Chairman King asked what the distance is to the :property line on the second building to the north. Gomez replied that it is 17 Feet from the canner. Mr. Dawson stated that ,one reason for the generous setback and landscaping is for a greenway area and pedestrian circulation between the second and third buildings coming gaff the driveway going west and linking up with the open space area. Commissioner Stout asked if the black material is the proposed roof material. Mr. Dawson replied that it is. Commissioner Stout asked what it is and what it will be. . Dawson replied that it is a composition shingle of the 300 pound category. Commissioner Stout asked if it will come in squares or in sheets. . Dawson replied that it uwil.l be in pieces and is a construction standard composition. Commissioner Stout stated that his concern is for the surrounding residents who will only see the roof lines. . Dawson replied that they will also see the trees above the roof lines. Commissioner Reu pel stated that the Cinty's requirement is 50 trees per acre and they will be putting in. 90. . A.T. Willies, owner of the property to the east facing Amethyst, stated that he had examined the pleas and felt the project is well designed and expressed his approval. He indicated that ;his only concern is the black roof. f. ' Mrs. Ne1s Smith, 9385 1 th Street,, expressed concern with the possible increase in traffic and crime problems and stated that everyone within 300 feet had been contacted regarding this property, although he had not been. He asked what would be done about storm drains Smith stated Later that he lived CC feet from this property line;. . Mike Hancock, 9206 Garden, expressed concern with school overcrowding and traffic problems , indicating that it now takes 20 minutes to make a Ieft turn n Hellman to go south at 5 in the afternoon.. r°. Hancock also expressed concern that many people will, buy the condos s as an investment and rent them out thereby risking the possibility that they would not be kept up by renters. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 8, 1982 Chairman King stated that in terms of flood control, if a Negative Declaration were to be issued and this project approved , is there a requirement for storm' drains along 19th Street Chairman King explained that requirement for a school certification letter from involved districts indicating that there is sufficient classroom space to house any children coming into the district as a result of the project. H indicated that the City will not; issue building permits unless this certification is received. ' He advised those in the audience to contact the school district directly to voice their conceal relative to this project and any overcrowding ;that may result. Mrs. Lynn Simons, 9290 Garden Street, was opposed to this project because their bedroom fades the street on which the proposed project will be built. Further, she asked about setbacks, increased traffic generation, and whether traffic signals are proposed. She asked if there is any way that the developer could be forced to contribute fees to build schools Halsey Taylor, resident across from Garden street, awed what the City's zoning ;is for this area and whether there is a trend that everything around 1 th Street would go into multiple family. He stated that the area has changed substantially since he first moved here some; years ago and asked whether this area will ever go back to single family. . Hopson stated that the zoning for a piece of property' under State law has to be consistent with the General Plan. Further, the General flan for this area states that it should to a higher density and it would not only tame a zone change but a General Plan change to the concept that the City has had for this piece of property. Rash Poser, 6670 Hellman, stated he felt this is a good project ;in that it is land-locked and felt that condominiums or townhouses would raise property values. Mrs. Simons asked if the trees will be outside or inside the development. Commissioner Rempel replied that they will be broth outside and inside the development.`- Mrs. Simons asked if the two story buildings will be looking into their bedrooms and back yard and stated that she should talk to the developer about this after the meeting. s. Rebecca Boser, stated that she is in favor of this development 'because this is a higher and better land- use with the freeway- a reality for this area. She felt that this is a good plan ffi Dawson stated that the developer has paid a lot of fees and this is the crest of doing business. Further, replying to Mrs. Simons, he stated that the closest building in the project will he 130 feet away from her home ;along Hellman Avenue and setbacks waill, probably be 175 feet away. Planning Commission Minutes _10- December 8, . 1982 Mrs. Barbara Scofield , stated that this area is not prestigious and felt that this is a good project. She further stated that homeowners run the risk of having a two story single family home looking down into their yards and into their bedrooms the same as condominiums. There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that he felt there was a tight squeeze between the project and the driveway coming along 19th Street. Commissioner Barker stated that the applicant has made a fair effort to mitigate this and has already made some changes. Further, when you request more, you get into density and what is being proposed is compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Barker stated that the site is not the best and the developer has done a lot with it. Commissioner Hempel stated that the setbacks have been moved along 19th Street and there will be 50 feet between the wall and the first unit whiab will be much different than single family residential. Further, that when the property to the east develops they will want to use a part of this driveway. Chairman in stated that the one concern he has as he drives along 19th Street is you will see a straight shot of the driveway and there will a very nice buffer between 19t,h Street and the first units. However, from a visual standpoint as you look north there is very little landscaping. Commissioner Stout stated that along the same lines, when staff is looking at landscaping, they should look at covering the wall with some type of vine to lessen the impact. He indicted that this will be a long wall along 19th Street and something should soften it because if it is covered it tends to mitigate the harshness. Yr. Gomez stated that what has been submitted is conceptual and will be refined at a later date. Commissioner, Stout stated that the City apparently has no design standards for block walls and stated his concern regarding the lack of standards asking that they be addressed. Yr. Gomez stated that this is subject to the review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Stout stated that his point is there are no standards. Mr. Gomez asked if he was discussing more a concept of parkway walls that deal with street frontages. In this case , he stated, you are only seeing the ends of the walls and when you move you will get a different, more oblique angle. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 8, 1982 Commissioner Re pel stated that a year or so ace he had tried to get some decorative block with vines planted through the galls to break up the monotony. He indicated that this would improve the appearance of the black walls being;considered Commissioner Stoat stated that standards for black galls should be pursued, m Gomez stated that the Commission should give some direction in this regard to staff. Commissioner Barker stated that both of these should be considered as separate issues Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to the roofing;, he would like staff to look closely at the material and his personal preference would be some random shadow pattern to it because it detracts seriously from the condominium project 'a :rin replied that staff" will definitely lock at the roofing material. Chairman King stated that there :are two things that the Commission must act upon. One, whether the Planning Commission wishes to approve the planned Development category and secondly, the resolution approving the tentative tract PotionMoved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. d 111 approving the planned development. Motion:' ved by Stout, seconded by Rempal, carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 81 , approving Tentative Tract 15, with the amendments that the design of the wall be examined along with the landscaping along the gall, and also that the roofing material and color be reviewed. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d - LESLIE AND INFANTE e establishment of an ARCADE in the 1T zone to be located at 9685 Bass Lind in the Base Line tillage Shopping Center - AB1 dd 1 4 Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. He stated that the City Attorney has requested that; prior to occupancy, the applicant obtain a Letter from the owner of the property stipulating that there will not be; another arcade located within this shopping center. Chairman King stated that something will also be needed from the previous arcade applicant stating that he will not proceed Coleman Mated that this is a moot point since the building is being leased to someone else Planning Commission Minutes 1 December 8, 1982 Hopson stated that the problem is that if the space previously rented to the applicant, Walls, is vacated by the bicycle shop there is a possibility that another arcade could go in. He indicated that there is no incentive to give the applicant this, kind of letter., He indicated that what is needed is a letter from the landlord stating that he will, not release space to Walls. There was discussion on what the best approach would be to ensure that Mr. Walls, recipient of the prior CUP of an arecade at this location, does not occupy space here. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Leslie stated that be has no problem with the conditions and regulations proposed in 'the staff report and resolution. Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Leslie if he would be able to obtain a letter from Mr. Walls stating that he will not occupy another area to set up an arcade . Mr. Leslie stated that the leasing agent has indicated he would get such a letter. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed . Mr. McNiel stated that in some of the recent approvals of arcades by the Commission some of the applicants really have their act together and asked W. Leslie now he intends to operate this arcade. Mr. Leslie reponded by saying he>had two years of prior experience and knows that the clientele will mainly be children but proposes this to be a family arcade. He indicated that a file will be kept on troublesome individuals and he will use the Police Department as a last resort to control those who may be mnruly. He indicated that he has had experience in handling these kinds of situations. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by MeNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-113, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82-27, with the stipulation that a good faith effort be made to obtain a letter from Mr. Walls stating that he does not intend to proceed with an arcade in this location and that no arcade is to go in where the Walls' arcade was to go. Mr. Hopson stated that if a letter from Walls was received stating that he was turning back the CUP and requesting its revocation, the City would be off the hook. Further, that he would prefer that there not be two CUP's side-by-side. Commissioner McNiel stated that there should be an inspection by staff prior to the arcade opening. planning Commission Minutes -13- December 8, 1982 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7666 - HERBERT HAWKINSA subdivision of 3.94 acres into parcels within the 2 zone (A P pending) located at the southeast corner of Foothill and Turner* Avenue APN 208-331-21 . Rink Gomez requested that Item I be roved up after the Commission has completed its review of this item because of their adjacent location. Michael Vair'' , Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report W. Vai.rirr stated that a letter has been received from Gill voicing concern on the 0 foot strip of Viand. Mr. Vairin indicated that this has been resolved Nor°. Gill also was concerned about architectural considerations and aesthetics, and a third item, which was traffic . Commissioner Barker asked, if the buffer zone is what Mr. McGill refers to as the foot piece of property. . Vairirr replied than Mr. McGill thought that there would be a gap there and it was not intended to be that way. He indicated that the parking lot will be expanded and there will be 10 feet of landscaping planter along the wall. Commissioner Barker asked whether the gall would be backed up to the other houses Mr. Vairin explained that this will be worked out between the applicant and the homeowners. Further, that most property darters want a full height gall to keep out noise and the walla would relate to the homes in the area Commissioner' Barker asked if the south elevation along the parking lot easement was raised . Vairin replied that this had now been incorporated but that the applicant had not put in a raised elevation on Exhibit P. Chairman King opened the public hearing for both Item d and Item 1. Jack Norris, 17662 Irvine Blvd., Suite 7, `Custin,, California, Civil Engineer representing the owner, Berbera Hawkins, stated that he had nothing to add and concurred with the staff report and the conditions of approval I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW d -1 URRA / A B> T1�e-development of a 6394 square foot restaurant on 1 acres of land in the; zone located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue` APN 208-3 1 P1 m Michael Tooley, applicant and owner of the Michael d' restaurant chain, stated, that he had no problem with the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes 1December d, 1982 r Rd Sands,: architect, asked for a little latitude in working with the Design Review Committee and the Planning Department ent on the various ways of setting the height of the wall, the grading and landscaping since the south end of the property will have two be readjusted in some way. Commissioner Stout asked if inhere gill be any problem in putting a staniped concrete treatment on the driveway to make the landscaping appear to be continuous. r. Sands replied that it can either be pavers or cobble stone Mr. Vairin stated that Foothill has the designation of special boulevard. r°- Sands stated that all the aprons worst be concrete Further, that stamping and color will not increase the cast substantially. Commissioner Remp 1, asked when they plan to start. Tool.ey replied as soon as possible. Sandi stated that what they are doing will solve the problem with the choke point and also the storm drain George Gudera;stated that he wants to see the project go in and has spoken; with staff and was satisfied with the answers he received relative to the grading of parcel:_ two and the drainage in the subdivision. Mr. Rou eau stated that condition No. 6 on the Resolution takes care of this and that drainage requirements are a standard condition which must also take care of parcel Someone from the audience asked about the drainage on the east aide and west side as well as the drainage ditch. Mr. Rougeau stated that the person was referring to drainage from the property to the west side of Turner. He further ,stated that the drainage ditch on the east side of Turner will be conpletely eliminated but the one on the 'west,will still remain. Mr. Rou eau Mated that Turner will be widened out to three lines. There was discussion regarding the problem with .left turns. I Chairman King stated that while this project will not completely solve everything it will go a long way ,in resolving the current problems. There being no further questions or comments , the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 8, 1982 Commissioner Re upel stated that the Resolution contains condition that nothing can be built until the tentative map is complete and wondered if this has to be with the permission of the prior owner to proceed with construction. He indicated that there are some" projects that can be divided dfterwards. Mr. Rou e uu stated that this is like the shopping center at l th and Carnelian. The buildings could be built but there would have to be some> sort of permission ion to pint in the parking lint as to standards Commissioner Reuuu el stated that perhaps the condition can read, that this must be completed before occupancy, Mr. Rou eaua replied that this world be appropriate to say either before occupancy or before the final map. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by MIcNiel, carried unanimously , to adopt Resolution No. 114 approving Parcel Map 7666. Motion: Moved by Reurrrpel., seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. d -11 ' to change condition 5 to have the developer go ahead with the parcel p; however, with the condition that it be resolved prior to occupancy and that there be a stamped concrete driveway a at Turner and Foothill. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 1 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL The development of a 223,500 square foot warehouse/distribution building on 9.79 acres of lead in the General Industrial zone to be located it Subarea 11 at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing Commissioner Stout asked what the building will be used for. Mr. James We tlin , in partnership with R.C. Industrial,1, replied that it will be ararehou.ue for shoes Commissioner tocut stated that from reading the ,staff report it appears that this is a specialized building. in Mr. Westling replied that this warehousing takes a special type of rack and the building is made specifically for this;operation using the ultimate in the building Is length and width Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously,, to adopt Resolution No. 82-115, approving elopment Review No. - 1 Planning o mi sion Minutes -16- December 8, 1982 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John O'Donnell, partner in the development firm of O'Donnell Brigham, stated that he was proud to develop in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would do his best to meet the City' needs. He complimented the City' staff for their professionalism and stated that it was a pleasure to work 'with them. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by iel, carried unanimously , to adjourn to December 9, 1982 to a public hearing on the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan. 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Resp?ctfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 22, 1982 Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Ranaho Cucamonga to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Roo eau, Senior Civil Engineer; PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-18 - HOWARD - `T�edevelopment of a churah facility including two buildings whic total 4,200 square feet on 5.5 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 one located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN 201-831-01 . Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Lawrence Howard, 9540 Ironwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that the church did not feel it should be required to dedicate street right-of-way in conjunction with the adjacent private development to the east. Planning Commission Minutes 1 ovember 22 , 1982 Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it would a private development, however, the street Mr. Howard referred to would be a public street. Chairman Ch i.r an in explained that it is normal policy to require two property owners who would shire a street to each dedicate a portion of land that, which when combined would total the given amount to construct a street. Howard stated that this access would be approximately 25 Feet From the back of the building and the church was concerned that this world be easy access to encourage vandalism. Pat Guerra, 8218 Kirkwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating his concern that a president was ;being established that a project was being made` to conform with a project that is not even in planning staged. Mr. Guerra . suggested that when the tentative tract to the east comes before the ; Commission, it could be redesigned so that dedication from the church would :not be required. There were no :farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed . Commissioner Barker asked if the project Mr. Guerra referred to, Tentative Tract 10047, was approved by the City. r. Johnston replied that it was approved in 1980. Commissioner Rerpel asked if it would be coming up for extension. Johnston replied that it had already been before the Commission for one extension, and the current expiration date is May of 1983. Commissioner Rempel asked if the church could be conditioned that if the tentative tract is not finaled, the offer of dedication could be rdoenddd. Mr. Hopson replied that since this project is a conditional use permit, it could be done, but questioned whether the Commission would want to do this. Commissioner Rerpel stated that the street may not encourage vandalism, rather be a deterrent since there would be homed across the street. Also, that than street would create d second point of access for the church property. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit82-18. AYES:> COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stoat, McNiel, Re rpel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Commission Minutes - November 22 , 1982 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-25 - GLEASON - The use of a 4,800 square foot portion of an existing industrial building in the General Industrial category (Subarea 4) for Inland Empire Turf Supply, a wholesale and retail landscape and irrigation supply business, to be located at 9223 Archibald Avenue, Suites D, E, F, and G - APN 209-211-32. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman in opened the public hearing. Pat Brown, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he agreed with the conditions of approval for this project and would answer questions the Commissioners might have. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Brown if he could explain the type of plant material to be stored at the site. Mr. Brown replied that these plant materials would be on special order only and not stored at the site on a permanent basis. There were no further questions, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82-25. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None DIRECTORS REPORTS C. SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Senior Citizen Housing report to the Commission and explained that public hearings are anticipated to begin early in 1983 to finalize the Commission's recommendations on Senior Citizen housing to the City Council. Commissionioner Barker stated that he appreciated the time and effort staff put into the preparation of the Senior Citizen tour. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 22 , 1982 D. CHAFFEY VOCATIONAL SKILLS CENTER Rick Gomez, advised the Commission that staff had met with members of the Ch f'fey College staff and sherrif's department concerning the parking situation at the Vocational Skills Center. Mr. Gomez stated that the college was advised that in under for tram, to be in compliance with the Zoning' Ordinance, it world be necessary for then to purchase are additional site to provide an additional 70 parking spaces, as well as additional spaces that may be needed for expanded enrollment. Also, students would be required to purchase parking decal by the commencement of winter quarter on January 3, 1983. . Gomez further erg advised that the r°ri 'a department would b composing; a memorandum outling the implementation options available to the City to enforcethe decal program on private property. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded: by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Adjourned Rasps tfuly a ttd, t r Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes November 22 , 1982 I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regulars Adjourned Meeting November 18, 1982 Chairman Jeff King called the Regulars Adjourned, Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at ;the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Ring then led is the pledge of ,allegiance, ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Re pel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer Chairman in opened the meeting by stating that this would be the final Planning Commission meeting dealing with land use issues for the Etiwanda Specific Flan, and that the next greeting would also deal with the Environmental Impact Report and the Regulatory Provisions of the Plan. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, stated that review of Part II, Regulatory Provisions, and of the Environmental Impact Report had been legally advertised to take place at this meeting; however, staff recommended that the Commission make a motion to defer; that discussion to the greeting of December 9, 1982. Motion: Moved by Stet, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to defer discussion of the Environmental Impact Report and the Implementation Plan to the greeting of Decembers 9, 1982. Tint Poodle advised that the purpose of this evening's meeting was for the Commission to direct staff on approval of a conceptual plan for circulation and .land.. use Paul Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Engineering report dealing with implementation and coat of the East Avenue Bypass. Mr. Rou ear stated that there were two possible ways to implement the bypass; one being a requirement of residential or commercial development, the second by means of one or more public projects He explained that when utilizing the development method, the bypass would have to be installed in development ent projects so that a portion of the bypass installed would have to serve temporarily a circulation for any even project. Further, if the projects were submitted the right order, the roadway could e installed :in an orderly fashion and connect from Highland to Victoria; however, this is not likely to happen. Also,; to use portions of the bypass road for local circulation, other local roads would be required to get circulation to the existing East Avenue. Heavier traffic: mould result on East Avenue in the interim between now and full build out of the city, and. East Avenue may have a problem in handling that additional traffic. In utilizing the public projects method, he stater that the source of funding for such a lame project becomes a problem If it were to be funded as a single project, the only feasible method would be through establishment of an assessment district; however, it would be difficult to arrive at a legally defensible benefit area fop "the roadway, thus questioning the feasibility. Also, there would still be impacts on East Avenue if the project was split into one or more projects. Mr. Roueaun further stated that other reams of funding had been suggested such a redevelopment and fees imposed; however, dial not feel they could come up with the necessary funding for; such a large project. Further, review of the coat summary distributed earlier to the Commission stated that the total estimated cost would be $3,083,820 and that the cost of developing East Avenue to 4 arterial status would be approximately $1 .8 Million. However, he ;advised that the construction cost for doing it all as one project would be about the same. Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, addressed the Commission stating that he would like to elaborate further on the process of establishing an assessment . district. He stated; that this is a public hearing, process, requiring a City Council resolution establishing intention to form a district ;and order an engineer's` report. This report would establish a method of spreading the assessment for the roadway thus proposing a benefit relationship of hoer the road 'should be assessed to the indi idual's property within the boundaries of the assessment district. This report would be the key document which would be evaluated 'through the public review`process. He further stated that there are many gays of doing this and the most common would be an area-type basis or front footage-type basis related to the cost of the individual properties involved. Once; the engineer's- report has been established, a public hearing is held and each property owner is noticed and given and assessment of his amount. The property owner is then given an option to protest the formation of the district. Further, that the weight of his protest would be in relation to the area amount of his property located within the district. Also, if a majority of the property owners protested, a finding would have to be made that the public health, safety-, or welfare would be in jeopardy without the formation of the district and this would require a 4/5 vote of the City Council to override the property owner's` protest. Mr. daubs further stated that from p practical standpoint, it is very difficult to forge an assessment district without at least 70 percent support of the property owners. Also, that even if the district received 98 percent support and one property owner with a substantial amount of land protested, the formation could be challenged in a court action Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Rou eau if he could give an estimation of the quarterly escalation in construction costs which would affect the bypass construction. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 18, ;1 8 Rou eau replied that under normal conditions, the construction escalation is equivalent to the rate of inflation or oven slightly higher. Commissioner McNiel, stated that his concern with the escalation in prices is that the figures listed on the cost summary are 1982 figures and there was very little of 198,2 left. Therefore, ;wanted to have a better idea of what the figures may escalate to further down the road, Otto Kroutil, associate Planner, reviewed the circulation and brad use alternatives staff report to the Commission. Chairman King opened the pudic hearing stating ;that he would like to begin the public hearing with all those individuals wishing to make general comments in terms of land use and circulation as it relates to the entire elan. )u then;, that he would like` the comments to remain general in nature and deal with concepts, ideas, and theories behind the alternatives. After this is dome on a general basis, Chairman King advised that the area north of Route 30 would be discussed and all individuals wishing to discuss property in this area would be asked to; speak. South of Route 30 and north of 1-1 ould to addressed next, followed by the area south of Route 30 down to Foothill Boulevard. CecilJohnson, 18207 Santa Cecelia, Fountain Valley, addressed ;the Commission stating; that he would like to address the area of the umbrella ;road which' will bisect his property and the;property of others. He Mated that the most factor to effectuate this road would have to be considered from a beneficial interest rather than merely the frontage that mould apply, as there would be very little beneficial use to the remaining property on this road.. Further, he requested that the Commission consider the eventual establishment ent of this road it terms of land acquisition and dedication. Mr. Johnson called the Commission's attention to a fifteen acre parcel on the map which had been proposed Lour Medium density by the Advisory Committee, however, the designation had been deleted in Alternatives 2 and 3. He stated that he would like the Commission to respond to the funding of the construction of the umbrella road and direction as to what development could be done in this area in the interim. Robert ar°cina.ge addressed the Commission stating that he owns two parcels of land which would be bisected by the bypass road: and had no objection. He furthers stated that the placement of the road in that area was 'a good trade off to the property owners since they: would be getting are increase in density and allowed more housed per acre:. Mr. arcinage stated that he would also like to know the cost of implementing; the umbrella loop. r°. Ralph Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that he is one of the owners gust north of 1-15 and opposed the installation of the bypass road whether he is given higher density or not. Further, that the the bypass road would be a clear and definite danger to the students of Etiwanda High School. Planning Comaission Minutes -3- November 18, 1982 Betty McKay, Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission stating that she is concerned with the lack of east/west streets and suggested that some kind of road should extend down from Highland to the high school on the north side. She further stated that the plan is separating the city because of vehicular accessibility. 7:50 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:05 - Planning Commission Reconvened Pat Earhardt, 6862 Etiwanda Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she would like to know who would fund the widening of East Avenue. She also asked if any thought was given to one of the earlier alternatives of the Advisory Committee that brought the bypass road further east along the flood control channel with an approach road west of the high school in the location of the parking lot. Clark had Jett, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission and distributed written comments to the Commissioners. Additionally, he commented that the thought the Commission should be concerned with is the impact to the students of the high school. Further, he stated that he was disturbed by the fact that Victoria will be closed just west of the high school and west of Etiwanda Avenue as proposed by the Victoria an and felt this should be changed to allow access to the high school. Mr. Shacklett also stated that .he board members of the high school district should be present at one of the meetings to express their view of the impacts to the high school. Chairman King advised that the written comments distributed by Mr. had Jett were basically a summary of his oral comments. to Elias, 6261 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that he is in favor of the bypass, felt that it created a safe entrance and exit to the high school, and would insure the safety of residents and their children who live on East Avenue. Dave Hopkins, East Avenue resident, addressed the Commission advocating the bypass and stated that he is opposed to widening East Avenue to accommodate more traffic. Liz Allerton, 6384 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she is in favor of the bypass road and against the widening of East Avenue. Kathy Elias, 6384 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she is in favor of the bypass road and did not agree that it would be unsafe for the students of Etiwanda High School. Further, that the bypass would not be any more hazardous than a four lane highway on East Avenue would be to the residents whose driveways front that street. Also, that the bypass may not appease everyone, but does accommodate the concept of keeping Etiwanda a community. Mrs. Elias also proposed that the bypass be altered from its present design and suggested that it go on the east side of the high school, parallel the freeway, and connect with East Avenue at the railroad tracks. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 18, 1982 Ruben Bermudez , Etiwranda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he is in favor of the bypass and opposed to the widening of Etiwranda Avenue. John Lyons, 11984 Dorsett Street Eti anda ; addressed the Commisson stating that he is in favor of the bypass. Furthers, that during the General. Plan hearings, Lever. I'D" was established as the minimum level of service for Rancho Cucamonga and that the pecif'ic flan Advisory Committee, developed the bypass to keep the traffic c at this level of service out of the Etiwranda core. Ray EurEesun, Upland, representing a few Etiwranda landowners, addressed the Commission requesting that the Commission consider higher density south of the freewray. Charles Schulz, East Avenue resident and Chaf'f'ey Scheid District teacher, addressed the Commission stating that he was also in favor of the bypass to get the students of the new high school back safely to the Alta Loma area. Marsha Banks, Victoria Avenue resident, addressed the Commission stating that she had obtained a copy of the petition presented by the Etiwanda Landowners' Association and was surprised at some of the names that appeared on the petition because these same people were in attendance at the Victoria meetings and at that time opposed the widening' f Eclat Avenue. She further stated that she had contacted some of these residents and they indicated that they wished to have their~ navies withdrawn from the petition as the fasts were not properly presented to them and that they brad been misled Jim Barks, Victoria Avenue resident, addressed the Commission giving the reasons why the Etiwranda Advisory ry Committee chose the bypass. Be stated that most of the Committee members agreed that Etiwanda is different and unique, worth preserving if passible, and that a decision must be made as how to equitably preserve Eti anda. Further, that the majority of the landowners want higher density and the homeowners want lower density with less crowding of the streets, schools, and fewer problems. Mr. Banks stated that the Committee tried to reach a compromise in placing higher densities in some areas and lower densities in others. The Committee then had to decide where to put these densities and decided that it made sense to place the nigher densities near the trahspsrstion corridors and the lower densities where building had already begun on a one-to-an-acre basis yet not so much building' that it couldn't be coordinated with a one-to-an-acre pattern. The, upper central part of Eti anda was selected as the best area for lower density. The neat issue to be dealt with was how to keep them from adversely affecting one another. The Committee decided that the only way to do this was through ;the umbrella loop. Mr. Banks stated that the bypass road was only a component of the umbrella loop, which was designed to serve the higher densities and protect the lacer densities. Cade the umbrella leap was established, the Committee was faced with its implementation. Mr. Bans further stated that the implementation of East Avenue as a four lane street would be a more difficult implementation problem than the bypass. The Committee than decided to give the landowners whose property was bisected by the bypass a higher density to help pay for the road. Also, the Committee did not decide on any Planning Commission Minutes - November ld, 1982 ------------- Sarre alternative and felt that it was disturbing that the focus was being placed on the bypass and not on the entire system and how it ties together. Further, that if the bypass was defeated, it would create more problems than it would solve and that densities would have to be out in half. Chairman in asked Mr. Banks if he thought a four .an highway could be placed in the area of East Avenue that would be environmentally sensitive to the characteristics of Etiwanda. Mr. Banks replied that he did, not because this road would be a modern roadway with berms which is not conducive to the character of Etiwanda. Chairman King asked Mr. Banks if those same objections would apply to the bypass. Mr. Banks replied that the bypass is out of the sensitive areas of Etiwanda and he would not voice the same objections. Further, that East and Etiwanda Avenues actually outline the heart of Etiwanda which are particularly sensitive areas. Mry Catania, Covina resident, addressed the Commission stating that she is against the bypass and asked Mr. Banks to show her the higher density north of Route 30 which the residents were supposed to get in return for funding the bypass road through redevelopment. Further, that she did not feel it was fair that a property owner in that area should be expected to put in a four lane road with no compensation. Neil Westlotorn, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he had always felt that opposing honestly opposed opinions could be resolved into common agreement, or at least compromise if the respondents were really seeking an equitable solution to the problem. Further, that when one part to the dispute had no higher purpose but to completely subdue the other party, one could expect less than frankness or honesty in discussion. Mr. Westlotorn farther stated that this seemed to be the case with the petition which was presented to the City Council and Planning Commission by the Landowners, Association containing the names of Etiwanda residents opposing the bypass road. He indicated that the name of the sponsoring agent was not listed on the petition and that he had visited people whose names appear on the petition and found that both sides of the issue had not been presented. Mr. Westlotorn reviewed the attachment to the petition issue-by-issue and explained the comments he received from the residents when be visited them. He also stated that most of' the residents were adamant about maintaining low density in Etiwanda. Mrs. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that the in object 'that Etiwanda should be developed in an orderly and pleasing fashion was being forgotten. Further, that she opposed the bypass and felt that it would cause many safety problems. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 18, 1982 Jean Luck, Etiwranda resident, addressed the Commission and asked if staff could tell her what the open spades east of the high school were going to be used for Tim Reed le replied that the;aspen apace was 'shown on the County Flood Control pa for a water recharge area : C - Planning Commission Recessed :0 Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King stated that the Commission would like for those who had concerns for specific areas or pieces of property north of Route 30 to address these issues now. Mary Catania addressed the Commission stating that wished her opinion n that the bypass road is a waste of money and land to go dr. record. However, ;if the bypass was implemented, she warted to know" how she would be compensated for paying for the road. Further, that her property is zoned as a park but if not used as a park, it will be zoned, Very Low andthis is not a compensation for the bypass Chairman King replied that Mrs. atani.a's point;was made in the question itself. Farther, that if her property was to be used as a park by the City, the City would compensate her for the Land,. Mrs. Catania replied that she did not want the bypass road or the high density, but if a e has to pay for the bypass, the map does not show' where she will be compensated by getting higher= density. Chairman King asked if there were others who dished to speak with regard t land north of Route 30. There were none and Chairman King announced that: the net section for discussion would to south'of Route 30 and north of the fe ore Freeway. Alice Flocker addressed the Commission stating that she is very much opposed to the Very Low density designation on East Avenue in the core area. She further stated that this area has always been designated less density, which is compatible with existing development in that area. .11ama, that this area is not suitable for homes which would be built on half ere or one acre bats. Dr. Kleinman r addressed the Commission stating that the area on the south aide of Victoria,; arras from the high school should' be designated Very Low and he opposed the bypass. Further, that he sad voice his opposition if an assessment district was formed Gordan Cetehell, representing a property owner, at the northwest carrier of Victoria and Eti dnda, addressed the Commission stating that be was in favor f alternative three as presented to the Commission because it appears to be the easiest' to implement, presented the most equitable distribution of the development paternal of the area, is the most consistent with the conceptual Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1982 ---------- ­­­—--------- .........—------ plan included within the Specific Plan document, and is the most logical in terms of freeway access. David Flocker addressed the Commission stating that the Landowners' Association would like to go on record in support of alternative three. Mr. 'looker also stated that Dr. Smith had to him and wished to go on �record as opposing the bypass road and the zoning designation on his property in the Etiwanda core. Mrs. Casaletti, owner of Casalettils Polka Palace, addressed the Commission stating that her property has been zoned commercial for thirty-six years and asked the Commission to respond as to why this designation has been changed. An Etiwanda resident addressed the Commission stating that she supported Mrs. Casalettils request that the commercial zoning designation be returned to her property. Further, that this would also be a good location for a small neighborhood commercial center. Neil We-stlotorn addressed the Commission and stated that he did not consider it a necessary requirement of the residents of Etiwanda to guarantee a maximum return on an investment in the community, particularly for people who only wished to make a return on an investment and would not live there after the investment is fulfilled. Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to see more flexibility in the Low Medium designation along Etiwanda, south of Base Line to Miller Avenue because it is an area which should attract rather unique types of development. There were no further public comments regarding this area and Chairman King announced the next section for discussion would be the area south of Devore Freeway. Ray Furgeson, representing an area property owner, addressed the Commission stating that the property on the south side of Miller between East and Etiwanda had been zoned Low Medium and asked that 'the Commission consider raising the density to at least Medium. Mr. Angelotti, 937 S. Fifth Street, Montebello, California, addressed the Commission stating that his property located at the northwest corner of Miller and at Avenue had been designated Low Medium and requested the Commission to raise the density to Medium due to its location near freeway access and access to Miller, East and Etiwanda Avenues. John Lyons addressed the Commission regarding the property below the Devore freeway and suggested that it be redesignated Low Medium. Betty McKay addressed the Commission regarding the property east of Etivanda, south of Foothill and suggested that it be designated as master planned light industrial park with a park as a possible buffer between uses. Planning Commission, Minutes November 18, 1982 There were no further comments, therefore Chairman King closed ,the public hearing Chairman King stated that he agreed with the fact that Etiwanda had .a special character and quality, however, did not agree that development and local_ character and quality were inconsistent. further, that the most important aspect in getting a development to maintain a local character and quality is reasonable and equitable land use with emphasis placed on implementation. He further stated that future meetings dealing with the implementation aspects would have more significance than the hearings relating to land use because its through the implementation that the development that takes place can be assured that there will be an attempt to preserve the local quality and character. Also, with proper land use any local character that exists in tiwanda will be maintained and can be preserved. Further, the densities should be modified for the most cart in a downward fashion and that the bypass should not exist Commissioner emp l agreed with most of Chairman Fi.ng's statement and that the bypass would definitely be a problem due to the safety of the street and. :its placement next to the high school and to areas of high density. Further, that the implementation and costs involved in the bypass would also be a problem. Also, there would' be problems with the intersection where the bypass comes into East Avenue. In the area of density, :Commissioner Fempel stated that he felt the most serious problem is that we are stratifying the cavity by in essence telling people; of lower income that they must live below the railroad tracks or below Foothill. Commissioner Barber stated that the Specific Plan was already a compromise in that in exchange for the bypass road there would be increased yp , densities. He also stated he is not for the higher densities and not comfortable with the bypass road. Further, that the problems could be Lessened by limiting the density. Also, the bypass road seems- to invite an increase in density not lust locally, but also in the sphere of influence area. He further Mated that he was opposed to the bypass road for practical and safety reasons. Commission Stout stated that when he reviewed the Specific ie Plan he was extremely unhappy with; it because it does not seer to scare all the problems that everyone granted to solve in creating the plan in the first place. Furather, that Etiwanda should be a unique place and unlike any city anywhere. Also, that the desire to retain Ftiwanda's character was shared by all., however, this desire was based on the <fact that 95 percent of the laced in the Fti randa area is vacant and some day this would not be the case. Commissioner Stout further stated that with the proposed plan or the two alternatives presented, there would be are increase in population to between 10,000 and 20,000 people in the plan area alone and this new development would overwhelm Ftiwaanda and it would never be the sane. Further, that he agreed with the comments made by the other two Commissioners and would like to see the densities lowered , and disagreed with the concept of the bypass road and felt that the increase in density was too nigh a price to pay. He also stated that he noticed a, majority of the rook curb along East Avenue was Planning Commission ission Minutes_ -9- o e aber 18, 198 deteriorating and was probably unusable and it is impractical to think that those curbs are restorable. Also, the trees along East are an impractical type of tree and should be considered for replacement and that the widening of East Avenue and replanting of trees may be something we have to live with. Commissioner MaNiel` stated that he is not a resident of Etiwanda and had recently driven t tiwand but had difficulty identifying the core area referenced throughout the plan. Further, that if such a place exists, he would not envision the location on East Avenue but rather on Etiwanda Avenue. He further stated that he opposed the bypass road for safety reasons and its impact to the high school. Chairman King announced that the specific requests made by people at the public hearing< this evening regarding specific pieces of property would be discussed as the first item at the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1982. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report and Implementation Plan would be discussed at this meeting. Chairman King further stated his feeling towards the area with of Route 30 would be that the bypass road should not exist, the neighborhood commercial designation should not be shown where it presently exists, the Low Medium designation should be lowered to Low, and the west side of East Avenue running north and south between Route 30 and the railroad tracks should be designated Low. Commissioner Stout stated that the area south of Foothill, around the existing residential tract, should be designated as light industrial park with an extremely high design criteria to buffer it from the homes. Further, that the Estate Residential designation in the northern area should be reduced because he did not feel that the area needed to be that large. He further stated that he like the concept, however, and felt it should be used in other areas. Also, he agreed with the comments regarding the density around the core area and would be satisfied with a very low designation there. Co=issioner Barker agreed with Commissioner Stout's comments regarding the Estate Residential designation. Also, assuming that something could be done to buffer the existing homes south of Foothill Boulevard, he agreed with Commissioner Stout's recommendation for an industrial park designation in that area. He further stated that he would like some discussion on the traffic impacts with Chairman King*s suggestion that the strip on the west side of East Avenue be designated a higher density. Paul to eau replied that the trips per day generated would about double, however, most of the traffic would be generated from farther away than the immediate area therefore an exact number of trips generated would be difficult to determine. He indicated that the traffic volumes listed for Alternative 2 were similar to this concept in that it showed traffic volumes on East Avenue would be similar to those on Archibald between Base Line and Foothill. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 18, 1982 Commissioner Barker stated his concern with the number of driveways doming on to a carrier asked how this would be handled to assure that a traffic problem would not be created. Mr. Pou eau replied that front access would not be allowed directly unto the street to eliminate this problem. Commissioner Barker replied that the northeast corner was already developed and asked hoar many of those ;lots already had front access on East Avenue. r. Rogeau replied that a few of the bats have front access, but the subdivision has strut access. Commissioner Re pel questioned the accuracy of the figures for Alternative P because the densities shown for that area are almost ghat they are in Alta Loma. Farther, he agreed with the density proposed by Chairman King in that it is a reasonable compromise and also agreed with Commissioner Stout that the area south of Foothill should be zoned Industrial and should be taken out of the Etiwanda; Plan boundaries and placed in the boundaries of the Industrial, Specific Plan. Commissioner Stout clarified his previous statement regarding the Estate Residential category and stated that he proud also like to have this category combined with a special design designation for Etiwanda Boulevard. He further stated that he would like to know the impact of lining Etiwanda Avenue above Highland with Estate Residential, having it on both sides and perhaps only one lot deep Commissioner parpel stated that the densities shown give the Commission the right to do that without changing the ,Tarr and all the lots along tiwanda Avenue could be reduced to hall' ore lots by design review. Chairman King stated that he` did not disagree with Commissioner Stout's recommendation in that it could be a very good thought; however, he also did not disagree with Commissioner Pa spays position. Commissioner Barkers asked Commissioner� llo rpal if his thought was although there was a vary lour designation, you could still follow d is ioner Stout's objective of having ,for setbacks and spacial treatments north up Etiwanda Avenue Commissioner llaarapel stated that this verb definitely was what he was 'trying to convoy as the Plan goes into this to a large degree along Etiwanda Avenue so that very thing has to happen with those setbacks. °lira Beadle stated that there is an overlay along Etiwanda for design consideration which adds architecture,, landscaping, and setback distances that bring about a certain appearance that was felt important during the Committee process of the plan. Further, that what the Commission, is now proposing mould ofurther in increasing the lot size and increase the setbacks even Planning Commission Minutes -11 November 18, 1982 i further. He also advised the Commission that thane have been design considerations already worked into the plan and that this right be considered as part of the implementation :section of the plan„ Chairman King recommended the n i hbohood commercial designation be moved to the north ;side of Baca Line near the freeway interchange and that ;a very small service neighborhood: commercial be designated at East and 2 th. Commissioner raker asked if zoning the area south of Foothill industrial would be compatible with the surrounding area; Commissioner Hempel replied that in his opinion it would be compatible because Foothill is going to be a heavily traveled street and that the neighborhood commercial should continue to the triangle of'_medium designation above it so that the Eucalyptus treed could be salvaged. Commissioner Mc Niel stated his concern that the densities seem very lour in the plan and that development desired for the city y go elsewhere Commissioner Stout replied that there are many other areas of the city where any type of development could to built, however, did not agree that Etiwanda should have to be considered as an ideal: Location for everyone Motion: Moved by Barker that section one appear approximately as shown in Alternative 2 with all Very Low designation and the Estate Residential: south of Summit and west of Eti anda'' Avenue Commissioner Stout stated that be would like to modify the motion to include the strip of land within the special design for Etiwanda Avenue between Route 30 and the umbrella loop to be a lower designation. Commissioner Repel stated that theme would be serious ramifications if full acre lots were taken rr all the way along that area and there may be a problem; getting a developer to develop there. Chairman King agreed with Commissioner Stout's concept of Estate Residential and implementation of that type of look for Eti anda Avenue, but Indio ted that he was not ready to vote that both sides of Etin arnda Avenue should be Estate Residential at this time Cot isaioner Barber restated his original motion and explained that everything north of Renate 30 is to be designated Very low except for the section labeled Estate Residential. This notion was seconded by Commissioner Stout . Chairman King asked staff why the two islands in the flood control area were designated Lour as opposed to Very Low on'Alternative 2. Otto Kroutil replied that since the beginning of the land use process in the General Plan this area has been designated Low. Planning Commission Minutes 12- November 18, 1982 Chairman King advised that the motion had been moved and seconded and called for the vote AYES,S, COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel, Rempel Kin NOES: COMMISSIONERS: stone Tim Seedle asked if there was any interest in the community commercial center. Commissioner Barter replied that he did not include that in his Motion because he is not opposed to the commercial center location. There was discussion on the commercial center location and,the motion was amended by Commissioner Barker to rove the location to 24th Street and East Avenue; Chairman Kind made the motion for Section 2, south of Route 30, north of Rome 15, that the neighborhood commercial land use be deleted and moved to the general vicintiy of Base Line and East Avenue, the entire area east of East Avenue surrounding the school and opera space be Loci, thus deleting the Low Medium and the Very Low designations north of the railroad trans. Further, that north of the railroad tracks, crest of East Avenue, Lois designation b extended from Route 30 alongthe back line of the existing tract, dean to the railroad tracks then most bound and have it meet' just south of the ,junior high school . Retain the rest of the Very Low designation as is The area south of the railroad tracks is to remain the same other than moving the neighborhood commercial designation as noted. Commissioner Remp l stated that he would prefer that the Low designation extend all the ways west to Etiwanda Avenue Chairman King stated that the bypass road should; be eliminated and that Victoria should be continued as a through street. Co i.ssioner McNiel stated his concern regarding the impacts to Est Avenue caused by people traveling to the neighborhood comereial center;. Chairman King replied that the possibility of placing the neighborhood commercial center above Route 30 should be looked at.. Commissioner Re ipel. stated that if the center was placed in that location no one mould build there and also felt that staff"staff"s analysis of traffic volumes in that location is wrong. Further, that he mould second the Chairman's motion if he would exclude the neighbood commercial neater at 24th and East. Commissioner Stout stated that he mould be against placing lour density in the core area all the way to Etiwanda Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes 1 November aber 18, 1982 i I `� Otte. routil stated that the Committee did not feel that s neighborhood seater should be placed in the core. However, if the Commission desired a second enter, it should be located at Base Line and East Avenue in lieu of the Boats 30/bypass location. Furthert that the Commission might wart to defer this until the freeway discussion takes place at the heart meeting. Chairman King clarified his motion and stated that in Section 2, the Low designation should be placed east of East Avenue, Very Low designation for the rest of the core and along Etiwanda Avenge, Victoria Street is to b continuous, no bypass road, and East Avenue be continuous and widened to four lames. Commissioner knr p- l seconded the motion. 'Motion failed . Chairman King asked for further discussion the :impacts of Love versus Very Low along East Avenue. He stated that traffic will impact the Very Low designations. Also, Low is more compatible with the high school. Further, that it is consistent with traffic along East Avenue and the rest of the areas along Etiwanda will have Very Low to p eserve its character. Commissioner McNiel stated his concern regarding the neighborhood center location t the north end of Et i anda. Chairman King replied that possibly this could be discussed at the next meeting when the Commission begins its review ie f the freeway. Motion: Moved ;.by King, seconded by Re rpel., carried, that the density east of East Avenue be Low with d strip of Very Low along the Brost side of East Avenue, Very Low density f°ear° the rest of the core area and along Etiwanda Avenue; Victoria to remain a continuous street, no bypass road, and East Avenue would be continuous and widened to four lanes throughout tics planning area, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Rerrrp 1, MNiel, Barker NOES. COMMISSIONERS: Stoat Commissioner Stoat voted„ o because he preferred Very Low density along the crest side of East Avenue. Motion: Moved by kker pel seconded by Barker, carriedunanimously, to continue past the 11 p.m. adjournment time. Chairman King asked for discussion ands motion regarding Section 3, south of 1-15. Planning Commission Minutes 1 November ber 18, 1982 Commissioner Hempel. stated that the area south of Foothill Boulevard in inappropriate for residential and should be designated light industrial. Al op he was concerned with possible litigation and felt the densities houll.d remain hear those specified in the: General Plan Chairman King stated that the densities below the interchange should be raised, however, the remaining densities could be discussed at the next meeting., Motion Moored by ,Stout, seconded by ` Ni.e , that the area below Foothill regain as is except that residential Low Medium south of the existing tract to be designated Industrial Pa li. Motion failed P . Motion Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, that the triangular area bounded b -1 , Foothill and East be discussed at the meeting of December 9, 1982. Motion carried unanimouslyB Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Hempel, unanimously carried to remove the area south of Foothill and the existing trot from the gtiwanda Plan and place it in the Industrial Specific Plan boundaries, with the intent to redesignate it for light industrial park uses. Lion: Moved by King, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to reconsider area one north of Route 30 at the next meeting Chairman King stated that the items the Commission would like to cover at the meeting of December , 1982, were the; specific requests from property owners, the triangle i south of 1-15 north of Foothill Boulevard, and the Development Standards. ADJOURNMENT' Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1.1: a Planning Commission Adjourned Rep otfully ub itted, Jack Lam, ,Secretary I Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 18, 1982 CITY CP RANCHO CUCA O GA PLANNING COMMISSION MI UTE Regular Meeting November 10 7 1982 CALL TO CPP The regular meeting of the City of a cho Cucamonga Planning Commission as called to order by Chairman Jeff King at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lima Park Community Center 9161 Base Lire Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. After calling the meeting t6 carder, Chairman King led in the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Reap 1, Dennis Stout, Jeffrey King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Darr Coleman, Associate Planner; Risk Gomez, City Planner; Cunt Johnston Assistant Planner; ;Jean Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Edward A. u ann, Assistant City Attorney; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil. Engineer; Michael Va irin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: cad by Barker, seconded by Ramp 1, carried unanimously,ly, o approve the Minutes of September 22, 1982. Motion: Moved by Pampol, ascended by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of the October 13, 1982 meeting. Chairman King abstained from the vats as h was absent from this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion d by Pampnl, seconded onded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar, adopting Resolution, No. 1 C . A TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 66 Planning Commission Minutes rt November 10, 1982 ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that on October 8, 1982, the Planning Com,ission would meet at the Liana Park Community Centers at 7 p.m. to continue the hearing process on the Etiwanda Specific Flan. Gomez stated that the date of the second regular Planning mmis ion nesting would be changed to November 22 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. PUBLIC HEARING N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTlN1�ER A E I A E1 A request to amend the General Flan Land Use p from Medium Residential ( 14 dwelling units/acre) to Commercial on approximately 8.9, acres of land located in the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard APN 1077 1-� 1 (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1982) Chairman n King advised that Staff recommended that this project and the public hearing be continued to the meeting of January 26 , 1983. Chairman King upend the public hearing.. There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed tionr Moved dy R mp 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the January , 1983 meeting E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 1 NIA - h da l p rent of a church facility including two buildings which total 4,200 square feet on 5.5 acresof land in the R-1-20,000 zone, ;located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue AF 118; 1 "1 Chairman King advised that the applicant has requested that the.s item be continued to the November 22, 1 greeting. Chairman King opened the public :hearing. Thane being no comments, the public heaving was closed. Commissioner Rempel indicated he had two things on which to comment. fie further stated that when an item comes before the Planning Commission, it should be checked out by staff as the reason for this postponement revolves around a discoveredcul-de-sac rod that is cane-halt` on the side of this Planning Commission Minutes November '1 , 1982 proposal from a previously approved County tract. Commissioner Rempel stated that a developer must notify adjacent property owners when a street is being designed to only benefit hirer and he must also have the approval of the ether property owners. Commissioner Rempel further stated that this is something that should never have happened in the design of the street for the rather piece of property and the dedication should have shown on the deed Chairman King reopened the public: hearing. Mr. Pat Guerra, 8218 Kirkwood Ct. , representing the applicant, stated that during the four months of preparation prior to beinging this before the Commission for a conditional use;permit they were not advised that the piece in question had anything to ;do with their property. Further, that the only information they received is that they would be dedicating a part of property on Archibald and Wilson and his understanding from the representative working with the church was that this map was discovered and not a part of any information that they had over the four-month period. Mr. Guerra stated that this discovery will create problems because they have already drawn rep plans for use of the facilities on the eastern section of their property and right involve the movement of a building which they had not planned for. Mr. Guerra stated that this was a 5-acre piece of propertya when they bought it. and with the dedications involved'. it is getting to be more like a rye; piece of property. Mr. Guerra stated that inasmuch as the property to the east has not developed near has plans to develop he feels that any consideration would be consideration to the ur h which is a non-profit organization and will not realize monetary value from the property . Mr. Guerra stated that the'congregation would be taxed for any consideration of the property to the east ir. Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that in meeting with the City as Engineering Department to resolve e this situation, it has been concluded that the building will not have to be moved mar will the church be responsible for any, of the street improvements with the exception of a minor 4-foot offer of dedication. He indicated that it appears that the actual physical plans of the church will not have to be altered. Commissioner Hempel asked if the City can require a developer to put in a sheet that there is, not need for and is not a through street but a service street for another piece of property. Hopson, City Attorney, replied by asking if this is for the; existing approved trailt r, empel replied affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1982 I . Hopson stated that the problem with the approved tract, assuming that It . is firralad is that you carpi add more conditions or requirements i.rements to the original tract mp. Further, you are stuck with whatever you asked for or what was imposed by the County. He indicated that It is abundantly clear that you cannot go back and add more things if;you discover you have not asked for enough, in the process. It is always possible, he stated to make some arrangement if there were some redesign that would be cheaper and the City does not have to accept an offer of dedication , but the City cannot require any more than has already been done. Commissioner Rempel stated that you can require dedication from the church property. Mr. Hopson replied that you could if that was going to be a full street before dedication. *. Guerra stated that the question is not whether the City tsar a right to d that but whether the City has a moral right ht to do it Chairman King closed the public hearing e Motion: red by Barker, seconded by Stout, ar°re�ad r�arrKKmrsly, to addurrs, this item to the November 22 PlanningCommission meeting C. ENVIRONMENTAL E D PARCEL MAP 3383 = BANNKS, - The division of f laud into lots within the 1 zone, located approximately 6601 north of Base Line and 660, west of East Admire P 1 1 . (Continued from the Planning ;laaldn meeting of September d, 1982.) Senior Glum. Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked of this has been reviewed by the Trails Committee and whether they have any concern regarding impact on this property. °°. Rougeau replied that it has been reviewed and no impacts have been found.. Chairman King opened the public hearing. James Banks applicant, stated that he has problems ms ,tb four or five conditions. he indicated that the requirement to provide sewers s o ld b difficult a s there are mono for riled and riles. Further, that there is a requirement to provide natural gas'aa well as cable television lines. He indicated that the latter is not realistic. Planning o lemon Minutes -4- Novembers 10, 1982 Banksstated that he wished to mainly focus on the f oat dedication and 26 feet of paving. Mr. Beaks stated that this would be a problem because the nursery is not inclined to give 40 feet of easement. Fie farther stated that what h ' has i -foot easement for ingress re rid egress. Mr. Banks indicated that in January f 1979 the City adopted a Resolution which was a statement of policy that there should be these -foot dedications and font areas of pavement. He further odic t d that he was unaware of this as he was probably out of town and stated that he would, let the Commission know when he was informed of this . Banks stated that he knows the Planning Commission can Crary requirements ments if a variation is called for. W. Beaks gave the Commission details,of why the final map has not been filed on this property and that the previous r p was approved without the requirements that are now being imposed. Mr. Banks stated that he has difficulty in understanding why the crap world have been acceptable previously l and is unacceptable now as frothing had changed except the poli.cy of the City. Farther, that the di.t °a Engineering Division "does not make the final approval. . Banks stated that his application has been on file for 32 months and he was ,just notified of the reqirements last month He further stated that he had made a number of changes in the map at the City'City's request and has complied with all kinds of tudies regarding the drainage. He indicated that he has paid the Engineer for all of these things and , font a fair amount of time in resolving any problems. He further indicated that if these requirements were going to be imposed sed on him, 32 monthsis a rather long time considering his financial investment to tell hire about it. Banks stated that his only request has been that he become d mirror image of the parcel to the wept ra th is.h ib Further, tier thered care problems u l_ b r _ involved in not approving this map than if it is approved because he will have to salve the street and drainage problems. Mr. Banns stated that the requirement for 40 feet for a street is only a temporary rar requirement inasmuch as the City does not have a street master plan for this area. He felt that ultimately the road would be 330 feet to the west. Mr. Banks stated that he is willing to minimize the traffic on this street by putting in a deed restriction restricting the number of dwelling units on the 5 acres if the person who is developing the adjacent 5 acres; will do the dame. He indicated that these would then be all the properties feeding it on 'this lane Commissioner Niel aired if Mr. Banks has had any discussion with the adjacent property owner. Planning is ion MinutesNovember 10, 1982 . Bake replied that he has not had in some time. He indicated that the adjacent property owner has several pieces of property Grp, for;dale and he tells those people rho call and ask about the street and drainage that they do not have to worry about these problems because the guy to the east will have to take card of ther Chairman King asked if it is correct that at the present time there is no paved access to any portion of this property. . Banks replied that this is correct. Chairman King asked Mr. Banksif he Drell - his late, does he expect people to get to them through the present easement. W. Banks replied affirmatively , adding that this would be the used until the, other streets are built. m Louis Mora, part owner of the tract of lead that the street is proposes t, d through stated that the street would be called Oak Street and if whit . Banks is sayingis correct, 4 Street would literality be going through h their back yard W. Mora farther stated that this land is not developed and they have no playas at the present time to develop the land . Further, that any dissuasion about;a road 330 feet to the wet is premature and Mr. Banks has no ingress or egress to his property Commissioner MoNiel raked if Oak Street .is proposed to go the ,entire length of 'what is shown on the map. tr eau replied that it is conceptual and somewhat to the west and south along the narrow piece of property. Further, that it in not d master planned street;. Lauren Fritz , 10863 eechw d Drive, nursery owner who owns land to the south, stated that he has never complained bout the last split but the only thing he is wormed abort is the drainage problem, which is significant. °. Fritz stated that ever*; since Caltrans realigned Base Line Avenue and widened the ditch along the north aide of the street they have had significant problem with water. He further rusted that he has taken his tractor and graded that right-of-way because the ingress and egress has passed through his property to allow the people to get into that property and stop the water from running into their front yard and into their homes. . Fritz said that he had a stady done by Linville-Sanderson-Horn in March of 1980 ich he gave to Mr. Banks and Mr. use ly. He indicated that he did not now whether* this was considered by the City, but the flooding is a major problem.. . Fritz stated that the 20 aeries mouth of the tracts also drains along the westerly portion of his property and indicated :that this tore would be a major problem. Planning rmni pion Minutes -6- November 10 , 1982 Mrs. Alice P cc e , property er to the west, 'stated that since drainage is problem, the lot split should wait until the Etiwanda Specific Plain is adopted She felt that Mr. Banks should be bound by it because it would be best for everyone. Pluckers indicated that there is no access to the riddle part of the property, and that the estate type residential is not suitable for this location Mrs. Klineman, property owner, asked if Mr. Banks had any eucalyptus trees on his property and if any will be displaced . Banks replied that rrrre will be displaced. Fritz stated that since ,he has already dedicated 40 feet, he is not interested in dedicating another 10 feet. He further stated that if the dedication goes through, the utilities will have to be moved, fencing and some of his outdoor material will have to be eliminated. He indicated that currently there is gust a dirt road to travel on and he maintains it somewhat on the north/south passing lane . He dues not maintain it on the east/west. e reiterated that he is not about to give up any more lard. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner e p l asked Mr. Banks if the trees on the smith side are in the right-of-way. M. Bans replied that he thought they are, but in discussing this with staff said that he would move the boundary lire on the south lot ten Feet to the north Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think this feasible . Mr. Banks replied that there was a lot f discussion this and staff was not, sure what they wanted to do about the street. He indicated that they did not impose a condition that the street be build because they did not know what they wanted to do with it. Mr. Banks stated that he is willing to give up another tern feet if it can be saved. Chairman King asked if , as in item D on this agenda, the applicant is required t ' core in with some sort of conceptual plan showing passible cirucl ticn and also permanent type improvements that are reimbursable when the land develops. Ir. Pcugeau replied that this is the ease in larger tracts and it dues not allow direct 'reimbursement to be made. Mr. Rougeau stated, that they don have a circulation map that shows possible access Planning Commission Minutes 7- November 1 , 1982 Chairman Kiang stated that if the road to Base Lime is not going to be a ; permanent road it would seem a waste of money to put it in and it would seer that at some point in time` it is imperative that some access be provided to get into this area if it is going to be used for residential. Mr. Rou eau stated that is why in 1980 the Planning i i n policy gave the City Engineer the ability to vary that. He indicated that now maps must be approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing. "therefore, it would be the Planning Commission that would approve a variance if there ny. Chairman King asked hoer we can say that this will be the road when the surrounding area has not been looked at and fU ther r ghat kind of precedent would be set. Hougeau `indicated ` that an all weather road of some type is needed for this area and it could be vacated in the future if some future circulation pattern developed. Chairman King stated that if the Commission is saying this will be temporary and only re ire 26 feat of;paving, it doesn't matter if the City has 40 feet or 26 feet Mr. K u eau; stated that the 40 feet is in the resolution because it could not be maintained by gas tax fends unless it is that wide. Otherwise it would be considered a private drive and the responsibility of the homeowner to fix up. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the City is going to go that route, then there must be a homeowners association responsible for paying for it. Hopson stated there is a procedure set asp by lair where by if there is one private street and one of the owners cannot agree he may file an action and the judge will order the various people to pay for tyre cost of the road in proportion to its use Commissioner Rempel stated that it is not right to have to go to heart on this matter. Further, that this is similar to the item our the agenda two weeks ago with the property our Wilson. Commissioner Pe el stated that it bothered him to set up roads without having final plans for these roads and that the Commission must know whether Oak Street-;will go or not' o. He indicated that the City will have to require dedication to put the street in and the gt . and a Specific Plana should shag these items. Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner Re pel is saying that part of the design is growing by accident instead of along specific design which is frustrating. Planning Commission Minuted -8- November 10, 1982 Commissioner Rempel reminded the, Commission of the difficulty they encountered with the Kortepeter project a year ago. Further, that that was a far more complicated issue; the, policy described by Mr. Rcu eau grew out of it so that if there is no proper access, it would be provided. Chairman King stated he was uncomfortable in approving anything in terms of the access as it relates to this and felt that this item should be continued. Farther, that the applicant in conjunction with this should supply the Commission with some conceptual plan showing circulation in the immediate vicinity; or, in the alternative; shown in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman King stated it seems senseless to put in 26 feet of pavement with a curb and gutter and have it torn up . Rou eau stated that it Mould not be an elaborate street as it would only be paving without curbs and gutters if temporary access is to be provided. Chairman King asked fir° Fritz if the paving would bother him. Fritz replied-that he would not object to it. Chairman King stated that whichever er way the road goes will have an effect on the drainage. . Rou eau replied that the reason. that Oak Street was not required at this time is that they do not know what the ultimate circulation will be. Further, that it is known that Pecan is needed for access to d lots and that the Planning Commission policy since 1979 has required dedicated and paved all weather access to this subdivision. r. Rou eau Mated that the circulation plan does have value but the Engineering ivision has found that whenever a circulation pattern is set, the first thing that happens is that the next person, who comes in needs change. Further, that what ;the City must not do is establish permanent streets that will not work in the future and the question becomes one of putting in a street that may someday be vacated. Mr. Roueau stated that Oak Street was never a factor and the developer will newer be required to put Oak Street in until something happens to the lots on the south end. Mr. Rou eau stated that someday the nursery may be sold:' to a developer and everything will fall into place. Commissioner Rempel asked if this would be done through a lien agreement. Rou eau replied that some AC pavement is required between Pecan and Rase Line access which is past of Oak -Street. Commissioner Rempel stated that Mr. Banks had said that he would give 40 feet of his property in order to save the eucalyptus trees; he asked if there will be a 10®foot jog. Planning Commission Minutes - November 10 , 1982 Rougeau stated that it `was peat there to save the trees. CommissionerRempel stated that it doesn't weeks sends and asked where the drainage will Rougea r replied that the second exhibit shows drainage d ours s and where_ the water will g a. Further, that thane is already drainage 'd itch slang the property line to Base Line r Rougeau stated that ondition 34 requires improvement ' to the satisfaction of the engineering department to the drainage problem. Commissioner R mp l asked where Pecan and_Oak will drain to. Mr. Rouge au replied that it would b 'to the west. Chairman King stated that this issue is being beaten to death. Further, it y be better to say that pavement will be required to Bass Line and to allow the a' foot easement airy would exist until permanent access to the property is known. Commissioner Stout asked if the issue of sewage can be addressed. . Rougeau replied that the condition requires s sewage system which might b septic tanks. Further, that gas and cable TV is required on all lots in the City Commissioner Stout asked if it is the intent that utilities be plugged in at Base Lime Rougeau replied affirmatively on electrical power, but not on gas or TV. Rougeau stated further that they`were thinking in terms of providing an easement so that it need not be terra up in carder to get to them. Hopson asked if a dry line would ;b required. s Rougeau replied that he was .not sure east will be required. Rempel asked if what Mr. Rougeau is saying is that natural gas will not be required if they use butane or battled gas . Banks stated that he had just been informed that natural gas is nearby. Commissioner R m sl stated that tsars are no water services in that area either. Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 10 , -1982 Commissioner Stout stated that cable should be taken to the nearest telephone so that the trenching used for telephone installation could be used for the cable TV. '. Coleman stated that the;policy statement from the Commission which resulted from a shady done last year is that the developer will, not be required to do this 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Barker stated that he is uncomfortable because he does not knot what access will be and what the road will be and the Commission would in effect be approvingom t i the middle of nowhere. Commissioner Stout stated that he agrees with that and he would also feel: uncomfortable with a roadway that does not have permanent access. Commissioner iel asked hoar long it would take to develop a conceptual plan. . ou eau replied that it would only be a short time and could be done in two weeks. Commissioner Barker" stated that he does not know the position of the rest of the Commission, but he needs something like that. Chairman King asked that if we tale that approach would it be advisable to it until after the Bti anda Specific Plan is approved so that the Commission can determine what land use changes in that area are and have a better feeling for what the layout will be Commissioner Rempel stated that he questions whether this can be done in a couple of hours because when you start to lay out a street it should be d public hearing item. He indicated that is why he brought op having the streets laid out on the Etiwanda` Specific Plan and it must come up during the hearing process. Motion: gyred by llempe , seconded by ;Stout, to delay this map lentil the , layout of the streets can be determined through the Etiwanda Specific Plan hearing. Chairman King asked how long that would be as it could take as long as two year's by the time it goes to the Council. Be indicated that the Commission is not now dealing with that kind of detail and if ;it goes to the City Council it may not be dealt with. Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 10 , 1982 Commissioner McNiel stated that the Commission is dealing with dangerous turf and perhaps if this lead use designation were in direct conflict with the General Plan or the proposed Ht i ands Specific n'then t might be wise. He stated, however, that there is no conflict: because the designation is less than what is shown and not more. He indicated; that this ght cause other* problems down the lime Mr. Hopson a ancillaryproblem t this in that there and stated that there is some problems with that in regard to time require enis within which the City' must act. If Mr. Hanks joins it requesting that the matter be postponed until d decision is reached on the Hti ands Specific Plan or until the Commission is re comfortable with a decision then obviously there is not s problem. However, if he does not join in the request and the: Cbmmission continues the ter beyond a certain time period, the map may be deemed approved by failure to take action Mr. Hopson stated that either the Commission pushes the action tonight and is uncomfortable, or it votes to disapprove this He indicated that if the Commission is uncomfortable, then the net question is addressed to Mr. Banks to concur or you will vote tonight. r. Banks stated that he doesn't mind if this matter is postponed to resolve some circulation concerns. Further, that be does not Irish to wait until approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan because it does not say anything about this level of street He indicated that he has no problem with the street s long as the City does not cut hi.m off at the end and make hi.m pay all the fees over again. Chairman King asked if it is possible to deal with this and bring this item back to the" Commission at d meeting in January. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued ;to the second meeting in January. The Commission then completed its voting on the motion made by Rempel and seconded by Stout, that this item be continued to January 26 , 1983. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 SUBAREA 16 MASTER FL-AN - ZA EW, Conceptual review of the proposed Master Plan for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Pisa which is located between 4th and dth Streets, and between Hellman and Archibald Avenues* Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked for are explanation of Exhibit 3 , the ;proposed points of access on Archibald and Sixth Streets Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 1 , ;1982 Co le n replied that those access points were arrived at during the development of the Master Plan and the General Flan Commissioner Stout asked if there would be any other access points other than those four arrows and the four on the master plan. Coleman replied that temporary access, and possibly permanent, could be provided from the other streets, however, it would not be encouraged.. Further, that under the plan any development ent that codes in would be encouraged to take access off of the proposed local streets adjoining the project. Commissioner, Stout asked if the first applicant will access off of Archibald. Rou eau explained that the arrows indicate the points where public streets would intersect the major streets. There could, however, be driveways at, intermediate points depending on whether the project needed one. Mr. Rou eau further, stated that what fan has said wherever there is a local street that the portion of the property at that local is encouraged to access off of that local; street and they would rather have a driveway off of a smaller street rather than a larger street. Mr. Roueau stated that there could be driveways along .Archibald and ,Sixth Street just the same. Commissioner Stout asked if the implementation matrix on page 7 means that they will have access . Rougeau replied that it indicates the minimum and that there is condition in the Resolution stating what the minimum requirements would be on the property; however, it would not preclude normal improvement requirements. He indicated that they would not want the map to exclude what they could ask for in the way of improvements Cormnissioner Stout asked if that means this parcel will be oriented toward Archibald rather than an interior street. Coleman replied that the applicant was told that they would not be looked on favorably to gain access from Archibald and not from the collector and that would be a temporary situation. He indicated that if it were allowed, it mould have to line up where the arrow is directly across from the existing private drive Commissioner emp 1 stated that the City 's access policy had better be explained because the access policy says every 300 feet and there are 2600 feet for the full length of this and Mould allow d entries into that property. Further, that where the arrows are are street entries and not driveways. He indicated that the street could go clear through the collector on the inside. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - November '10 , 1982 Commissioner Stout stated that he was concerned with the orientation of the buildings and the gray they would face 4 Coleman and Mr. Gomez explained the General Plan; policies and how this mould be controlled through the Design Review process. Commissioner Rempel stated that if there was a creed for a business to have access off of Archibald they would be able to get it. Further, it would depend on how large the parcel is and how the frontage would be. He indicated that it would have to be all dressed 'up to be on Archibald. Commissioner mpel stated that there are a couple of smaller pieces and there is no way t stop these from fronting on Archibald . Chairman King stated that daring the General Plan hearings the Commission hoard many discussions on ghat type of land uses should be here. He indicated that it was the decision of the Commission that this be designated Industrial Park Chairman King opened the public hearing . Philip Schwartz, Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, representing the developer, explained the process in developing the master plan for this area. He stated that they believe the master plan they carve up with respects the property lines and the ownership involved in this area. He indicated that most of the land holdings are owned by three gasps; Safeway Enterprises , being;' one of the smaller groups.- The Lusk Company and Marlborough are the major landowners and have been very flexible in; the preparation of this master plan. . Schwartz stated that they have taken a great deal of dare in involving all the people concerned in the 140 acres so that they would be aware of what is happening. W. fiery, representing the Lusk Company, stated that he was not here t approve or disapprove the master plan. He expressed concern of the street alignment as it impacts theirs and possibly the Marlborough property. He indicated that his firm thought there has been an equitable distribution of the interior streets and the property owners and Safeway should be commended in getting this project together . . Paul Byrnes, 'representing Marlborough Development Company , stated that the only reason they;do not stand there in support of this is because not all of the concerns have been addressed and perhaps in a year or two they may ask for some minor changes. He indicated that this plan leaves flexibility and has been a positive experience in the total cooperation of the property` owners involved. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - November' 10, 1982 Jerry Kii ski,; resident In the section north of this proposed project, stated that there is quite d bit of conflict with the industrial park and how the traffic conflicts will be resolved. He indicated that the circulation plan as presented tonight is acceptable and at a later date they will have re to say about the development. For clarification, he Mated that he has spoken with City staff and they said that 60 feet applied to development; however, they corrected themselves and just so it is understood, the 60-foot requirement is from the whole area between 6th and 4th and not dust gth and Argch ibald m Commissioner McNiel commented that Mr. Kioski was speaking as one resident but asked him what the general mood is in: the neighborhood regarding this industrial. park . Kioski replied that they do not want this area designated industrial park because there will be more traffic off" of 6th street and this is a major concern, D. Asterbaum, resident on north 6th Street, indicated that he had a misconception in that he thought the whole area and not just a, small parcel would be discussed tonight. He commended the Safeway groins for the way in which the information sessions were handled. He asked questions about the traffic and whether there would be a traffic signal at 4th; and Archibald and 6th and Archibald Asterbaum stated that he did ;not know this area had been designated industrial park Chariman King stated that some time ago the Commission at a General flan meeting had.. dealt with this specifically and it was decided that this area would be industrial park. Further, that they are not ignoring the traffic and street signal problems but it is a matter of money and establishing priorities. Also, the City is dealing with another City at 4th and Archibald. Hopson stated that at some point the developer at the 'northwest corner may, provide the money to put up a traffic light. Boeau stated that the traffic sign was being designed and it was hoped that the City could go to bid on; it in January. Be stated further that it will shortly} be a reality and the priority list for other traffic signals is being updated . Tom Blessing, resident, stated that there was an error in Exhibit furnished by Phillips, Brandt, 1leddick, relating to residential uses. He indicated that residential cases were shown on the wrong side of the property line which would not allow the 6 -foot right-of-way. Schwartz stated that Mr. Blessing was correct. Planning Commission Minutes" -15- November< 10, 1982 . Kioski stated that the signs displayed by Safeway Enterprises near Fourth Street and Archibald ;indicates that these' could be residential properties. He indicated that the sign is in error., There was brief discussion on which piece of property would develop first. Chairman King stated that the master plans is not set in concrete and could change. Further, that this is 'just a starting'point. sterbaum asked if in the proposal there is a public ;park,of some type because there is a need for one Chairman King replied that during the General Plan hearings all aspects including parks were discussed. Further, that all of this would be developed t a future time when the Commission bets into specifics He indicated that there could be other concepts such as private parks, parkways, opera spade, etc There being i no further comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Stout stated that the master plan should address those properties on the north side that basically border bath Street in that the businesses should be turned to the interior streets and not bath Street. He reiterated that they should; not feed onto oth Street. CommissionerRempel stated that he would have a problem with saying they should not front there. He indicated that their nicest side could front there and maybe an access such as a single little driveway could go down below. Commissioner Stoat replied that he would not have a problem with the nicest landscaping fronting onto 6th Street he just did not want the traffic on 6th Street Commissioner Rempel stated that it will not be a small street, but rather, a major one. . Coleman stated that it is proposed for an -foot right-of-way between Archibald and Hellman and will be designated a special boulevard. Commissioner Barber asked about -a bridge and lane road . Rougeau ;stated that the bridge across the creek was put at the width, which is 2 Lanes it is when the creek drainage project was done and only replaced ghat was there because of money constraints. Further, that bogs the City of Ontario and City of Rancho Cucamonga must decide if now is the time to come up with the money to expand the bridge as part of the widening and it has been decided that it could gait He indicated that there is a possibility it could be widened"in the future Planning Commission Minutes -16- November 10, 1982 Mtion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 82-104 , approving the master plan for the 160 acres between Archibald, Hellman, 6th Street and kith Street. Commissioner Stout voted no because of his concerns relative to traffic . 9:07 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82-03 - BIDCAL - A change of zone 7r—om R-1 (Single—Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple Fami,ly Residential) for 2.02 acres of .and located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Monte Vista Street - APN 202-131-61 and 62. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12256 - BIDCAL - The de lopment of 25 condominium units on 2.10 acres of land in the R-1 zone (R-3 pending) located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street - A 202-131-27, 61 & 62. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Gene Karin, 20814 Roadside Drive, Agoura , representing the applicant, stated that all conditions are acceptable. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that some time ago the Planning Commission had more or less decided that tot lots should be included in developments such as this and asked if a tot lot has been provided for this project. Mr. Vairin replied that it has been and is shown on Exhibit "W'. Commissioner Stout stated that there are no sidewalks from the pool in the tot lot area and wondered if a meandering sidewalk should be put in in that area. Mr. Johnston, Assistant Planner,, replied that conditions 7 and 8 require sidewalks. Mr. Hopson stated that the CUR's should set out that there will be no permanent structures on the turf block so that at some future time emergency access will not be obstructed. Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 10, 1982 Minn. Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution n. 82-05 approving zone change and recommending such to the City Council Motion: Moved by Remy 1, seconded by Mr-Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution a* 82-106 approving- Tentative "Tract 12256 with the added condition that the turf block access remain unobstructed and that this be shown it the CC&RIs. H. 1RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ,- HA kA She development of a 3 ,691 square font elementary school on 3/4 acres in the kk 1 zone-, located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard APN k+ 1-0 . Associate Planner, Dare Coleman, reviewed the staff" report Chairman King asked where the temporary trailers are and whether they would b used during construction or to house new students in order to have new construction. . Coleman replied that the students in the existing school would not be affected in:;that the shift of playground area would be the only change. Chairman King asked what happens to the playground when he pats up the temporary facilities, he constructs the facility, where then is the playground Coleman explained the required minimum of playground space for preschool. children as mandated by the State code indicating that there is more than double the apace he needs for outside recreation. Chairman King asked why the applicant can't construct the permanent facility before putting in the trailer. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Sharma, 7775 Sunstone , the applicant, replied that he needs the trailer for the time being as he does not have space and is not in a financial position to begin building right now. He ;indicated he mast mass children, every days Commissioner MNiel asked, aside from what is laid down in the text regarding conditions, what his plan is . Sharma replied it is to build a new school. in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner McNiel asked how far into the future this would be. Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 10, 1982 ---------------- Mr. Sharma replied within 1 -2 years. Mr. Coleman stated that he would have to move the trailers on within 18 months. During the 18th months he would have to get permits and begin construction within one year with a permanent structure within two and a half years. Mr. Hopson stated that the trailer would be good for 18 months and could stay there for two years so what the Commission is looking at is a three and a half year total. Commissioner MNiel asked what time period Mr. Sharma is looking at. Mr. Sharma replied that he would like to do this in September. Commissioner McNiel asked what kind of trailer this would be. Mr. Sharma replied that it would be 12 X 60 feet. Commissioner McNiel asked how many students there would be in the trailer. Yr. Sharma replied there would be approximatelY 30 in each trailer. Chairman in stated it would be his feeling that condition two should read that the building permit and the placement of the trailer on the premises should be simultaneous and the trailer should not be allowed on the premises any longer, than 12 months. Commissioner Medial stated that if he understands the condition, it would defeat the purpose. Chairman King replied that perhaps it does. Commissioner McNiel asked where it is proposed to put the trailer. Mr. Sharma pointed it out for Comnissiover iel. Commissioner King stated that perhaps he is being unfair and unreasonable and that he does not want to push it but earlier there were many problems with a conditional use permit compliance with the Sharma school and he does not relish seeing a trailer on Foothill Boulevard for three and a half years considering the recent post history the City has had with Mr. Sharma. He indicated that given, the fact that this is approved, there will be trailers with construction over a three and a if year period and he foresees the playground conditions to be extremely crowded. Commissioner Barker asked if staff could refer to the generation of funds and asked Mr. Sharma if he could afford to do this in any other way. Planning Commission Minutes -19- November 10, 1982 i i Mr. Sharma replies that be only meads it for two years at- the t and could perhaps gc into construction within one year., r°°. Colemn asked if Mr. Sharma couldgenerate t the . Sharma replied he probably dorald but it would be difficulty Commissioner Stout asked how long the building permit would be effectivefor a project like this Commissioner Rempel stated that it depends on certain passes of work being performed d ithin certain. periods d f$ time. rr Coleman stated that the City Attorneyhas requested that conditions b modified to read that the temporary facility shall be removed within 2 years from the date of occupancy or shall be removed from the site within days from the date of occupancy of the permit addition, whichever crease first. Commissioner Hempel stated that in other words, the trailer cannot be on the site for more than 2 years. There was brief discussion among the Commission on how long the trailer could occupy the site. Commissioner r*k r rusted that for 2 years of occupancy, or whichever came first is the wording that is not there. Mr. Vairin stated that if the applicant decided to build earlier, say a year from now, and he occupied it, then he is not going to maintain the trailer, he will have to remove it and that is why it is worded in this manner. . Motion: Moved by Rear seconded ; Stoat t adopt Resolution o. d 1 , p � p with a revision to item one under Planning conditions, revising the time period to two years from 12 months Commissioners Barker, McNiel and King voted no and tyre motion did not carry. tionr Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried, that the word ccupanc be changed to the word installation in the previous tion. Chairman King voted no because of his previously stated concerns regarding the applicant's adherence to conditions imposed by the Commission. . Gomez reminded d the Commissionthat this meeting would adjourn rn to November 18 for an Et i anda Specific Plan hearing. PlanningCommission Minutes November 10, 1982 Mr. Gomez stated that on November 20 a tour has been arranged of several senior citizen facilities and invited all members of the Commission to attend. Chairmn King stated that there has been a recommendation that a meeting be held between the Commissioners regarding group dynamics. There was no further discussion on this item. Mr. Gomez indicated that because of the Christmas holiday , the second meeting in December could be cancelled. The Commission agreed to cancel the December 22, 1982 meeting. Mr. Gomez stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga employees are having a dinner/dance on December 10 at Griswolds and invited all Commissioners and their wives to attend. W. Gomez asked the Commission to submit their ideas for topics for the joint meeting with the City Council. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to November 18, 1982. Reap r ctfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Secretary it Planning Commission Minutes -21- November 10, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting November 4, `1982 Chairman Jeff King called the Regular;.Adjourned =Meeting of the' Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ;to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Centers, 9161 Rase Lire Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the ,pledge of allegiance. I ROLL CALL 1 COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman R mpel;, Bennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT., None STAFF PRESENT": Tim Seedle, Senior Planner; flick Gomez City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Jack Lam, Community DevelopmentDirector; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL CP MINUTES Motion: Moved by Re rpel, seconded by Stout, unani oulay carried, to approve the Minutes of the October 18, 1982 Planning i imeeting. Tire Seedle, Senior Planer, announced that tonight's meeting would be an informal turfs session to discuss land use and circulation aspects of the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Needle explained to the Commission how the densities in the Plan were arrived at by the Specific Plan Advisory Co ittee, how they related to the General Plan, and how the densities would affect the character of various parts ofthe community. Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, explained how the trip generation figures were prepared. Mr. Hubbs advised the Commission that the traffic model was based on assumptions regarding proposed land uses and also speculation of ghat would occur in the industrial area, therefore is meant to be used merely as a tool to aide the Commissioners in their decisions. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner,' displayed slides on the overhead projector which showed: the effects and influences traffic and circulation would have on various parts of the community. Chairman King opened the public hearing. The Commission viewed a slide presentation by David Floc er representing the Lando er's Association, which portrayed the background and 'history of Ethan a which the Association wishes to preserve Jim Banks, Eti: anda resident,; addressed the Commission regarding the bypass road and stated that he could not understand the opposition and controversy because some type of road system would have to be created to carry traffic generated by future and existing Etianda residents. He further stated that the=Commission would have to decide whether it would be more efficient to build a two or fora lane road east of East Avenue or to retrofit East; Avenue. Neil Testlotorn, Etiwanda resident and Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee member, addressed the Commission stating that in a sense of compromise and Fair~' play, the Committee offered to help the landowners out by giving them higher density for the bypass road, but failed to see a response from the landowners to compromise. Mr.- est otorn suggested that if the bypass road was turned down, the Commission adjust the density in that area downward. John Schorb, representing the Myohoi Temple, addressed the Commission stating their opposition to the widening of Etianda Avenue and requested the Commission to not widen the street; until traffic necessitates its widening The Commission viewed a slide presentation by Dori King which showed impacts of various land use intensities on traffic. Mr. King indicated that he would make himself available to work with staff should they desire his input. Alice Kleinman addressed the Commission ssi.on supporting the; views of the Lando er's Association. Mrs. Kleinman stated that she is against the bypass road because it would take two to three acres of her land r 15 R Planning Commission Recessed Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman ;King called the meeting to order and explained that the Commission would now be considering the circulation issue and that this would be a discussion on between the Commissioners and later the Commission issi on ask for public .input Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the circulation report. Chairman grog asked about the traffic figure of 14,500 on Eti anda Avenue and ghat would be the equivalent street? Hubbd replied that it would be equivalent to Base Line at Alta Loma High School. Chairman King asked if this street would be widened by necessity under this plan to four lanes Planning Commission Minutes - November 4, 1982 . Hubbs replied that under the Plan the street could not be widened and this was a concern Commissioner McNiel asked if the numbers in the traffic model were likely to be greater than those projected Mr. Hubbs replied that they may be leas due to the overload on Day Creek ' Boulevard. Commissioner Kiel asked if there could be a problem there since traffic would shift to other streets. . Hobbs replied that this was a fear, however, a lot of 'thins could charge because of the land uses. Further, that some figures were based on 'SCA projections which assumed a very low growth and that some anticipated growth in the industrial area does` not seem to be :as intense as what was projected and those figures may be high for that area. Commissioner Remp l stated that for the next meeting he could like to have the unit cost for paving, curbs, gutters and, sidewalks of the bypass road per linear :foot,, an estimate of widening in East Avenue to a four lane road, the oust factor for land acquisition, the, cost of bringing the rock curbs back to standard can Etimanda Avenue, the cost to maintain thew, and the cost of street maintenance ofa street with rook curbs. Chairman King asked chat is proposed for Etiwanda north of 2 th Street to make snare the bypass would be an effective carrier of traffic to Keep traffic off of Etiwanda Avenue Lloyd Hubbs replied that off setting 'IT'S"s -would probably e used n p p �a. and left turns would not be allowed to discourage traffic from going down Etiwanda Avenue to Day Creek Commissioner Klempel stated that not allowing left tuns on Etiwanda at 2 th would cause some serious implications. 'lip Beedle informed the Commission that the County is proposing a Community Klan for the area north of the City's;sphere of influence 'which will eventually tie a circulation system in with what is being proposed for t'icanda Chairman n King asked what streets could be proposed to carry north/South traffic east of East Avenue assuming the bypass is not implemented. Mr,. Hubbs replied they could be standard local streets similar :to those feeding onto Carnelian or Sapphire. Further, that there would not be a need for another north south street and it would, be undesirable. Chairman King asked if East: venue would then pick up most of the traffic if the bypass is not implemented and Etiwanda mould pick` up some of the traffic and if this is so, hoc much traffic would these streets carry? Planning Commission Minutes - November 4, 1982 Hubbs replied that this would happen and the EIR provides the figures re to how much traffic would be generated on East and Etiwanda Avenues. Commissioner Rempel stated that he visualized the traffic count at Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue at build out to be the sage as that at Carnelian and Base Line Mr. Rubbd replied that one of the parameters is that there is more developable land north of the sphere than, in the Alta Lama area. Commissioner Re rpel: stated that he didn't feel that it made that much difference when the, top of the city limits is adjusted upward and did not see where the count would be that different Further, that a much higher count maybe projected coming from north than what will occur. Commissioner Stout asked what type of road Day Creep Boulevard was proposed to be Mr. Hubbs replied that it was proposed to be a major divided highway with six lanes. Commissioner 'tout asked' if it is realistic to expect this street to carry 51 ,000 ears 4lrrbbd replied that this type of road normally would not carry over 40,00 ears Chairman King asked Jim Banks if he felt the character.of Etiwanda could be maintained if Etiwanda Avenue' is a two lane road and the traffic count was 14,500. Banks' replied that this would have d negative effect on the character of tiwanda, however, having the street widened to fur lanes would be worse. Commissioner R rurpel. stated that the problem with not widening tiwandAvenue belch Base Lind until some time in the future is if development is allowed now it will reduce, the chances of widening it later. r. Hobbs replied that if the widening was not grade a condition of development, the City would have to begin assessment district proceedings to widen the street in the future Chairman King asked David Plucker ifhe felt that the concept of the bypass road is a good idea given the land use in that area, regardless of who h .s to pay for it r°. F,looker replied that he would still, be opposed to the bypass road because its location with respect to the high school is dangerous. Planning Commission Minutes - November 4, 1982 10 Planning Commission Recessed Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King opened the hearing to public comment. John Scherb -addressed the Commission and disputed the numbers displayed on the traffic Model and further stated, that if the streets were widened, traffic would be encouraged to travel those streets. However if the streets are not widened, people will seek the most fully developed route which would be Day Creek Boulevard. Mary Catania addressed the Commission and asked if staff ;had an answer to the question she raised at the last meeting regarding how the property owners would be compensated for the property they would have to dedicate for the bypass and if a decision is made, by this Commission, will; that decision be uhelp by a new Commission. Tim Beedle, Senior; Planner, replied that upon completion of the Specific Plan, it would become a; legal document and as such world require public hearings and public notification if any aspect of it were changed Ted Hopson, ;Assistant City Attorney, Mated that the 'legal way to guarantee the use of property is to use it because no one has a vested right under our system to have any particular land use regardless of how long the lased is owned as long as it is vacant s. Ploc erg addressed the Commission stating that she gathered names for the petition presented to the Commission opposing the bypass and that most of those people opposed because of the proposed. 'IT at Highland Avenue and the closing of Victoria at the high school . Dell Westlotorn addressed the Commission stating that the Etiwanda Advisory Committee's season for proposing the bypass road was a concern for young people speeding dawn Victoria to get to their school without regard for the existing school. on Victoria and Etiwanda Avenue Ray Trujillo addressed the Commission stating his opinion that the most significant aspect of the Specific Plan is the bypass road and without it, there is no plan because it will make.living in Etiwanda unbearable due to traffic. Further, that the safety concerns could be mitigated by the members of the City staff and should not ;be a determining factor. Mrs. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that she would be happy to take low density on her property with no bypass Betty McNay addressed the Commission stating that, she is concerned that a barrier is being drawn around the cord and ;also is concerned about the lack o east/wrest streets Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1982 Robert Flocker addressed the Commission opposing the bypass road because he felt that 'it attracts traffic to the core rather than drawing traffic around it. Mr. Flocker also disputed the figures shown on the traffic model Commissioner Rempel stated that some of the local roads should show on the plan to help visualize cohere traffic f"i is coming from n where it goes. Chairman King advised staff that the next meeting should cover the cast ofthe bypass and its implementation and alternatives, and also Etiwandavenue and alternatives associated with it. Otto Kroutil reviewed the, staff report on residential land use issues Chairman King asked for public input on the residential land uses Wayne Blanton addressed the Commission stating that he would like to see a graduation of lot sizes going north rap the freeway corridor' Gordan Wilson addressed the Commission stating his concern with the Very Cow land use designation in the core area and expressed a fear that no development would take place south of the Route 30 freeway with that designation Don Hornbeck addressed the Commission stating that the noise impacts from the freeways would extend further than what was projected and stated that the density adjacent to the freeway is too low Mrs. Flocker addressed the Commission advocating low density above Summit and stated that the very low density from Highland to the railroad tracks is not feasible Chairman King stated that much of the residential issues could be resolved often the circulation issue is decided Tim Beedle asked the Commissioners if they would like further discussion regarding land use intensification at their next Meeting. Chairman King replied that it should be discussed at the November 18, 1982 meeting Commissioner Rempel stated that circulation also has to be patterned after the density and that the Commission also has control over the circulation. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Hempel seconded by Barker, unanimously carried o adjourn. 10:1 Planning Commission Adjourned Planning Commission Minutes - November 4, 1982 R pVtfully b tted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission n November 4, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 16 Chairman Jeff Ding called the Regular Meeting ol the Planning C w missio a ol the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman ling then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Marker, Larry c i , Herman Rempel, Dennistwat, Jeff ling COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:: Nods STAFFPRESENT: Rick omez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lana, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Pail Rougeau, Senior CivilEngineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior Planner CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME ExTENSION FOR PARCEL MAPS 6863 AND6726 Motion: Moved by Rempal, seconded by Stoat, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION DID CONDITIONAL USE : RMIT '6 - IBC S HEAD - ` -hi a r°a v­l­ew­_0TPot nti l-modificationsto the Conditions ditio f Approval, which are intended : to resolve the complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the measure listed in the Staff ;report were not intended to be all inclusive luti n to the problems; however, were intended to serve as a basis on which the Commission could act. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. Frank Britton, Attorney representing the applicant, 399 W. Mission, Pomona, California, addressed the Commission stating that most of the conditions being placed on the establishment bythe snuff were meritorious, r_orus helpful and rhrast of thein highly reed b the ownership; however, the present ownership acquired the business on June 15, 1982 and Baud not be responsible for problems which existed prior to that date. Further, that the applicant was not aware that the original Conditional Use Permit indicated that than establishment ent old be a full dinner house, however had purchased the business ess with that intention in mind and are now in the process of training personnel and ;'working up s suitable menu. In response to the Planning nin condition regarding periodic policing f the outside area by security personnel, Mr.'Britton stated that this was already in effect. Also, a security guard had been placed by the front dear wbo 'would be policing the outdoor area, seeing that all doors remain closed, verifying that no minors enter, and prohibiting any person coming into the establishment under the influence of alcohol. ' n response to condition number three regarding blanking the entire northwest cornier of the parking lot, Mr. Britton on stated that this had already been approved by both the owner of the reenter and the applicant. With regard to the condition requiring five fiat planter, he stated that this was something that would have to be accomplished with the owner of the center; however, suggested that the Commission upright desire to wait and see if the blocking of the parking lot would alleviate the r r � p noble n The repaarrrat for speedbaurrafOs had been approved by the owner of the center and Mr. Britton indicated that these would soon be installed.` Farther, that, heavy insulation and stripping would be installed around the rear door in are effort to soften any sound escaping. Also, the applicant was agreeable to the condition requiring review at any time by the Commission; however, the business could not continue to operate under the condition n requiring a reduction in business hours Chairman King racked Mr. Britton if he could give the Commission the percentage of business that is done between the hours of dr a.m and 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Britton replied that he would not be able provide that information; however, Mr. Arcinage might Larry; a reina e, 7650 alle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, one of the owners of the establishment, addressed the Commission and replied that approximately ately 0 of the establishment's business was generated between those hours; thus, it would be economically unfeasible to curtail the business hours as suggested b ' staff in the Resolution. Commissioner Stout asked if dinner is currently being served at the Boars Head. Mr. Arcinage replied that it is not currently being seared;: however, a cook had recently been hired and that the establishment is currently training personnel and creating a frill dinner menu which would be served between the hours of 5-p.m. and 10 p.m. Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Arcinage inhere he expects to have the dinner menu ready to go into effect Mr. Arcinage replied that they had anticipated to begin in November, however not teeing Male to fired a suitable cook had delayed those plans. A new conk had recently been hired Planning Coirtnission Minutes, 2 October 27 , 1982 and now he anticipated they would begin serving dinner in approximately two to six months Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Areirata e if he was made aware of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit when he purchased the Boars Head in 1982. Mr. Arcinage replied that tie was not and this was the second restaurant bought from the same persona. As the first restaurant purchased in Upland has only served lunch for the past nine years, he felt that there were no problems. Doug o addressed the Commission t atia'a that:.. he was agreeable to blocking off the northwest parking lot as suggested by staff,, however, did not want to day the planting of the slope area suggested by staff as he felt it would not solve any problems. Further, that a woad fence had been placed behind the houses of the surrounding property r avers but the solution might be to pat up a block gall. Also, he was agreeable to the installation of speedbum s in the parking teat, Commissioner.Barker asked fir. G r en if he was suggesting that a noise attenuation black wall should be built at the rear of the residential. property, with the Property owners' permission. lr or en replied that he was and this would be much better than requiring more landscaping. Commission darker asked'how high would the gall bed Mr. Gorges replied that he would suggest that it be 6 to la" set high. Commissioner Barker asked if there would be any problems with that frbixa an engineering paint of view? Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the ultimate design would have to be analyzed from an engineering and sound attenuation viewpoint. Commissioner barker asked Mr.Gor en if he was'intendin to place the noise attenuation wall at the top of the hill with the propertyowners' consent. Mr. Gorges replied that he would be agreeable: to placing the wall on the properties which are exposed to their parkin lot; however, this would have to be with the consent f the property owners. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the omission stating that most of the problem way p � p' <I with the Heise in the parking lot late at aught and not just raise coming from inside the building,. Further, that it was unfortunate that the;owner of the business could not curtail has hours of operations because a bushiess should not be allowed to operate until a.m. in an residential area �I Bob l las ocka an adjacent shopo ner located at - 6636 Carnelian, addressed the Commission stating that while he could not attest to the cerise problems at 2 a.m., he has occasionally worked at his business until 10 or It p.m. and had nearer been bothered b i Planning Cos fission Minutes 3 October 27 , 1982 noise coming from the Boars head. Further, that since the Boars head has been under new ownership there has been an improvement especially with the litter in the parkin lot, which had previously been a problem Where were no farther comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to address the issue of curtailment of hours which` staff had suggested in the Resolution because tic was in favor of limiting the hours., Farther, that when a use such as this was approved and allowed to operate in.a residential area, it should be understood by the applicant that this use ould not be the sauce as it would be in a C-2 area on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiel stated that the majority of the problems seem to be created from the back parking area and the back door and asked Doug ov en if he could completely close off the back parking lot. Mr. Gorgen replied that he could close it off completely, but there might be a problem with fire acciess ; Michael Vairm, Senior planner, stated that it could be chained, which could be removed °ed during and emergency. Commissioner MeNiel then stated that if the book parking lot was completely blocked off and it was strictly enforced that the rear doors remained closed he did not think the problem would continue and this weight be the solution. Further, that probably as mach noise is generated frorn theBob'sRestaurant as the Boars dead, therefore ,had no objections to the current operating hours. 7.50 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King stated that he agreed that the general usage within the area which is located should have some strict conditions placed on it to make it as amenable as possible with the surrounding .rea. Further that based on the comments this evening, it appeared that the problems stem primarily from, or as a result of the parking area behind the establishment. Also, that maybe an appropriate way to deal with the issue since there is a new ownership; involved would be to pass all the conditions as recommended by staff Frith the exception of the condition dealing with the hours of operation. Chairman King stated that he was aware that the major grievance of the adjacent residents was the hers of operation; however felt that the problem of hours of operation in conjunction with the parking situation was what made the two uses inconsistent. Further, that ha would be agreeable to passing the remaining conditions, chaining off the rear parking area, allowing the hours of operation to remain as they currently are, and'requiring the Conditional Use permit to come before the Commission for review in two months. He stated that in this way the Commission would: not b acting in a precipitous fashion in limiting the hours to 12 a.m. when all of the complaints are generated from the rear parking area. also, if it appeared that the complaints are not mitigated by the chaining off of the rear parking area,, it would be tuck before the Commission and further action would be taken, Planning Cot mission Minutes 4 October 27 , 1982 Commissioner Barker stated that he would have to agree with Commissioner tart in that this is a use that borders on incompatibility and it is very difficult to place aa. 'use of this type, unless it was ai restaurant, that close to ar residential area. Further, that if it appeared that he would lose the vote on whether the permit is brought back to the Commission in sixty days rather than argue for an earlier closing time, he would like to amend the Resolution to include the sound ttenuaation wall so that solve relief would be provided for the surrounding residents. Commissioner Re el stated that he agreed with the amendment of the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall. Further, that the wall could not be just d plaits block mall but as wall with some type of deadening in it. Also, it should be a rough textured surface;or be planted with some type of vine. He also agreed with Chairman King than the Conditional Use Permit should come back before the Commission in, sixty days. Commissioner Stoat stated that he would like to suggest than this approval be personal to r. Arcinage because he may be willing to make as good effort to solve the issues of hand, but should he desire to sell the business, a new owner may not. Commissioner Barker stated that he'was still. concerned with the 2 aa.m closing time in at residential area when it is fifteen to twenty feet from someone's back yard. Commissioner McNiel started than he felt it was both unfortunate and unfair that tiro new: owner is in this situation since he his made some headway and lam forth some effort in making this a more compatible situation. Further, that this owner was tieing subjected to penalties based on what happened prior to his purchase of the business and judgment should be made on what this man does with the property. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by ling, carried, to modify the Conditional Use Permit to include Conditions 2, 3, and through 11 as recommended by staff. Condition 10 would require review by the Commission in two months. Also to be added to than Conditions would be the requirement of ar block sound attenuating wall and detailed plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Chairman n King asked if the two months tirne period would bring the CUP back for Commission review at the first`meeting in January. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that it would but the Commission might tale into consideration Chart the first meeting in January may not give enough time for the negotiation of agreements ents with the property 'owners on file construction of the wall, the wall construction, or time to see if the wall does much good to alleviate the, sound. Commissioner McNiel amended his motion regarding Condition 10 requiring review of the CUP by the planning Commission in at their meeting of January 26, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M'cNiel King, Item el NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: lone Planning Con mission Minutes 5 October 27 , 1982 Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No on this project because they felt the hours t be incompatible with the adjacent area Commissioner hemp l stunted that he would like it made clear that if he receives on complaint or personally saw that the Conditions were not being complied with, he would not hesitate to bring this item back before the Commission before the agreed time limit. Edgard Hopson, ssistant City Attorney, advised the audience that the decision f the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days of this meeting and that staff could be contacted for further information. Commissioner r cNi 1, stated that lie may have wade an unpopular decision to some people tonight; however, would also like to go on record as saying he also would not t bring the C��p k before th e Commission f complaint is received. hesitate p Chair an King recognized Edith Bartholomew, 5999 papa, Rancho C neamon a, who wished to address the Commission. Ms. Bartholomew stated that she agreed with Commissioners barker and Stout in that the hours f 2 u.m are later than any other busines in the surrounding area and too late for a residential area. Further, that she was totally against the sole of alcoholic beverages in a residential area C. ENVIRONMENTAL SS SS NT AND C EL MAP 7689 - STEPHENS - l-visionf .2 acres of land'into 2 parcels within the 1 use CEtiu anda Specific Plan), located at the northwest corner of Summit and East Avenues. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil it ngin er, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Remp l asked if the area of local streets had been locked into with regard to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to know where they are going to alleviate the need for dedication of roadway at the side or back of this property in the future. Mr. Rougeau replied that future dedication was not anticipated because the future streets would be installed so that the lotting;patterns in a larger development would b developed to provide for the interior streets to be away from the border of this project. Commissioner ltempal stated that one of the shortcomings of the Specific Plan is that it does not lay out many of the streets, making it very difficult in approving parcel; maps in the Etiw n a Specific Plana area. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Gary;Sanderson, 9587 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that his client was in agreement with the conditions of both the Planning and Engineering Divisions. In response to the existing streets, Mr. Sanderson commented d that Bast Avenue and Summit Avenue realignments should not have any affect on this parcel. 'there were no further`public comments and the public hearing was closed Planning Coranission Minutes 6 October 27 , 1982 Commissioner Rempel, stated that when he raised the previous question, it was not in opposition to this parcel map, but was to comment that the Commission should be given more information regarding adjacent properties. Mr. Rougeau asked if staff should prepare a conceptual street pattern showing surrounding properties for future projects? Commissioner Rempel replied that this is one of the areas of criticism on the Specific Plan in that this should have been looked into and that a conceptual street pattern would be he during Commission review. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission is just now beginning the review of the proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan and it is not known at this time just what changes, if any, will be made that would affect this property. Further, that the timing did not seem right in having this project before the Commission now when the Specific Plan should be adopted in the very near future, giving the Commission more specific detail for development. Commissioner Rempal stated that the East Avenue street width shown on the map is what is shown on the General Plan. Further, that if the Specific Plan is adopted as is, it would reduce the size of East Avenue, thus returning eleven feet of property back to the property owners. However, this map is showing what the General Plan now shows which is the correct way to do it. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if tile Commission could find consistency with what is being proposed, the development being proposed could be adopted. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7689. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7267 - LEWIS D—ETEMU—PMENTCOMPANY - A dl-v�ision ­o �aeres-luto 1—parcel with remainder within the A-1 zone (PC 81-01 pending) located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester - APN 227-151-1, through 8, 10 through 12. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Jerry Bryant, representing Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission stating that he had a concern regarding Condition 8 of the City Engineer's Report. His concern was that if a tract was proposed at the corner of the parcel, it would be required to put in. street improvements on all of the perimeter streets with the first subdivision. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that as a practical matter this would not be done. Planning Convnission Minutes 7 October 27 , 1982 Mr. Bryant replied that he realized this but was suggesting that the condition be reworded to state that these streets would be improved at such time as development begins on parcel one. Mr. Rougeau stated that if one building was constructed on one of the parcels, the entire parcel would have to be improved, thus the condition is in keeping with present regulations. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that this was why the City Attorney indicated that practical development would not be done in this way. Mr. Rogeau stated that to do any sinaller development, the property should be subdivided. Mr. Hopson stated that this is the amity's consistent position that no development is going to occur inside a project on which a planned community is being submitted until that project has been approved and at that time the Lewis Company would be in a position to subdivide. Further, that when the parcels are subdivided, improvements would be required on each of the subdivisions. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7267. E. 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND, PARCEL MAP 7864 - BIANE - A division of 14.88 acres into 3 parcels within Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan area, located at the southwest corner of Turner Avenue and 8th Street - Ali N 209-201-080 11-13, 16-17. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. George Mim Mack, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the M-2 use presently existing would remain, the only difference would be the change of ownership from one owner to two owners. Further, that the applicant agreed with all conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner flempel asked if all the properties had rights-of-way to provide for driveways to each of them? Mr. Rouge au replied that there were rights-of-way to all properties and that the smallest frontage on 8th Street is 145 feet, which would provide for further future access. Planning Co mission Minutes 8 October 27 , 1982 Motion- Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution p r vin Parcel flap 7864. p.m - Planning CommissionRecessed p. Planning e missi n Reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND rENTATIVE TRACE` 1 USA PROPERTIES They total d v l pRent of 128 townhouse units on 9.2--ac—r-e-s--o-f1s d in the - (Multiple Family/Planned Development) zone located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Peron Boulevard - APN 209-051-01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Mr. Vairin stated that staff was recommending a rewording f Condition 3 to state:"the east wall of the project shall be completed and landscaping installed with they second phase". The reason for this changes was that the first chase will not have ruched the exist wall at this stages and the landscaping would be premature because units will be built at that location; however, it was felt that the wall should be constructed at that time for an appropriate barrier. Further, that they requirement of the perimeter fencing and landscaping along they streets included at this time would also be premature =since they .could; be damaged with the installation of those units, It was also suggested that Engineering Division I be reworded to state "the developer shall install street improvements 'along; Archibald and lures Boulevard, including they interior loop street as needed for first phases construction." Mr. "airin stated the reason for this rewording is that the Engineering staff would look at the needed circulation to meet Fires District circulation requirements as well: as safety circulation on an off the site. Chairman King if full street landscapings along the border of they project weren't normally required n a street such as Archibald? Mr. Vairin replied that this had been dune in some cases; however, in this instance the City Engineer- is not requiring" the street improvements at this time and it makes it sornewhat difficult to install the street trees and landscaping`and then go back and do the: final grading and setting the exurb heights® Chairman King g stated that it seems that street improvements area normally required at this time, and, that this requirement seems to depart from the normal policy regarding phasing of development along major streets_such as Archibald. r ugeau replied that stiff is now in the princess of changing some of the r quir ments slue to the bad housing market and this is they reason entire frontages of- projects recently have not been required to be improved.d. Further, in this project, the first phases is somewhat small in relation to the rest of the projectwhereas in most cases, the first phase is normally one of the largest. Chairman ling stated that he could not see where we would be guaranteed that anything would be done as far as street improvements at any given time. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27 , 1982 r. Rougeau replied that currently on Archibald ld: there is widening and full curb and gutter and the only thing missing is the sidewalk and street lighting, so the safety aspects and the majority of the isu l affects are already talker care f'$ Mr. Vairm stated that the normal bondin ould be required which rind have the normal timing requirements to assure for installation. Commissioner l empel stated that the eban es of damage to the sidewalks if installed at this point is very great and agreed that allowing it to also be phased is the correct position to take. Chairman ran in opened the public hearing. Surinder Kahlon, representing USA Properties, addressed the Commission stating that he had been working with staff and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman n in ked Mr. l ahlon if the reasoning behind the phasing was of a east saving nature Mr. Kahlon replied that one of the reasons for the phasing of the project was from an engineering standpoint in that the ground slopes in the direction which the project is being', phased. Also, this phasing was suggested and accepted by consensus at the Design gn Review Committee meeting. Chairman King stated; that it would seem more appropriate palate to take the phasing straight down Archibald, over to Feron, with the last part of the phasing being the interiors Commissioner Rerrapel replied that for appearance sake, this would`be the right way to phase the project; however, €ratty a construction and safety point of view it:would be very wrong because the construction people would interfere with the traffle coming in and out of the project. Commissioner Barker stated that there was one other consideration during Design Review which was that some of the amenities of the project such as the swimming pool and activity center be provided as early in the development as possible. Ray Trujillo, Cucamonga a School District Principal, addressed the Commission stating that he was concerned about the children walking to schools along the northeast corner of the project not having a safe passage to school. Also, that the type of wall constructed around the 'perimeter of the project be as graffiti proof as possible. o Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, Rancho Cucamonga, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Participation Committee, addressed the,Commission stating than the Committee had yet with the developer and was also concerned about the type of wall to be constructed. 'Re stated that he felt the developer had done a have job in mitigating, this concern in that this wall was proposed to be wrought iron. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed , Planning Corrmission Minutes 10 October 27 , 1982 Chairman King asked if any of the Commissioners agreed with his concern regarding this phasing of the project on Archibald and F r n. Commissioner Barker asked what changes the Chairman was advocating. Chairman an King replied that his idea, was to phase directly south on Archibald to F r n. Further, his concern was with this phasing on Archibald and that it wound be the very last thing dual so that a person traveling down Feron to Archibald would have an unsightly view. Commissioner Rempel stated that he could not agree with this because heavy equipment trucks would be coming intothe project and these arcs could not be fenced off.' Further, that with people moving into the units with small children and all of this equipment guild prove to be very unsafe.. lso,, this would make the cost jump considerably for these units. . Motion: oved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt; the Resolution approving Tentative Tract t ith the suggested rewording by staff. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. REPORT ON SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING 'T AT I: Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission stating that a field trip; was being arranged for this Commissioners to view Dozer senior citizen housing projects in the area. The Commissioners were given the dates of November 13 or November s possible tour dates and asked to contact staff Inter in the week with their preference. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mc i 1, seconded by Stout, unanimously usly carried to adjourn. u ti p.m. Planning om ssi n Adjourned. Res tfuilly d ruuittd, Jac Planning Commission ,Minutes 11 October 27 , 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting October 21 , 1982 Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City, Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary. Chairman King introduced Jim Frost, Chairman of the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee, who provided the background of the Draft Plan and indicated that the members of the Committee would be available for questions or comments regarding the Plan. City staff gave a slide presentation illustrating the background on the preparation of the Draft Plan, the organization and function of the Plan, and the Planning Commission review schedule. 8:00 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 8:20 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman King opened the hearing to public comments. Mary Catania, Etiwanda landowner, addressed the Commission stating that East Avenue had originally been designed as a four lane road and many landowners had already dedicated property towards that road. She asked how the property owners would be compensated for the property they have already dedicated and where the financing would come from the construct this road. Planning Commission inute 1 October 21 , 1982 Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, replied that the bypass road would be discussed in further, detail at the Commission's next meeting. As members of the Engineering staff would be present at that meeting, staff would be in a better position to answer these questions in greater detail. Mrs. Catania fUrtber stated that she felt some type of assessment district could provide financing for the bypass road. Also, Estate Residential zoning was an unreasonable zoning, is not enforced anywhere else in the City, and would not make housing in the Etiwanda area affordable to many people. Wayne Blanton, 743 Birch Avenue, Upland , California, addressed the Commission stating that his major concern with the Plan was the "umbrella" street and the 155 foot right-of-way being proposed with landscaping that looks very pretty in drawings. He asked how this landscaping would be financed and how it would be maintained'? Further, Mr. Blanton felt that the bypass road was unnecessary since East Avenue already exists. Also, the rock curbs were very pretty in their day, however stated that the workmanship is unavailable to construct and maintain them now. In regard to the statement in the Draft Plan regarding the Etiwanda Advisory Committee's recommendation that zoning in Etiwanda be restricted to its lowest usage, Mr. Blanton commented that this works a tremendous hardship on the property owner especially in the one to two lot per aore category. Further, that this also affects the property owners along the freeway corridor in that it does not do much good to have an R-3 density without the R-3 zoning. Clark Shacklett, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he wondered to what degree the Etiwanda Advisory Committee represents a cross-section of people who reside in Etiwanda. Further, that he suspected that the members might have represented "a selfish few" in their desire to maintain Etiwanda as it presently exists. Also, he wondered if in doing that, a Plan was being implemented which would highly restrict development in the Etiwanda area. Further, that the point of view that the Committee and the Commission should be primarily concerned with is not that of a few people who presently reside in the Etiwanda area, but the future residents of Etiwanda as well. When these matters are taken into consideration, the problem of providing sufficient housing now should be considered and whether it is in the best interest of Rancho Cucamonga to have within its boundaries an area which because of these policies is not economically feasible for developers to develop and provide housing. Neil Westlotorn, Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee member and Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he was greatful for the opportunity to serve on the Committee and felt that the Council had done an extraordinary act in allowing the residents of Etiwanda to have a say in its development. Further, that the citizens know that Etiwanda must grow and be developed, however have concerns about how it grows and is developed. These concerns, he stated, are expressed in the Draft Plan now before the Commission. Mr. Westlotorn also stated that he felt that the Draft Plan was a good compromise of various and strongly held views in that it allows for adjustments according to the special elements included in the Plan, such as Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 21 , 1982 the "umbrella" loop, the bypass road, and densities. He further stated that., he hoped for a favorable review and acceptance by the City all the essential elements of the Plan as he felt that they were worked out in a spirit of compromise in serving all of the issues brought before the Committee. John Sherb,, r tiwra.nda: Avenue and representing the Myohoji Temple, addressed the Commission stating that he would like to congratulate the members of the Committee for all theirs hard work in putting together the Draft Plan. [fir. Sherb further, stated that the Temapl.e would prefer that Etiwanda Avenue remain an it presently exists from Bade Lice to Foothill Boulevard until the imagined pressures from 1-15 to the north and Fontana to the east takes place however, the Temple would not resist a reasonable widening to accommodate traffic is actually generated. Mr. Sherb also stated that he would life to address the economic provisions of the Plan in that the Temple, as a non-profit organization, should be considered exempt from the requirements ens in that they did not feel that it would be appropriate for a non-profit organization to be classed in the same category as a commercial vial use Accordingly, Mr. Sherb stated, the :financial burden should be distributed first to those organizations which are in existence for the sake of making a profit, secondarily to those residents who would benefit by the improvements put in for their benefit, and lastly to nor -profit organizations. David Flocker, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he was representing the Etiwanda Landowners' Association this evening. The Association felt that the Plan should include land use densities at or above those shown on the General Plan Land Use Map, should not include the bypass, road or the 'IT" closure of East Avenue at 'Highland or� the proposed closingof * n Victoria Avenue at the. proposed a r b ss� that that . �" felt that " r�; bypass. the la_ should provide for the development of existing streets in accordance with growth patterns in the area and that the Commission should look closely at the location of the commercial centers proposed in the Plan. Mr. Bloc er further stated that the Commission would be receiving written material from the Association which would outline their concerns in greater detail. The; Association would; also like to be given some time either'at the next meeting or one in the near future to present theirs ideas to the Commission and shown a brief slide presentation. Mrs. Flocker also stated that he felt it would be most helpful if a specific description could be given parr-howa the bypass road would be implemented if the Plan was approved and how it would be financed. Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that there were four questions which were helpful to him in the beginning process of the Plan and which he felt may be of :some help to the Commission. These questions were 1 is Etiwanda different; (2) is it a desirable difference; t is this difference north preserving; and, does Etiwanda have a right to be different. Further, that basically what the Commission ion would be deciding is how to allow Etiwanda to remain as special or unique as possible. Mr. Banks stated that as the Commissioners answered these questions, they would realize; that gtiwran a is different, the difference is desirable and worth preserving if possible, and the hardest part would be the balancing of the interests of Planning Commission Minutes - October 21 , 1982 the property owners versus the interests of the home owners. Bob -Plockc r, Alta Lora ;resident, ' addressed the Commission stating that the reference to Etiwanda as a rural community would be more accurately described as a community that was once a rural community in that property in the price range of to Cl acre doe n � � of make it economically feasible to be rural or agricultural: land uses. Further, that the land use map proposed by the Committee shows approximately fifty percent of the land at either law, very low} or estate residential dran and that fifty' per cent of the people desiring to move to Rancho Cucamonga could not afford lots in that price range. Mr. Flocker further stated that he heaped the Commission would keep in mind the type of housing that most people can afford. Also that the land in that area was not paid for by the City, but by the individual property owners and those property owners should have a major say in how that area will, be developed Petty Mc Nay, Etiwanda Specific Mari Advisory member, addressed the Commission stating that she was very concerned about the economics of having a bypass road and was concerned with the lacks of an east/west circulation tie-in with greater Rancho Cucamonga. Further, that the commercial center should be located above Highland Avenue. "there were no further comments and 'Chairman King advised the audience that the next scheduled meeting to discuss the Etiwanda Specific Plan would be held on November 4, 1982. Chairman king stated that at that meeting it was the Commission's intention to discuss in greater detail Part l of.the Specific Plan dealing with the Policy Plan and Conceptual Plan 'which would cover many if not most of the nuts and bolts issues that were discussed_'this evening. Commissioner Rempel thanked the audience for their input arid stated that the Advisory Committee had completed its ,fob in delivering the Draft Plan to the Commission. Further, now that it had been presented to the Commission, it is theCommission's position to hear more public comment and evaluate not only what is necessary for ftiwanda, but also for the total area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He also stated that now the Commission would be fuse tuning, erasing; or adding to this Plan as the Commission feels is necessary, Commissioner McNiiel -thanked the audience for their input and asked that more people come forward with their input during future meetings. Rollin Smith, Rolling Hills Estates resident, stated that his comments would mostly reinforce what had already been said, but would like the Commission to consider that the Draft Plan is in error in ;not providing housing affordable to the vast majority of people Tim Boodle, Senior Planner, stated that the next meeting would cover the main topics of Part l of the Plan and address as many of the questions and concerns expressed this evening as possible Chairman king stated' that this would end the discussion on the Draft Etiwanda Planning Commission in t Nk u _es 'October 1s 9 i d Specific Plan for this evening; however, the Commission had another issue to discuss. Jack Lam, Community Development Director,, stated that a Joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning a ai rs was being arranged and the Council is asking for the Commission's input regarding topic issued for discussion. h dd topic areas should to brought to the attention of staff at the Commission' meeting f October P , 1982. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by tout, seconded by .rE r, unanimously l carried, to adjourn. Pd t'full tmitt d, JACK LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5 - October 21 , 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ; PLANNING COMMISSION 1 NUTE r Regular Meeting October 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Rancho a amon Planning Commission was called to orders by Vice-chairman, Herman Rempel, at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base tines Road. Vice-chairman R ,mpel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT, COMMISSIONERS: E. David Barker, Larry McNiel, Dennis Stout, Herman Rperl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner ; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Joan A. Kruse, Administrative Secr et r ; Paul R u e3 u, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously , to approve the Minutes of the August 25, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Motion: vend by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the September R, 1982 Planning Commission as amended ANNOUNCEMENTS S Vice-chairman Hempel stated that the hearings on the Etiwanda Specific Plan would begin on September 21 at the Lions Park Community Center. He stated that the Planning o i i n would adjourn to that meeting. I PUBLIC NEARING A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6 RA division of 5 acres of land into 4 lotswithin the R-1 zone, located approximately 6601 north of Base Lines and 6601 west of Est Avenue APN ;227-131-29 (Continued from the September 22, 1982 Planning Commission Heating) . ANK Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the applicant has requested reboval of this item from tonight's agenda. He indicated that the item would be brought before the Commission at their November 10, 1982 meeting. Vice-chairman Re el opened the public hearing. Mrs. Alice Flooker, owner of property that backs up, but is not adjacent to the Banks' property, stated her concern regarding the lot split because of drainage and the inadequacy of the street, indicating that it is barely one lane and needs to be expanded. Mrs. Flooker further stated that she felt nothing should be done to property located within the boundaries of the Etiwanda Specific Plan until its adoption. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the November 10, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8 1 I R The establishment of 13,232 _gq_uarefeet of professional offices in an existing building and the continuance of a preschool use in an existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial category, located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - AP 209-171-15 (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1982) . Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Bruce Zwissler, applicant, concurred with the staff recommendations. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by MaNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-91 , approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82-19. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C. 82-15 - MANNELLA - A request to relocate the previously approved arcade location from 6652 Carnelian to 6642 and 6646 Carnelian in the Rancho Plaza Shopping Center. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked why an 11 p.m closing time had been left out of the Resolution and requested that the resolution reflect operating hours. Mr. Marcella, the applicant, asked that the record show that many liquor stores still have four game maebines operating and asked that the City enforce the provisions of the Arcade Ordinance. MAIL are being no further comments, the public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 13, 1982 Commissioner Barker stated that Mr. Mannella's operation had been used t establish a base for comparing arcade operations. He further stated that hereafter Mr. nnella'a Conditional Use Permit, would be used to compare an rather similar arcade requests au that no one wrill have a competitive edge. Motion: ed by McNiel, seconded by stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-83A approving the relocation of the arcade and further amending Resolution No. 2 to reflect operating hours until 11 p.m. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-22 `RI" - The establishment of a 3200 square foot indoor auction service in the General Industrial, category (Subarea ) , located in the Scheu Business Center at 9155 Archibald Avenue, Suite 301 - APN 2 -211 21 . City Planner Rich Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked harp many automobileswill be kept in the parking cat l replied that only a few will b I_ e kept; however, t_ h he applicant would be in d better position to explain. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing Lee Fritz, 8033 , pinel, the applicant, stated that he will be auctioning some automobiles in conjunction with his business. He indicated that there will not be large numbers at any given time as the vehicles will be contracted with estate sales and generally there would only be a few . e ;further stated that he will: handle a let of office equipment and his business is not a full auction operation, but rather, e service operation. Mr. Fritz also indicated that he would like to begin the suction at 7 p.m. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Barker questioned the allocation of 10 spaces to ;the proposed auction business. Cyr. Gomez replied that the allocation of 10 spades was during the hours of If he were storing automobiles for the auction, a ceiling of 10 was established. . Gomez stated that after the hours of - , he would be able to use additional perking spades. Fritz stated that ;he would cooperate with his neighbors and he would furnish a saw hearse to reserve ve spaces if they were needed upon request. Planning Commission Minute - October 13, 1982 Commissioner W-Biel stated that he checked this out at 6 p.m. and there were only about 5 cars in the entire complex and there was nothing much in on. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-92, amending Condition No. 1 of the Planning Division to 7 p.m. , Monday through Friday. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT C. 10088 - NICOSIA - A residential subdivision of 82 acres into 131 single family lots in the R- 1-20,000 zone, generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 201 071-14, 37 and 45. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report explaining a change of design in the cul-de-sac. He indicated that there had been no offer of dedication and the applicant must therefore provide a foot dedication. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Lee Webb, applicant and co-owner of the subject property, stated they were in general agreement with the staff report and conditions attached to, the project. Commissioner Stout stated that he noticed a number of lot lines are not perpendicular to the street line and asked if grading is done, will problems occur with boundary lines between the properties. Mr. Webb replied that this will be the type of treatment that has occurred at Deer Creek which is multilevel and not cut and fill. Mr. Hopson asked if Mr. Stout 's concern is that a property owner will not be able to get the correct property line because it is not perpendicular to the street. Mr. Stout replied that this is his concern. Mr. Doty, Planner for this project, replied that when this is laid out it will have curb and gutter and the property will be marked for homeowner's lots. Mr. Jack Pickering, Hidden Farms Road and Archibald, stated his concern for the entrance to this development. He stated that whereas most developments have two accesses, the only access to this development is south on Archibald. He indicated that he lives on the corner which is why he is so concerned. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that there is another access through the back of the tract to Hermosa. He indicated that the location of the street is to the south end of the tract. He indicated that what is proposed is better from an engineering standpoint because it results in less traffic and congestion overall at Archibald. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 13, 1982 ;s. Evelyn Pickering Hidden Farm Road, stated :that the ae ess that is indicated for the north side of the tract would.probably only be utilized by the pepale who border that part of the road. She indicated that hardly anyone goes into the mountains. she indicated further that,most everyone or° s either at the southern or westerns areas and results in many people coming out at one point. ,the felt that the approach the City is taking towards access was foolish s. Shirely Hudlow, resident, asked about the catch basins in the northern part of the tract and if there is uncertainty that catch basins will be installed, where the water will drain R u eau stated he Mould defer to Per. Doty to answer that question. . Doty replied that there will be a debris basin south of the tract and any stater will, go into the Alta Loma Channel. . Vairin stated that if the debris basin isn't needed or if a larger one is needed, it will require redesign and notification in order to comply with the Subdivision Map Act. .. Brad McCall, 9795 Carrari, stated he was delighted that something is happening with this property and asked where the applicant proposes to put the model homes Vice-chairman Rempel stated that at this point there is no design on model homes and that this is a custom lot tract. He indicated that he applicant can do two things; build houses and come back to Design Review or take and sell bats to individuals who will then build their own homes. Further, that if the applicant is going to build, they must come through h the Planning Commission and Design Review. Calla asked when the project is going to starts Webb replied that they propose to begin the middle of net year and it Mould be done in four phases at the rate of twenty-five percent per ;year . . yairin stated that the reference made to model homes has a requirement for adequate parking so that it will not impact on the neighborhood. There being no furthera comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker commented on the concerns raised by the Pie erin s and asked host much relief would be gained by using the proposed access. airin replied that it may not be feasible to have access on "ill street. Be further stated, that the northeast corner access will connect and will be provided at the appropriate phase and that will be whenever they get to it. airin indicated that the developer will have to provide final maps on the phases and they will be examined at that time. Further, that this is at the top of Archibald and traffic is not expected to be significant. Planning Commission Minutes Octoberms 13, 1982 Commissioner ;Stout asked if the Commission can require permanent lot markers to be placed at the back of the lots. Vice-chairman Hempel stated that State law requires this within the provisions of the Subdivision Yap Act Commissioner Barker stated that he is on the Design Reviews Committee and this project is the first one that he has seer come back after having gorse through drastic changes. He commended Mr. Webb for their professionalism and skill in making this a very mice project. Bern, Moved by Stunt, seconded by Barker, carried,unanimously , to adopt Resolution , approving Tentative Tract No. 10088, with the addition f five conditions contained in the addendum recommended by staff. Vice-chairman Remp l stated for the record that a letter has been received from Mrs. C dera relative to this item. 7:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed, 8:05 p.m. The Planning rn issio n; reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. TENTATIVE TRACTS 11 04 11 0 ALLEN total planned development of 76 condominium units on 11 .03 acres of land in the R-3 and R 1 zones located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven Avernus - APN 201-272-28, 30, 31 , and ', ". A'ssociate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Senior Civil Engineer, Raul R na e u, spoke of the improvements to Alta Loma Avenue. He indicated that an agreement most be made with the developer regarding the improvements.ernts. He indicated that after discussion it was felt that the beat method of handling this is to asphalt the street and h dr seed the; area until the future street is rneeded., m eats stated this would be a good compromise because if they don't get improvements now, it is doubtful that they would be able to get :,them in the future. Mr. R u eaaa stated,' however, that, this had not yet been discussed with the developer. Mr. R nr eaa indicated that the result of this would be that this temporary street would have asphalt paving, curbs and- utters, and with the grass, this could be used as a large lawn. Commissioner Niel asked how large an area he is talking about. R na eau replied that it would be the width of the street and go for about ; 100 feet. He indicated that this would be maintained: by the Homeowners Association. Planning; Commission Minutes - - October 13, 1982 j Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Allen, the applicant, stated that he is in favor of the grass on the; cul-de-sac because they don't known how long it will be before the freeway goes in . Akira Snapp, architect for this project, stated that he had worked with the staff and representatives of the Carden Apartments is to come up with a plan that is compatible with the area an keeping with its rural character. He eplaa.ned the architecture that will be used, indicating that this would contain both one and two story units. Commissioner McNiel asked if the one, two-story unit referred to by Mr. Snapp would create any problems with the adjacent housing. Coleman replied that the unit is hack from the property line but it does look into adjacent yards. He indicated that there is a requirement for dense landscaping to screen the view of the side elevations of the units. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if it is absolutely essential that this be two- story. Snapp replied that they have had problems with the density of the units from the beginning because of the geometry of the site and they have had to ire up quite a few units. He indicated that he would have to discuss this with the developer and could not make a decision on this. Sid Silliman, 6126 Haven, brought ,some concerns of the Garden Apartments Ho eowners's Association before the Commission.' e indicated that they wished to have the roar of eucalyptus trees presently along the driveway to Haven' preserved because of its scenic contribution, and would be opposed to removal of the 'trees . Sill man indicated that the change proposed for Alta Loma Road may increase traffic when`` it goes trough and the Homeowner's Association was opposed to an increase. He suggested that it be built to a smaller width until the freeway goes through as a means of cutting dowry on traffic flow. He reminded that any changes brought before the homeowner's association require a three-fourths agreement relative to ghat happens to the strip of lead owned by theta. kou eau stated that he did not known if the existing eucalyptus trees match up with Alta; Loma Road. He indicated that if they do not it would be difficult to save the trees. Further, that the location of Alta Loma Avenue has been set but it was possible for d slight adjustment depending on the freeways design. He indicated that any changes to its present location would require a redesign of the project Vice-chairman Hempel reminded the Commission that when the shopping center was before Design Review they were required to put in their driveway where this is proposed. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 13, 1982 m Rougeau explained how the width of the street requesters by the homeowner's group would present problems. He indicated, if this .were to be built, it would have to be torn out and would their cost as much as a new street. Further, that dealing with the homeowner's association would be infeasible. ou eau stated that bonds are not a goad way to guarantee future street improvements because oftentimes the only way to recover the funds is through the courts. ,. yair^in stated that in looking at the tract map it appears that the eucalyptus trees on the north could probably be saved thereby maintaining the character of the area airin also stated that it appears that the p coincides with the outside edge of the sidewalk. Rou eau stated that there would be 12 feet of parkway to work with so it is possible l that the trees can be saved. _ Vice-chairman Rempel stated that Exhibit 8 shows the street above and the right-of-way, indicating that the trees could be saved Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, added to ghat Mr. Rou eau said. He stated that as a practicalmatter, it is difficult if not impossible to convince a bonding company to write a bond for a long term that has no finite limit in time. He further stated that the City would be better off to hold a cash deposit for the street improvements. He indicated that between the City office and theirs, they could figure out some kind of security that would protect the City if there is the desire to consider that kind of arrangement on the street. Mr. Hopson stated that on the west, assuming that it is dedicated property, the homeowner's association can be required to maintain the right-of-way and the City would want a specific condition to say that they would maintain the grassed area where it goes from Alta Loma avenue to the cul-de-sac on the west boundary of the property. Commissioner Stout asked if it is anticipated that there will be parking on the interior of Alta Loma Streets ou eau replied that it will be a public street but could be posted for no parking. He also stated that it would help to have visitors parking. Commissioner Stout stated that they mould be asking for trouble if the street is narrow. ou eau Mated that in the future it will be 44 feet because of the traffic it will carry after the freeway goes in. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1982 Floyd Allen, 6402A Raven Avenue, who stated that he was not related to the applicant and was not speaking for the association, was in favor of the plan as presented. He further stated that with the indication 'that 'the applicant, Allen, has made regarding accommodations that have been discussed with the homeowners association, he saw no reason to make Alta. Loma narrower.. Mr. Steve Kellogg, resident of the Garden Apartments, stated that he was concerned about privacy and= the ability of people to look into the back end of patios and back yards. Vice-chairman Rempel replied that the patios are at the east end of these units. He explained the requirement for landscaping along the property lane. There being no further questions, the public nearing was closed. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that this is another plats that has came e long way since initial application. He stated his appreciation for what Mr. Allen and Snapp have done in replying o concerns raised during the review process. Commissioner McNiel stated that he lives on a very narrow street and he gashed it was wider because of the safety factor that arises when children play or go into the street. He cautioned the Commission about allowing a narrow street to be put in. Commissioner Barker stated that Mr. Si.11i nuts concerns appeared to be twofold : one, the preservation of the trees and the 'narrowing ;of the street to keep it an attractive through way. He stated further that cul-de-sacs generally deadend a street and with the greenery at the end it would be very attractive. He indicated that the only way for people to be able to use the street as proposed is for people to know about it ahead of time and this would only be known by people who live in the area.. He indicated that on that basis he did not feel it would be attractive for use. Commissioner Barker agreed with Vice-chairman Rempel in that this project has grown substantially since it was first reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that one thing that Mould help the street condition is the imposition of a condition for a sign on the front that this is not a through street Commissioner Stout asked if the trees are blue gum eucalyptus. He further asked if they world be a fire problem. Mr. Vairin replied that they are blue' gums, and that they would have to meet the fire district's cede, and they would also have to be trimmed. Commissioner Stout stated he was concerned with how close they are located to units because of their potential fire danger. He further stated that under certain conditions they are just like a torch.: Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1982 Vice-chairman Hempel suggested that something be worked out between the developer and the homeowner's association to replace the eucalyptus with d better tree. He felt that something could be worked out Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-94, with the added condition that an attempt be made to preserve the eucalyptus treed, that all required street improvements to the west of the property line, with the exception of actual paving, 'include sprinklers and grans and that this be maintained by the homeowners association. Vairin stated that there is a second resolution that deals with the land use designation and zoning on the property. For the benefit of the audience, Vairin stated that this matter will come before the City Council for zoning and property owners will again receive notice Lion: Moved by Niel, seconded by Stoat, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 8295, approving the Zone Change to R-3/PD for 11 .03 acres ,for planned development No.; 81-09. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-2 CHURCH OF CHRI T - The temporary use of a 2,555 square foot industrial bu i ld i for a church facility in the General Industrial category (Subarea , located at 9581 Business Center Drive, Suites A, B, and C - APN 209-021-04 Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Vice-chairman Hempel opened the public hearing. n King representing the church, stated their desire to serve the community. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout aged if this is a standard resolution. Vairin replied; that it is and that fire code requirements have been included. Commissioner MoNiel asked what is anticipated for a congregation in future yearn King stated that they have purchased a piece of property on Hellman Street, with the intention of proceeding with building in about 30 months.M He indicated further that they hope to have a growth ratio of approximately 50 percent Planning Commission Minutes _1 COctober 13, 1982 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by MAiel, carried unanimously , to adopt Resolution No. 82-96 , approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82-83. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. CHAFFEY VOCATIONAL SCHOOL PARKING Rick Gomez , City Planner, reviewed a report provided to the Commission relative to the parking problems associated with the Chaffey College Vocational Skills Center located on Feron Street. He indicated that the college has asked for a deferment on action until the end of the quarter at which time a plan can be worked out to solve the parking problem. Commissioner Stout stated that mandatory pay parking for the students for use of the parking lot has been discussed and asked if this has been dropped. Mr. Gomez replied that it has not been dropped and is one of the options that they may employ. He indicated that the college may put ceilings on the amount of student population and if that does not work, the possibility exists that the approval should be revoked. Commissioner Stout stated that he thought the problem is that some of the students don't want to buy a parking permit. Mr. Gomez replied that this is correct. Commissioner Stout asked if they could be made to buy a parking permit. Mr. Gomez replied that this is one of the problems that they are working on. Vice-chairman Hempel stated that it is difficult to make a student buy a parking permit if they don't want to. Commissioner Stout stated that if the student does not purchase the ticket, he cannot attend class. Mr. Donaldson, representin affey College, stated that in California no student can be denied an education because he has not purchased a parking permit. Further, the college supports that law. He indicated that if the student wants to park in a parking lot, the college can force the issue. Mr. Gomez stated that this gets back to the problem of on-street parking. Mr. Rougeau stated that in observation, people tend to park on a distance basis. He indicated that they will park on the street if it is closer. Mr. Gomez stated that the City must be concerned by users who are burdened by that. Planning Commission Minutes _11- October 13, 1982 Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the intent in a developed area is to get 100 per of street parking. He indicated that you can't say you can't park in the street when the street is designed for parking. Mr. Henry Reiter, owner of buildings surrounding the one used by the Vocational Skills Center, indicated that the college put in a beautiful parking lot and then charged students for the use of it. He indicated that he and the sheriff's department have talked to Chaffey College on numerous occasions and they indicated that they would do nothing. He indicated that the college is providing students with an education but placing the burden on the shoulders of the occupants of the businesses in the industrial area. He indicated that they should take responsibility for the parking situation. Commissioner Stout stated that he was not sure what will happen in two months and asked if the Commission will have alternatives to consider. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the option is for staff to solve the problem or to say revise the previous approval. Mr. Gomez stated that it is his intention to solve the problem and to report back to the Commission when he has accomplished something. He indicated that this may be through a requirement in the director review that they cannot charge or that they must provide on site parking, or through the use of a ceiling on student population. Commissioner Barker asked if this problem could be solved with more assurance if a deadline was established. Mr. Gomez replied that deadlines always help. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that there should be solution before the school year ends so that you will know what you must do. It was the consensus of the Commission that this come back to the Planning Co mission, at the November 24, 1982 meeting and that a decision be made regarding this issue at that time. Mr. Hopson stated that the owner, through leasing arrangements, has the power to make some requirements. I. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Rick Gomez, City Planner, reported that the first generation draft of the Development code will be completed by the first part of November. He indicated that be;will advise when it is ready for the Zoning Committee's review. Planning Commission Minutes ®1 October 13, 1982 Mr. Fritz, applicant for CUP No. 82-22, requested information on the requirements of Title 19. Mr. Vairin replied, explaining some of the requirements, and also advising that City staff would be available to help him. Motion : Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the public hearing scheduled for the Etiwanda Specific Plan, October 21 , 1982 at 7 p.m. in the Community Building. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 9.25 p.m. Respectfully ubmitted, tfully bmitted, m. JACK AM, Secre ark Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1952 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 22, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting a meld at Limns Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho uea on a California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis ,Stout Jeff King ABSENT , COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, -City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City° Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF 'MINUTES Motion: Moved by Re npel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of August 11 , 1982. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that a meeting to discuss the Foothill Community Plan mould be meld September 27, 1982, at :Lions Park Community Center. r. Lam Also announced that there would be an Advisory Commission meeting September 23, 1982 at Lions Community Center to install new Advisory Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Herman Re npel presented a plaque to the Commission which was awarded, to the City by the American Planning Association for the Industrial Specific Plain developed by City staff`. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - RANKS - The division of acres of land into 4 lots within the R-1 zone located approximately 6601 north of Base Line and 6601 west of East Avenue - Aft 7-1 1 Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the applicant requested continuance of this item to the Planning Commission greeting of October 13, 1982. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved:by McNiel, seconded by R mpel` uan riously carried,, to continue Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 3383 to the meeting of October 13, 1982. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 82- An amendment to Section 1 .. 2 1(h)(2)( ) to, allow a percentage of the required rear yard area. to be used for additions and accessory structures. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report Commissioner Reapel asked if the three feet mentioned in the ordinance referred the roof line or the structure . Gomez replied that staff meant the three feet to be measured from the structure Commissioner Rdmpel stated that if -a structure with a thirty inch overhang was placed three feet from the p�roper * line it would be within eighteen inches from the property line, Which he felt was too close Gomez replied that staff could be directed to reword that section of the ordinance to stipulate five feet with a maximum eighteen inch overhang. Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that . from a drafting perspective it would be best to separate section one of the ordinance into accessory' buildings and building additions rather than just adding the building addition language to the existing section. Chairman King opened the pudic hearing. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner er Rempel' ,stated that he would suggest that the proposed ordinance be amended to include height limits on accessory buildings and additions, the inclusion of language suggested by staff, and that the rear and side yard setbacks be amended to five feet with a maximum two foot overhang. Planning Commission Minutes 2- September 22,' 12 Commissioner Barker stated that requiring a five facet setback would be taking a rather large portion of a narrow yard. Furthers, that if the overhead encroachment was protected, he could not agree with a five foot setback. Chairman Kin stated that he agreed with Commissioner Barker in regard to the side yard setback; however, that allowing a two-story addition was totally inappropriate because it is 'against the Interim Zoning Ordinance as it relates to capers, space. Further, that with the present wording f the ordinance he would be totally against allowing any two-story addition unless the wording was revamped relating to the increased review of a >,proposal for a two-story structure addition. Commissioner Rempel stated that he disagreed with Chairman King and; felt that a persona with a two-story face should be allowed to add on to his home the same a ` any other homeowner. Motion:_ Moved by° Rem el that the ordinance be brought back to the Commission with the minor encroachment provisions to be five feet on a two-story story additions; to are existing two-story home and that the setbacks on the accessory buildings be 'thr°ee feet, setbacks on any additions shall be five feet, and that, the high point of any roof line should be at the ratio of a l from the side yard Chairman King called for a second to this motion. There was no second to this motion and a;motion was made by Commissioner McNiel. Motion: Moved by f cNiel, seconded by Stout, carried, to continue this item and that the ordinance be referred to staff for rewriting which would reflect the above discussion AYES: COMMISSIONERS: l cfliel, Stout, Barker, Rea pel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Norge Chairman King voted No because he does not feel tiro-story additions should be allowed C. ONDITIO AL USE PERMIT d -1 - W t.RR The establishment of 13,232 square feet of professional offices in an existing building and the continuance of a preschool use in are existing building 5,644 square :foot building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue APN 209-171-15. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report Planning Commission MinutesSeptember 22, 1982 Chairman King opened the public hearing. Prude Zwissler, applicant, addressed the Commission statingthat he would like to have the opportunity to work with staff in the revision of his playa so that he could be allowed 134 students instead of the '72 allowed under the play as proposed There were no further public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Re apel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue Conditional Use Permit 82-19 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 1982 to allow the applicant time to work with staff' on site plan revisions® D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82MO3 - INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential 14 du/ad to Commercial, on approximately d.9 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard APN 1 C77 1 1 . Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King opened the public hearing Scott Bell, representing Interstate Consolidated, addressed the Commission stating that they were in favor' of continuing this item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1982 to allow the applicant and the surrounding property owners time to meet and gather input regarding the site plan There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: loved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue General Plan Amendment 82-03 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1982. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE FOR PTi AN A SPECIFIC PLAN Tina Boodle, Senior Planner, presented the tentative public hearing; schedule for the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the Commission. After discussion, the Commission reached a consensus to adopt the public hearing schedule as proposed by staff with s chase in the;final hearing date from December 22, 1982 to January 12, 1983. Planning Commission Minutes - September 22, 1982 F . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3 BOARS READ - report on the establishment l dated within the shopping center on the northwest corner of 1 tb Street and Carnelian. Rich Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman rr i advised the audience that although this was not a public hearing item this evening, the Commission would appreciate any public input. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he wished to thank the Commission for their action in trying to alleviate the problem m their neighborhood has with the Boars Head` Motion: d by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to hold a public hearing within thirty days of this date to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit - 3. ' ADJOURNMENT Motion cad by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. d 0 Planning ission Adjourned Reap ctfull s mitt d, J LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 22, 1982 CATTY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA PLANNING IN COMMISSION I UTES Regular Meeting September 8, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Catty of Rancho Cucamonga Planning o i olon was called to order by h ar n Jeff King at 7 p.m. The meeting was hold at the Lions Park Community Building, 9161 Base Lino Road , Rancho Cucamonga. Following the call to order, Chairman King led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Pempel Dennis Stout, Neff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: "Tire d. Poodle, Senior Planner; Pick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jon Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Pou e u, Senior~ Civil, Engineer; Michaellr�ln, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, stated that there would be a Planning Commission workshop on Saturday, September 18, 1982 "rem 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Lions Park Community Building. He reminded the Commission to adjourn this meeting o the meeting of September 18. Mr. Gomez stated that the Commission had been provided copies of the Ordinance wbich deals with notification procedures to be acted upon by the City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion. Moved by MeN e:l, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. *ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 H FGAAPDS - The development ent of a 20,378 square .foot building on appro-ximately 1 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea , located east of Cottage Avenue, south of dtb Street APN 209-193-07. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP A Cis project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE d C - BROWNE - A change of gone from - 1 (Limited Agricultural) 1 (Siag-leFamily Residential) for .96 acres of Land located on the southwest corner of use Line Road and Ivy Lane PN 1 C7 071 C 1 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7511 ROWN A residential: srrbdlvislon of. acres into 3 mats located n the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane in the . 1; zone ;( ? 1 pending) - APN 1 77-071 C1 Pick Gomez, City Planner, stated that these two items would be handled concurrently. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports Paul, Rou eau, Senior Planner, requested that the Planning Commission consider a. change to Condition #8 of the Engineer's Report relative to the parcel map. He; indicated; that bonding is required in the condition although the curb and gutter improvements can be deferred rrnti,l the time of development of these parcels. Chairman King opened the public hearing. rBrowne, 265 E. 7th Street, Upland, the applicant, ;indicated _that when he spoke with Mr. Rougeau regarding these parcels they had spoken of a division of this property into 4 lots rather than the d lots being considered tonight. He asked the Commission if it would be possible to change this lot split to 4 at this time. r. Rougeau replied that it would be possible to :obtain four legal size lots if the proposed carport were removed from the property.. He indicated that n lot coals be dropped between lots 2-3 and it might make a more marketable piece of property. Commissioner Barker asked if the Engineering Division had stated that this could be done r Rou earn replied that he advised the applicant that if he is thinking of further splitting the Data, he shoal.d let the Commission know tonight or it would have to come back to the Commission. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that under the circumstances and given the fact that there is a publication requirement, if it was being consolidated into two lots, there would be no problem However, because the applicant is now requesting that something more be dome which would increase the density of the parcel there is a requirement to republish this. Mr. Hopson indicated that the Commission could grant the applicant's request for Item C, but Item ii could not be taken fop tonight. Planning Commission Minutes - September d 1982 Chairman King asked, if the:applicant desired to, would it be possible for him to continue item D until it is readvertised for a four lot parcel map. Hopson, stated that in theory everyone had been told that this would be a three parcel split and while they might have said that they have no objection to' a three parcel split, they might have objections to a four parcel split. Simply by continuing the item tonight, only those people would `be notified of this change who are present at this meeting. Mr. Hopson indicated that this would have to be readvertised Commissioner Rempel stated that the applicant should reduce the lots to 2 of CSC square feet and come back to the Commission. r. Rou eau stated that it would be cheaper for him to read ertise than it would be for him to core back r. Hopson stated that the Commission could take action or item C and no additional, filing; fee could be required when the applicant comes back with Item D. Commissioner Barker asked Commissioner Rempel if there were advantages an disadvantages to doing it this way. Commissioner Rempel replied that there are ;hone: Chairman King stated that assuming Items C and D were; approved as is and then it is the intention of the applicant to get 4 lots instead of 3 , would a new application have to be filed. Gomez replied that the applicant would have to show the Commission that he did not wish to have action taken on .Item. D, and that the item would then have to be readvertied a Chairman King asked the applicant if he wished the Commission to take action on this or readverytise r. Browne replied that he would' like ,to have Item C approved and that Item D should be rerdertised:a ii "lucre being no further comments the public hearing was closed Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt this area eventually would be rezoned ned R-7200, like= the surrounding area . He indicated that this could just be bringing the area into compliance with that surrounding it Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconed by MoNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. d , approving Zone Change d 02 and to issue a negative declaration Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 8 1982 j Chairman King stated that relative to Item p, the applicant wished no action taken tonight. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc: ie , carried unanimously, to continue this item forA readvertising and return it to the Commission for action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7646 - MCRCA - A residential subdivision of 1.42 acres into 2 parcels located southeast of Hillside Road,Read, approximately ld 1 feet west of Beryl Paul, Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that the Demers channel south of this property has been completed and the drainage had been taken care of Commissioner Barker asked if there is documentation that the community trail would be on the north side of Hillside He indicated his concern was centered on the ability to eater Heritage Park since it is on the south side of Hillside:. Further, that there is no trail on the north side of Hillside at the present time or access to trails between the proposed lots or beside the lots Mr. Barker indicated that there is access on the south side of houses at Hillside but this subdivision would ;force everyone to ride or walk west at that section, back up and east again. Commissioner er° Barker asked if sidewalks will be put in along Hillside Mr. Rou eau replied that this would be the beginning of sidewalk installation as none of the surrounding areas has theca. Mr. lou eau stated that it is the City"s policy; to pint in sidewalks along collector roads wherever possible; although there are nonealong the park. Mr. Rou eau stated that a closer look should be taken around the park Mr. Barker stated that he was not sold .on sidewalks and there was no provision for equestrian access. He again stated his concern especially for access into Heritage Park Chairman King stated that he,echoed Commissioner Barber's concern as it relative to equestrian access and sidewalks as they would be relatively needless in light of what is presently there. Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Morgan, the applicant, and Mr. Cary Sanderson, the civil engineer for this project, ;indicated theirs willingness to answer any of the Commission's questions Mr. Sanderson stated that this tract, No. 6760, was recorded in 1963 and at that time cum and gutter improvements were constructed to the frontage of; Lot 10. There was no curb or gutter at Lot 11. Mr. Sanderson further stated that 10 years later Hillside Road was extended east from a dead end and curb and gutter improvements were built across subject Lot 11. Mr. Sanderson stated that the County also put in a l .inch pipe that crosses under in; the vicinity Planning;Commission Minutes -4 September d, 1982 of the northeast corner of Lot 11 . He indicated that in his opinion the enlarged slope and drainage easement shown in the 1963 map is no longer needed Sanderson commented can the Condition requiring sidewalks and street lights and asked whether they are necessary. Additionally, since this is a septic tank area, why there is a requirement for sewers. Morgan stated that in the title insurance policy for this property an easement for utilities, pole lines and incidental purposes was recorded. He further stated that this is a6-foot easement and since this is for incidental purposes, it could be used as an equestrian easement. fir. Morgan indicated that he has no intention of fencing this off to limit access and that access to Heritage Park can be gotten through the drainage easement and culvert to the east Chairman King asked hoer you get over that culvert. Commissioner Barker stated that Mr. Morgan is right but he was not mare where his property`ends and Heritage Park begins ;. Rou eau indicated that the property hire shown on the parcel map is the property line next to Heritage Park and as the applicant indicated, there is a total of 12 feet of easement; however, it was never for equestrian use. Further, that the easement is there but a larger one is needed Commissioner Barker asked if the park will <develop in such a way that access will be required for the trails at Hillside. Morgan asked if the Commission is suggesting that he dedicate an easement.' Commissioner Harker replied that he dad not know where the proper place for an easement woul be and if it is practical cal Commissioner issioner Harker asked if there is some gray to guarantee an easement. r' Rou eau stated that it really has to be tied into the design of the park. Chairman King stated that it makes more sense that if they are heading toward the ravine that they should cross Hillside and take a path to the south side that takes them to Heritage" Park. r;. Gomez suggested that this be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow ,staff time to weak out some way to provide equestrian aceesss to Heritage Park. Commissioner Pempel stated that it is not logical to continue the equestrian trail along; the north aide of Hillside as they go along east of the arroyo. He indicated that it is also not logical to take the horse trail along the south side of Hillside west of the lot. He indicated that the only apparently Planning Commission Minutes; -5- September 8, 1982 logical place for the trail would be to cross Hillside at this canyon. He indicated further that the question to be answered is what type of crossing it will be. Commissioner Hempel commented on the requirement for sidewalks and the policy which was set by the Commission. He indicated that Hillside is a main thoroughfare and should have sidewalks on it especially for the children who must take shcool buses. he indicated that there are several ways of installing them and that they could be done through 1911 Act proceedings. He explained the responsibility of the Planning Commission in providing pedestrians of every age with a safe method of access Commissioner Barker stated that he understood Commissioner Rempel"s argument but he was not sure sidewalks should be constructed on the north side of Hillside Commissioner Stout stated that another look should be taken at the horse trails. Hopson stated that another problem had arisen, that of the easement at Lots 1 and 2 having been granted away in 1961 by the other land -c ers. Mr. Hopson stated that the easement had been granted to the utility companies and that it could not again be granted away for the public use of horse trails. r° Hopson indicated that staff could ask for 10 feet of easement on the south that would be preserved for equestrian use. Mr. Hopson further indicated that the general public has no legal right to ride horses on the present easement granted to the utilities on lots 1 .' Commissioner Stout, asked if these people had the right to fence off" that easement Hopson replied that the utilities will allow ;semi permanent structures if the; property owner: agrees to knock then, drawn if access is needed by the utility Commissioner Barker asked why the easement had to be expanded from 6 feet to 10 feet. lr...- Hopson stated that there is nothing magic about the figure, it was arbitra,ry Commissioner Stout stated he did not feel sidewalks are needed Chairman King stated that it appears that the Commission is dealing with two issues: One, access for the people living in the subdivision that is already there, and the other, as it relates to horse owners who transition to Heritage Park who live on the north side of Hillside He asked if the discussion by the Commission kills these two issues in light of what the City Attorney has said about the utility easement on the south side of Lot 11 and ;Lots 1 10... Planning Commission Minutes - September d, 1982 ,I Commissioner Barber stated it was his opinion that it was still an open issue especially in how to guarantee access to hearse owners. He indicated that there are a number of property owners who Flo use the easement for access Commissioner McNiel awed. if a utility easement exists for Lots 1-10 and is currently being used as an equestrian easement. Morgan replied that there is'a l -fagot easement along _there. Further, that he has no objection section. to a 10 fract"easement that would be a utility easement. . Hopson stated that the problem is that Mr. Morgan cannot add anything to the easement that' has already been given away by his predecessor 21 years ago. Further, that these is no legal bundle of rights that Mr. 'Morgan has left to give away. Chairman King stated that regardless ess of what the Commission's thougbts are on the easement the six-foot utility easement will exist there so the issue will be how do people get to heritage Park and how people to the north will get there ; Commissioner Stout asked if some type of covenant t can be gotten to prevent people from fencing the six feet of easement r. Hopson replied that he thought not because it wouldn't stop people from fencing it in. Chairman King again asked the applicant if he would have any objection to continuing this item to look at the equestrian easement and asked the applicant if there is any urgency that would impede the continuance Morgan replied that the objection to a continuance would be financial because eery day of postponement casts more. Further, theme is no bearing on this item as to whether a creasing should occur on the north side of the street rather than on the south side of the street. Mr. Morgan suggested that the City tale the flood control channel all the way Grp to Hillside and fill the whole gulley." r° Gomez stated that Mr. Morgan had touched a regional issues with traversing the channel it could be that the Commission condition this parcel map to provide;access per approval of the frail Committee or rather appropriate body and in that way this project could grove on. Commissioner rlem el stilted that rather than; conditioning the parcel map to provide access, it should state that the parcel map is contingent upon development insuring that a 'trail system is continuous. Further, that stating that the applicant has to provide the trail.: is the wrong way to say it. Chairman King closed the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 8, 1982 Chairman King askred if there was a need for further discussion. Commissioner Barker asked if the sidewalk issue is also being addressed. Chairman king stated that this obviously is a septic tank area, and that sidewalks aren't needed in this area and that the Commission should study the equestrian issue Mr . Hopson stated that the only thing that the Commission must concerti itself with is that it take action within 50 days from the filing of the application on this project in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Further, that if the applicant asked for a continuance, the 0-day time limit is ;negated Chairman King stated that this could be continued to the next meeting if the applicant allows this to be done.<' Commissioner Rempel stated that the applicant has stated that he would have a problem with this. Further, that the easement really cannot be used nor considered for a trail. Commissioner Rempel stated further that the only area that the Commission can deal with is on the upper side of the lute and he felt that the map should be conditioned to provide an easement Chairman King stated that he, thought he agreed with Commissioner Rempel but was unsure. He felt that another two weeks would allow time to study the matter. Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be handled _between now and the time the final map comes up. Chairman King asked if this could be approved and if that aspect can be left open. further, if it could again;core before the Planning Commission. He ,indicated that some method of access to Heritage parks must be worked ,out and that he would feel more comfortable i.n<delaying this to works it out. Hopson stated that this would be all right as long as it was brought back within two creeks because he would not have to reach the difficult issue o whether an aparoval, subject to the review of the Planning Commission is really a final approval. Commissioner Barker asked ghat the advantage would be for the applicant to have this approved this evening. Commissioner kle pe . stated that if this is properly conditioned the applicant does ghat it stated and the map moves on and he would have to complete the condition before it moves on to the final. Mr. Comet stated that this could be conditioned or brought ;back within two creeks. He suggested that the Commission either bring it backs or provide a condition that they feel comfortable with. Planning Commission Minutes - - September 8, 1982 Motion, Moved by Barker, that the requirement for sidewalks be removed and that this be continued for a two-week period. The motion died for lack of a second Motion: d by Rer pel., seconded by Mc Niel, carried to adopt Resolution No. d d , approving Parcel Chap No. 7646 with the condition that the applicant meet with staff and the trail committee to .insure that equestrian trail system have continuity through this area. Further, that sidewalks not be required and that the sewage system be designed per the requirements ents of the Cucamonga County Water District . Vairin stated that this should be done prior to the recordation of the parcel map. Chairman King voted no on this matter indicating that his opposition has nothing to do with the parcel map, gust that he was not comfortable with the resolution. 7z C p.m. The Planning Commission recessed' d r 1 C p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10 LANDCC - proposed custom lot subdivision of 1 acres of land in the R "i C,CoC zone into 17 lots located south of Car°rari;, crest of Hagen ;:Avenue - APN 201-101-17. Michael Vairin, Senior° Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King stated in terms of the sidewalk issue and street improvements to the south and improvement in the proposed track, that it would deem that the sage issues exist on this tract as the last one. He further stated that it does not make sense to put sidewalks in front of. the lot when the rest of the street does not have sidewalks and he felt 'that the Commission should make a stand one way or the other to require them in both tracts or novae. Michael Vairin replied that another alternative would be to go along the east side because;of the lesser numbers of homes and make a requirement for the installation of sidewalks by each individual homeowner. He indicated that this could be controlled by virtue of the issuance of building permits. r. Vairin stated that sidewalks are already required can one side or the gather on the southwest aide and this issue should be resolved as to whether sidewalks should continue all the way to Hillside and whether it should be a requirement of this map or a statement by the Commission ission that they desire to have the continuation of the sidewalk on each individual lot as each lot is developed. Mr. Vairin stated that he did not believe there were any houses on; the east side Planning Commission Minutes September d, 1982 Commissioner Stout asked why there is a requirement for sidewalks on 20,000 square foot lots. Rou eau replied that it is the interpretation of the sidewalks resolution that they be required on one side of the street on collector streets even within the equestrian area Commissioner Re rpel explained that the former Planning Commission had studied the sidewalk issue and adopted a resolution requiring sidewalks on streets of this nature. He indicated that one of the factors that enters into this is that on north/south streets there will be a fair amount of grater running in the gutters during rainy periods and that anyone walking will be at the mere of the water He indicated that the resolut ion was adopted to provide a safe route do that people le would not have e to walk in the streets Commissioner arkrer asked if on the southeast corner of the proposed street there is a potential pocket for grater gathering Mr. Rou eau replied that it is; however, it goes sander* the ;sidewalk and is taken into the gutter. Commissioner Barker awed ghat the pocket goes into Mr. Rougeau replied, that the whole cul-de-sac will drain into the south curb when the street is graded. He indicated that while they only have the preliminary grading place, eventually this whole cul-de-sac will drain naturally to the crest Mr. Vairin asked if Commissioner Barker was referring to the cul-de-sac rather than. lot 6 r. Barker stated that he was originally referring to the cul-de-sac :and then lot 6. Mr. Vairin stated that the Grading Committee ittee has required are equestrian trail as well as a drainage ,structure here Commissioner Rempel asked if on the two lets in question there are any just below this tract on lots 1 that have no access to the street. r. Rougau replied that although,; it doesn't shod on the map, Vi:vienda Street goes all the war to Ridgeview and dues have offers of°"dedication. Further, there may be some offers beyond lot 41 but at least before any permits or subdivisions can occur there the rest of it will be obtained. He indicated that the cul-de-sac has been eliminated and an S curve prat in to provide access Planning; o ission Minutes 10- September d, 1982 Rou ea.0 stated that lot 42 could be subdivided into 2 lots but that before that happens, Vivienda would have to be extended. Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Don Hornbeck representing the applicant stated that they would accept all conditions as required and that the improvements to Rid e lew will be tough enough. e indicated further that they must improve the gulley all the ,way to €1 llside Commissioner, Rempel stated to Mr. Hornbeck that sidewalks are required on the one side There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Chairman King asked staff if they have any idea about hoer many ;homes are constructed on the east side of the tract below inhere the present development is Frank Williams, of Associated Engineers, engineer on the project, stated that the only house that is on Ridgeview directly is the house on the corner on the east of Hillside. He indicated that lot 12 shorn on the sketch is really not there Chairman King asked Mr. Williams assuming that he wanted to put his sidewalk on the east side, would he dish to have the individual lot owner put his own sidewalk in. He asked what can be done about the hose on; the corner. e, Rou.eau replied that the sidewalk_ a could be installed under an as sessment by the City or through funds that are now available through a state program. Chairman King asked if it makes sense to take the approach that the City has suggested or if it makes sense to make improvements ements along "Rid eview when they improve it, as it'relates to that piece of 'property. Rou eau replied that this was kind of a subjective thing because the sidewalk represents the same expense whether it's done now or as part of the tract fee development. He indicated that it becomes a matter of whether to impose the condition on the developer at this time. He indicated that the tract above develops will be the major pedestrian flow and while they will be putting sidewalks- in, it will be ,quite a few years before it will be of ,hall value Commissioner Stout asked what the current understanding is with respect to the sidewalks on; the cul-de-sac. [°fir. Rou eau stated that he would interpret the sidewalk resolution to exclude the cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Minutes September d, 1982 Chairman King asked if the Commission is in basic agreement that the sidewalks should be done on a lot-by-lot basis. The Commission indicated that they would be in agreement with this concept. Commissioner Rempel asked if the developer would 'participate in d reimbursement agreement if the sidewalk was put in Rou eau replied that he did not know. Commissioner Rempel asked if it would be any different than a storm drain agreement Mrs Rou eau stated that, the requirement for improving the street to the full width is a. drainage requirement more than anything else. He .indicated that if the sidewalks were to be treated that way there would have to be a sidewalk reimbursement agreement. Commissioner Hempel stated that the owner of the property should be made to do it and that he would be able to use the 1911 Act. Mr. Hopson stated that, the only time the City enters into a reimbursement agreement as such is when a tract has provided chat the CityAs Ordinance and state statute refers to as supplemental, capacity e indicated that if there is an improvement that has been dine offsite and;has not been done .for the project to provide larger story drains or sewers offsite, it is common to eater into a reimbursement agreement. He indicated that in this case, the paving of Ridgeway down from Hillside does not provide supplemental capacity to anything and would not be appropriate as a reimbursement bursement agreement. Commissioner Rempel stated that he was not thinking of this as far as paving s concerned Further, that there is nothing in the sidewalk that helps him out whatsoever. He felt that sidewalks should core from the development fee tr. Rougeau stated that there would be no problem from an Engineering standpoint but he would have to check to see if this could be handled under the Systems Development Fee. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that this should be looked into. The applicant stated that if the east of the sidewalks were able to core from the Systems Development Fees;, it would not affect them at all® Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 8 87, issuing a Negative Declaration and approving Tentative Tract No. 10414 adding the condition that the sidewalk cost be recovered from the ;Systems Development fee for that one lot. r Vairin asked if the condition cannot be satisfied, should this item come back to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 8, 1982 The consensus of the Commission was that if the condition could net be satisfied, the applicant would not have to put the sidewalk in. G , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 - WALL - The establishment of an arcade in the C-1-5 zone. t be located at e Lind in the Base Line , Village Shopping Center. City Planner, Pick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. fie indicated that the staff report; advised that a letter would be forthcoming from the Alph Beta Corporation; however, none had been received. Commissioner Harker asked if these conditions are identical to those placed on the other arcade Mrs Gomez replied that they,are. Commissioner Rempel asked if this could be brought back to the Commission after six months to be sure that the applicant was conducting his business in accordance with the parameters of the conditional use permit. . Gomez replied that this could be done Commissioner Stout asked if there was a requirement for additional restrooms. Mr. Gomez replied that there area Chairman King opened the public hearing r°. icon Walls, 5081 Via Par iso, :Alta Loma, stated that the only condition that he would have a problem with is the requirement for two rd trooms. He further' indicated that the arro's Pizza in the same shopping center has no such requirement Mr. galls stated that this would create a hardship for him because of the cost of installing another restroom. Chairman King asked Mr. galls if he had any knowledge of what the waiting time is going to be for his patrons. Mr. Walls stated the he did_ not know. Commissioner Stout stated that in his letter, the applicant has indicated his .intent of keeping his establishment open until midnight Mr. Walls replied that that had been d typographical error} and that the operating hours could be until r C p.m. on Sunday and 10: G during the week. Planning Commission Minutes -1 September 8, 1982 Commissioner Stout asked what hardship it, would cause to have the arcade close at "10 p.m. Wallas replied that it would be limited and during the week he would have no quarts about this; however, he indicated that there are some arcades that operate 24 hours a day. Commissioner Stout stated that his concern is that this arcade will operate in a neighborhood commercial area Mrs Walls stated that he would not be opposed to those hours during the week; however, the other businesses within the shopping center operate until midnight Commissioner Stout replied that the rather rases are not as intensive as the arcade Walls stated that the closest residential building at the north corner is 200 Feet. He indicated that the ether residence;is a single family house which operates as d business Commissioner Rempel stated that there is a family living there Walls stated that he would work out any problems and did not wish to be penalized by limiting hours on Saturday night when business is best. Commissioner Stout asked what. the Commission had done in setting hours at the other arcade and whether the hours were limited to curfew. r Comet replied that the hours were set in accordance to the curfew. Commissioner Barker asked about the due process statement regarding minors indicating that the proper authorities would be called. He stated that he hoped this would be done judiciously. r Wallis replied that they would ;do the same thing that the police department does. A parent would be contacted and he felt confident that the matter would e taken care of. However, if the problem could not be solved , the police would be contacted r. Barber stated that if the matter warranted it, proper authorities should be called Commissioner McNiel asked what Mr. Walls' experience with arcades has been prior to this and indicated that Jd's Haight be able to help hire Mr. Walls replied that he has spoken with the owner of JJ's. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 8, 1982 Commissioner Stout stated that his feeling is that if the applicant wishes to locate 'within a neighborhood commercial shopping center where less intensive uses are encouraged, the applicant should be required to close at 10 p.m. Further, that one reason the City has conditional use permits is to protect the citizenry and this should be encouraged. Commissioner Barker asked if 10 p.m. closing would be required every night. Commissioner cNiel stated that with respect to the bathrooms, the applicant has stated that it would be a hardship; however, it is his feeling that the bathroom facilities in that particular shopping center are inadequate and since the patrons will be spending more time in his facility than they would in other places, the requirement should stand Commissioner Remp, l stated that since the applicant is talking about having a family might at the arcades, it would be necessary to have double restrcom facilities. Further, that what Commissioner McNiel stated in this facility attracting more teenagers will create more traffic within the shopping center and this center already has congested parking. Commissioner Re spell stated that the staff recommedation that anyone under 18 years of age gust be accompanied by an adult should be strongly emphasi ed and no school age children be allowed entrance even if accompanied by an adult during school hours gust be enfrrced Motion: Moved by MoNiel, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously , to adopt Resolution No. d , for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit -16 with the establishment of an 11 p.m. curfew. R. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17 - CHAFFEY COLLEGE - The establishment of an , 1 square foot vocational trade school for the handicapped in the General Industrial category to be located at 9375 9th Street and 8732 Helms Avenue - APN 209-031-56. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman [ding asked what guarantee there is that students will be bused to and from the facality. Johnston read: the condition restricting students driving vehicles and indicated that Chaffey College will be operating mini-buses to the facility and also use dial-a-ride. Further, that all students will be arriving and leaving the facility at the same time. Chairman King opened the public hearing Chairman King asked those in the audience in favor of this conditional use permit to show their approval. Approximately 7 people in the audience rode. Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 8, 1982 There were no individuals in opposition. Dr. Harris, staff member of Chaffey College, indicated that he would answer any questions the Commission might have Commissioner Stout asked if he should .interpret Condition No. 1 under the Planning- Division to Crean that no students will be alloyed to drive their own vehicles to and from the facility whether they are able to or not. Mr. Harris indicated that no students will be allowed to drive. Commissioner Stout asked if there would to any probl.em if that condition were reworded to any that specifically. r° Harris stated that this would not be a problem. Motion: Moved by Stout,, seconded by Rempel., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-89, with an amendment to Condition No. 1 'under the Planning Division to restrict student parking on the site I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT" NO. - An amendment to Section 1 021 h)( ) to provide for erroroar hmer t o structures into the required rear yard subject to not exceeding certain percentage coverage of the rear yard area. Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report Commissioner Hempel asked if the proposed ordinance weans that accessory buildings and additions should not exceed 18 feet: or one story In height, and if that meant 18 feet on 'top of the one story. r. Vairin replied that was not what is meant. What is meant that one story should not be more than 18 feet in height. Commissioner Stout asked if in areas where you have equestrian easements in the back does the back yard setback apply to the ,rear'property line and would you be able to put in a structure right up to the easement. r. "Vairin replied that you would be able to do dog Commissioner Barker asked if this is for new construction as well as those individuals making additions to their property. Mr. Vairin replied that it is Chairman King opened the public hearing: There being no comments, the public hearing was closed, Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 8, 1982 Commissioner ftempel, stated that under certain conditions the one story limit is not good He indicated that if you have a two story house and you are adding on and it is way back from the lot line, you will encroach a little and the requirement that it will have to be one story should not be a limitation on that type of addition. Commissioner Re pel felt that the maximum height be limited to 18 feet but the only way that some people can add would be to go to two stories. Commissioner Rempel stated that in the rears yard setback, three feet is getting much too close He felt that the setback should be no less than five feet On the side card setback Commissioner Re pel felt that the three-foot setback stipulation for main buildings should be the sage for additions. Chairman King stated that he is diametrically opposed to what Commissioner Re apel. said He felt that it is imperative that the Commission limit additions to one story only rather than allowing a, two story addition. Chairman King stated his feeling that a one story addition tended to bring everything together and would ensure the feeling of openness whereas the feeling of openness would be destroyed if two story additions were allowed. Commissioner Re el stated that any new houses dust and can be brought up to Development Reviews but there are some types of homes for example, cape cods, that architecturally lend themselves better to two story additions airin explained the reasons that limitations were not put down in two story additions speaking of fairness to the individual. Further, that the problem usually arises when a person is putting in an addition and also a second story at the sage time. yairin stated' in reply to the two setbacks that staff:could not see why an accessory building could have a three foot setback and an addition could not. Commissioner Barker stated that he could ,see why' there would be limitations if a person is adding an auxiliary building for hay, etc. , which would be taller than a standard one story building. He further indicated he understood Chairman Kings concern where with a two starry addition peoples views have been cut off by trio much height, especially on a hillside building. Commissioner Barker* stated that he is not sure whether he would want it to go any higher than 18 feet Commissioner stout stated that he has a problem with restrictions on two story buildings the sage as Commissioner Rempel does. He indicated that he does not knows whether it would e much difference if a two story home already exists., Commissioner McNiel stated his agreement with Commissioners Stout and Rempel . He stated further that as long as ;continuity exists with the structure, it would be unfair to limit additions to one story. Planning Commission Minutes -17 September 1982 Mr. Vairin stated that if the Commission is saying that it will be all right to build a two story structure further back in the back yards, then it is no longer an exception and the near yard setback Haight as well be changed in the zone. He indicated that what this is is an exception to the zone. He further indicated what this is is a change to the rear yard setback in allowing a . portion of the nor yard to be used Commissioner Stout stated that perhaps accessory buildings could be separated from additions. He stated that he has no problem with making accessory building only one story tall, but he did not feel that it is necessary to : limit additions on existing two story houses to one story. Commissioner Barkers asked if they would be advocating the addition of a two story building on one story. Commissioners Rempel and Stoat replied that they are not saying that. Commissioner Rempel started that what he meant is that the gray this is written you can have an 18 foot addition and by adding two feet, he can have a two story house. Additionally, that a person can put in an 1 --f of addition which is ;almost as tall as a two story structure but that he can't put: two stories in Chairman King felt that perhaps it would be better if this item were brought back at the time of the development code r Vairin stated that in light of Commissioner eapelis comments, staff would like to look into this further and bring this back to the Commission Commissioner Barker stated that, what he is hearing is that if there is a two story building,, you should have a two story addition Commissioner Rempel stated that was not what he is saying. Commissinoer Stout stated that the two issues .should be separated. Commissioner Barker stated he was not sure that the maximum height should go to 18 feet Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to see this item 'drought back to him in about ,two weeks Vairin stated that in reference to Commissioner empelas statement and the 7200 square foot addition, if there is, a two story structure and if the addition is designed to be two story, should it be brought back to the rear setback line Following brief discussion, :it was moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously to continue this for two weeks Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 8, 1982 J. HAVEN AVENUE;MEDIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES r a p.m. Chairman King and Commissioner Barker stepped down. Vice Chairman Tempel conducted this portion of the meeting City Planner, Rick Gomez , reviewed the staff report. Commissioner* Stout asked if Mr. Gomez' specific concerns have been addressed in the guidelines. Mr. Gomez replied that he had received some today and they were being adressed through specifications within the document. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. d G approving the Haven avenue Median Design Guidelines. 9:28 p.m. Chairman King and Commissioner Barker returned to the table. K, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC'PLAN ;UPDATE Senior Planner, Tim Boodle, reviewed the staff report.. Chairman King stated that Thursday evenings would be a good time for the hearings Mr. Beadle stated that the process will be looked upon as an educational process. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. T eedle if he has any feel for the amount of community participation that will take place Mrs. Beedle replied that there has been a lot of participation thus far through the dozen or ae meetings that have been held. He indicated that all have been. well attended and some have been of the tan hall type. Chairman Thing stated that a lot of thought has gone into the Interim Zoning Ordinance and when the Commission comes back in two weeks, he heaped that the Commission could have a fairly thorough presentation as to the proposed amendment at to the section `Commissioner . Rempel stated that with regard to the item on haven Avenue Median Design, e wished to have a, letter sent to the Women's Glob thanking them for their input* Planning Commission Minutes' - September d, 1982 Commissioner Barker stated that from the comments made by bath Commissioner Rempel and Chairman King, h would second nd the request that the presentation on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.be thorough so that they aright understand the issues that have taken place in the past Commissioner Stout stated that judging from the correspondence ndenc on the Chaff y College Skills Canter, he felt that this should to brought back to the Commission for review. r. Gomez replied that staff is currently working with Chaffay College to find: a solution to the problems and what action to take, if any. He indicated that if what staff' is doing now draw not work, it will be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see this on the agenda. Councilmemb r;, dim Frost, addressed the. Commission stating ,that the lease on this building; probably runs from 3-5 years; however, the program itself is probably` categorically funded and will change. He indicated that once the Commission has made a commitment, they;will be hard pressed to tighten the standards later on. He indicated that Commissioner Stout's concern should be addressed Chairman King stated that if everyone wants to bring it back, that is fine,. Commissioner Stout stated that his feeling is that the CUP will not work if the Commission does not review it and let them know that they mean business. The consensus of the Commission was that this item be brought back for their review at the first greeting in November. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barber, carried unanimously, to adjourn to September 18, 1982. ®45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfu lly ' JACK LAM Planning Commission Minutes - G- September 8, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular et n August 25, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman King called the Regular V4eting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held at Liens Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California.n Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALF COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: E. livid Barker, Jeffrey irr ,Lar°r McNiel, Herman Rempel,Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shiratu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Larr Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Plranner, Edward Hopson, Assistant ant. City Attorney ; ne ; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Michael Vairivi, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Comunity Development Director, arrrrounce t that under Director's Reports- the Commission would be asked to set a. date this evening for the Planning Commissioner's workshop. Chairman King presented a Resolution of Commendation to Councilman Dick Dahl. Councilman Dahl thanked the Commission hd stated that he felt that the City of Rancho Cucamonga had one of the finest Planning Commissions it the area. Further, that he felt the City was fortunate to have individuals litre the Commissioners wh were willing to volunteer their, time. in making this better City. I CONSENT CALENDAR A TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3 Cl VINEYARD NATIONAL r BANK B. TIME EXTENSION FOR lltl 0-0 - KAL AC Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, ",presented the Commission with a revised Resolution for Item A. Commissioner Stout asked what the correction was to the Resolution. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that the Resolution contained in the Commissioner's packets omitted a section of the original Resolution. As this section was referenced in the new Resolution, a new one had been preparBed Commissioner era Rempel stated that the new Resolution added item 2 in Section which required plans to be submitted prior to the expiration date, Motion: Moved; by Re rpel, seconded by Stout, unamiously carried to adopt the Consent Calendar Resolutions granting time extension for Conditional Use Permit 81-04 and DR;' d PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman King announced that item F, G, and H on this evening's agenda were requested to be continued by the applicants and that those items would be addressed first under public hearings to give those wishing to comment on those items an opportunity to do so F. ENVIROUMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE, d BR NE ohange of zone from A l (LimitedAgricultural) to R 1 (Single Family Residential) for .96 acres of land iodated on the southwest corner of Base Line and Ivy Line-- AP 1N 1 N1 Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL AP 7511 _-BROWN residential subdivision of .96 acres into 3 lots located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane in the 1 R 1 pending) zone - APN1770711 Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public heading was closed H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL SAP _ d ; BANK The division of 5 acres of land into 4 lots within the R 1 zone located approximately 0 ; feet north of Pane Line and, 660 feet west of East Avenue - APN r11 Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no co ent , therefore the public hearing was closed Planning Commision Minutes -2- August P , 1982 i 11 Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Stout, unamiously_:carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Zone Change d -CP to September 8, 1982. Motion: weed by Rem el, seconded by Parker, unamiously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7511 to September d, 1982. Motion: gyred by Re r el, seconded by Barker, una iousl carried , to continue Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 3383 to September 22, 1982. C. ENVIRUNMENTAL ASSESSMENT ; AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 C 7 WIL ON ' - A residential; subdivision of 19 lots on 6.9 acres of land it the R-1 ,CCC zone (R-1-10,0 C pending) located south of Banyan Street east of Archibald Avenue APN 201-251-63 and 64. hintrr -Rase Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report stating that this item was being brought back to the 'Commission per theirs request. Base stated, that the previous design called for a cul-de-sac street which would discontinue Banyan Street. After staff''s review, it waas -discovered that a ' General Plan amendment would be required to discontinue Banyan and that staff would be preparing an amendment for the Commission's review in the near future =m Bose stated that the applicant had revised his map in light of such an amendment. The applicant was also requesting that, should the General Plan be amended, he be allowed to redesign his tract back is its original design Commissioner Ramer stated that the possibility of using the Metropolitan Water District easement as an extension of Banyan had been suggested that the previous meeting, however was not mentioned in the report Bose replied that staff was still looking into this possibility along with several other options which mild be brought back to the Commission at, the time of the General Plan amendment analysis. Commissioner Barker stated that item 6 of the proposed Resolution was worded as if the General Plan amendment were approved to discontinue Banyan Street, this would be the only condition to allows the applicant to design the new street into a standard cul-de-sac. He further stated that if Banyan were continued through the Metropolitan Water District property, Mr. Wilson ,could stall come back with a proposal to return the new street to a cul-de-sac. Mr. Pose stated that if Banyan was not taken to the present location, it may o through the Metropolitan Water District property. Commissioner Barker asked if it world be possible to clarify the language of that condition to reflect that intention. Planning Commision Minutes - August 25, 1982 k Mr. Bose replied that the condition could be clarified. Chairman King asked if the Metropolitan Water District easement bordered and fronted the northern side of this tract. Mr. Bose replied that it did. Chairman King asked if staff had looked into the feasibiity of extending the street over the Metropolitan Water District easement. Mr. Bose replied that staff has not done an in-depth study of this, however felt that there would be some problems in extending the street over this easement. Mr. Bose stated that there was a spillway located at the portion of the basin where the street would be coming across that easement and that it would be a little difficult to build any kind of a bridge over a spillway. ,rhe second problem is that the area of Haven Avenue in question has already been given to the church project for parking purposes by the MWD and staff is not sure that a right-of-way in that area can be obtained. The third problem is that the existing Banyan Street and the proposed extension of Banyan would only have 100 feet between the two intersections, thus impacting traffic. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Jerry Wilson, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission stating that he saw some problems with the conditions of approval, however felt that they were items that could, be worked out with staff in a matter of days. Commissioner Barker asked if the dedicated easements allowed enough space for equestrian easements. Mr. Wilson replied that the applicant was already dedicating 14 feet along the project's east boundary to the Flood Control District for the construction of a channel. fie further stated that there were two designs under consideration, one being a rectangular channel which does not require a great deal of right-of-way then the 14 feet would not be necessary. However, if the dedication were needed, there would not< be any area left to dedicate. Commissioner Barker asked if that had been taken into consideration by Engineering. Mr. Bose replied the possibility of using the Flood Control easement also as an equestrian easement would be looked into. Commissioner Stout asked the applicant if he would still want to name the street Mandarin Street even though it aligned with Banyan Street if the General Plan was amended . Mr. Wilson replied that it would depend on if the City changed the name of Banyan east of the City . Planning Commision Minutes -4- August 25, 1982 Commissioner Stout replied that it seemed if the streets aligned, they should have the same nacre. Michael Vairin, Senior planner, stated that the naming of the streets does not occur until tentative crap approval is given , "These names were placed on the reap by Mr. Wilson, and subject to approval per the Street ;Naming Ordinance. Phil Draper, a property owner in the vicinity, of the project, addressed the Commission stating his main concern was not with the tract itself, but with the streets and flood control. He asked how the water was going to be handled coming out of the Mark: III tract above the project I Bose replied that 'there would be a pipe under the street that would"carry the water back to the channel. Draper stated that the water goes through Mr. Miller'a house when it floods now and he didn't see how a pipe could be installed that would be large enough to handle all the cater. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, Mated that the size and type of pipe would be determined through hydrology studies and if the; study shows that there is not a pipe large enough to handle the flora, other measures will be taken. "There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stilted that one of the criteria established in the Street Naming Ordinance was that 'there would not be streets that were off net and carried the same nave. Further, that if Banyan is carried north into the Metropolitan Water District easement, the street should definitely be named; Banyan Commissioner Barkers asked if there was any way Mr. Draper's concern could be directed to one of the staff to mitigate regarding the drainage of this property and if the property owners in that area would be notified of the results of the hydrology study . Jack Lain, Community Development ent Director, replied that if Mr. Draper would leave his name and telephone number with staff, they would notify him of the results of` the hyrdology study and also at that time he could"view the design of the project to see how it would affect his property. Mr. Lam further stated that all the drainage design details are dune at the design stage, which is after the studies are complete. Further, that the Conditions of Approval are worded so that the >applicant could not receive final approval of the project until he could show through hydrology studies that the drainage would be taken cane of. Motion, Moved by pem el, seconded by Stout, unar i,odaly carried to adopt the Resolution approving nvironment .l Assessment and Tentative Tract 10076. Planning ommiai.o r Minutes August 25, 1982 amok AYES* COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, ;Barker, McNiel,; ire NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None D. VARIANCE d k1 GARCIA request to reduce the required rear yard setbacks in order to construct a room addition it the 1-10,0041 zone located at 8621 Lemon Avenue - A N 1062-511-0 .; Rick Gomez , City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. In addition, Mr. Gomez presented the option of directing staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, which would maintain the rear, yard setback and open space, yet allow for additions to occupy maximum of approximatelY C of the rear yard Frith a minimum 5 foot setbacks. Mr. Gomez' stated that staff felt that the applicant's request could be adequately« addressed by this amendment along with other requests which right arise in the future. It was further recommended that the applicants withdraw their request, receive d refund of their fees, and return with their request after the 0 day time period Whicb would be required for the zoning amendment to take effect. Chairman King asked haw long it would take from tonight's date until the applicants would be ready to proceed on their project. Jack Lam, Community evelopment Director, replied that the modification to the Ordinance would be introduced to the Commission at their next meeting in two weeks. If the Commission approved the modification, it would be set for the City Council agenda for first reading in advance and there be set for the second reeding before the Council two weeks after that date. At that time, there would be a 30 day referendum period.. Mr. Lam further stated that the problem first came cap when the City Council modified the setbacks in several areas as d result of the General Plan in order to get an open rural feeling in; the City This modification in setbacks makes it very difficult for the residents in the existing areas' of the City to make additions in their structures. Staff was recommending n amendment to the Ordinance to allow the encroachment into the rear yard area as long as a certain ,percentage of open apace was retained Chairman King opened the public hearing' Linda Garcia , applicant, addressed the Commission n t ting that she and her husband had applied for and were granted a permit to construct the room addition two years age, however; financially had been unable to begin construction. When they applied for 'a new permit a month ago, they were informed that the requirements had changed and d variance would be necessary to complete the process.. Mrs. Garcia further stated that if they were to withdraw the request, there was no guarantee that the Ordinance would be approved and felt that too much time world be lost. Manning Commision Minutes d August 25, 1 1 Mr. Garcia addressed the Commission stating that the room addition had been carefully planned so that it would appears to be part of the house Further, that he was a teacher and planned to do most of the work himself; however, school, would be ' starting soon and if the � prd act` was delayed for another foray-fie days, he would be unable to do the work. Chairman King informed the applicants that in order for the Commission to grant a Variance, they must _ make certain findings, undue hardship for example.ple. e asked Mr. Garcia if he could indicate to the Commission heave he would be facing ; undue hardship or that he would be deprived of the normal privileges of his land Garcia stated that he had been informed that if someone in their area had constructed a room addition similar to what they were proposing, he would most likely be granted the Variance and there is a gentleman down the street from them who has constructed a room addition which is 15 feet from his back mall. Chairman King stated that he felt the Commission may be setting a precidernt unless they could find thecae conditions that would ;be necessary for granting the Variance. s. Garcia stated that she felt the main reason to grant the Variance "mould be that they had already been issued a permit for the construction two years ago and had based all of their ;planning on the fact that they already had a permit ; Commissioner Barker stated that he felt there was some confusion on what Gomez stated earlier in the Staff Report. Further, that he drove by the Carcias' property and knew', what they were talking about in terms of the lot configuration and ghat he thought Mr. Gomez had said was that ifthe applicants waited until the Ordinance was approved, they could ;keep the design they were now proposing. Mrs. Garcia replied that there was still no guarantee that the Ordinance 'would be approved and if itwasn't approved, they Mould have to again apply for a Variance and would be further delayed. Further, that since they had put in a pool and had already dug the footings for the room addition, he would at least like to pour° a concrete slab to keep all the dirt and debris is t of they pool. Richard ha, ell , a neighbors of the Carcias, stated that he felt that the Variance should be granted. He further stated that he had viewed the plans and felt that the addition was well designed and would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Another' neighbor of the Garc. as addressed the Commission stating that she also felt the variance .should be granted because the: state of the economy presently does not allow many people the ability to move to larger homes There were no further comments and the public hearing was classed. Planning Commision Minutes - august 25, 1982 Chairman King stated that he felt it should be made clear that no one was making comments that stated they felt that the Garcias should not construct their addition. The issue now was one of what is the most practical and consistent way of constructing the addition. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the City operates its zoning policies under special rules. Further, that zoning, setback, and size requirements of a zone were generally designed to apply in the City; however, when a hardship or extraordinary circumstance occurred, the Commission could grant a variance. He further stated that the Commission would have to find that something particular about this piece of property restricted it from adding on and made it different from any other property on the street. Mr. Hopson also stated that simply because you didn't like the way the setback ordinance works doesn't mean that a variance could be granted. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that there was a difference of opinion in that area , however, felt that the setback ordinace was not intended to apply to houses built prior to the Code. Further, that the Design Review Committee should look closely at the staggered setbacks in new developments as they may be precluding property, owners from adding on to their homes in the future. Chairman King stated that he felt that there could be a sufficient factual basis for granting the variance in this ease and at the same time recommend the drafting of the ordinance. Commissioner Rempel stated that the earliest that the Garcias would be able to start construction would be November 1 and this is a special circumstance in that they had already been granted a permit for construction. Further, that the finding could be based on the fact that if two or three other property owners in the area have been allowed to encroach into the required rear yard area, the Garcias were being denied the privilege of doing the same. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the finding should be based on the lot depth being slightly smaller than the others. Chairman King stated that if approval of the variance was to be given, the Resolution would have to state that not granting the variance would cause an undue hardship that is inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which dictate that the variance should be granted, the strict enforcement would deprive the owners of this specific property of privileges shared by other property owners within the same zone, and basically that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Chairman King called for the motion. Planning Commision Minutes -8- August 25, 1982 Commissioner Stout stated that he would make the motion with the inclusion that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect in any material way the General Plan or its objectives as he felt that it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. Motion seconded by Barker, carried unamiously, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 82-02. It was also the consensus of the Commission that staff begin preparation of a Zoning Ordinance amendment. 8:05 - Planning Commission Recessed Planning Commission Reconvened E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-15 - MANNELLA - The establishment of an arcade in the -6-1 one to be located at 6652 Carnelian in the Rancho Plaza Shopping Center. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff Report, stating that staff was recommending the rewording of Condition 10 to read "two parking stalls adjacent to the arcade shall be striped 'For Bicycle Parking Only' and be provided with security bicycle ranks to the satisfaction of the City Planner." Chairman King opened the public hearing. Joseph Mannella, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he would like to see changes to Conditions 1 , 4, and 13 of the Resolution. fie stated that he opened his other business at 10 a.m. during school last year and did not allow kids under 18 in until after school hours. In regard to Condition 4, he preferred to have one restroom only for control purposes and that anyone needing the key would have to ask for it, thus giving him better control of the situation. He felt that Condition 13 was a negative statement and that people may think that a problem of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol already existed. Chairman King asked the applicant if he was suggesting that the last sentence of the condition stating that a sign be posted be eliminated. Mr. Mannella replied that, he would see that the condition be strictly enforced , however did not feel that it needed to be broadcast by signing it. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz , addressed the Commission stating that he felt that the Boar's Head customers and the customers of the arcade were not going to mix without some problems. His concern was that the Boar's Head customers and the condition they are in when leaving the establishement was going to cause some child to be hurt when patronizing the arcade. Ke rnethr Fawlkes, representing Pomona First Federal Savings, addressed the Commission stating that he was opposing the arcade based on problems in other Planning Commision Minutes -9- August 25, 1982 areas where arcades, exist. The problems of vagrancy, litter, disrespect for landscaping and signs, and the concern over the mix of the crowds from the Boar's Head and the arcade were the main reasons for the opposition. fie farther stated that he visited Jd's Arcade on Foothill Boulevard and felt that it was an exception to other arcades in that it was clean, :orderly, and very well runMr. Fawlkes asked who could appeal a ill' Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that anyone could appeal a CUP or bring violations of the Conditions of Approval to the attention of the City and it would be brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fawlkes stated that for various reasons he would rather not have an arcade located in the center, however after visiting Mr. l nnelIn's other arcade, would certainly feel more at ease raving his arcade there than many others Lynn Reeder, 8528 Hamilton, addressed, the Commission stating that he is employed as a police officer r in a neighboring city and his opinions were based on both his work experience and views As a private citizen. His concern was that officers would be required to spend more time policing the arcade area, taking array patrol time from other areas of the City. Bonnie Worell, 6635 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that she was opposed to the arcade because it would increase traffic , noise litter, and crime in her neighborhood. Edith llarthol.e e , 5999 Napa Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she was opposed to the arcade dire to the close proximity to the schools. Dale Adams addressed the Commission stating that the lived approximately three miles from the shopping center and was opposed to the arcade in that location. Farther, that she preferred that her children gel the arcade at the mall where she could control who they were with and how long they stayed there. She also stated that she was afraid that the arcade would attract gangs and her fami.ly's safety would be jeopardized. Roberta Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that she felt that the crowds from the arcade and theBoar's head customers should not be mixed together. Further, that the noise from the two establishments would create a disturbance for the nearby residents Doug Hone, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that he was one of the ;shopping center owners and had turned down a hundred red arcade operators wishing to locate in their center. Mr. Mannell..a was selected by the center because he has proven himself to not be a hindrance to other businesses around hire and has run an establishment which has not created a disturbance. Chairman King asked her. Mannella if he felt that there would be any problems with the traffic from the Boar's head and the bicycle traffic from the arcade. Planning Commision Minutes 1 - August 25, 1982 I . Vannella replied that the bicycle- traffic was wAinly from P p.m to 5 p.r and didn't feel that there would be a compatibility problem since the Boar 's Head traffic would probably pick up after that time. Commissioner McNiel risked Mr. Mannella if he had contacted the adjacent business owners in the center. Mr. Mannella replied that he writ a :Letter to each of the adjacent business coverers Darr Colemn, Associate Planner, staters that stuff writ a letter to each of the businesses and Pomona First Federal was the onlyF one to contact staff. There were no further comments and the public hearing was chased. Commissioner taut asked if this CLIP was personal to Mr. Mannella. Michael 1f irin, Senior Planner, stated that it was not Commissioner Stout stated that he felt it should be because it was well known that Mr. Mannella Tarr one of the better types of arcades ;and felt that one of the raceme he would be in favor of this project was based on how he ran his business, Additionally, the parking list should be posted Frith eau LoiteringO signs to help enforcement by the Sheriff's Department . Further, that the rear exit should be marked as a - fire exit rarely and not be allowed for ingress and egress. Commissioner Strain stated that he did; not feel comfortable with the operating Figure beginning immediately after dismissal from school and felt that it should be established that the arcade would, begin operation one hour after chool dismissal to encourage children to go home. Commissioner Rempel stated that with regard to Condition ll of the Resolution he definitely felt there should be two restrooms in the facility and; that; they could still be controlled with a key,. He further stated that with raged to the requirement of the sign he felt that it would be for Mr. Hennella's own protection to have that sign pasted due to the close proximity of the Boar's Thad. Additionally, that, it aright be "butter to have the Commission review the CUP in twelve months rather than eighteens . Chairman King stated that he felt there were two basic issues; one being the granting of the CUP and if that is accomplished , what conditions should be imposed. Further, that there were some real concerns over the integration of the patrons of the arcade and the patrons of the Boar's Head. He t7ur°th r stated that after weighing the issues and listening to the applicant, he felt that granting the CHIP would be appropriate ; however, dial not feel that the arcade should be allowed to operate during school hours and that arsine words could be deleted from condi ,i.,.an two oaf. the Resolution making the arcade closed during school hours and no one under > 18 allowed after curfew. Chairman King also stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hempel on the issue of the public re trcaoms, and also on the issue of review by the Planning Commission in Planning Ccammision Minutes 11 August 25, 1982 twelve months (or even six months) would be appropriate. Also, that he agreed with Commissioner, Stout on the posting of the "No Loitering" signs in the parking lot, the ingress and ogress on the rear trait, and the fact that the Resolution was personal, to Mr. Mannella. However, could not see the practical enforcement of n condition not allowing children in until one hour after school is dismissed. With these conditions imposed ed on the CUP, he felt that it mould be appropriate to grant the CUP and review it in six to twelve months to take more public input to see if the conditions need to be strengthened or if the CUP should be ro ok d. Commissioner McNiel stated tfrd.t most of the objections heard, this evening were based on moral grounds and it is very difficult to legislate morality. Further, that the Commission has denied arcades in the pant for various reasons. He stated that arcades are good for the community in that they keep some active kids from getting active in places where> they shouldn't. Commissioner McNiel- also stated that with the conditions_ set forth in the Resolution and the suggested conditions by Commissioners Stout and kn p l he was not opposed to granting the CUP Commissioner Barker stated that it seemed something happened in the transition of the numbers in condition three and that the ranges should be expanded. He also stated that he had a concern over the compatibility of an arcade with other uses, but if enough conditions were imposed , it would at least- test to see if they were compatible with anything. He asked how the appeal, process for it CUP works Dow Coleumn, Associate Planner, stated that ;anyone it the general public can appeal a CUP and request suspension. That request would be scheduled for hearing before the; Planning Commmission, at which time they could attach additional conditions, revise the conditions, or revoke the permit. This decision could be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Banker asked if that would be in addition to the time not by the Planning Commission for revie of the CUP. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that condition; fifteen of the Resolution established a twelve ronth review period for their review; however, if there were reasons to review the permit before that time, it would be scheduled for public hearing. Chairman King reopened the public hearing. Mrs. Bartholemew addressed the Commission stating that she dial not feel that the notification of people 300 feet from the project was sufficient and that more people should have been notified . Chairman king replied that the requirement by law is that public hearing items must be noticed within 300 feet of a project area ;and that Mrs* Barthalemew i correct that people outside of those boundaries are also affected ; however, in Planning Corrrriion Minutes 1 - August 25, 1982 practicality, the City would go brake if it noticed r in the City that an arcade was being proposed in the shopping center. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated " the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days and that by law,' the only requirement regarding legal noticing is publication its the newspaper. Mr. Futrell addressed the Commission stating that he was still very concerned over the compatibility between the Boar's Head customers and the arcade customers. i Bonnie Worell addressed the Commission asing how the residents could appeal l the decision of the Planning Commission. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, replied that a letter, should b written to the City Clerk's office at the City stating why the residents were requesting an appeal. This would need to be accompanied ; y a filing fee and submitted within fourteen days of this meeting. The item would than be set on the City Council agenda for review. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner tout asked if the intent was to strike condition one of the Resolution. Chairman King replied that he felt that condition one should remain and that condition two should be rewarded to read "N parents under 18 years of age may crater beyond or, remain in any part of' the game arcade after curfew." Further, that it should be closed during school hours. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the two conditions were inconsistent. Commissioner, Stout stated that he could not see a problem its adultsbeing able to use the arcade during the hours school in in session, therefore disagreed with condition one f the Resolution. Commissioner Barker stated that he agreed .with Commissioners McNiel and Stout on this issue. Chairman King asked if the Commission concurred with the addition of two r e trraoms under condition four. Commissioner. Stout stated that he felt users should be two restrooms and that they should be keyed. Chairman King asked for discussion can condition thirteen regarding the posting of the sign. Planning Connision Minutes 1 August 25, 1982 Commissioner Hempel stated he felt that the condition should stay because it would give Mr. Mannella and the Sheriffs Department better control. Motion: Moved; by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried rrrramiou ly to adapt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82-15 with the following added conditions: The CUP is personal to Joseph Mannella, Ord Loitering" signs shall be posted in the parking lot, no ingress and egress allowed at the rear exit;, review by the Planning ommiaalo r in six months, and the rewording of condition. tern as proposed by staff. f AYES: s OWISSI l d . Stout, Re pel, Barker, WNiel, King NOES:: COMMISSIONERS Norse ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Norge : 0 Planning nin Commission Recessed 9®4 Planning Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12LIZ WOODLAND PACIFIC - A custom Iran residential development of 56 late on 55.94 acres, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside in the R 1-20;d d zone P 1-091 , 16, 17, 23, 30, 36 and 38. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff" Report. Chairman King asked the_applicant if he would prefer that he riot be involved in the review of this project Richard Scott, applloaant, replied that he did not object to Chairman Kings review of the project. Commissioner Stout asked if ;staff could review some of the history of this project. Michael y irin, Sesilica Planner, stated that the applicant has filed a tract map for the entire area however, the tract before the Commission tonight is only for the east half.. The other tract map is still active and sander review. The current btatus of that application is that the applicant is required to do a Bill EIR if he wishes to proceed with the project. Commissioner Stout arcked what the basic differences are between the two tracts. Planning Co doss Minutes 1 August 25,', 1982 Mr. Vairin replied that the basic difference, is that the other tract was proposed at dwelling unit per acre density, planned community approach with smaller lots Chairman King asked if what staff was 'requiring ;of the Commission this evening was to decide if a study needs to be done and if so, the detail of the study along with feedback in terms of the layout of the lots MMr airirr replied that this was the direction staff was seeking. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Richard Scott, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he was not it substantial disagreement with staf'f 's recommendation for an expanded Initial Study ; however, wished to share some thoughts and ideas with the Commission with regard to the ultimate laird use. He stated that one :section of the resort indicated that the Planning Commission would review alternate designs and he would not like is spend the additional time and money in the preparation of additional reports and studies to a suit particular ;clan then have someone not like that design. Further, he would like the Commission to begin reviewing the lot configurations and street patterns. fie also stated that there are some constaints on the development of; the property it terms of phasing and economics. Mr. Scott further stated ,that Carrari Street was selected as the most logical extension in that it related to the established" pattern of water service and it allows the entire project to be within the. confines of the project with the trees on it. also, that this design was one which he and his engineers felt would least impact the areas addressed b staff" in that it had the minimum amount of streets to cut and grade and could be willing to stipulate in the C R's that the lots be built without,. significant lot grade Also, the applicant would like to leave as many treed as possible; however, would be amenable to review by the Planning Department; and Fire District as to which trees should remain and which should be removed Chairman King stated that he had 'envisioned the development in that area, to be one of a mixture of zero lot lire, half" acre, and one and a half acre lots, rural in character, and a little less structured of a: pattern. n Scott replied that his staff had given a great deal of time and did a. number of studies to some sophisticated planned community type projects in the past and made a number of submissions, both officially and unofficially, during the time of the General flan hearings, however could not giro either Planning Commission or City Council approval. Further, that he was not totall.y objective to a slight revision in land use concept; however, would simply like to sell the lots and not have to build any more houses. Commissioner Rempol asked if theme would be a way for the applicant to bring some of the country road pattern concept from the original planned community into this development Planning Co r ision Minutes -1August 25, 1982 Mr. Scott replied that he would be agreeable to look into this, however recalled that those streets were private streets and the comments received at the time they were proposed indicated that it would have a significant impact on grading and aesthetics Commissioner Rempel stated that it might be possible to use some of the original concepts as first proposed, then tale the lot ,lines off of that. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, addressed the Commission stating that there are innumerable ways to design this subdivision, however there is a problem of whether the streets are public or private and whether common ownership lanes are used or not. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to be able to sit down with the applicant and his engineers to discuss some alternative street designs and lot configurations. Chairman King agreed with this idea, , however felt that the Design Review Committee should be included in the meeting It was the consensus of the PlanningCommission that the applicant required to do an expanded Initial Study as proposed by staff and that a meeting would e arranged between the applicant, his engineers, and the Design Review Committee to discuss street patterns and lot;configurations. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. PLANNING COMMISSION CC Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the report and requested a date be selected for the workshop. It was the consensus of. the Commission that the Planning Commission Workshop be held on Saturday, September 18, 1982, at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Lime Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved' by Rempel, seconded by Barker, una aioiu ly carried, to adjourn. 10r40 Planning Commission Adjourned Planning Commision Minutes 1 August 25, 1982 Respectfully sub 't JACK LA Secretary Planning i ion Minutes August 25, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 11, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. He then led in the pledge of alle- giance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community;'Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stout requested that the last paragraph of page 2 of the Minutes of July 28, 1982 be corrected to read. . ."if the overall density of the project did not average 1.2 acres per lot, he would be". . . Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of July 28, 1982 with the correction as noted. Chairman King abstained because he was not present at the July 28 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman King stated that Peter Tolstoy is unable to be in attendance to accept the Commendation Resolution; however, the Planning Commission unani- mously adopted it so that it could be presented to him at a later time. Chairman King asked that staff prepare a commendation Resolution for former Planning Commissioner, Richard Dahl, for presentation at the next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to approve the Consent Calendar. At= TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 80-12 - GALA FELLOWSHIP Chairman King voted no on this i t em because he does not believe this to be an appropriate use for the area. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. NVIRI F TAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - P - LEDERMANN - The oprnent square foot preschool facility on .98 acres of land in the A-1 zone (Limited Agriculture) located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Turner Avenue - APN 1077-27 - . Assistant Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King asked how far to the south the wrought iron fence on the west side of the playgroud extended in relation to the proposed building r°. Johnston pointed to the proposed ending point and provided ;the Commission with an illustration of how the fence would look. Chairman King asked if there would be any supervision problems because of the, fence. ; 9r. Johnston replied that there would not Further, that in front of the fence there will be shrubbery and provided the Commission with a conceptual illustration of the landscaping.' Commissioner Stout asked if it were true that on the northern edge of the project the grade is much higher than with the adjacent uses. r. Johnston replied that the proposed project is eight feet lower than the adjacent lots. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any thought given to the project so< that you would be; unable to see into the back yards adjacent to it r. Johnston replied that when the project was first submitted staff felt that this was an unsightly problem. Further, that the solution would be for the developer to build a retaining wall and on top of it a six-foot high rear yard fence would be built by the homeowners. However, because of the cost to the property owners, that solution was dropped. Commissioner Stout asked if the proposed landscaping would screen out the rear yards Rick Gomez, City planner, stated that this is a conceptual plan and screening of the rear yards will ,be taken care of at a. later time. r. Johnston stated that the proposed landscaping to the south would be euca- lyptus with ground corer and shrubs, Chairman King opened the public hearing. Planning Commission 'Minutes - - August 11, 1982 Mr. Ken Ledermann, architect and agent for the applicant, concurred with the staff report. He stated that the owner has two concerns, one dealing with the> cost of removal of the existing palm trees as indicated in Section 3, Item g of the Resolution. The other concern is the idea of shade trees in ;the play- ground as expressed in Item 6 of the Resolution and their cost. Further concern was ;expressed on the possibility of liability should children play in the trees and fall out of them. Mr. Ledermann indicated that shade structures would be installed which would lessen, the exposure to liability. Mr. Ledermann indicated that the owners of the property intend to put in a standard wall of some kind. Commissioner Stout stated that the land behind this property is 6-8 feet high and would be level at the end of the property. He indicated that the wall will not provide privacy for either the property owners in the back or for the children in the playground Mr. Ledermann stated that there is a requirement to replace the eucalyptus trees which would' provide some screening, ; He indicated that they are thinking' of a six-foot high screening wall . Commissioner Stout stated that if sufficient trees are planted they will provide some privacy and this is just an illustrative plan. He indicated however that the line of 51 ht is such that with the grade differential at the school there; will be full view into the rear yards; and, if people do not take care of their yards, it will be unsightly. He stated he had concern for the noise level created by the school children and screening would help to keep noise down Commissioner Barker asked of it is the contention of theowner that shade equipment is better than trees. Mr. Ledermann replied affirmatively, stating that there are guarantees with I the equipment whereas there is no guarantee with trees. Commissioner Barker stated that the odds are that the children will be hurt on the platy equipment. Mr. Ledermann replied that Commissioner Barker is right, but they are trying to reduce the odds. He also talked about the grounds and the bark they would use under the equipment to cushion any fall's the children might have. Commissioner Stout asked what the age group of the children would be. Mr. Ledermann replied they would;be from 2-12 years of age;. An after school program would be provided for the older children. Mr. Ledermann then asked if it would be possible for the Commission to recess for a few minutes in order for hire to discuss something that had just. Borne up with the owner of the ;property. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August '11, 1982 7*2 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 7: 7 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Mrs. Ledermann stated that one general issue under consideration is the cost of this school as it will be the most expensive of any established by this firm. He indicated that the cost evaluation is; so serious that it may preclude the building of this facility on the property. Mrs. Roth Cowan, 10 g Yew Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked whether a fain-way stop would be provided at the corner and ghat noise levels could be expected. Commissioner Stout stated that a; problem would be created if there are a ,lot of cars; corning in and out of the parking lot and he asked how many children would be enrolled in the school during the day and after school. r. Gomez replied that only a two-way stop is warranted here; however, another study could be done after the school is in operation to see if a four-way stop would be appropriate. In response to Mr. Stout's question, Cyr. Ledermann stated that the school would be in operation from 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. He stated 'the tires that the playgrounds would be used in the morning and afternoon and that the maximum number of children at the school at any one time would be 220. Where being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated for clarification that the Design Review Committee had indicated that as many palm trees as were possible and feasible were to be saved and not that all: were to be saved. Further, that since this is a conceptual design and not the final, it would not have the detail at this stage. Commissioner Rempel stated that landscaping in front of the block' wall would be of the type that should bush out and be approximately six-feet high* Commissioner Rempel stated that one thing the Planning Commission has tried to o is try to provide the type of service that benefits the community and he stated that the facility proposed which would be located in a residential area fulfills that intent. ' He indicated that the design of the school fits the neighborhood and further, that he felt that: perhaps the Commission goes too far when they tell the applicant to add specific equipment to the playground. He indicated that what they are taring to do is to make the community loaf good and have services that fit into the existing community. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would be willing to accept that the Commis- sion should not demand trees in the playground area if the applicant really does not want them there. Further, in public school playgrounds you will not find trees Chairman Sing stated that he would concur if a goad faith effort is grade to move and preserve the existing palm trees and to provide landscape Planning Commission Minutes - - August 11, 1982 r buffering. He stated that he sees no reason for trees for the provision of shade_ Commissioner McN el asked why the preschool will accept children up to the age of 12 years. Mr. Ledermann stated that there is a reed for after school care for children of that age and they provide an afterschool program. Commissioner Stout stated that this is a good use for this site which will benefit the community and he was happy to see i . Motion: Moved by Rev el, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-77 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82-12 and issuing a negative declaration with the provision that a good faith` effort be made to grove and preserve the existing palm gees and that shade trees not be required in the play area. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE81 04 W L ON - A charge of .zone rum , ing e amp y e enta C, square foot lot minimums to R-1 1C,CCC Ingle family Residential - 10,000 square foot lot mini Banyan Street, oast of Archibald Avenue A N 01- 1- 4 City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if any of the homes in the -4 dwelling units per acre which were outside of the 0-foot area were notified of this proposed zone change Mr. Gomez replied that only homeowners within the CC-foot radius had been notified® Mr. Barker stated; that this is one of those instances where property owners just outside of the required area should have been notified because ;of the proposed density change to the adjacent property. He indicated that this is horse property where currently there are two existing trails and adjacent property owners should have been notified so that this could be taken into consideration Mr. Hopson stated that the rules for notification are applied uniformly and under the statute only those property owners within a U -foot radius roust be notified. He indicated that the City requires the developer to furnish labels so that this procedure can take glace, and if the CC-foot radius were not set, it could mean that property owners within a 600-foot or CC-foot radius would have to be notified Planning Commission Minutes -5-, August 11, 1982 f Commissioner Barker stated that this is somewhat the same discussion that the Commission had before, but the point still, remained that some people were on vacation and did ;not receive notification. Further, that the property below did not receive any notice and what is being proposed is an increase in .zoning which could have an effect on that property and its use Commissioner Stoat asked if this property would include improvements to the Alta Loma Channel, and what kind of channel this would be. . Cortez replied that this would be a trapezoidal channel . Mr. Bose replied that the major consideration is that this be some type of concrete channel if Banyan were to be: extended. Further, there would be driveways fronting on the street and there would not be high traffic volume. Commissioner Stout stated that the City went through a great deal of trouble to straighten Amethyst out and there is a lot of traffic through there. He asked if some type of traffic survey had been dune. Mr. Bose indicated that a study had been dune at the time the General Plan was being considered and the plan for traffic is to extend Wilson to Carnelian which will ultimately take traffic array from Banyan. Commissioner Stout indicated that he was partial to Banyan and therehas been a large effort rude to make it a good street across the city. He indicated that he was concerned with traffic that mould be funneled down to Lemon. Mr. Bose explained the reason for directing traffic in that manner. Commissioner Barker asked if the Alta Loma channel is the trail that is to go south to Santa Fe and contact Cucamonga creek as far as the trail system is concerned Commissioner pernpel stated that Alta Lora Channel dumps into Hermosa and that there would be right of way on both sides of the channel. Commissioner Barker asked if it is known what access will be available from the Water District and if the trail will be north or east and west. Mr. Gomez stated that the connection can be in the street right of way and that the tra il is to go in a southerly direction; however, the enact location has not yet been determined Chairman King asked MrHopson how the fact that an elementary school had previously been shown on this site would affect the zoning of this property. Mr. Hopson replied that the elementary school had been shown as an option and that the fact that this had been shorn on the General Plan, does not mean, that it would carry the General Plan designation on this property, He indicated Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 11, 1982 that the density is low and medium and any one of several categories could fit on this site. Chairman King opened the public hearing and requested that public comment be restricted to whether zoning of R-1-10,000-15,000, or 7,200 was appropriate. Mr. Jerry Wilson, 387 N. Second Street, Upland, representing the applicant stated that he agreed with staff's recommendations and thought that the zoning they have requested is appropriate in light of the General Plan designation for the area. He indicated that equestrian trails can be accommodated in the right of way on the east side of the property and they would qualify that depending on whether the Flood Control District would allow use of the easement. He indicated further that if this is a condition of the map, then they would be happy to grant the easement either to the Flood Control District or to the City for the equestrian easement. Chairman King asked if there were any comments from the public as it relates to zoning. There being none he asked if there were any comments from the Commission on the same subject. Commissioner Barker stated that the property to the southwest is horse property. He further stated his concern that when looking at the map, the property to the west fronting onto Archibald and the property to the south might be surprised if the properties went to 10,000 or less. He indicated that for the property owners who have been here for a longer period of time, and who purchased the larger pieces, they no longer have around them property like theirs and eventually the area will no longer be compatible. He indicated that this would be the case even if access were to be allowed. He raised concern with the fact that there is no practical buffering between these properties. He indicated that because of the impact this zoning would have on the lifestyle and trails in the area he is not in favor of increasing the density of this piece of property. Commissioner Rempel stated that having sat on the Planning Commission for the last four and a half years, one of the things that has always been brought up is that a dividing line is needed in order to protect the equestrian area from the rest of the City. He indicated that the dividing line would be Banyan and nothing south of there would be protected. Further, the area north of there would be totally protected. He indicated that this was the assumption of both the Planning Commission and the City Council . Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been no comments from the adjacent property owners when they spoke of zoning going to 10,000 and 15,000 square foot lots during the General Plan hearings. He indicated that if the Commission says that the zoning should remain where it is, they are saying that anything below the arbitrary line should go the same route, and it is really not the best to say that. He indicated that there are a lot of people in the equestrian area who say they do not want horses. Further, that it is not necessarily true that the lots on the southwest corner are large lots and that they will be divided off, because they already have been. He indicated that the Planning Commission and City Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 11, 1982 Council have gone a long way, and more than any other City, to develop are equestrian system. He indicated that this should be looked at: from a practical standpoint because of the improvements necessary to build out the Alta Loma channel simply because when you start to divide larger lots the cost becomes prohibitive. Commissioner Barker indicated that the property owners to the south had not received any notice of; this zone change. He asked if the Commission is talking about Banyan being a dividing lino and asked what kind of protection can be given to the people on the southwest corner so that they are not boxed , out if the project comes in Commissioner Rempel stated that this would be done through the General Plan because they have one-half acre lots and through the zoning. Chairman ling stated that the only comment he has is that he is uncomfortable with 10,00 square foot lots. He indicated that he would prefer 15,000. He further' stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempol on some of the points he grade. He asked the Commission if there' is consensus on the discussion relative to the size of the lots before they go any further. Commissioner Barker asked Chairman King what he was saying abort the 15,000 square foot lots. Chairman King stated that if it were his choice he would Pike to see 15,000 square foot lots but he did not feel that 20,000 square foot lots were appropriate. He indicated that if it was a choice between 20,0 C and 10,000 square foot 'lots, he would choose 10, 100. Mr. tarp stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows horses on a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Mr® Gomez stated that when the previous zoning change was rude 'there was not a gradation and it would in essence mean that the lots would go from 20,000 to 10,000. Chairman King stated that knowing that Banyan is a kind of dividing line, it world seem that there is some type of gradation. He indicated that if the Commission continues with that kind of approach it would be better if they went with 15,000. Commissioner Rempol stated that the Planning Commission has said it before and it will say it again that there will be no problem protecting the people with equestrian property and that they will have access and can use the trails there. He indicated that this City has committed itself to protecting equestrian rights, in the City. Commissioner Stout asked what the lot sizes are on the other side of Alta; om Channel . Planning Commission Minutes _d- August 11, 1982 Commissioner Rempel stated that they are 8,500 square feet,. Commissioner McNiel stated that the question before the Commission is whether this should be R-1-20000 or R-1-10,000 and whether there should be a zone change. He did not feel that the question of whether this should be R-1- 15,000 was relevant. Mr. Hopson indicated that this could be relevant and indicated that the Commission must make a zone change even though it may be consistent with the General Plan Designation and also does not have significant impacts on the surrounding property and environment and you might say that there are other designations that are allowable that will have no impact. Commissioner Stout stated that 10,000 square foot lots was all right with him. Commissioner McNiel stated that the property owner should ponder an alternative request to the zone change. He indicated his concurrence with the comments made by Chairman King. Commissioner Rempel stated that there are two things that the Commission must recognize when it is debating a project: one is the cost of money in this day and age when you request an applicant to come back for a decision in 60-90 days. The other is that if a piece of property is within a certain area in the City that there is a demand for a certain lot size. He indicated that when a certain lot size is demanded, you are saying that a certain price must be paid for that property. What you are saying is unless you can afford $150,000 for a home and if you only have $90,000, you can't live here. Mr. Wilson stated that he had been doing some calculations while the Commission has been talking about this project and at today's prices it would cost approximately $200 a foot for the channel improvements. He indicated that if over 600 feet of improvements are required it would be economically infeasible for the property owner to go ahead if this is 15,000 or 20,000 square feet. He indicated that the equestrian use will continue until the property owners decide they no longer want horses in this subdivision. Chairman King asked for a vote on the zone change. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, that Resolution No. 82- 78, Zone Change 81-04, be adopted establishing a change of zone from R-1- 20,000 to R-1-10,000, and that a negative declaration be issued. Commissioner Barker voted no because of his concern that no gradual reduction in zoning is taking place and his further concern that this will eventually impact on those properties to the southwest of this proposed subdivision. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any indication on what the extension of the bridge would cost if there is a rectangular box culvert. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 11, 1982 Mr. Bose replied that at present there are no cost figures, but that it would be cheaper with a box culvert. Commissioner Stout asked with respect to the alignment with Banyan at Mandarin, what effect would it have on traffic flow if it were connected to Mandarin and then went on to Banyan. Mr. Bose replied that it would not reduce traffic, all it would do is slow it ; down.__ Commissioner pempl stated that the offset at Turner would cause considerable problems if ,you wanted to put traffic through there. He indicated that Banyan does not cross on a straight line as ' t is an offset. r. Bose replied that it is only offset by a fern feet. Mr. Bose stated that the City is studying this to see if it can be realigned N Commissioner Pempol stated that he has been talking to some people who live there and they do not want Banyan to go through with their need to back into the street. Mr. Barker stated that because of the cul-de-sac on lot 72 there is nothing that the City is limiting its future options Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Wilson stated that they have been redesigning this property since the City"s incorporation. He indicated that this tract had been submitted when this area was the County and it did not get past the old Land Division Committee. He indicated that one of the exhibits shows the construction of Banyan Street which was designed to tie across.; He further indicated that Associated Engineers and Mark III cage to them and requested a drainage easement within the future Banyan Street right of way. Further, they constructed improvements to approximately the licit shown there so there is a partially improved and constructed street. Be indicated that if there is discussion to extend Banyan that would be the best point. He indicated that the playa they have submitted is in the City°s and their best interest and requested that the Planning Commission approve the design as shown. Cr anokvechayant an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and requested some time to speak to Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Marie Pollack, who owns a piece of property to the west, spoke of density and stated she did not know why Banyan curves through the Municipal Water District easement instead of going straight to the east. Mr. Hopson stated that if there is an existing house constructed on lot 1 just where Banyan curves down, the street alignment is cast in concrete without a condemnation action by the City. This is, assuming that whoever owns the land Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 11, '1982 would not give the City the easement to have Banyan go straight across. He stated that this is a backward way of saying that if that tract was approved, it was locked into the street alignment without exercising the City's ability to condemn the house that was built on the lot when the street was jogged down. Mrs. Pollack stated that she had always anticipated that Banyan would go through and asked if there wasn't some way to get rid of the house. She asked if the City could exercise its power of eminent domain. Mr. Hopson stated that that requires City money to be spent which it presently does not have to spend and would be within the City' power to condemn. He added that there may be a problem with joining. Mrs. Pollack stated that the house that is there is very sub-standard and could not last long anyway. Mr. Hopson stated that Mrs. Pollack must be talking about another house. After discussion, it was clarified that Mrs. Pollack was mistaken about the location of the house she had been referring to. Mr. Joe DiIorio, R.C. Land Co., stated that he was involved in the Foothill Community Plan and indicated that this happens to come down from Highland Avenue. He further indicated that he has gone through this with Lloyd Hubbs and Banyan has been shown to connect in the General Plan. He indicated that it would be relatively easy to connect Banyan at Milliken with a bridge going over the flood control channel. Mr. DiIorio stated that there is an alterna- tive and that would be to use the MWD right of way. Although it looks expen- sive, he did not feel that any property would have to be condemned. He felt that by extending Banyan it would solve the traffic problem and would be in keeping with the General Plan. Dr. Kanokvechayant stated that after talking to Mr. Wilson, she has changed her mind about protesting this tentative tract. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he did not feel the City should foreclose the possiblity of Banyan going straight across even if it is on the Metropolitan Water District right of way. He further stated that the only thing he would be concerned about is whether the right of way meets at Haven and the effect it would have on the extension across Haven south of Chaffey College. Chairman King stated that this is premature and should come back with some exploration of through access. Commissioner Stout felt that the Commission should explore the options. Mr. Lam stated that staff will bring back an analysis to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1982 r6 Hopson stated that; generally state law sets up time periods on hoer long a public body has to approve a tentative tract map without the plicant"s consent to postpone action on the project. He instructed th '':e fission to approve or deny the project because of the 50-day time period" involved in the processing. Commissioner Stout stated that Mr. gilorio had brought up a point relative to the General Plan and asked if this would require an amendment to the General Plan since a street is being discontinued. r. Hopson stated that Mr. Cilorio is correct if it recommends a change to the master plan of streets in the General Plan; however, he does not know if this is the case* He stated that without the applicant's consent this project must either be approved or denied. Commissioner Barker asked if this project is denied, could the applicant 'come back Mr. Hopson replied that the applicant could come back almost immediately and that is why when an applicant is faced with the prospect of denial, they agree to a postponement Chairman King reopened the public hearing r. Wilson asked for a; two week continuance of his project. The public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that this is not the type of issue which can be dealt with in two weeks. He indicated that this will be continued and perhaps within that time some options will be clear. Motion;' loved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to continue Tentative Tract No. 10 for a two week period.; : C p.m . The Planning; Commission recessed 8:5 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened E. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY - LEWISDEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request for reconsideration of several land use issues; location of the City Park, the size and nature of the Community Commercial Center, and the location of neighborhood shopping centers. Rick Comet, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, stating that three issues would be discussed. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 11, 198 Chairman King asked in terms of best usable park space, what Mr. Holley's opinion is of the two options provided to the Commission. Mr. Holley replied that the recommendation of staff is that the original site be retained between Deer Creek and Milliken. He further indicated that at a prior meeting there was concern that the original selection would not be able to be laid out. He stated that together with Gruen and Associates and the Lewis Development Company they had prepared a conceptual plan for the divided park space but it is staff's opinion that the original site is the better of the two. Chairman King asked that assuming the City goes on the west side of the channel, how many active ball fields would result from the configuration and looking at the south side of Base Line how much space becomes unusable as a result of the configuration of property. Mr. Holley stated that when you are looking at either park site to the east or west, a balance must be planned in for passive and active activities. He further stated that this would best be achieved by locating the sports facili- ties in the west plan and utilizing the south side of picnic facilities. He indicated that there, is a one-third passive area in both plans. Chairman King stated that regardless of on what side the channel is you would have the same amount of active play area at either site. Mr. Holley replied that basically that is true but that you have a greater distance away, up to 2000 feet from the southern end of the triangle. He further stated that Gruen and Associates also prepared graphics of a small area of Lions Park to give the Commission the scale and scope of the project that they are looking at. Chairman King asked in terms of cost of improvements would it make any differ- ence if the park were to go in on the east or west side. Mr. Holley replied yes - that there are trade-offs on both sides. He provided the differences that would be encountered on both the east and west sides. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had a question for the enlightenment of the others. He asked what the duplication of services would be on the west side that you would not have to duplicate on the east side. He gave an example as rest room facilities, if you were to have some type of sports activity going on, a picnic area for the families and similar inactive park use in conjuncti- on with the active sports. Mr. Holley stated that the magnitude of this park is that you can have a seemingly passive or secluded area adjacent to the active areas. He indicated that there may be additional rest room requirements on the west side just because of the long distances of travel from the north to the south side of the park. He further indicated that there may be a need to put parking on the Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 11, 1982 south side but that this is just conceptual . Chairman king opened the public hearing Mr. Ralph Lewis, representing the Lewis Development Company, stated that he had read the staff report and listened to Mr. Holley's comments and will not dispute them but they are more interested in knowing the certainty of whether it is one place or the, other. He indicated that they don't object to what was said or have any quarrel with it. He _indicated further, that if they wish to put the park in the original location that is fine, or if they wish to put it in the triangle that is fine also. Mr. Lewis stated ;that they did not mean that they agree with the design or that is what they will do because they are going to propose later that there be commercial in the one corner. Chairman King asked that they take this one step at a time Mr. Holley stated that' in light of Mr* Lewis' comments, the portion on the wrest side would change dramatically if commercial were there and would bolster° their original recommendation to retain the original site. Mr. Biz Whistler, Marine Avenue„ asked how 'much street frontage there is between the two sites and mayor arterials which would be bordering between the two parks. He indicated that on the one western park you would have Haven/Ba- se Line on the eastern location. He indicated that as pars are used by children and families, he felt the Commission might favor the east park site. Mr. Joe' Dilorio, representing R.C. Land Company, owner of property to the north and east of the original site, Mated he would prefer the original site because of their plans for the area. Commissioner king stated that tonight the Commission is not making a final resolution of the Terra Vista project, they are just considering aspects for achieving the final draft* Commissioner Rempel stated he felt the original site of the park is the proper location. He felt that putting the frontage on Haven can cause a lot of problems. He further felt that access to the regional trail system can b gotten from either side and there would be less of a problem with traffic and children. He felt that the east side is better, He Mated that in the design of Base Line there should be a pedestrian walkway or :a bridge so that pedestrians can get across the Deer Creek wash. He felt that if the Commission chooses the original site, some consideration should be given to a walk on the north side of Base Line Chairman Ki ng d state that his personal f m g feeling and the one comment .ado is p g that the street frontage as it relates to Haven and children is very much on point. He stated further that if something could be done to mitigate the problem it might be helpful and then the west side would be better and it would provide better buffering to the planned community, it is a better Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 11, 1982 F— entrance and he thought it would be nice to have it along such a major thoroughfare such as Haven because of the nice statement it makes for the community. Given the aspect in terms of children it could be mitigated and the same amount of passive and active would be contained. He said it is a much nicer statement to have the City park located along Haven. Commissioner Stout stated that he was in favor of the original location. Commissioner Barker stated that he was in favor of the original location. Commissioner McNiel stated that he was in favor of the original location. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to retain the Community Park at its original proposed location. Rick Gomez reviewed this portion of the staff report. Chairman King asked that the applicant talk about the shopping center location at Milliken and Base Line. Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Development Company, stated that they are requesting that shopping center partly because of its location to serve residents of Terra Vista and because they do not feel that a small center in the interior of the project is feasible. Further, they feel that requiring a small center to be locatd there is in effect mandating no center at all . Ms. Matlock stated that Milliken and Base Line will be a major intersection and she felt that the planned community could support three neighborhood centers and this would be the third center that they are requesting. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that in addition to what Ms. Matlock is saying, the Planning staff and Commission originally thought that the Haven and Base Line corner was a good location. The main thing that counts is where good tenants want to locate. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not think that the shopping center should be looked upon as serving only Terra Vista. He indicated that Mr. Dilorio will develop to the north and east and his buyers as well as theirs will be shopping there. He indicated that the City Council has said that it is not good to have-a proliferation of centers and they are asking for two and not more at that intersection. Further, that they are not planning on building all three locations within the next 5-10 years or possibly even longer away, and they just want to have the zoning resolved. He indicated that they would like to begin with Haven and Base Line and if permission is received, it would still be two years, before they open. He said that any fear that they will start next week is groundless. Mr. Lewis stated that both Victoria and Terra Vista will need a center and the people to the east and the north will also shop there. Mr. Lewis further stated that it would be some time before they go in for more and it would Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 11, 1982 depend on growth of the area and all they are asking is to just reserve space. Mr. Gomez stated that a letter had been received from the R.C. Land Company over the signature of Mr. doe giorio which addresses this one particular issue and the next issue which is before the Commission tonight which was included in the information the Planning Commission received. Mr. doe Cilorio stated that he does not want to go over what was said in the letter but would like to agree with what some of Ralph Lewis and Kay Matlock said about the amount ;of commercial that should be available in the planned communities. He stated that it has been their opinion that there is the right amount of neighborhood commercial to residents but none of neighborhood commercial that you would normally find. He stated that they are operating under the premise that it will be all collected in a town center or a regional center. He indicated in his letter they make a point of a neighborhood center at Milliken and Base Line and, indeed, if there is going to be another neighborhood center at Milliken and Rase Line, R.C. Land would dutifully request the same consideration as the, Lewises to prove a case. He indicated that if you were looking at a map, it would make more sense to have ,a neighborhood center to serve Victoria rather than one to serve Terra Vista. Mr. Ci Frio stated that he would add one strong comment echoing what Mr. Holley said and that it would be completely inexcusable to have the neighbor- hood center intruding into the park; and, if another center were to be consid- ered for that neighborhood at all, it should be at the northeast corner but not where the park should be. Chairman Ding stated he did not think that the neighborhood center at Milliken and Base Line is appropriate there. Commissioner Stout. agreed Commissioner McNiel agreed} Commissioner Barker agreed Commissioner Rempel did not comment Chairman King stated that before the Commission goes on to the Foothill and Haven issue that they could go on to Base Line and Haven and he did not know what to say about it because the Planning Commission has passed on it twice, at one time when he was a member of the Commission approving it and both times the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's action;. He indicated that he agreed with the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that based on ghat he heard in the last few minutes, he would amend their proposal . He further stated that they requested two neighborhood centers at the south side of Base Line on the west side of Milliken and one on the east side of Milliken and on the same basis, one when Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 11, 1982 the market determines that it should be built. He stated that they would concede that it is not appropriate to stick it in a park. _ Chairman King stated that he would make one comment to that that he thought that the opinion of the Planning Commission would be the same as to the south- wwest corner of Base Line and Milliken ,as the northwest corner of Base Line and Milliken. From their standpoint they have spoken to the issue there is one neighborhood commercial at that intersection and it was his understanding of the intent of the planning Commission that it is all they wish to allow at that intersection. Chairman King asked if them were any members of the 'public wishing to make comment on the neighborhood commercial center at the corner of Haven and Base Line There were no comments Chairman King stated that he would sale that he feels itis appropriate as he has always felt it appropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would say this for the third time that this use is a very logical and feasible plaice for a shopping center. The only arguments in opposition were the _people straight across the street from the center who had never really looked at what type of center the Planning Commis- sion was taping about. He indicated that they were worried about the design,, with light shining into their houses, and being able to see the lights from the parking areas and as well as a concern about children getting across the street. He indicated further that no one would have ;yelled about how they would get across to the park. Commissioner Rempel stated that going beyond this, the Commission really should look to the service needs not just to people in that community as a shopping center must provide for a population of 10,000 in either center, and he felt that area would produce 20,000 people Commissioner Rempel stated that they are saying 'there should be two shopping centers in Terra Vista and when they say small neighborhood center type on the inside, it would be a very small neighborhood type store that would be feasible and not one that would be put on a non-major, street because; it is not practical from the standpoint of majors retailers. He said a major retailing outlet would service not only Terra Vista, if it were at Haven and Base Line, but a very good portion of those people who have to dive a mile or two miles to do their shopping now, Commissioner empel stated that some consideration should be given to the elimination of use of the automobile and if it were located at Base Line and Haven it would service the trailer park to the east and it is only logical and proper that a shopping center be placed there. Planning Commission Minute -17- August 1.1, 198 Commissioner Stout stated that he was not interested in debating the merits of whether there should be a commercial center there and in order for the process to make sense in getting public input, debating the issues, having experts state their case, and have the City Council agree with the public who did not , want it at that location. He indicated that unless there is a major change between now and then, the Planning Commission should not comment. Commissioner Darker stated that he would make the satire comment. as Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel stated that the purpose of a center within the confines of a'community is to serve the community. He indicated that if a person will not walk a block or less than a block to a mail box, they will not walk to a shopping center. He stated further that in Irvine they are putting mini- centers into well designed areas and they will not put a center in inhere people will not support its Commissioner Barker stated that he did not feel it appropriate to debate an issue that the City Council has looked at twice and given direction. He indicated that it would be more appropriate for the Lewis Development Company to appeal the decision to that body. Commissioner Rernpl stated that in one of their decisio ns th e Council indicated that it was premature to lace p p a shopping center~ there as long as specific plans r p p _ s were incomplete. `urther, that since the eCm Commission is now debating the specific plan it is now up to the Commission to now say it is still logical to put it there then the City Council can see fit to make a determination on this issue Commissioner Rempol did not feel it right to say no, you can't ever have the shopping center there. He indicated that the Commission must make determination that it is not logical to put it there. Chairman King stated that there are two people who think it should be placed there and three people who do not think it should be placed there. He further stated that it is not necessary to say it is inappropriate, but a 3-2 consensus that it should not be placed in the specific plan should the planned community get out of the Planning Commission and to the City Council for determination. r. Lewis stated that there is now a new City Council and the Daily Report newspaper has quoted Phil Schlosser as saying that they and tlie'-PT-a-h-nimg- Commission should_reexamine the facts. Further, that what Mr. Lewis hears Mr. Schlosser saying is that: they don't have any objections to taking another look. He stated that the Commission and Planning staff made recommendations before on sound planning principles and the City Council made their decision based on political' decisions. He stated further that they now have reason to believe that those political reasons are being reexamined and the Planning Commission should not be so 'influenced by the former City Council 's decisions. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 1.1, 1982 Mr. Lewis stated that he wished to correct a comment made regarding the City of Irvine wanting to have small shopping centers on the interior. He indicated that they are no longer building them there because they have proven not to be successful and they don't want to do something that mouldi lose from the start. He stated further that they built a good one at 19th and Carnelian and they are going to make sure they will give the City a good center, Mr. Lewis stated that he has read many books on theoretical planning and he is not aware of any textbook that says a shopping center should be built to serve one community. His intent, he said, at Base Line and Haven is to serve Terra Vista, and he hoped that some of Mr. Dilorio's people would come to the shopping center. Commissioner Barker stated that he could not speak for Commissioner Stout but his point is not that it is or is not his personal feeling but rather that the procedure has been given due process and the City Council made a decision that can only be changed by an appeal . Further, that if Mr. Lewis says that the decision made by the Council was made on a political basis, then even more, he should appeal it to that body. Mr. Lewis stated that one reason for the park at that corner is that the people across the street stated that their developer said there would be a park across the street. Chairman King stated that he did not feel Mr. Lewis needed to be told what is a live issue and what is not and that this has been discussed and Mr. Lewis has a live issue. However, given the comments that Mr. Lewis has heard tonight, he thought that this should be taken up with the City Council when the Planning Commission is heard. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission's decision does not preclude this coming before the City Council. Further, on the comment on planning principles, twenty years ago planners talked in terms of circles, market areas and major streets; that is not what planning texts say and at the present time if anyone wants to discuss the merits of centers, services and locations as it relates to energy conservation, those are the themes today discussed in planning circles. 9:40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Rick Gomez reviewed the size and nature of the community commercial center at Foothill and Haven. He recommended that the Planning Commission keep the Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 11, 1982 center size at 35 acres. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Gomez if staff is asking for 35 acres with .an additional base of 15 acres or if they are withdrawing the 15 acres. Mrs. Gomez indicated that in light of the letter, received from Mr. Leis which was distributed to the Commission tonight, that staff withdraws its recommendation in the staff report dated duly 28, 19 and recommends decrial as there is no basis for agreement. Mr. Gomez stated that based on the language proposed in Mr. Lewis' letter, it appears that the language in the letter would provide no basis for agreement to provide an extension of 1 acres in addition to the 35 acres which originally was allocated for the community commercial center-. Mr. Gomez stated that the letter from Mr. Lewis was received so late that there has been no time for a adequate response to its Mr. Lam stated that based upon the understanding of the agreement, staff has net had an opportunity to notify others who have a substantial interest in the particular issue; Mr. Lam further stated that it appears that there is disagreement and there would be much greater debate therefore staff would go beck to their original position: Chairman King asked Mr. Lam who should be notified that is not here. Mr. Lary replied that representatives of the Hahn Company and the Willi am Ly on n ' Company as well as any others associated with their group should be notified. Commissioner Moot stated that it appears to hire that this is almost the same type of impact as the General Plan discussions. Commissioner Barker thought, that this situation parallels the one that the Commission had gust discussed wherein a previously discussed issue had been decided by the City Council and direction has been given to the Commission. Mr. Gomez stated that they concur with that in that the Hahn site has been designated by the City Council as the site of the regional center.; Commissioner Barker asked if that was done by the City Council Mr, Gomez replied that it had been dome by the City Council and by direction of the General plan. Chairman King opened the public. hearing Mr. Ralph Luis stated that his comments would be a little more extensive because they have read the staff report and heard staff's comments but they respectfully disagree,_ Mr. Lewis asked through the chair of Mr. Gomez if this is a duly advertised Planning Commission Minutes_ - C- August 1.1, 1982 ———------------- meeting and if there is a representative of the other site here. Mr. Gomez replied that Mr. DiIorio of the R.C. Land Company was here, but he is the only one. Mr. Lewis stated that he is taking the points as they were brought up with what the staff has said about the issue being decided. He reiterated the Daily Report newspaper article of that evening which said that some council -mom bers­fel'F that the issue should be reopened. Mr. Lewis continued with the receipt of sales tax and 'felt that the Hahn Company was doing little if anything to go ahead with the shopping center in that location. Mr. Lewis indicated that at a recent trade fair in Las Vegas for shopping centers, the Hahn Company made no mention of a regional shopping center for the Rancho Cucamonga area. M . Lewis appealed to the Commission to be allowed to expand the 35 acres so that he could actively compete with the Hahn regional center stating that this would be in the City's best interest. He asked that he be allowed to dothis without handicap. Staff, he stated, has told him that any consideration that his company would get would hurt the Hahn Company and that staff is afraid of offending the Hahn Company. Mr. Lewis stated that competition is health and asked for the opportunity to compete against the Hahn Company. Mr. Lewis stated that returning to the staff report, if the City wants to get major department stores, they like to be together and want different stores in different price brackets. He further stated that it is hard to put together such a shopping center on 35 acres and may possibly need more than 50 acres. He stated that staff is ingnoring the reality of dealing with people and it takes 2-3 years to put together a regional center. Then he stated that he was not sure that he would be able to get large department stores to show an interest in locating in his center if the zoning is not there and this was not to say that the zoning couldn't be sought later. He asked if the City wouldn't be better off to have two horses in a race than only one. Mr. Lewis stated that he had met with City Attorney Dougherty and showed him some language and they were supposed to ask Mr. Hopson, but the impression that they got was that Mr. Dougherty thought the language was acceptable. Chairman King asked assuming for a moment that the City would zone two areas in excess of 70 acres for commercial, and assuming that the City does not want more than one to develop in terms of the 70 acres, and assuming that one of the centers beats the other to the punch in terms of developing, what type of language can be suggested in terms of the fact that the other one winds back down to a smaller size. Mr. Lewis replied that they would rush in to change it to something else if they found that Hahn was beating them. He further stated that they would agree to any stipulation that they would put into the approval that it reverts back to Something less at the point that the other center takes off. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 11, 1982 Mr. Briz whistler asked what happens if one of the other sites outside of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approved and goes on line, what would the position of the City of Rancho Cucamonga be then. r. Lam replied that if for some reason one concludes that only one center can develop and it does not develop in our City there it becomes a policy issue of , the Planning Commision and the City Council . He further stated that a determination would then have to be made on land use. Mr. Whistler asked about the point raised by Chairman King of whether one site would back down and how the language would be placed. He asked if the same language should not exist for both centers if one beats the other one out. Mrs. Lam replied that he did not know as this is a policy issue. He indicated that the key point in planning the regional and planning for the community is that you are looking to have the best of both worlds in that the City would receive sales tax and there would be the provision of services and the best location in terms of service and this was the consensus of two years ago. Otherwise, he stated, this would be left up to haphazard planning. -Further, that if two sites are better than one site, why not three or fora. He asked where it would be that you drag the line r. doe Dilorio stated that he had mentioned before that he was a partner and one of the larger;owners in the R.C. Land Company. He stated that he has had four years experience in doing regional shopping centers having started on the east coast and he is in agreement with taff's recommendation. Regardless of any language that is talked about, he said, he thought that anything in motion, that gives the developer the ability to add commercial acreage and gives him an advantage in doing that that nobody else in the City has would be completely inappropriate and inconsistent with the whole General plan theory. He indicated that the Victoria Plan, the Industrial Specific Plan nor the Fti anda ;Specific plan were able to do this and he sees no reason for the "Terra vista planned Community to be able to do it. r:. Dilorio stated that the real issue is where the regional center goes. He stated that he felt compelled to comment on a few things that Mr. Lewis brought up and like Dick Dahl, he believes in competition. Competition though, has to be done in certain levels and there have been certain innuendos that Mr. Lewis brought up that need to be answered, he said. r. Dilorio stated that he has no problem with this being brought up again to the City Council with the exception that the real competition is not between Foothill and Haven and Foothill and 1-15 but between the freeway locations. He felt very strongly, he said, that Mr. Lewis' tenacity basically galvanizes other people into action and so the Hahn site is moved into action and that this site was chosen over eight others including the Lewis site. r Dilorio stated that he did not indicate that he was a principal owner because of an ego tripbut because he has more at stake. He stated that this Planning Commission Minutes - - August 11, 198 same question was raised by his company when the Hahn Company was sold to Trizec. He indicated that they raised questions about commitments. He further indicated that the reason for the sale was the age of Mr. Hahn and for his estate purposes. Mr. Dilorio stated that the Hahn Company has already invested $1,000,000 in this regional center and it would be unlikely that they would want to lose their investment. Further, that the priority of this center is pretty good and it is a viable center with the Canadian firm of Trizec. Mr. DiIorio stated that three entities have been involved in developing the site, R.C. Land Company, the Hahn Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He said that only recently has the Redevelopment Agency become activated so that the City could progres,s with the regional center. He said the interchange at 1-15 and the Route 30 corridor are still being worked on. He indicated that the Route 30 corridor is absolutely essential if Terra Vista, Victoria or the eastern end of the City is to be built. Mr. DiIorio explained the work that is being done to facilitate the Route 30 corridor. He indicated that the Hahn studies indicate that until the Route 30 corridor is built there will be access problems in reaching the regional center for fully drawn market areas. Mr. Dflorio stated that he is in full agreement with Dick Dahl 's opinion if indeed Hahn does not look like it is not making progress then the Lewis Company should get a shot at it. Mr. Dilorio, stated that there has not been any evidence of any kind that the Hahn Company will not proceed. He indicated that he admired Mr. Lewis' tenacity in trying to get a regional designation for his property. He felt that our best shot against Ontario is to concentrate the City's efforts on the Hahn site because it is the best location. Further, that there is already a partnership agreement between the May Company and Broadway Department stores and the Hahn Company and R.C. Land Company. He said if the Hahn Company goes away it will go away with the other department stores. Chairman King asked Mr. DiIorio why he felt that Mr. Lewis should not have a shot. Mr. Dflorio replied that Mr. Lewis has had a shot at this all along and the fact that his site is not shown as a regional center means nothing. He further indicated that he did not know of a regional center that has come in that as already had the designation of regional center. Chairman King stated that he does not understand the weakness that the City is showing in the discussion of whether to expand the Lewis site. Mr. DiIorio stated that it 'is in the fact that a strong attitude is now shown. He indicated that Mr. Lewis has informed others that there is the Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 11, 1982 possibility that his location at Foothill and Haven may also have a regional designation and if the City waffles around it shows a weakness. In discussion with the Hahn people, it has been mentioned that Mr. Lewis' activities have gotten around throughout the industry. He said the weakness is the fact that by the` scuttlebut that is getting around, it causes more importance to be placed on the Ontario site rather than the Rancho Cucamonga site 10. p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10:48 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Jeff Sceranka, representing the Lewis Development Company, asked if the Planning Commission wished to make a decision ' He indicated that what his firm would like to know is whether the Commission wishes to make a decision on it or whether they feel that the Council has already made their decision on it. Chairman king stated that he grants to make a decision on it but he is not prepared to make one tonight. Commissioner Barker stated that it was his understanding that this had been taken yap by the City Council and the :City Council, if it wishes the Commission to make a decision will let the Commission knot and therefore, it is not appropriate for the Commission to make a decision on it. Commissioner Rempel stated that in order to get the Terra Vista Plan going, to bring this issue up and its possible controversy that may develop because of it, it would be better served if the Commission proceeds with the Terra Vista Planned Community and the revisions suggested by the Commission. He indicated' that the shopping center issue could be brought before the Council or as an amendment to the specific plan or, to the. General Plan. He indicated that doing it this way would better serve the community because of the time element involved. Co honer McNiei stated that there is no question that the City wants a shopping center as does every city and when one is weighed against the other, his position is to lean with the Hahn center. Chairman King asked if the Commision wishes to make a decision or pass it. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would stay with the Hahn site. Chairman King stated that there are two people who would like to make a decision and two who think it more appropriate addressed by the City Council . Commissioner Stout stated that his opinion is once the decision process has taken place in that this has been debated that unless there is a clear and convincing reason that it should be reviewed, no change should be made. He indicated that he has not seen any clear and convincing evidence and sees no reason, therefore, to change the Commission's decision, Planning Commission Minutes - - August 11, 198 Commissioner Rempl stated that this should be brought back as an amendment to discuss fully and it would be better for the Lewis Development Company to move Terra Vista forward and get the specific plan moving and start on the rest of that. He stated that he is not saying that the regional center should not be there but felt that they should get the rest of their plan moving. Commissioner Stout asked if Commissioner Rempel was saying he did not want to make a decision, or rather that he was denying the change. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would make no change i the p _h_ wordingas g proposed in the specific plan right now. Commissioner Barker stated that since there has been no noticeable change in the status quo, then he would agree that the Commission should maintain the previous decision and not change. Chairman King stated that the consensus of the Commission is that no change be made. Mr. Lewis stated that he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Rempel that the overriding issue is to get some houses started and if that is the decision of the Planning Commission, fine. He indicated that the next thing they will dry is bring in a snap on housing and they will continue working on the regional, He Further indicated that if they bring in a letter with commitments, he asked if a new hearing will be granted. He stated that new evidence will be brought in to the Commission. Further, that they want to get working on this. He further stated that he felt his tenacity was developed when he was a cross country runner but when they have something definite to show they will bring it back. Further, that he appreciated the discussion. DIRECTOR'S REPORT F. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Mr. Lam stated that the Planning Commission workshop which had been tentatively scheduled for the 21st of August, would be rescheduled later in September. Mr. Lam stated that the City Council would like to know if the Planning Commission would like to have a joint City Council/Planning Commission session to discuss matters of City policy and relationships and anything else they may; wish to discuss. If the Commission wishes to do that, Mr. Lam asked that they think of topic areas they would like to talk about and forward them to staff to work on. . He asked that the Commission return the topics to staff within two weeks,. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 1 , 1982 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 1.1. p.m. 11 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. JRKepectfully 'bi ttd, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - - August 1.1., 1982 w CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 28; 192 CALL TO ORDER . Vice-Chairman Herman Rempel called.the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m Following the call to order, Vice-Chairman Rempel led in the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker,; Larry Mc Niel, Berman Rempel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Jeffrey Kin STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer, Michael Vairn, Senior Planner MINUTES Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the Judy 14 1982 Planning Commission meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Comet, City Planner, announced that there would be a meeting on August 3, 1952 with Ken Topping and members of the County Planning Staff to discuss the Foothill Community Plan. This meeting will be held at 7s00 p.m. at Lions Park Community Center. PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE 82-01 - FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to allow tarts 1 - SC of Tentative Map 10210 to contain less than the required square footage of 43,560, but no less than. 41,000 square feet. The Tentative Tract is located generally northwest of the intersection of Almond and Sapphire -- APN 00-0 1-12 Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the: Staff Report. Vice-Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Jim Previty, representing the Forecast Corporation, addressed the: Commission stating that the only lots that would contain less than 43,560 square feet would be in the center of the project and felt that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect surrounding property owners. Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Previty the size of the smallest lot proposed. r. larevlty replied that it would be a 41,500 square foot lot. Commissioner Mc Niel asked how many lots would fall in the 4.1,500 square foot category. Michael Vairio, Senior planner, replied that seven of the lots would be of that size and the remaining would be above that figure. ,art Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he felt ,that this was one of the few remaining pieces of acreage in; Rancho Cucamonga where large hots in the 2 to 3 acres per lot category would be appropriate. He further started that he felt that it was a shame that the developer was loosing a great opportunity by filing another unimaginative subdivision tract map as was typical throughout the, community. As the City Council'had approved one acre lots in that area, Mr. Bridge stated that he couldn' t make much of a stand against the project and felt that the granting of the variance would not make much difference, however wished to address the Commission and express has thoughts as to the proper use of the land and heaped the Commission would take a closer Look at the true representation of hillside resi- dential when the development of the nearby property comes before them. :Lean Keding, CM Engineering, addressed the Commission stated that he washed to clarify a statement made earlier in that of the total 33 lots, only 13 were being requested for a variance and this would still leave a net of 1. 'acres per lot. Chuck Morgan, 8234 Almond Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that his objection was;'to the density of the project and not the project itself. He agreed with fir. ;Bridge in his statement that the granting of the variance would not make any difference one way or mother and would like to see the developer get started on the project. Mr. Morgan further stated that he felt that the City Council approved the zoning as one acre per parcel zoning. There were no further comments and the public hearing; was closed, Commissioner Barker stated that he agreed in part with the public com- ments made and his concern was with the granting of variances and what that decision conveys to the public. He further stated that he felt that once a decision was wade on the zoning of a piece of property, that is what the zoning should l e. Commissioner Strout stated that if the overall density of the projet dial not average 1. , he would be totally against the granting of the. variance. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 28, 1982 Vice'-Chairman Rempel stated that about a year ago :this project could have come before the Commission and Council and, if the eastern half of the project was cut off, could have come in with half-acre zoning as that is what the bats were zoned at. However', the.: applicant had worked with staff and the Design Review Committee and had come up with a pretty good project.. He further stated that there were several problems associ- ated with the development of this property such as topography, a utility easement, and a fault system that runs through the project. Also, if a person wished to purchase more than one lot and have two or three acres, this option would be open to them. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance '82-01. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Rempel, Barker, Stout NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 -13 - FAMILY GAME - The establishment of an arcade in the C-J zone to be located at 8788 Base Line in the Alta Loma Country Village Shopping Center. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff 'Report. Mice-Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. ,Tim Gillette, 2535 W. Lincoln #68,"Anaheim, California, addressed; the Commission stating that he was the president of family Came. arcades. Mr. Gillette expressed his desire to have this item continued to give him time to work with staff on some of the concerns addressed in the report to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Rempel. informed Mr. Gillette that the Commission would have: to hear public testimony on the project first, then could take a vote as to continuance. Mr. Gillette stated that he ;felt that many of the concerns could be worked out if they were given; the opportunity to do so. He further stated that the maim concern as to security could be mitigated since the company had the financial backing to employ as much security personnel s needed. Mayne Dial, 8800 "A"" Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was a business owner adjacent to the proposed project; Mr. Dial stated that the applicant had talked with each of the merchants in the center and was aware of the opposition to the placement of an arcade in this center. He informed the Commission of the problems facing the center now with the close proximity of the high school and Planning Commission Minute -3 .Tiny 28, 1982 I the loitering that presently occurs , Mr. Dial stated that when the Sundae Works was in operation at the center, they also had arcade machines and with the introduction of these machines to the business, a great deal of problems were created for the center. He stated that the tenter was plagued with everything from dope pushers to prostitutes and the problem already,facing the center of attracting shoppers was made even more difficult. Mr. Dial urged the Commission to deny the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit. Mike Micetich, 8812 Base mine, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the. Commission stating that he was the owner and operator of Rancho Meats located in the Alta Loma Country Village Shopping Canter. Mr. Miceti,ch expressed his concern in the location of the arcade in the center and its attraction to the students from the high school. He stated that there already existed a tremendous loitering problem and felt that: the arcade would only enlarge that problem: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he felt that the selection of this site for the use proposed was ideal from a business paint of view," however due to the close proximity of the high school and elementary school, felt that the applicant would be best advised to look for another site., Commissioner Barker made the motion that the Commission continue the discussion and make a decision at this meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Stout and carried Commissioner barker stated that he was not in opposition of arcades, but felt that the proposed location of this application was totally unaccept- able, He further started that he had visited the site and with the existing alleyways and walls around the site, it would make it very difficult to police the area, Commissioner Stout stated that he felt that arcades were needed for the youth of the City, but also felt that this was not a good location, not only due to loitering problems in the center but also for the nearby apartment complex. Vice-Chairman Rempel-stated that he felt that there, were other sites in the City that would be better suited for an arcade use that would not he in chase proximity to schools but still have the ability to draw customers and felt that the applicant should begin looking for a new site Motion: Moved by Barter,- seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Resolution denying Conditional use Permit 82-18. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ming Planning Commission Minutes -4-� July 28-, 198 C. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request for reconsideration of several :and use issues; location of the City Park, the size and nature of the Community Commercial Center, and the location of neighborhood shopping centers. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, advised the Commission that the applicant was requesting continuance of this item to the August 11, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chairman Hempel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried to continue Terra Vista Planned Community request for reconsideration of several land use issues to the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 1982. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS D. TENTATIVE TRACT 10826 - LESNY - A revision to left-turn entrance to the project from Haven Avenue. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the report to the Commission stating that this item was being brought back to the Commission per their request to take a closer look at the left turn entrance. After viewing the left turn entrance, it was the consensus of the Commission to approve this entrance to the project from Haven Avenue. Rick Gomez, City Planner, informed the Commission that a workshop for the Commission was being worked on by staff and asked which the Commission preferred, a week night or weekend. It was the consensus of the Commission that a weekend would be preferrable. Mr. Gomez stated that lie WOUld come back to the next meeting with definite dates. Vice-Chairman Hempel stated that he would also like to see a workshop for both the Planning Commission and City Council take place in the near future. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 28, 1982 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to ddj ou n. o:50 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully ubmittdd, k �r JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 28, 1982 CITY' CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 14, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. Following the call to order, Chairman ding led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Darker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout,'Jeff King, SENT: COMMISSIONERS:" None STAFF PRESENT. Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer°, Risk Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston;: Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rou eau, 'Senior Civil. Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Ding, to approve the Minutes of the June. 14, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Rempel abstained as he was not present at that meeting. Motion: Loved by Rempel,- seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the June 23 1982 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously,- to adapt the. Consent Calendar. A. REVISION TO TRACT MAP 11734 - DLV - Located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Recite. A change from 3-Inn condominium subdivision to '6-lot subdivision. B. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 6636 - STEVENS - An industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres into 2 parcels located on the westside of Hellman Avenue, approximately 433' south of 9th Street -- APN 209--011-43. Chairman Ding stated that the presentation of a Commendation Resolution to former Commissioner Peter Tolstoy was postponed until Mr. Tolstoy's return from his vacation PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ZONE CHANGE 0-11 -- NEEVA - A request for a change of zone from A- l-5 (Limited Agricultural - 5 acres) to R-1- 0,00 i (Single Family Minimum 20,000 Square Foot iota) and R- (Multiple Family Residential) For approximately 65 acres of .land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east and adjacent to Chaff y College< - ARH 01-1 1- 07. D. TENTATIVE TRACT ,11550 - NEEVA - A residential project consisting o 508 condominiums and -8 single family dwellings on 65 acre generally located on the south side of Wilson one-half mile east of Haven. Avenue in the A-1 5 zone a change of :one pending to - -20,000 and R-5) - APN 01-- 1-07 Chairman King stated that since these two items are directly related, they would be presented concurrently'. Michael Vai,rin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff reports Commissioner Stout stated that one of the conditions centers on the signal at Banyan and Haven and asked how it will fit in With the signal t Chaffey College. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the signal proposed would have to be coordinated with the one at Chaffey College and it was possible that this could be done. Commissioner stout asked if Banyan is going to go across Haven, Mr. Rsugeau replied that it will. Chairman King asked if construction on the Banyan loop will begin with the second ;phase. Mr. Vairin 'replied that it will, and would terminate with phase 4s additionally, it world subsequently meet with Wilson Avenue. Chairman sing asked if the model home area would go- along Banyan. Mr. Vai.rin replied that it would, Chairman Ring asked what jurisdictional aspects there would be for the interior loop and whether this would be a public or private road as it relates to 'phase two of the construction. Mr. Vairin replied that the City will not be asking for dedication at that point ;and would remain a private road until dedication is received; Further, that when it is widened to its full. width, it will become a Planning Commission Minutes - - July 14, 1982 public street. Chairman King voiced his concern on the possible liability which might be incurred by the City for a temporary road "which did not Beet proper standards. Mr. Rougeau stated that the passibility of liability is negligible since the roadway would be considered a driveway at this point. Mr. Hopson stated that the City does not have to accept dedication until the 'full and correct width of the road is made. Further, he indicated that the City would want to avoid maintaining; a road not up to the city's standards and until the City accepts dedication, they would not assume liability. Chairman icing opened the; public hearing. Mr. Larry Wolff stated that Mr. Don King, who prepared the environmental study for this tract, and the owner, were here to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Mr. Hoy achauben, representing the deer Creek Home. Owners Association, stated that they had attended many meetings with the developer and with the exception of one problem relating to the line of sight for the people on Willson Avenue, felt that the developer had improved the tract proposed substantially and therefore the association has no objections to the tract as proposed. Commissioner Bempel asked if Mr. Wolff would comment on the 'issue of liner of sight„ Mr. Wolff replied that he was unaware that the homeowners wished to have the 8 single-family y residences at the .lower level'recessed. He stated.le-Tamil, that he had no objection to doing this as he would only have to revise the. first 100 feet of the northerly strip of the property. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker expressed concern relative to the tie into the Trail Master flan and asked if this had been discussed with the Trails Committee. Commissioner Rempel stated that the area beings discussed here was beyond the trail. area Mr. Vairi.n explained that interface with the Master flan of Trails is , required especially along the Banyan extension and along Wilson. However, Mr. Vairin further explainedthat the details would be worked out further in the process. Mr. Vairin also stated that they are not sure whether the trails would be can the north or south' side of the ;street. Planning Commission Minutes - -- my lea a 1982 Commissioner Rempel stated that the; trails could not be on the south side of Wilson Avenue. further, that a part of the trail is intended t be on the Veer Creek: channel as there is no actual trail on this property. Chairman King stated that the only thing he could say is that two year have passed since this project last came 'before the Comii.ssion and it was good to know that the surrounding residents who would be immediately affected have reached a compromise in which everyone is pleased. Chairman Bing Vindicated that Barmakian, Wolff, Lang, Christopher have done a good job on this project. Motion: loved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, 'carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 82-67 approving Zone Change 0-11 and recommending this to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Repel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt: Resolution No 82- 68, with the added condition that the line of sight be preserved for the Deer Creek. residents. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TBNTATITVR TRACT 12184 - TOWN AND CO `1Ry - A total residential development of a. 82--.lot subdivision ran 8..5 acres of land in the R I zone located on the east side of Beryl, south of Base Line - N 208-011-49. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report. Chairman king asked ghat kind of treatment would be used at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Va ri.n' replied that it would be left open and would be turfed in order; to allow emergency vehicles in. He further indicated that there will be a 1. foot public pedestrian easement. Chairman Ting asked if it: is Mr. Vairin's understanding that there would be any other Hype of treatment. Mr. Vairin stated that other than what the developer stated would occur, he hard no further information on. what the treatment would be Commissioner Rempel stated that he recalled from prior Designs Review discussions that the area: being discussed would have to be turf blacked. Mr. Vairin stated that the discussion was that some type of material would have to be provided which would allow vehicles to 'cross the area. Commissioner Rempel stated that i3 this is to be a pedestrian easement then some type of walk material rather than lawn material would have to be provided. Chairman ding opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 14, 1982 Mr. John Cloetten, 1900 R East Warner Avenue, Santa Ana., the civil, engineer for this tract, stated that they proposed to put in some type of walk in the cul-de-sac area that would be Consistent with the rest of the project.- Further that some shall screening shrubs would also be added to help define this as a public easement area. Mr. Goetten also spoke of the police and fire requirements, the proposed 5-6 foot wall and edge definition, and a water line would be it the easement;, Commissioner Rempel< stated that the walk area should not he 10 feet wide of paved concrete but it also should not be planted. totally with shrubs. He indicated that if emergency vehicles 'need to use the access at, Beryl and turn at Pepper, it would be important that it not be blocked by shrubs. Mr. Vairin indicated that a condition could be added to the individual CSC& 's for homes that are near the easement that they be required to be maintained by the homeowners and that the area would be reviewed and approved by the Planing Division. Commissioner Eempel stated that one other comment to add world he that some type of breakaway gate should also be placed here that wouldallow pedestrians to enter and nothing else. Commissioner Stout asked why a cul-de-sac was placed as shown on the property. Mr. Goetten replied that City staff suggested it be placed there because without it, traffic would be attracted to the area and it would then pose a safety problem. Ile indicated that they agreed with stafE's assessment of ghat could happen and it was done as a. traffic mitigation measure Commissioner Stout asked why one cul_-de-sac was put on the property line and the other on the south lot lines. Mr. Goetten replied that it was done to break up the monotony of the street scene. Mrs; Barbara Huber,` 7380 lion Street, property owner adjacent to this tract, expressed concern relative to the elevation of the proposed development, water runoff, and water easement. Mr. Goetten stated that the development proposed would improvethe surrounding properties througbt the installation of a storm drain system. Mr. Walter Foss, 7474 Dion, property owner adjacent to the development, asked about the drainage of the hillside opposite the proposed development. He also inquired about the cedar shake roofs proposed and their Lire hazard potential. Mr, VaIrin explained the recently adopted ordinance relating to shake roofs and the 'standards for theta; Planning Commission Minutes - - July 14, 198 Mr. Goetten replied to Mr. Rosa' concern regarding drainage t tin that it would be taken into Spinel Avenue by means of an AC gunnite ditch. He indicated further that all city standards regarding drainage: would be net. Mr, Riess asked how the drainage would be channeli ed. Mr. Vairin replied that Exhibit "F" shows the slopes and explains how this will be done. Mr. Vairin also stated for the record and benefit of the audience, that the City has a grading committee which must approve a preliminary grading plan. He indicated that if the grading plan dues not meet the C ty's standards, it will be brought back before the Commission. Mrs. Huber asked if the developer must install a block wall: Mr. Vairin replied that this is not a requirement dr. George Cudera, 663 Carnet, stated that the Coral Hennes tract did not properly handle drainage and has resulted in erasion of an exisitin wall. He indicated that the soil condition in this area is such that water does' not drain because of its clay composition. Mr. G dera also questioned the propriety of shake roofs in this area in view of the, high wind conditions` and fire potential which sometimes occur. Mrs. Goldin Mancini, 7327 Beryl, asked what provisions there will be for drainage of her property. She indicated that as a'resuit of the Coral Homes tract her property and driveway are at times' submerged because of rain water. Mrs. Mancini indicated her feeling that traffic would be increased and that this project would result in school: overcrowding. dr. Vairin explained the school letter certification process required before a developer is allowed to proceed. Mr. Hopson indicated that the City requires the school districts to "respond to the question of availability of space and this is all the City can do. Mrs. Mancini asked when a- four-way stop or traffic signal would be pro- vided at Beryl and Base Line.. dr. kougeau replied that this area has been studied with the result that a need for a traffic device has been identified. lie indicated, however, that the City responds to need on a` priority basis and this area is scheduled to be taken care of within the next two years Mr. Vairin staged that the developer of this project will be required to pay into a fund for this purpose. Mr. Gudera asked about the drainage from: Beryl and Spinal Avenue and how it will be dispersed along pepper Ct, planning Commission Minutes -6-' July 14, 1982 r. Goetten replied -that the proposed project would accommodate the necessary drainage. Mrs. Huber asked what diameter" the drain; imps will be. Mr. Goetten replied that it will be ra 24-inch drain and should accommodate a 100 year storm. There being; no further questions the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel ;awed what the proposed grading; is because of.the 4 -foot drop behind the existing homes and how it could affect the drainage., further, if the gunnite ditch is the 'best way to handle the; drainage., Mr. Rougeau replied that the proposal by the developer is the better way of handling, the water inasmuch as if a pipe were to be installed, It could become plugged up and only add to 'than problem. Ile indicated that the people who are not familiar with what can,be done through grading;, it would appear that: this ,is a large condition to correct, however, only a sma~dl„l amount of waiter Is proposed to drain along the back of the lot and most would drain into the new street,, Commissioner McNiel -asked If the drainage concept of this development has been accepted by the Development review Committee. Mr. dlougea a replied that the concept has been accepted and that this refers to the final determination of the size of the various structures necessary to carry the drainage and specifically refers to design details. Mr® Vai.rin explained the hydrology study necessary to assure that proper drainage requirements will, be;met Mr. Roug;eau explained the two degrees of study necessary to ascertain the proper calculations and what ;.s necessary for drainage. Commissioner Stout W stated that it appears that several 'past design a.n e 3: cancerned.- ~� tract as fair as'drainage s ' iaudcd din corrected d v this t � a w errors_ Mr. dlocag;ea u replied that this is correct. Commissioner Rempel, stated that one of Mrs. M ncini"s ongoing problems was created by Coral Homes and that she could, possibly alleviate the drainage condition by working out an agreement with the developer when, the new tract goes in, that her curb and gutter improvements could be , installed along with the development of the tract: Motion: Moved by Hempel , seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt Resolution o. 82-69, with an additional condition that the pedestrian easement be other than la.wn material and incorporate in the CUR's that the pedestrian easement be maintained by the adjacent property owners. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July lea, 1982 b Commissioner cNiel voted no. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-13 - FAMILY GAME - The establishment of an arcade in the C-1 zone to be located at 8800 Base Line in the Alta Loma Country Village Shopping Center, Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the July 28, 1982 meeting. 8:20 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened G. CONDITIONAL 'USE PERMIT 82-14 - GRACE BRETHREN CHURCH - The use of an existing church facility for a preschool and kindergarten. on 4.5 acres of land, in the R-1-20,000 zone located at 5719 Beryl, Street - APN 1,061-761-01. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked how many similar uses have been approved recently by the Planning Commission. Mr. Vairin replied that there have been three of this type. Commissioner Stout asked if there have been any complaints against this type of use. Mr. Vairin replied that there have been none that the City is aware of. Commissioner Rempel stated that this is a unique location as there is nothing around it. Commissioner Stout stated that it seems like the Commission is really approving a lot of these uses and asked if a standard policy is being developed for them. Mr. Vairin replied, definitely. Commissioner Barker stated it was his hope that not all of the children will go out at the same time because it will create some difficulty for the teachers. He indicated that a good comfortable playground area should be provided, Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 14, 1982 i Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Mr. Martin ]Beechen, 10028 Eriistal , the administrator of the church, advised that he would answer any of the Commission's questions, He also emphasized that this bind of facility is needed in the community. Commissioner Rempel asked if Mr. Beechen had any difficulty with the conditions. Mr. Beechen replied that he did not. There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution 8 -70 approving Conditional Use Permit No. -14. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL: MAP 7244 -- THE MESSENGER COMPANY A 9-1ot subdivision: of 41.56 acres within they General industrial zone located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Elm Avenue - APN 8-- 5 -03. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel asked if the City still has a condition as far as the driveway and a joint access agreement are concerned. Mr. Rouge:au replied affirmatively. Commissioner Stout 'asked why the property is -being divided at this time. Mr. -Jeffrey J. Gordon, 2501 Alton Avenue, Irvine., California, project manager for the Messenger Company, concurred with all aspects of the conditions with the exception of the one limitation regarding develop- ment of the parcel. He indicated that this is why they are dividing it right now. Mr. Gordon further indicated that all street improvements would be completed. Commissioner Stout asked if they would be developing one at a time. Mr. Cordon replied that they would all be developed at the same time. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82--71, approving Marcel Map 7244 with all. conditions. Planning Commission Minutes -9= ,July 14, 1982 �I I I 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL-MAP 7555 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL CO. - division of 25.95 acres' into' 3 parcels 'within the M-2 zone locatLLed at the southwest corner of 8th Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 22 -21- 2 & fie. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Rougeau asked that the Planning Commission add another condition of approval to the Engineering Report that prior to recording of the map, a deposit will be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of the, assessments under Assessment District No. 82--01. from among the newly created parcels'. He indicated that a large assessment district is being proposed and if approved by the City Council, this condition will be added to all properties locating within the boundaries of the district. Chairman icing stated that Center Sheet runs forth and south and asked if parcel two is being divided from parcel three, how far north does it extend. Mr. Rougea a replied that it would go either to B or 11 Street, which is the east/west street at the tops Chairman King stated that this seems to be a peculiar parcel: and asked. what its dimensions are at the top. Mr. Rougeau stared that possibly lots 2 and 3 can be rearranged in the . future and perhaps the developer's representative can explain why it was divided that way. Chairman King asked if the parcel map contained in the agenda packet i the previous parcel. .and if the applicant has indicated why division is being sought. Chairman Icing opened the public. hearing.` Mr, dames Westling, representing the R. C. Industrial Company, stated that he agrees that parcel two is irregular in shape, He indicated that the only reason: it is this way is because they don't know what to do with it. Further, that they have proposals for smaller buildings and this could be divided. He indicated that part of the problem is the restriction of the future Milliken Avenue overpass and that when Parcel Map 7555 was designed it was to provide for a 205,000 square Coot building and this as well as the building to the south have been leased to .a tenant. He indicated that this map; is proposed to create that parcel as well as realign the. street, He indicated that their master plan always included a B Street. Chairman Ting asked ghat the acreage is in parcel 2. Mr. Westling indicated that they had just finished a building that has been leased and only a portion of the parcel. shows. Planning Commission Minutes -1 .July 14, 1982 Mr. G�estl�n asked about ,the co ndition t�.on for additional_ dedication for the Milliken overpass and the requirement for improvements to be constructed at the time of installation of the overpass. He indicated that it was his understanding that the improvements for the overpass would be made by others than just his firm and asked if this is correct Mr. Rougeau replied that they do not have specific: plans formulated but this would be a major bridge structure.' Mr. Westling asked if once the land is dedicated, if others than just his company would improve Milliken. Mr. Rougeau indicated, however, that Mr. Westling's statement is correct in that to improvements would be shared by others who develop as well. He indicated that he was couching his reply because approval_ is required by the City Council for reimbursement. There being no further comments, the public hearing; was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Stout, carried unanimously,-- to adopt Resolution No;. 82-72, approving Parcel Map 7555. Commissioner Rempel< asked if these items within the Redevelopment Agency boundaries are to be sent on to the City Council for approval, Mr. Gomez replied that they are not any longer required to be sent on He indicated that the Council. stated they do not Irish to have these items brought before them any longer. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 732 - KOBACKER SIRSr IBC. A subdivision of 12.54 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial zone located on the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Peron Boulevard - APN 207-271-31 m Senior Civil Engineer, Paul. Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. `He stated that with this map they are requiring only dedication:, of Reron Boulevard at this time because it will not yet provide the direct connection to Raker Avenue. Another easement will be required for proper drainage of the area that will go under the railroad tracks and into Cucamonga Creek but will not be required until the street is dedicated. Chairman King asked relative to the offer of dedication, if the City knows at this point in time what is intended in the .future for use as a roadway. He asked further, that if we take the southern alternative i that would necessitate another parcel. Mr. Rougeau replied that if the property to the north develops in the: right time frame it would meats alternative No. one might be best; Planning Commission, Minutes -11- July 14, 1982 Chairman Kira; opened the public hearing. Mr. J. Richard Newton, the surveyor, stated that he Would answer any questions. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. 2-73, approving Parcel Map 7326. Mr. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised the Commission that the; City was unsuccessful in its attempt to procure within its sphere the land north of the City limits to the City of Fontana at the LAFCC meeting which was held this date. Commissioner Rempel asked that the Commission take action to approve the entry across from Ch ffey College can Haven for the Lesny Tract. Commissioner Stout replied that he thought that a condition had been placed on the tract approval. that this come back to the Commission after some discussion had taken place between the developer and Chaffey College. Mr. Gomez stated that this would be brought back to the Commission at their next meeting» Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn at :07' p.m. .07 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, :TACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 14, 1982 4 CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Tune 23, 198 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffry King called the Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion."s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Read, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT. COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout Jeffrey King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Rick Comet, City Planner; Bill Holley, Community Services Director; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney .Task. Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary, Paul Rougeau,, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael airin, Senior Planner Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, conducted the swearing in ceremony for the new Planning Commissioners E. David Barker, and Larry McNiel and also reneged the oaths of office to Commissioners Jeffrey King and Herman Reapel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion. Moved by Rempel seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1982. Commissioners Barker and McNiel abstained from vote as they were not in attendance for those meetings. Motion. Moved by Rempel; seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of .June 9, 1982. Commissioners Barker, Ring, and McNiel abstained from vote as they were not in attendance for that meeting. Chairman King read and presented a Commendation Resolution for Jeff. S c e ,a nka Mr. Sceranka then addressed the Commission thanking them and staff for their support: i ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that the City Council would he holding a budget meeting on Monday, June 28, 1982, 6 :30 p.m. at the Lion" s Park. Community Center. Mr. Lam also announced that the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Industrial Area. Specific Plan was to receive the APA inland Chapter Merit Award at a special awards dinner to be held ;June 24, 1982 in San. Bernardino. Mr. Lam further announced that there would be :a meeting;concerning the Foothill Community Plan Tuesday, June 39, 1982 at 7.20 p.m. City Council member Tim frost addressed the Commission stating his appreciation and the appreciation of the City Council for the past wort efforts of the Commission; and that the Council was looking forward to working with the Planning Commission in the future® CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS NT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-12 - FILPT - The development of a 5,000 s4Zare foot industrial building on a portion of a 3.47 acre lot its the General Industrial category (Subarea S) located at the northeast corner of Industrial Lane and Eeron Boulevard APN 209-0 1-74 Motion: Moved by Rempel,, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Ding suggested that Items "B", "C11, and "D" be heard collectively s they all dealt with the same applicant. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL "1 AP 787 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A one parcel, subdivision of 2.05 acres located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately -7CC' south of Church Street - APN 1077-421-06. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANCE 82-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A change of zone from A--1 '(Limited Agriculture) to A-P (Administrative Professional) for 2.045 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Church Street, north of Foothill Boulevard APN 1044-421-06 Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 23, 1982 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-04 - LEWIS UEVELCPMENT COMPANY -- The development of a 28,800 squat. foot two- story office building on 2.04E acres of land proposed to be zoned - _P (AdministrativeProfessional) in a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Community area on the east side of Hagen Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Strut -- APN 1077-421-06 Michael. Va:irin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report and briefly outlined the required actions of the Commission for these items. John'Melcher of Lewis Development Company addressed the Commission stating that they had read and accepted the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Item D of the Engineering Division which require that an occupancy permit not be issued until the completion of the Deer Creek. Channel. His suggestion to the Commission was that this could possibly be amended to read completion of leer Creek. Channel in the immediate vicinity of the development Commissioner Rempel asked Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, if there was a problem with that amendment. Mr. Rougeau replied that at this time he did not have a problem in amending the condition an suggested. lie stated that the original intent of the condition was for completionbeyond the immediate vicinity ; however it is most likely that: the entire channel will be completed before the building is completed. He suggested a modification. of the condition to read to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for protection of the project Chairman King asked Mr. Rougeau hors much, of the channel didthe Engineering Division feel would have to be completed before occupancy could be given. Ir. Rougeau replied that completion to Highland Avenue would be adequate and the work was almost there now so it would not be a problem with holding up the project. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was classed. Commissioner Eempel stated that he would like to express his appreciation to the Lewis Development Company for their cooperation with staff; in making the changes in the plan that was now before the Commission and felt that it was a great improvement over what was originally proposed Chairman King stated that he would hike more discussion: on the improvement of Deer Creek Channel as he was having a problem with how it relates to this site. Mr. Rougeau replied that the maps on the overhead projector and the ones included in the reports did not really show what the problems would be; if there was a breakout in the channel. ' He indicated that it the last Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 23, 1982 i major flooding that Rancho Cucamonga experienced, the water broke loose north of Base Line and ran across the subject'property and if this were to happen again it would pose some threat to property. Chairman King suggested that the condition could be modified to state that if the time for occupancyarrived and the Channel was not completed n that location, staff could review the 'need for additional requirements. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to suggest that: the condition be amended to read that if the building is completed before the channel is completed adequately upon the request ;of the applicant that the Planning Commission can authorize occupancy of the building. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, asked Commissioner Rempel what he felt the northerly boundary, for completion of the Channel would be, Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it should be completed to Highland Avenue. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel. Map 7373. Motion; Moved by Stout, seconded. by McN el, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving ?one Change 2--01. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 2-04 with the revision to the Engineering Condition concerning the completion of Deer Creek Channel in conjunction with the occupancy of the applicant's building. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. PUBLIC NO`fIFTCATION PROCEDURES Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report for the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt a time limit should be planed on the notification signs for public input and that a statement should be included that there was a penalty for removal of signs from the site. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that by law the only thing required is that a city publish the notification of public hearing in the newspaper. Mr. Gomez explained to the Commission that our current notification process for public hearing is that of advertising in the legal. ad section of the newspaper and direst mailing of notices to property owners within 00 feet of the subject property. Planning Commission Minutes -4- dune 21-, 1982 Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that additional notification requirements would require an adjustment to the fee schedule because of the addiWtioral. east to the processing. Commissioner Stout suggested that the ward welcome on the proposed signs be replaced with the word encouraged as he would like to see the public encouraged to participate in the processing of projects. Motion: Moved;by Rempel seconded by Stout, +unanimously carried, to direct staff to prepare an, Ordinance for the City Council adapting the notification procedure of posting; signs' a.t the time of project filing and public hearing, to continue the process of direct mailing notices at the time of public hearing to property owners within 00 feet of the subject property, and to adjust the fee schedule to compensate for the additional cost of processing. This draft Ordinance is to be brought back to the Commission for recommendation to the. City Council.. 8:05 p.m. The Manning Commission Recessed 8: 15 p.m. The planning Commission Reconvened E. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The Planning Commission voted on the positions of Chairman and Vice- Chairman selecting Jeff King to retain his seat as Chairman and Herman Rempel. as Vice-Chairman. Jack Lam Community Development Director, reviewed the various City committees with the Commissioners and the following were selected to be on these committees: Design Review Committee - Rempel, Barker, ding (Alternate) Etiwanda advisory Committee - Remp 1, Stout (Alternate) Zoning Committee - McNiel, King Flood Control Committee King, Stout Street Naming Committee Barker, McNiel Equestrian/Trails Committee - Stout Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to have staff wore with the Commission on the drafting of ;a Commendation Resolution for Peter Tolstoy. C. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY -_ A continued public, hearing to discuss the Terra Vista Planned Community. Planning Commission_Minutes - - ,Tune 23, 1982 Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed Staff Report number six ( ) dealing with the Community Development Standards and the Implementation Section of the Terra Vista` Planned Community text. Staff made four recommendations to the Commission concerning the Community Development Standards Section. 'These dour recommendations were (1) interim and temporary rises including information and sales centers shall require review and approval of a Conditional, Use Permit; ( ) residential development standards should be revised to develop a system of flexibility in the variation of lot sizes, widths, and setbacks; 3) community facility type uses should require the review and approval of a Conditional. Use Permit; and (4) the off-street parking regulations contained within the draft text should be eliminated and references should be made to adopted City parking standards. Staff also trade three recommendations for the Commission's consideration concerning the Planed Community Implementation, Section. "These three recommendations were (1)' additional discussion on the types of maintenance programs should he provided within the text; ( ) reference to the twelve month period for the development of an; acquisition agreement for the city park should be eliminated; and (3) provisions for granting a 100% credit for landscaped median islands should be eliminated Bill Volley, Community Services Director, reviewed the Staff Report concerning the Park Plan for 'Terra Vista. fir. Holley stated that the issues before the Commission this evening were that of how much credit private opera space should receive in 'Terra Vista and the implementation phase of the plan. Chairman King asked lair. Holley if the Planned Community as it is being presented to the Commission needs approximately 124 acres of 'parks. Mr. Holley replied that that was correct. Chairman King asked if it were correct that in terms of what is actually depicted, there was about 80 acres. Mr. Holley replied that he was correct. Chairman King stated that during the last meeting the Commission addressed the subject of private open space and how much credit private open space should: receive. ; He further stated that the map as shown depicted approxi- mately 57% of the required opera space as public and all that was left to be dealt with was the other 43% as private open space. Chairman King stated that in the way that certain things: were written, he could see problems many years later where a proposal could come' in whereby the proponent was attempting to meet all the needed open space by way of private open space versus what is being presented graphically to the Commission. at Matlock. of Lewis Homes addressed the Commission staving that for the project as a whole, they were looking at only a portion of the total park requirement being met through privately owned facilities.. The Planning Commission Minutes - - June 23, 1982 amount of private open space of any one development within the planned community would vary, partly at the Commission's discretion, as to what would be eligible for credit and in accordance with the guidelines which had been discussed previously. Ms. Matlock further explained that Terra Vista had been designed with a combination of park systems, privately, owned areas and the greenway and trails systems. Chairman King stated that he was confused at the last meeting and wanted clarification of the issue. He asked Ms. Matlock if there were ail agreement on the part of the Lewis Company that of the total open space provided, 57% shall be public and then the other 431 was to be private. Ms. Matlock stated that the Lewis Company did not feel the, need for that sort of distinction. She further stated that the reason for having credit for the private facilities was that they were identical to the public facilities however the burden of construction and maintenance was not that of the public and they are designed to meet the specific needs of the people who live there. Chairman King stated that he could see from the maps where the 57% of the total public open space was, however, if you took the verbiage in. the next concerning private open space it would be very arguable and that in the final, analysis the City could be left with no public open space but with only private open space and with the verbiage of the text that would be totally acceptable. Re further stated that he felt the City needed a commitment that at least 57% of the open space would be public. Ms. Matlock stated that in terms of what percentage was being met, it would be dealing with population estimates and the Lewis Company would be reluctant to agree to any one figure wtien it would be tied to some- thing that could not be predicted. Chairman King explained that the 57% is not an exact number and could very with the population that was there and did not see why this could not be written in the text. Ms. Matlock stated that they would rather not have the restriction at all, however, because of the population fluctuation they would prefer a 50% rather than a 57% figure be used. 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 9: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened Ralph Lewis of the Lewis Development Company addressed the Commission stating that he wished to clarify one statement made by Chairman King regarding the issue of what the Commission was seeing depicted on the map would be what they were actually getting. He wished to clarify that under the City's present Ordinance that would be what they were getting, however, a bill, The Foran Bill, SB 1785, before the legislature may limit or restrict the amount of 'park dedication a city could obtain. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 23, 1982 Chairman King stated that if the bill did:: pass and applied retroactively o that it effected this project and the amount of Viand was reduced, it: still. did not circumvent the fact that the Commission would like a commitment that % of what ever amount of acreage would be public open space. Mr. Lewis stated that: as Ms. Matlock had previously mentioned, time mould be happier with a a - Cl split rather than a 57-43, however, other than the proportion, they were in agreement. Chairman King asked that if this statement would be placed in the text of the planned community. Mr. Lewis replied that it would be placed in time text, :Tack Lam, Director Cor of Community Development, stated that when a land use map is adopted there must be ra statement in the text that what you see is what you get, He further stated that staff'staff's position on time Foran Bill was that existing policies are implemented until a hill. is passed o change those policies. Ctmmmi.SSlon r Stout stated that rather than trying to establish a per- centage, why not state that 62 acres will be public parks. Chairman King stated that he felt that with a ,specific acreage amount the loran bill might make A significant impact. Tr. Lamm stated that the difference between the percentage amount and the specific acreage: amount if the Foran bill came into effect would be that the percentage fee would be of 'a smaller amount to begin with, thus diving an even lesser amount of open space and with the specific acreage amount, an acre; or two may have to be trimmed ,off but the. City would still end tip with more public open space Commissioner Stout stated, that if the same formulas held true and that the Foran bill,, if passed, would reduce the number of acres a city could require, it would be better to designate 62 acres as the; amount required. Commissioner Hempel stated that=•• this was true, however it was not being fair to developers who developed in the east and were given credit. TTd further stated that not giving credit for file private open space was not the right thing to do. He also stated that he did :not feel that time 50- 0 split proposed by the Lewis Development Company was an adequate percentage for public to private open space and would rather see a 60-40 percentage* Chairman King stated he ,felt more comfortable with the percentage cal- culation, Conimissioner Reinpel felt more comfortable with the percentage calculation and Commissioner er Stout was more comfortable with the acreage calculation, He asked for the:opinion of the further two Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes -8- ; June 23, 1982 Commissioner Mc Niel. stated that be felt more comfortable with the per- centage calculation. Commissioner Barker stated that he understood both arguments, however, felt that the acreage calculation as Commissioner Stout had suggested was one that he could better relate to. Chairman King stated that although there was not a clear consensus on how the figure would be arrived at, there was a consensus that the Commission wants a commitment in the text relative to the fact that a given amount of acreage be public open space. Bill Holley, Community Services Director, stated that if the Foran Bill. is passed it will cause a massive rippling effect on the plan as it would all have to be recalculated and that the Commission would almost assuredly be looking at the plan again. Kay Matlock of Lewis Homes addressed the Commission stating that the Lewis Company would like to have the chance to work, this out with staff and bring it back to the Commission. Chairman King asked the Commissioners again which method of calculation they, preferred. Chairman King and Commissioners Rempel and McNiel pre- ferred the percentage; Stout and Barker preferred the acreage method. Chairman King stated that he would like to address the issue of phasing and what would happen if there was a 60-40 split. He asked what could be done to prevent the higher density projects being developed first, the open space provided as private, thereby meeting the park requirement for the open space requirement solely thus putting off the provision of public space as they are meeting all their requirements by private open space. Mr. Lam replied that the way to prevent this from occurring was to stipulate at a certain point in time there must be so much public park land adjacent to that development. Kay Matlock stated that the Commission's protection from this occurence was the map and the fact that,development would start on the edge where the higher density projects were generally not placed. She also stated that Terra Vista was designed with a mix of uses and with the exception of the Town Center area, was not designed for total high density areas. Chairman King stated that it does not state in the text that development will occur according to the map. Ralph Lewis stated that it, would not be good business to jump around with, the development of the project and it was intended to develop on the outside of the project boundaries and work east, Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 23, 1982 Michael Vair.fn, Senior Planner, stated that staff had requested that Lewis prepare a graphic showing the phasing of the plan and after staff review, the consensus of staff;was that the phasing plan does work.. Chairman King asked 'ay Matlock if the Lewis Company was in agreement with the four recommendations of stiff concerning the Community Devel- opment Standards. 9s. Matlock stated that they agreed with the first three recommendations, however, the recommendation concerning the parking standards needed discussion Ms. Matlock further stated that the City parking require- ments were rather obsolete and as the Development Cade was approximately eighteen months from completion, they preferred to start out with the right thing to begin with. Michael Vaairin explained taff's reasoning behind the recommendation. Staff felt that parking standards should not vary from the plwanned. communities to the rest of the City' and ,should be consistent throughout the city. The off-street parking requirements in the text are significantly' different from what has been implemented ,currently in the City and would require an extension study by staff, of these standards, Commissioner Strut asked Mr. Vairin if lie could explain what was meant: by the applicant's reference to the outdated city code. , r com- bination � that -of sleeted a � was tir� Vtrzn r. ��L.a�ct that one e�£; the issue are parking by businesses which operate ai different peak hours. Staff had indicated to the applicant that staff would probably be working on that area of the Development Code hen they are ready to develop in those" area; and that if staff is not at that phase in the development of the Cade, it would be easy to take a look at that one concept and develop that 'standard or amend the code at that point Chairman King stated that he felt that the applicant had a good point concerning the shared parking, however, felt that the applicant should comply with our present code and if staff isn't at that 'phase of the Development Code when the applicant is reader to implement the parking standards, the Commissioncould take a look at the issue again. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that ';Ferra Vista should comply with the present Ordinance rather thanaccepting ghat is written in the text now and having to modify It at a later elates, It was the consensus of the Coimniss on that all four recommendations of staff he accepted. r e recommendations for the ei the tea_, Chai rman iCaaa asked for discussion implementation. Kay Matlock replied that the Lewis Company had so problems with those three recoaamendations; Planning Commission Minutes _Its- Tame 23, 1982 It was the consensus of the Commission that all three recommendations of staff be accepted Chairman Ching stated that there was a general consensus from both the present and past Commissioners that the Terra Vista Planned Community would be a very nice: development and an asset to the Community in the long run and now it is time for Lewis Development to get their text into final farm and bring it back to the Commission. Chairman King further stated that he wantedto :stress the, point that the Commission has 'various commitments which they expected and that it was understood that there were various things that could not be committed to, however the Commission expects a top notch ;,job and it there are major problems it will only slow up the process. Richard Lewis of Lewis. Development Company expressed their appreciation to the Commission and staff for their direction in the development of the text. .. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously to adjourn, 10: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK_"LAM, _Secretary Planning Commis-sion'-Minutes -11- June 23, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting June 14, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the Adjourned Regular Planning Commission Meeting and public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Bill Holley, Director of Community Services; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, advised that because of the anticipated light agenda, the June 23, 1982 regular meeting would include the continued public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community. Chairman King advised that a Commendation Resolution would be presented to former Commissioner Jeff Sceranka at the June 23 meeting in thanks and appreciation for serving on the Commission. He invited all, of those interested to attend this meeting for the presentation to Mr. Sceranka. Mr. Gomez stated that Mr. Holley would present the Park portion of the staff report, with landscape guidelines and energy conservation being presented by himself. Mr. Gomez further stated that it is proposed that a final review of the Planned Community is expected to be before the Planning Commission at their first meeting in August with presentation to the City Council in September. Community Services Director, Bill Holley, presented the Park portion of the staff report. He indicated that in meeting with the proponent of this project satisfactory resolution was met on all issues. Mr. Holley indicated that on May 3 the scbool/parks issue had been resolved by relocating some of the proposed parks into a joint use configuration. Further, that the park detention basin had been covered in a. report dated ,tune 10, 1982 which contained four options.- 1 the granting of 100% credit with conditions that contained improvements similar in concept to those presented by Lewis Development shown in attachment 11 of the staff repot; granting 100% credit with no con- ditions, 3 granting credit between 1% and 100% depending on what con- tribution the Commission feels" the sites snake to the public hark system, and 4 granting no credit if the Commission feels that the sites are inappropriate and do not contribute to the public park system. Mr. Holley stated that staff recommends Caption one: r. Holley discussed private open space credit and criteria and imple- mentation plans so that parks would go forward in an orderly fashion to the benefit of the proponent and the City park program. Mr. Holley proposed a bridge that would cross the channel at the north- west corner of the planned community to provide immediate access to the people living on the northwest side of the channel into 'Terra vista and a more direct line to the schools and rather services and to provide a more harmonious continuation of the trail system. Mr. Holley stated that the concept is supported by the Central School District because it would, eliminates busing to the Junior High and Elementary Schools but is something that the Planning Commission must consider. Mr. Comeau stated that one more; item for the City park is the_possibility that it be moved to the west side of the channel, and if that is still the Commission's consensus, they will work with the Lewises to change the park site and prepare it for final review. Chairman }ding asked that the retention basin credit be the first item to be considered,, Ms. Kay Matlock, Lewis Development Company, stated that since the,last hearing they went through a lot of work: with staff and had also gone to a third party engineering firm: which stated that there is no need ,for concern on points raised by staff. She further stated that there is agreement with the staff recommendation that the detention basin should be a park and credited as such. She provided the Commission with a report on park detention areas and conceptual plans. Commissioner Tol.stoy staged that since reading what staff and the developer have said ;about detention: basins, he has changed his thoughts on this. fie indicated that the only issue he had and which is now solved is ;the problem of flooding. He indicated further that. the-only problem the City may have is to have a park where one is not ordinarily wanted and asked Mr. Holley if the City would want the dark where the developer proposes to put it. Planning Commission Minutes - - June 14, 198 Mr. Holley replied that the City does want it provided it is not done in a redundant fashion to another in proximity. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for examples of what Mr,. Holley meant. Mr. Holley described a proposed park Pack feet to the north and east and the amenities it would contain in the traditional mode" of baseball diamond, soccer field, etc. He indicated that coming dawn 600 feat to the north and east to the retention facility illustrated in the map behind the Commission, if would provide ' % open space and two in- stitutional development types of facilities that would not be duplicated that sensitivity and consideration of lend use must be achieved so that the park will be done well and serve a non-repetitive purpose. In using the detention basins, he indicated that it must be insured because of safety and maintenance reasons that these sites are kept free of all debris and obstacles. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kinds of activities would be carried o at that park site that would be of a. passive nature. r. Holley replied it would be activities such as pickdicking, frisbie throwing, etc. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if 'Mr. Holley is suggesting that other uses of this type be designed to compliment these, Mr. Holley replied, certainly further, benches and tables could be placed here as well as along the portion on the eastern edge. Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked if barbecue facilities are planned. Mr. Holley replied that they are not at this point. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would be desirable. Mr. Holley replied that it would be. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the map tells the amount of acreage, plus and minus Mr. Holley replied that it refers to the implementation, plan. Ms. Matlock stated that it refers to the service area in each parka Commissioner Tolstoy asked .for a definition of the plus and minus signs shown on the map. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if what Ms. Matlock said is that where there is a minus they could add more. Planning Commission Minutes -3 June 14, 1982 Ms. Matlock explained that presently the City park is immediately next to them. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what happens if the City park does not materialize. Ms. Matlock stated that they have assured the City that it will and the difference is very minor. Further, that it is all within a few acres of the. balance. Chairman ling asked for an explanation of the 10-20 year rain and the chart that was provided. Mr. tie Fox of Madole Engineering explained the chart. Chairman King asked for clarification of what time frame them: is from the minimum water containment tothe maximum. Mr. Mike Fox of Madole explained the chart and time for the retained water to come asp and get back. Chairman King asked if the time factor is the same in a 10-year rein a it is in a 5 year, ; Mr. Mike Fox explained that storage is a little longer but rainfall i the same, Commissioner Tolstoy asked from their standpoint, which of the two concepts is the 'hest one: Mr. Holley explained that the one directly behind Commissioner Tolstoy was because it provides a non-redundancy of use and intensifies the space by addressing the retention in a manner which would at the same time serve two good purposes. He indicated that when you are building a park from scratch, which is what is being done, you would not build parks of the same amenities so closely together. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reason he questions this is that it is important to the project and must be ;there for drainage problems; however, the park can. be made non.-redundant, and because the amount of park in the detention basin is only minus an acre or two, he sees no problem with accepting this as proposed in concept No. 2 and asked if this is the concept that Mr. Holley wished to have because of its proximity to a high density area and provides needed passive recreation eases Mr. Holley replied that he would like concept No. 2 but emphasized that this is not a specific park plan, only a concept* Chairman King stated that basically he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy and he saw no problem with giving full credit for the retention basin Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 1982 except from a theoretical point of view where the park site cannot be used 100 percent of the. :time because of the other function which is to serve as a retention basin. He felt that the credit to be given should be around. 95 percent. Ms. Matlack stated that they have added up all of the time when there might be water in the basin and their resulting calculations indicate that the basin could be deed as a park site for approximately 99 percent of the time. She indicated that it is so close as to be ludicrous. Commissioner Stout stated he felt 100 percent credit should be given. There was consensus among the Commission that 100 percent credit be given for the :detention basin to be used as a park.. The Commission then discussed private open space credit. Ms. Matlack advised that a lot of time has been spent with staff on this item and that it was their proposal that credit be given for open space as it was for their Sunsc pe project. She further indicated that in terms of the kind of valuation that would be put on the credit, they are providing the kinds of activities that would,be found in a public park:. She felt that under the formula private facilities would not get full credit for what they are contributing. Chairman Ding asked how they would deal 'with, the aspect of private open space receiving no park credit because it is a trade off for increased density. Ms. Matlock replied that she rejects that notion because it provides recreation where there isn't any. She further replied that with private open: space there is enough of a trade-off so that density can stand on its own. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that open space is important because it looks better and makes people feel better. Further, in this part: of the world developers could not build high density projects and sell them without open space provisions. People .look for open space when they live in a high density area. Commissioner T`olstoy stated that open space at ho pe is not the same a open space away from home or open space in another location as people in high density projects lire to get away .from it. He indicated that another thing is the importance of open space for soccer and field play because people- need both. Commissioner Tolstdy stated that he noticed that staff talks about 10 percent credit with 25 percent for amenities and 75 percent for land.' He further stated that it seems t,, him that a little credit should be taken away sea that both kinds of activities can be provided. 'landing Commission Minutes -5- June 14, 1982 Chairman King stated that following what Commissioner Tolstoy said, when he reviewed this, if the Commission approves high density they have to pay into the park system and they are not necessarily crediting whatever private open space they have within their development. He indicated that they still have to pay something and his thinking at the moment Is that they should not get 100 percent credit for private open "space because it is something that the builder should provide for the high density type development he proposes. . Matlock responded that she did not quarrel with the fact that people do look for open space areas, but. in "Terra. Vista every area is adjacent to a park and there is no question but that that need will be suet. She felt that the amount of parks that they are contributing; is the most generous that the City will ever see. She indicated that in Most daces credit is given to public open space and, not to private but in 'Terra Vista they are taking a balanced approach. She indicated that most projects will have private facilities and she felt that in an average condo project this would take care of 40 percent. Ms. Matlock stated that park credit for private open space is a part o the lark Ordinance and rather than reducing credit, she wishes that the guidelines are applied citywide. Chairman King asked if he is correct that under the Ordinance, 50 percent credit can be obtained;: Mr. Holley stated that as clarified at the last meeting, one relates to planned communities, which is applicable to "Terra Vista in which the Commission and Council has discretion in issuing credit of between 1-100 percent for private open space, and the other section, which relates to planned developments such as condominiums which may receive up to 50 percent credit. Commissioner "TolYs toy asked for clarification. Mr. Holley replied that Ordinance No. 1.0 provides for credit for private open ;space for such things as tondos, or in rather words, everything other than a planned community; could be given,up to 50 percent credit for private raped space. Chairman King asked ghat distinguishes between this and any rather community plan: Mr. Holley replied that it is just in the way the planned community as put together rather than a random condo site. He stated that there is a complete integration of planning in a planned community whereas in; a condo site there is not. Chairman, King asked Ms. Matlock what she felt the difference is. Planning Commission Minutes -6- ,lucre 14, 198 Ms. Matlock, replied that the difference is planning and that you do not have the opportunity that you have in an isolated project. She indicated that the private open space in the planned community must connect with the greenway system and the two are almost totally interchangeable. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that what they, are proposing is a chart of San- scape and are assuming that they will build one just like it in Terra Vista. He pointed out light green areas where they would ask for credit. He indicated that they were given credit for the dark green areas and that it does include credit for parking. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Lewis has one point and that is that Terra Vista offers a potential for better recreational design than is available anywhere else in the City. He indicated, however, that he would still like to see some credit go for the larger type park areas. Chairman King asked, if he did not wish to give 100 percent credit, how a line would be drawn rationally. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie did not now.; Ms. Matlock stated that there might be some slight confusion when they say 100 percent credit. She indicated that if 1000 people require 5 acres of park they would get 100 percent credit for their contribution of a local park even though it is not five acres. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Holley concurred with that statement. Mr. Holley replied that he concurred with what has been presented. Chairman King asked what Lewis Development thinks of the staff recom- mendation of 75-25 percent. Ms. Matlock replied that she thought this is agreeable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Ms. Matlock could list the type of hard- ware she should receive 25 percent credit for. Ms. Matlock replied that tennis courts, swimming pools, tot lots, wading pools, shade structures, etc. are examples. She indicated things that would make space usable. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that open space with 50 trees to the acre would not do it. Ms. Matlock stated that they would make a large open area more usable, Mr. Lewis stated that if they do more, they would want more credit. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 14, 1982 7.55 p.m. The. Planning Commission recessed. 8:03 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Stout stated it was his feeling that 100 percent credit should not be given because people will still go to a public park andhe was unable to address this, but this is his feeling. Chairman King stated that assuming Commissioner Stout's proposal was taken and also the one that he alluded to, if the Commission did not want 100 percent or the 75-25 percent recommended by staff, could anyone think of any rational or reasonable basis on which to draw a line for the credit-. Mr. Comet stated that many days have been spent with the Lewis Company in trying to comae up with what was felt to be an equitable solution. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Holley wished to comment. r. Holley restated the question of is there a logical basis from`which to came.. He indicated that other than the one presented here in staff s report which best fits, he was useable to thinly of anything else. He indicated that he would throw out for discussion the same argument that he does not necessarily agree with, that 50 percent credit be given as was the credit can a, pUD. He indicated that there was a balancing -effect going on there but it was on a piecemeal project versus a planned community. Mr. Dougherty stated that this is a matter of legal parameters of being one on one end and 100 on: the other. He indicated that ;as far as drawing a rational and reasonable line, it is difficult in this type of matter because it is a judgement call. He further stated that you must exercise your best judgement given the circumstances. =lie cautioned against just coming up with some arbitrary figure that would not be supportable. The proposal of 75 percent for land and; 25 percent for amenities is something that could be classified as rational and reasonable and something that a court would not strike down. Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that since it has been brought out that those people who Live in 'those condominiums will contribute to the general park funds throughout the City, he has changed his mind because when he first came to the meeting tonight he felt that the credit should be 50 percent for the Land, 25 percent for the amenities, is ;,something that could be classified as rational and reasonable and something that a court would not strike down. Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that since it has been brought out that those people who live in those;condominiums will contribute to the general park funds throughout the. City, he has changed his mind because when he first came to the meeting tonight he .felt that the credit should be 50 percent for the. land, 25 percent for the amenities, and 25 percent for overall park situation. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 14, 1982 Mr. Holley asked if Commissioner Tolstoy said general overall City park fund. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he meant the City park in Terra 'Vista and that is what he said before but he would be willing to go along with the 75 percent 25 percents Isis. Matlock stated that they agree that private open space does not mean that much for all people and that they need open space. They propose that part would be given to open space and part to the private park. Further, she stated that what is there would not meet all of the park. ordinance, Commissioner To.lstoy stated his agreement. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any calculation on that. Ms. Matlock stated that 45 percent is typical; on a condo, with the balance to go to a local park,. Commissioner Stout stated that it is difficult to conceptualize and asked if any breakdown has been done on a high density area. Ms. Matlock replied that they find it difficult to meet any more than 75 percent on a site Commissioner Stout asked if that is a gross or net calculation. Ms. Matlock replied that it is calculated on the basis of some of the projects that they have done. Commissioner Tol,stoy stated that they did not include the whole project but used high density projects and not single family in this calculation. Ms. Matlock stated that they did not assume any open space credit,. Commissioner Stout stated he has no objection to the 75- 5 credit if some condition exists for credit of private versus public open space. He indicated that they should not get credit if all the open: space in an area is private because some of the project should support public park spaces Discussion ensued relative to the percentage of credit to be given. Following discussion., Chairman ling stated his feeling ::is that what Commissioner Stout is saying makes a list of sense, however, he has not given enough thought to coming up with a conscientious 'opinion tonight. He stated that he could deal with the.. 75 25 percent proportion, and have it make sense. Further, that Commissioner Stout's proposal makes sense but perhaps needs some more thought. His thinking is that they may have consensus can 75-25 percent and maybe that what Dennis is bringing Planning Commission Minutes -9- .dune 14, 1982 up can be further discussed on the 2rd of .tune. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it appears that there is consensus to bring the issue of private open space credit back. Chairman King stated that there are ;2 more issues -- implementation and the aspect of mewing the City Park. Ms. Matlock stated that graphics have been prepared; and she proceeded to show how the allocation will be received dependent upon how the project, is built on an area by area.. basis The trail system and trail links and greenway were shown. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they now have a phasing schedule. Further, what happens if a section; or phase of building is not completed and another i_s begun. s. Matlock replied that at will have no effect and will still work t this loan has been. run. an ever possible wa She indicated that h s p y p y Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie could not conceive that they would build a complete section and then go on. he further stated that after they have built one half, they will probably go on to the next, and asked lacer the phasing will fit. Ms. Matlock replied that the building will not follow these lines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be knew this and asked how the schedule will fit. Ms. Matlock stated that the park fee will be applied to local facilities that will be of most benefit to the people and if a facility is finished they will go on to the next area in sequence. Chairman Ting asked what mould happen if they 'build cane-half of one and go, for example; to the southeast part of the project and want to go on Ms. Matlock replied that they wouldn't be taking park credit from pane place and using' it in another, they will be doing what benefits everyone. She indicated that the whale pint is to take a little park and make the greenway possible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought they would be building along Foothill first. s. Matlock replied that they will be building along foothill but do not expect to build housing there for some time. Planning Commission Minutes 10- June Zia, 1982 Mr. Lewis stated that Commissioner Tolstoy is correct in that there is no way to follow a fixed schedule because things keep changing. Further, that he thought by TIOW they would know about the park and, they don't know the City's desires or market questions so there is no way they can follow a phasing schedule. He Indicated that they will go from west to east because there are all kinds of reasons such as sewer and the dif Ferent owners they bought from that must be paid. Conimissioner Tolstoy stated that because of this and because of what Ms. Matlock Is showing, he did not see how this will work. Mr. Lewis stated that the bookkeeping is not that hard. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is his point and that he was of to ask staff what kind of bookkeeping they will use and how it will be kept track of. Mr. Holley stated that this is a very complicated issue and the Lewis Development Company is saying that it will work but the City will have to have security attached to each project and each phase will pay for itself at the time. He indicated that, there would not be any owed credit, Mr. Holley spoke of outright dedication that may be required for whatever is owed against what was permitted. Further, that the complication arises because they do not know what the precise boundaries are. He slated that there must be irrevocable guarantees on pieces of property. Commissioner y Tolsto stated that he would bet you will. see a line around Base Line and Foothill before you see any other development. Ms. Matlock stated that -if this is so, the City would require the parks to go in, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is not arguing that point but was asking if they can come up with a logical, bookkeeping system so that farther along the line they will know where they are, lie indicated that it is always good to have a clear plan of attack where there are no impacts and everyone knows where they stand. Ms. Matlock stated that they have been working with staff to make this as simple as possible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated lie knew this but worries about complexities. Mr. Lewis stated that lie hoped it would not be made too rigid. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the Commission would decide tonight about fi,,nplementation and, whether they would just be presenting their strateg,,y or it something must be done, Mr. Holley replied that the point of inplementation in the final text Planning Commission Minates -If- June 14, 1982 is how this will proceed. He further indicated that this is the first cut of a workable plain and if this is the type of implementation that is desired, they will go ahead and ink out more specific details to be included in the final text. He indicated that they are looking for conceptual agreement so that each area pays as it goes. Commissioner `olstoy stated that they did not know enough tonight to make any decision. He indicated that the concept may be fine but there is nothing they can contribute. Chairman King asked that the Commission ca on to the City park. Chairman King stated that the proposal is to move from the south to they north side of Base Line and asked for the Commission's thoughts on this. Ms. Matlock stated that this is pretty complicated in their view and there were several alternatives that they would like to discuss at the next meeting. 8:55 p.m. The planning Commission recessed 9:05 pass. The Planning Commission reconvenes visa» Matlock asked if they`-c could discuss the City Park. ,She indicated that Gruen'and Associates had done further alternative studies on what would happen if the park were moved " She indicated that when this was brought caps there was general, feeling about reducing the size of the dark and she showed a graphic of a park with 96 acres. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what they want to do is horse trade. Ms. Matlock stated that they area pleased with the open space and that i would balance what they have at that area. Commissioner 1olsatoy asked if they thought they are dealing with the City Council.. Mr. Lewis stated that the Council has made suggestions that they are responding to. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if their suggestions were from as clear blue sky, or if; they were suggested by Lewis Development Company. Chairman King stated that he personally liked the park at leaven and Blast Line and can both sides and, relative to the aspect of neighborhood commercial. obviously, he felt it would be better without it. He indicated, however, that some time past when Lewis came -before the Commission for neighborhood commercial he had been one of the people who voted in favor of it at that location. He stated that he did not necessarily like it as it is shoxm can the graphic but did not feel that neighborhood comniercial Planning Commission Minutes -1 - June 14 1982 1 is totally incongrous with a park. He felt that former Commissioner Sceranka had a good idea in moving it to Haven as it would provide good entry into the Terra vista Planned Community and would be more centrally located to the city as a `waole. fie felt that it would accomplish much more moved to haven than where it was. Mr. Lewis stated that he appreciated Mr. Ding's opinion and knew he did not speak for the entire Coimission or the City Council,. He indicated that this could be adjusted depending on how the Commission or Council- wants it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if money is no object there is more visibility for the park if it is located on haven, in other words, Commissioner Tolstoy stated, if the City had the bucks, they could do it and favor Haven avenue because it would give more people more pleasure; but he wondered how realistic this is because he did not know if the park can be had, or if it can be afforded, because things have changed since a City park was once proposed., Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is very much against the shopping center and has always been as he did not like it in the first place and would not like- it in the second place. He indicated that the shopping center would make a. lousy statement for the entry in such an important project as it conflicts with the slopping centers that are already built within the co-tmuni.ty, He :indicated that it is his feeling that there are presently too many shopping centers built- within the community and he would like to see a shopping center to serve the whole project rather than one wart of it: which would drag from the other already existing shopping centers. He indicated that he likes the park on Haven Avenue, didn't know if it is realistic, but does not want a commercial center there. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see the park on Haven and is opposed to where it is shown, Chairman King asked.the Lewis DevelopmentCompany 'what they would do with where they have proposed the park if it were stuck on haven Avenue. Ms. Matlock stated that they do have a layout. Mr. Ki Suh Park of Gruen and Associates showed the Commission what the road' connections and park would be with the connecting trails. Commissioner Stout asked if the park were moved across Haven, would they do a bridge across the flood control channel., Ms. Matlock replied that, if the park were there the only reason to put: a bridge across the channel would be to have the school children walls to the local school. She felt that most are chase enough not to be bussed and :not go over the bridge. Planning Commission-Minutes -13- June 1.4, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would provide nice access to the city 'park. Ms. Matlock stated that the City should put the bridge in then. Mr. Lewis 'stated that he understood what Commissioner Tolstoy is saying' in not liking the shopping center because there are so many but the Cxouncil has stated that this is the best corner in town and the people living across should have close access to a shopping.. center. Further, if there are tenants who cannot compete, then it is their tough luck.. _Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it is the Commission who gets the blame for this r. Lewis stated that they do not know if they can get a shopping center that would outdraw Victoria, but they would take the gamble. He further stated that five years from now a person may come out with a bigger and better shopping center and that is the American system. He indicated that they have started negotiating again with a couple of regional companies to see if they can revive the shopping center here. Mr. Lewis stated that it 'would be in the Cai.ty's interest because Mr. Hahn might not get the regional- center as it could go to Ontario and he felt they 'should be on the same level as Hahn because if they loose ground, it will be harder to negotiate. He indicated that they spent a lot of time in Las Vegas at the shopping center convention and the Hahn Company has nothing shown for this area. He further indicated that as long as there is interest in the regional center they do not want to speculate on a neighborhood center and asked if they would be better off with a regional center. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that was not a fair question at this time. Mr. Lewis stated that there is a race for the regional center and if Ontario wins, Ranch. Cucamonga loses, and he does not want to put a neighborhood center at Haven and Foothill and indicated they are making an effort ;for a regional center again. Chairman ling stated that in a positive vein, Lewis Development will reap what ;it will, sow at the corner of Foothill and Haven, and he personally thinks it is an open ball game. Mr. Lewis stated that he has asked the Hahn Company when they will. get started in Rancho Cucamonga and they have replied that it is a low priority. Mr. Gomez went on to the landscaping, guidelines and read the six staff recommendations. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was in agreement with Condition o. 1. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 14, 1982 There was consensus among the Commission of this agreement. Mr. Ki Sun Park stated that Condition No. 2 was not totally agreeable to them and that Terra Vista was excluded from the General. Plan study. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the, conditions and requirements should not be less than the General Plan but should be compatible. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that item be brought back for discussion; after graphics are presented for review by the Commission in the final draft. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission must be shown more before a decision is arrived at and that states it meets the intent of the General Plan. He further indicated that the staff report does not show trees in the median. Mr. Jeff Skorneck, Gruen and associates stated it is his understanding that the General Plan calls for shrubs In Milliken and this is specifically mentioned. He indicated that they are taking their cue from the general Plan and are conforming with its intent. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that no trees are shown in the Haven median in figure;40. Mr. Skorneck replied that trees are not shown, but shrubs are,. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there will have to be trees on Haven Avenge because the Commission has determined that the Jacaranda will be used there... Chairman ding stated that what the Commission is seeking is assurance that the medians will, look nice. Further, there are various guidelines but this was emphasized throughout the Victoria Planned Conn-nunity and staff knots whit the Commission wants to do on major boulevards and the kind of impression they wish to create Mr. Lewis stated that it is their desire to dove along and be cooperative, Mr. Skorneck stated; it was them- feeling that the median was better with trees left out, but if trees are wanted, they will; work .it. out. Commiissioner Tolstoy stated that one of :the things expressed in the General Plan is that the vistas to the mountains be preserved but that did not preclude trees that can be seen. through. He indicated the reason for the selection of the Jacaranda along Hagen is that you can see through them. He indicated that the other consideration that the Commission must take into account is that most streets denote hot unpleasant places in this semi and desert area. He further stated that something like the Jacaranda can do much to instill the feeling of it being cooler by their canopy so that a lot of money is not spent on air conditioning. He Planning Commission Minutes -15-, June 14, 1982 indicated that they do not grant to have d city like Ontario where all you have is a lot of pavement in their parking lots without any trees. Mr. Lewis stated that he is not arguing. Chairman ling asked the L wisews if of the six items recommended in the staff report there are any that they do not feel they could agree on. Ms. Mdtlock, indicated there were none. Mr. Comet asked if the Commission wants staff to work this out for final text at the next meeting: Commissioner Tolstoy" anal the. Commission felt these 'should be worked out and brought hack. Mr. Park stated that with the trees on Milliken, by the, time the left - turn lanes ,are added;, they would be unable to meet the tree preservation requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there are many kinds of eucalyptus that are not of the Blue Cum variety. He indicated that the issue is whether the trees that are there are a desirably species, and if they are not,: they should not be perpetuated but replaced with new ogres. Commissioner Telstoy stated that he: did not say they should be removed.. Mr. Lewis stated that they would prefer removing them but they will work this out with staff:. He indicated that he felt confident that this could be worked out by the newt meeting Chairman King stated that the next issue is energy conservation. Ms. Matlock stated that they concur with all of staff's recommendations. Ms. Matlock stated that Dennis Kurutz was available with some graphics on the parkway. Chairman King asked if the Commission would like to discuss the City park in more death at the next meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that they would because it would otherwise mold up the first: phase and they do not want it held up for four months Chairman King asked what they wished to say about it. Ms. Matlock indicated that they would discuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that Commissioner Tolstcy does not like the shopping center and the crest triangle. Planning Commission Minutes -16- dame 14, 198 Chairman King asked -.if an alternative configuration can be developed in the vacated park site. Mr. Lewis replied that they would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Kurutz if he has a plant material list. Mr. Kurutz replied that he does not have at this time and that it needs to be fully resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Kurutz could tell him what will be utilized. Mr. Kurutz stated that Crape Myrtle or Purple Leaf Plum would be used and explained the mode and usage of the ;green ay for the parkway. He explained that the function of the greenway is to provide pedestrian, bicycle and maintenance vehicle circulation. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of containment would be used for the decomposed granite in the greenway. Mr. Kurutz stated that this has not been worked out and could be anything from redwood headers to concrete curbs. He indicated that this will be undulating and used for pedestrians and bikers alike. Mr. Kurutz indicated that a plant vocabulary is being worked out with a matrix of trees as well as a landscape pallet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any change of elevation along the walkway. Mr. Kurutz stated that without the grading study they could not commit to that and that they are working with a relatively level site. He indicated that the same treatment can be achieved by the difference in variation of tree heights and that they did not have a final solution. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they talked about three types of circu- lation and Mr. Kurutz stated they would make use of the bike trail. Mr. Kurutz replied that was correct, it was a 10-foot wide bike trail. and could be used for maintenance vehicles. Commissioner Stout asked what kind, of fences will be used between the corridors. Mr. Kurutz stated that he would like to see some variation in movement and height along the corridor. Chairman King stated that he liked the aspect of little groves and felt they -looked extremely nice. Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 14, 1982 s. Matlock stated that this is how it will look after it is grown. Chairman King stated he assumed that this will be in the text as well. s. Matlock stated that it would be Chairman King stated; that discussion will resume on June 23 after the regular meeting. Motion: Moved by Tol.stoy, seconded';by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:00 p.m.- The Planning Commission adjourned, Respectfully submitted, a JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18 - June 14, 198 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM0NGA PLANNING COMMISSION 'MINUTES Regular Meeting June 9, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Vice-chairman, Hera Rempel, called ed the Regular Meeting of the City o Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lien's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Vice-chairman Rempel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL- CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dennis L. Stout, Peter Tolstay, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:ISSIt NERS: Jeff Kin STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Eduard A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Barn reminded the Commission of the upcoming Terra Vista public hearing to be held on Monday, ,;June 1.4, 1982, Mr. Lam advised the Coaamission, that the city had won another award for the Industrial Area Specific flan. The Merit Award, received from the Inland Empire Section of the American Planning Association, will be presented to the City at an awards banquet, June 24, 1982 at Ring's Restaurant in San Bernardino. Mr. Lam further advised that the Indus- trial. Area Specific Plan would now be entered in the statewide com- petition of the American Planning Association. He invited the Com- mission to attend the banquet CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. VACATION OF 22ND STREET AND 20' ALLEY - LUCAS LAND - The vacation of 22nd Street and 20' alley, located south of Rth Street and east of Center Avenue - APN 209-241 1 , 2 & 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10246 ALL SE /ASSA1 A custom lot subdivision of ten acres of land into 15 lots located in the R-1-20,000 (Single-family Residential./20,00 square foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Maven Avenue - APN 201-111-14. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it was correct that in complying with the- requirements for the Co runny_Trails, the applicant had; lost a lot. Mr. Vairin replied that this was correct. Commissioner Stout: asked what the width of Mesada. Street is. Mr. Rovgeaa, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it is 60 feet to the right°-of-way which is standard;. Commissioner Stout asked if it would he possible to put ;a slight curve in the proposed strut eliminating a straight :run to Mesada; Mr. Vairin replied that it is possible. Mr. Stout asked if it would be possible to vary the width of some of the lots to generate a more pleasing effect.; Mr. Vairin replied that this could he dune. Vice-chairman R: mpo1 opened the public hearing. r. Dan Guerra, the project engineer, addressed the Commission. He stated that at the present time, the street does have a slight jog, but this could' be increased. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that on the alternative proposed there is an existing problem with water po ding at Mesada_ and Mayberry. He asked if alternative 2 would eliminate this problem. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer is comfortable with either alternative. Mr. Guerra replied that either one is suitable if the cost of installa- tion. of drainage is affordable, however, this ;is dependent upon the property for which an easement is being +obtained. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it;was his opinion that this particular project presents a peculiar drainage problem and is one reason way Planning Commission Minutes -2- June , 1982 staff investigate.asked.. to . He indicated that his personal preference is alternative "A" and be would press for that except that the developer has already lost one lot because the City required a major trail. This; he said, would not be fair and would not improve the drainage situation. He stated that he would like to see ;some variation in the street and that the project should be approved. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that :a another consideration is that lots , 4 7, 8 and 9 will be used for drainage as they always have, and the water will. go to Mayberry Street as it always has, as this project will not acid any new water. He asked if this is true. Mr. Rougeau replied that it was. 'Ir. Tolstoy asked that this be shown in the regard..," Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the developer is not being allowed to, come down Haven: which would have given them a better chance to divide the lots. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that hopefully, with alternative 2, this will alleviate the problem. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, .carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-5 , approving Tentative Tract No. 10246 with additional conditions one and two as set forth in the staff report. A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 'MAP NO. 7451 - CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS -- A division of 2.79 acres into 2 parcels within the R- 1-20,000 zone, located on the southwest corner of Wilson and Haven' ;Avenues APN 201-18 -11 Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked, if when there is discussion of equestrian trails, this will allow right-of-way to be received on both parcels one and two. Mr. Rougeau replied that this is correct. Vice-chairman Repel opened the public hearing. Mr. Floyd Zielke, 265 N. San Gabriel, Pasadena, the engineer representing the owner, stated that the purpose of the land division is to allow the church to sell :the excess property, He stated that they were in agreement _ with all of the conditions with the exception of Condition 3. Mr. ielke stated that staff indicted that at the time the proposed development is submitted, the condition might be modified if it is compatible with the project to have access to Haven-. He indicated that under the circd -- Pl.anring Commission Minutes - - dune 9, 1982 stances, they would agree' with'all conditions There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Nation: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 5 -55, approving parcel neap 7451 with all. conditions. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7441 - TACKE`T - division of .91 acres into 4 bits for residential use located between La Grande Drive and Lomita Drive,: west of Amethyst Street - N 202-081-t3 and 14. Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that staff indicated the drainage on this project would go east and west but asked if it wasn't much farther to Amethyst than it was to Hellman. Mr. Rougeau replied that the drainage could go either way but that could be an optical illusion. He indicated that it 'would drain to the east side ,and then down to the street. Commissioner Tol,stoy stated that he would hate to overload Lomita. Mr. Rougeau stated that even the south lots would drain the water: Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the street is already determined and there: isn' t much that can be done because of this. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. ion Tadlcett, the applicant addressed the Commission stating that h was concerned with the requirement for Condition 34. He provided some photographs to the Commission showing the drainage to the south and the east. He stated that he would like to avoid the installation of the concrete "V" ditch because it appears that there is no ground erosion and installation would be very costly. Cr. Rou eau replied that the requirement takes effect only after the g p first house is 'built. Further, that the concrete "'V" ditch is not required because of erosion problems but -because of past City exper- iences with obstruction to water flow paths. He indicated that when obstruction occurs it creates problems downstream and a 'definite ease- ment must be procured. Mr. Rougeau felt that the requirement for a concrete "V" ditch would be the best wan to prevent obstruction by preventing property owners from building a wall over the. drainage 'oath, or other similar diversions. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 9, 198 Mice-chairman Rempel stated that staff indicated if they build on the .l owe~ portion of Lomita they will not have to put in a concrete 'Y' ditch. He asked if it would have to be placed on the east side of the lower lot-. Mr. Rau eau stated that that lot will have an easement and the concrete ditch should probably be put in. Mr. 'Tackett stated that he was not sure he understood Condition No. d. Mr. Rou ea.0 indicated that the asterisk in the conditions refers down to the median island category and did not pertain to this. r. 'Tackett asked about the street light condition. Mr. Rou eau replied that it is possible that this will. not be required: if the street lights are in the right place; however, if the existing street lights are on wooden poles, they would, have to be replaced. Mr. 'Tackett stated that he did not have to discuss this now as he could talk to staff about this after tonight's meeting, . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. °Tac ett had better; speak about this now because if the Commission: sets the conditions, the applicant would; be bound by them. r. 'Tackett stated that it is his feeling that the condition for the concrete V" ditch is not required as the wager drainage has not created a problem for the past several years and the photographs he provided to the Commission_ show this.. Mrs. Evelyn Hall 94 C Lomita Alta Loma of � : owner property adjacent to this',proposed project asked what the maximum number of living units would be allowed. Mr. Rempel replied that one residence on each, of the .lots would be allowed. Mrs. Hall stated that she has been negligent in attending the Planing, Commission meetings but that she could write 'a book on the crowning of thestreet. She indicated that some consideration should be given to the long time residents. Mrs. Hall. provided some background to the placement of sewers in this area. She indicated that with the project for installation of the sewers, her property has suffered. Mice--chairman Rempel replied to Mrs. HallFs original question that when this was discussed at the last meeting, the Commission asked staff to ; come beck; with a recommendation on ;a General Plan change to allow two units per lot in this area and that it would be R-2 and not R-3. Planning Commission Minutes - ,lime 9, 1982 Further, that this would have to come before Design Review the next time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was confused on the issue of density and. asked Mrs. Hall if she wanted only two units per lot. He asked if i the future she were asked what should be :done with this property, would she say only duplexes should go in: Mrs.. Hall replied that the units on Le Grand have been done very nicely but they are concerned with two story apartments that might go in like those adjacent to Stater Brothers on Lomita Drive. Mr. Tackett stated that be was ;under the impression that this is zoned R-3. He further stated that he had been forbidden from doing anything until;after adoption of the. General. Plan "because the General Flan shows this area. as -1 and not - . He indicated that this would mean a loss of , 40,000 and it appeared that this was not handled in his best interest. "dice-chairman Rempel stated that the General Plan shows this as R-1 whether this property is divided into 4 lots or I lot. Further, that the General. Plan will eventually be changed to allow additional units or the zoning will be changed. Further, that staff did the only thing; they could-. Winne-chairman Rempel stated that if Mr'. Tackett wished, he could request a General. Plan. Amendment to change this. r. Tackett stated that not everyone has liberal access to information and if the; piece of property was zoned R--3 and under the General Plan is now zoned. R-I,, it was very confusing to him. Mr. Lawn stated that anyone purchasing property in this City or any ether city should know that the state lair has changed say that the General flan and not the zoning map governs what classification the property will have. , he indicated that when anyone wished to buy property in the City they should ask what the General Plan shows as this is the only thing that governs. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy' stated that the applicant questioned Condition No. 4 relating to drainage and asked Mr. Rougeau about this Mr. Rougeau replied that there is always a problem when cross drainage is involved and the only gay that the City can alleviate future problems is through a requirement such as this Commissioner Tolstoy asked if one of the desires is to put the property owner on the south on the alert that he will. be taking the runoff . Mr. Rougeau stated that this is correct and that this is actually a condition of the Grading Go iftee, a technicality, but is required of every parcel map and tract recorded in the City. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 9, 1982 Commissioner Tolsto , referring to a question by Mrs. Hall relative to zoning, asked if the zoning is increased beyond 2 dwelling units per lot might it produce an even: greater water problem. Mr. Rougeau replied that there would be because of more coverage on the lot. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Condition No. 34 was very important. Commissioner Stout stated his agreement with Commissioner TolstoRy's comments.; He indicated that he has seen what happens when there is no drainage provision. He further indicated that it is easy for the property owner who owns one piece to express concern with cost for drainage, but this small problem can eventually become a very big problem. Vice-chairman Rempel staged that 25-30 years ago this would not have been brought up. These days, however, it does not tale much for someone to go to court; He indicated that whale this is expensive, it is really cheap insurance. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that if the applicant wishes to gait until some time in the future relative to clianging the General Plan, the next hearings mould be in about 3-4 months® Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it appears there is consensus that Condition No. 34 remain Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded: by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt: Resolution No. 82- 2, approving parcel wrap 7441 with the con- ditions as noted. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-09 - WHITEHE D - The proposed development of a dog kennel for raising and breeding dogs in the.. A-1 zone on 1. 5 acres of land, located at 8406 Hamilton Street - APN 2 `2-021- 50. City Planner, hick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. lie indicated that the resolution of approval, if accepted'by the Commission, should be corrected to delete Condition which is a repeat of Condition 3,, and that another condition be added which defines the duration of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Stout asked if there is any minimum size for a lot in the A-I zone. Mr. Vairin replied that this request exceeds the requirement and that the minimum is one acre within the A-I zone. Planing Commission Minutes - - June 9', 1982 Vice-chairman Hempel, opened the public. hearing. Mr. Whitehead, the applicant, indicated that he had nothing to add to staff`'s comments other than he wants to keep the dogs he presently' has. onmiissioner Stout asked how many dogs the applicant presently has. Mr. Whitehead replied that he has six. Mrs. Judith Lengwenus, property owner to the south of the applicant's property, presented a petition opposing this proposed use. She stated.. that she works for the County of Sari Bernardino Environmental Health Agency and, knew from first-band experience of ghat might occur if the Conditional Use Permit is granted. She indicated that once a kennel is established., there is nothing that the County or City can do. Commissioner Stout asked if at the present time there have been any problems with dugs.,, Mrs. Lengwenus replied that she had found dogs in her back yard and that they bark all night long. She; indicated that this area has a lot of dogs and this will increase the dog population of the area. Marilyn Roth, 8415 Hamilton, stated that this area used to be quiet, but there is now a noise and smell problemthat needs to be settled. She stated she felt that health and safety standards are being violated. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it was Mrs. Roth's contention that dugs on the applicant's property contribute to this problem'. Mrs. Roth answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy' asked if this situation contributes to the noise in the neighborhood. Mrs. Roth and Mrs. Lengwenus replied that they thought so. Mrs. Whitehead, applicant, stated that they have installed a cement ditch for waste and that it empties into their Tess pool.. She indicated that their; dogs are clean, they go to the veterinarian and are licensed,. She indicated that she did. not 'understand what the fuss is about. Mrs. Roth asked if the kennel could be placed on the other side, away from their lots: Mr. Mel Gable, an area resident, asked to see Exhibit "A". He stated that he did not know Mr. Whitehead or any of the other property owners who spoke tonight; however, everyone has =dogs' and they do bark at night. e indicated that there are no particular dogs at fault and he knew of no dog which spoke a different language. Mr. Cable stated that be could not imagine that 6 dogs in a kennel would create. additional Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 9, 1982 problems for the area and that these dos will probabl.y be the best treated in the area. He asked whir leash .laws were not enforced and further, if the kennels could be repositioned. Mr. Gable indicated that horses in the area created as much a problem as the dogs do Mrs. Len wenus asked where and what the water is that drains from the Whitehead 'property. Mr. . Whitehead replied that the water they see is from the washing machine. Further, that this is the wad it was when he moved in flour years ago. Mr.. Whitehead ,spoke of the improvements he had made to the kennel indicating that the area would be neater and cleaner. Mrs.. troth stated that she is not arguing .about 4 dogs but did not want diem along her side of the house because of udders There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for the record how many dogs the applicant was legally allowed to have. , Mr. Gomez replied that the is allowed to have 4 adult dogs,, a months or older. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this means that the dogs can whelp and that the offspring can be kept for a period of four months; Ala:. Gomez replie.d3 that this is correct. Mr. Whitehead :Mated that he has six adult dogs aan :l that are weaning. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie has two dogs over what, is allowed and it doesn' t matter how mucky land he has, it is st.il.l. only 4 dogs alloyed Commissioner Stout stated that it is proposed that d drags be authorized but that the applicant is only asking for Ca Mr. Gomez replied that this would allow some flexibility. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it sounds to him like this is a neighbor- hood full.' of dogs, Further, that on this piece of property with almost two acres, and with Ka Conditional [Jae Permit if there are any problems they can be brought to the Commission and he,dealt with. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he doer not see anything wrong; with this request. Planning CammASSIOTI Minutes -9- dune 9, 1982 Vice-chairman Rempel felt that the number of dogs allowed should be changed back to the six presently owned by the applicant. . Further, that since this is 'riot a public boarding facility which would cause trouble he did not see a Problem because there are presently so many dogs in the neighborhood. He felt that If the applicant could have placed the kennel on the other side of his property it would have been better. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-57, approving Conditional Ilse Permit No. 82-09. with a change in the number of dogs allowed to 6 and the addition of a condition defining the time period of the permit. 8.10 p.m. The planning Commission recessed. 8.35 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. F. CONDITIONA1, USE PERMIT NO. 82-05 EASON - The temporary use of an _e tin g structure for a" ci;u_rc_[afac_ility in the Industrial Park Category (Subarea 7) , located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard APN 229-011-21. Senior planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Eason, pastor of Victory Chapel, stated that they would change the building to meet the requirements of the Foothill Fire Protection District. He asked if the condition for the double entry doors is retroactive as he did not ask this question of the Foothill Fire District. He indicated that they are willing to have the break away doors and are also willing to install panic hardware. Mr. Eason asked whether the sign on top would be allowable as it would be diffi- cult and costly to replace. fie indicated that they are also willing to meet the condition for parking lot striping but asked that they be allowed to recoat the black top, prior to the striping. Mr. Vairin stated that the reason the sign must be removed is because it does not conforin to the City's Sign Ordinance relative to sign placement being above the roof parapet. Mr. Vairin indicated that the sign could be relocated to the side of the building and he would be willing to work, Faith the church on this. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the size of the sign. Mr. Vairin replied that the size is within the requirements of the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes _10- June 9, 1982 r. Vairin stated that lie would like to clarify the Fire District' s regulations. He indicated that the fire District is a separate entity and operates under Titles 19 and 24 of the State Fire Marshall's regu- lations. He indicated that the Fire District would tell Mr. Eason whet roust- be dine based upon the occupancy of the building. Mr. Vairin stated that whatever the regulations are for the existing occupancy, they must be met. Mr. Eason replied that it does not appear that there will be a problem. Further, that there is a fireman in the congregation who will. be working with the mire. District on the regulations, and safety -is one of their first. considerations. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the only thing that bothers him is the fire safety aspect of this request: He indicated that It is good that a church is moving to where it finally wants to be and asked if Mr. Eason :e , sa t meet the requirements of the fire is aware f the oasts necessary r u e 1. a District. Mr. Eason stated that lacy has spoken with the District and the only area in question at the present time is the sanctuary. He indicated that the building has two very acceptable exits and that they will bring the building up to faux exits. Further, that they have a handle on cast and it is not prohibitive. Commissioner Tempel stated that if nothing else, this will, clean up the building. Commissioner Stout ,staters that this is almost poetic Justice. Motion. Moved, by Stout seconded by 't'oLstoy, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No " -dtl with the conditions as .stated. ,art G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8 11 -- WENZEL - The establishment of d clatarch irr a to square foot unit cif-an industrial complex in the Gefl aral Industrial. area (Subarea 4) , located. on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of tath Street -- APN .l. -071- 25. Mr. Gomez reviewed the staff" report. ca nissioner Stout asked if Mr. Gomez knew how many of these requests have been approved Mr. Gomez replied that there have been approximately one-half dozen in, the past 3-4 months Planning Commission, Minutes -11- Tune 91, 1,982 Vice. chairman Rernpel opened the public hearing. There bei.ng no comments, the public 'hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolsto Y' stated that because of the eco non is situations in the Country, it appears that there isn't any money for churches to go out within the community. , He indicated that the industrial area should be left for industrial use. Beyond this; he felt that the church should be allowed. Motion: Moved by Tol toy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-59, approving nditionai Use Permit No. -11 with all conditions. 11. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 2 03 TT 10826 - 1,.f1. - A change of zone :from R-1- 20,000 (Single-Family Residential, 1/2 acre lots) to R- /PD (Two Family Residential/Planned Development) and the devel- opment of 27 single family il.y units, 81 patio homes and 202 townhouse units can. 57.7 acres of land, located between Haven, and Hermosa, approximately 660 feet south of Wilson - APN 211-181- 2,'' 15, 14, 02, fat, 65 and 69. Michael. Va.irin, ,Senior Plan-aner,; revirewed,the staff report. Re indicated that the applicant had been requested to meet with Deer Creek residents and Chaffe » College relative to this planned development. Mr. Vairi n stated that a letter: has been received train the Deer Creek Homeowners Association advising that they are pleased with this development. Commissioner `'ol,stoy;stated that the: median on Haven is designed to be cut so that traffic coming up Haven will be able to go into the turn pocket. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Rougeau replied that there i.a an exit cut throughthe median for the north driveway for 01naf fey College and is north of the entrances for this project. He indicated that this could not be closed up to provide another entrance to the projects but the thought is that the project would: construct a left-turn pocket that would provide the nabll;ity for nn U-turn. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what is there is inadequate and nasked. if this would be redesigned. Mr. Rou eau replmie.d that it would be, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it can be redesigned without traffic snarls. Mr. Rdugeau replied that it can be and will provide a left-turn pocket like the one dorm the street". Planning Commission Minutes 12- June 9, 1982 Commissioner °Tolstoy asked if that should be a longer turn pocket. Mr. Roug;eau replied that it should be. Commissioner Shout asked if somebody turning left into the project will have to go past the entryway, make a U-turn and turn around, Mr. Rougeau replied that this is ghat must happen. He stated that if there were not already a driveway for the college,' there could have been one for the entrance. He indicated further that two entryways so close together would, create problems. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that one of the conditions of approval states that there will be provisons for water generated above the project to flow through to the basin. lie further asked if the cal.- culation "there: is enough to handle the Mayberry water situation. ' He felt' this should be stated. Mr. Rougeau replied that he would have to ask: the applicant's engineer to answer this question. He indicated that it probably hasn't been sized for anything north of Wilson but that it could be. Further, that this would be a very small additional amount of water in the way that it pipes out.: Vice-chairman Re pel opened the pudic hearing. Mr. H. Ernest Reynolds, president of Reynolds Environmental, Group, Newport Beach,;, spoke of the design ofthis planned development and the; amenities which would be contained;within Havenwood. He indicated that he would answer any questions' the. Commission or the community may have, Commissioner Tlstoy asked what the capacity of the drain is. Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, engineer for this project,' replied that a detailed hydrology analysis had been submitted all the way asp to Carrari Street. He state that it has been determined that i a ma imum flood condition, 200 cfs could be received at the north boundary and the facility has been designed to carry that amount'. He indicated that this will probably became much less in the future, particularly when Wilson is fully curbed with probably only cane-fourth of that amount coming in a 100-yeas storm. He stated that this report is on file in the City Engineer's office to back up this claim. Commissioner T'olstoy asked if the grading plan is such that in case the capacity which is foreseen were not met, the excess water would go down the tenter section. He asked if the project is graded so that there is a low spot. Mr, Williams pointed out the hydrology to Commissioner 'Tolstoy indicating four spots where the drainage system would be connected to the channel-. Planning Commission Minutes -13- ,June 9, 1982 He pointed out where the water was divided within the project stating that it would be almost impossible for the over flow to ,direct its-elf in the direction of concern to Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was capacity within the streets. Mr. Williams replied that there is more than adequate capacity to carry a maximum flow._; Commissioner Tolstoy asked if water directed down, Haven flaw down Haven, Mr. Williams replied that it would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is a" device that would take it there or if one is needed. Mr. Williams replied that he thought there is probably a small. one there. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it was his belief that a condition of the project should be that water added to Haven by this project should be taken off t the settling; basin. Mr. Williams stated that if the condition does not already exist, they would be amenable to doing this. He indicated that they would accept this as a condition.- He further indicated that whatever they do would ' have to be after discussion with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. , Commissioner Tolstoy asked ghat would happen to that water if Flood Control does not agree Mr. Rougeau replied that it all ends up at Highland Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the grater is directed to the basin it is then released In a, controlled manner. He stated that if this is not taken off Haven and goes down it is over capacity at the ditch as it goes over i19th Street. Mr. Williams stated that he was quite sure that this can: be worked out and that they would accept the conditions Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted this worked out because Flood Control is sometimes not cooperative and that any additional grater must be controlled. Mr. pougeau stated that if Mr. Williams would accept this, staff will explore whatever needs to be dune: Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 9 1982 Mr. Williams stated that Flood Control_ is usually receptive to adding water to their basin. Mr. Alan Lowy,, president of Lesny Development, 8200 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, stated his agreement with staff's conditions and commended staff for their professional manner and helpfullness in the :processing of this development. He advised that he or the engineering; and architectural consultants were willing to answer any questions. Commissioner Stout asked for someone to address the safety of the U-turn required by this project. Mr. Williams stated he felt that the best solution might be a meeting between Chaffey College, the City and the developer° to work out whatever is necessary to ensure traffic. safety. Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Williams had any :feel for how many people might make left-land turns at this point. 2r. Williams replied that most people would be using this particular entrance; however, he stated, he was not conversant with the average number of vehicle trips per unit. Mr. Rougeau stated that approximately 2000 trips per day are anticipated if they all use that entrance. He stated that this would all be con- centrated, at the rush hoer and that the Hermosa entrance would also get a lot of use. Commissioner Stout risked if Mr. Rougeau thought that more people 'would use Hermosa if this entrance becomes a problem. Mr. Rougeau replied that most people coming from the south, going to Chaffey, would use that 'entrance and that there wasn't any conflict even with those people using the north entrance. < Commissioner Stout asked if the driveway at Chaffey College is a major entrance. Mr. Rougeau replied that, it was not. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that people make illegal turns there. Mr. Rougeau stated that you will get cheaters even if you keep the configuration that is there now. He indicated that the visibility is very good. if you go to Wilson and is a safe place to make a; U-turn. lie felt that the <extra distance that people would have to travel would encourage them to cheat. He stated further that the turn packet presently . is not designed for it and the best way would be to have it designed well and let people use it. Commissioner Stout stated his concern for those motorists coming south because of blocked view at the point where a U-turn would be made Planning Commission Minutes 15- .dune 9, 1982 Mr. Rougeau stated that on the plans it roes not appear to have much distance but at,ground level there is a reasonable ;amount. He stated he has driven this to make sure. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the Morman church building is quite a` distance down from the entrance and there is adequate room. Commissioner Stout stated that this is such a beautiful project and this is a heck of a way of getting into it. Mr. Rougeau stated that it is a shame, and he _wished that it could have been designed to have a direct entrance. He indicated if this had been pushed to the north property it would have destroyed the effect of the entryway. He Doped that this could in some way be worked out with the, , college in the future. r. Williams stated his willingness to work with the college on this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had some concern about this but actually, the hours of the college are such that they would not conflict with those people either going to or coming from work which would e the rush times for use. Mrs. Helen Whitehead, 397 Orchard Street, asked for clarification on the kinds of units that were going: up and whether they would be rentals or for sale. Mr. Lowy replied that to date they have not had rentals on any project of this type. He indicated that a developer most make a judgement call: but they have no intention of making this a rental project. There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed, , Commissioner Stout asked about the mechanics of the City, school and developer getting together to work this out Vice-chairman Rempe.1 stated that they would work together to alleviate the concern and it depends can how it is adopted. Commissioner Stout stated; that he would like to see the solution come: lack to the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his concern for directory signs within the project because of its sire. He asked that staff make sire that directory signs be contained within the. project. Mr. Vairin replied that this is covered in Condition No. 7. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to make sure that it is carried out. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 9,' 198 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that several months ago this project was discussed with; the college because,they always had concern with the General Plan and had therefore made a statement relative to open space. Mr. Tolsty commended the applicant for being sensitive to their concern and creating open space can Haven. He also, commended the applicant for the meetings they held with Deer Creek residents to advise them of the proposed project. He stated he also lied the mixed use which is pro- posed. Commissioner Tdl.stoy stated that another plus is the fact that Haven is served by a bus line. He indicated that the landscaping that will be done will be outstanding; and will blend in well with the existing Carden apartments. Motion. loved by Tulstoy, seconded by Stout carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-60, approving Tentative `.tract No. 10826 with the condition that within 60 days the developer meet with Chaffey College and City staff relative to circulation, and that their findings be conveyed to the Commission; that the drainage to the channel on Haven Avenue be worked out between the Flood Control District and staff. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. :lames frost, Council member, stated that there might be some factors that the Commission should consider relative to the U-turn. Mr. "`Frost indicated that there is a visibility problem because of the grade at Wilson and that it could be difficult to see a pedestrian. Further, that this problem could be alleviated through installation of a signal. He asked that careful consideration be given to the grade problem. Vice-chairman Rempel asked how wide Haven is at that point. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is 94 feet including the median, and that each side of the lane has 40 feet which is adequate room for U-turns. He indicated that it is doubtful that a'signal would ever be required at the entrance of the project, but that it is a possibility but it Was more realistic that there would be a signal at Wilson. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by ` olstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82- 1, approving Planned. Development 82-03, with all 'existing conditions.; Mr. Lowy, again complimented staff stating that without their help they could not;have done such a ,good job. He further stated that they will work with the college on the traffic problem. Mr. Reynolds stated; that he would like to share the same comments relative to working with staff and pointed out that: they would be happy to provide information concerning the project to ;anyone Planning Commission Minutes -17- .Tune 9, 1982 interested in knowing abort it DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. HAVEN AVENUE �EDIAN DESIGN Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the sample of Bowmanite is very acceptable and asked; what assurances there would be that the quality would be kept at the same level for the Bowmanite. Mr. Gomez replied that this can be controlled through design standards and specifications. Further, that it would be inspected to assure that the quality of design is what was anticipated. Vice-chairman Hempel stated that from his own experience it is not necessarily true that each section is going to be. identical. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern that some. contractors Might lack the experience or expertise necessary to match the design. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that there are some companies that only do that type of work. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City will specify that they are ,looking only for people who can do this kind of work. r. Gomez replied that this can be worked into the specifications. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt this should be done. Vice-chairman Re pel stated that this could be overcome by asking for samples. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that this should be done Commissioner Tolstoy also asked that Haven Avenue have a special staking program for any tree that is used on the median. He indicated that double staking is vital because of the wind conditions. _ Further, that Jacarandas or any other tree, will take time to become established and without double staking there may be snapped trees which would then mean. replacement. This could result in having trees of varying size which would contribute to anirregular :Look for a period "of years Vice-chairman R mpel stated that some type of; nut tree should also be considered that would provide :food for birds or other animals in suggested that a pecan tree be considered. He asked that nut trees be listed with the other suitable trees. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - June p 1982 Commissioner T lstoy stated that any time a nut tree is around there will be a rodent problem. Vice-chairman Rempel stated it was true that squirrels love nuts. Commissioner TdlITstoy addressed, one of the concerns expressed by the Women's Club relative to trees freezing out. He stated that not only the Jacaranda as susceptible, but any young tree. Ile indicated he did not feel that this was a valid concern and further stated that he was surprised that, they were as amenable to change as they are. Dace-chairman Rempel stated he felt it was because they realize that .it is intended that the median change because of the grading problem that, exists. Mr. Vairin stated that they were very grateful that they were notified of the proposed change. Mr. Come " provided Commissioner Stout with the background of the. Haven Avenue median: Corataaissioner Stout stated his agreement on the selection of d Jacaranda tree to be the dominant feature of the haven median. Following brief discussion, the Commission expressed consensus that the Jacarandas tree be the choice for the Haven Avenue median. PUBLIC COMMFNTS Former Council member, Art Bridge, addressed the Commission stating that he has received many comments from residents relative to the:: overplantin of Carnelian Avenue, He felt that there are 2-3 times as many eucalyptus trees; as :are necessary. He indicated that kaa.l.e can the Council he approved this project without his personal research and was relying primarily on staff to do it. He felt that staff should ,look at this area carefully for any trees that are to be planted In the feature. He felt that there also might be ,a dollar awing;. Vice-eba rman ]Tempe:] stated that he has also asked: staff about the possibility of over planting in this area. He was ",went the answer provided by the landscaping contractor that many trees were planted to compensate for those which were expected to die. He did not feel this to be an adequate answer. r. Bridge commented that it appeared that the planti.n s were on d cost plans basis Vice—chairman 1lempel stated that their design never showed this many trees and that the Commissioner did not ,tee:*e the 1"ina.l. design. Planning Commission Minutes _1 - June 9, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the things he has consistently Heard since being a Commissioner is that ;the City cants to preserve its rural character One way to do this, lie stated, is to have a lot of tees. He indicated that this particular species of eucalyptus :look etude better in a cluster planting and were not to be confused with the Blue Gum." He indicated that these trees would be much more showy and contribute; to the rural feeling. He did not feel that they were over- Planted. anted Vice-chairman l;empel: stated that if they are to be dense they should be clustered and, not in roars because it is not a natural planting,. Commissioner To stay stated that in ,10 years they would do battle to see who is right. Commissioner `iolstoy felt that the answer provided by the landscape architect relative to the number of trees planted because they would die is not a good one. Commissioner To:Cstogy asked the Commission to c.ons,ider a 'resolution for former Commissioner Jeff dceerar ka for all the work he has done over the last two years for the City. He felt that the document should contain some reference to the work he performed on the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He indicated, further, that if anyone dial something for the Ci.ty,. Jeff did more. Camami.ssion r Tolstoy stated that the Industrial Specific Plan has now °iron, two awards and he was instrumental in its formulation and deserves o be comamaended a Motion: Moved by, Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously,' that the chairman of the Planning Commission get together with staff and draft a Commendation Resolution, for Jeff Sceranka. .. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the. Terra Vista hearing can. June 14, 1982 in the i i on°s Park Community Building, at 7 p.m. h adjourned. The Planning Commission. .i a p.am h. 1 Respectfully so 7 witted, t2 t . JACK LAM, :secretary I Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 9, 1982 CITY CE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 2 , 182 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planing Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge ° f allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Hempel, Jeff Sceranka, Tennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Ti.m"Eeedle, Senior Planner; Rick Comet, City Planner; Edward Hopson Assistant City Attorney Curt; Johnston, Assistant Planner; Otto Krout 1, Associate Planner; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved; by Sceran a, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May'3, 1982. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1982. Commissioner Stout abstained from vote on the Minutes of May d and 12 as he was not in attendance at these meetings. Commissioner Rempel also abstained from vote on the Minutes of May 3, 1982, for the same reason. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman King welcomed Dennis;Stout to the Commission and informed those in attendance that this was Commissioner Stout 's first meeting as a Commissioner. Rick Gomez, City Planner-, announced that there would be a public hearing to discuss the Terra Vista Planned -Community on June 10, 1982, 7 p.m. at the ion's Park Community Center. N CONSENT CALENDAR A. REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11734 - DLV - A change in the number of lots located on the northwest corner of Arrow and Vineyard. B. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12040 - PFEILBR - A change in the number of lots located on the northeast darner of Arrow Route and "burner Avenue. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve Items Aand B of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TERRA VISTA STATUS REPORT Michael Va rin, Senior Planner, reviewed the status of the Term Vista Planned Community, indicating that staff had been meeting; with the developer in an effort to resolve the Commissioner's concerns. Mr. Vairin suggested that the" public hearing be continued to June 10, 1982 to allow staff and the developer additional time to resolve these concerns. Both Chairman Ring and Commissioner Tol.stoy indicated that they had prior commitments on that 'date and requested that staff attempt to set a new date for the public hearing. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing.' Ralph' Lewis, developer of Terra Vista addressed the Commission stating that he felt that there was a timing problem with the scheduling of the hearings and washed to discuss ways toaccelerate them. : r. Lewis offered the suggestion that something could be worked out so that por- tions of Terra Vista could be submitted, triangle north of Base Line, so that staff could begin checking the tentative maps before the Planned Community t s.�t text �. adopted. o ted. Chairman King stated that he felt that the Council was the proper body> to approach with this suggestion, not the planning Commission. r. Lewis replied that if this was the. Commission's feeling that the Council was the proper body, then he would write a letter requesting to be placed can the City Council agenda. Jack ham, Community Development Director, stated that he felt that it was important that Mr. Lewis be aware that the one time allotted for General Plan amendments was used by Mr. Lewis' prier request on the office complex and that the Council would not have another time slot until: the cycle begins again for submission at the end of July and Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 26, 1982 hearings in September. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would still want to see the feasibility of the park site relocated to thewest of Beer Creek looked into before any decisions on what map was to be filed was submitted. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed® It was the consensus of the Commission that the public hearing be con- tinned to June 14, 1982. I `I D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10246 - ALK14ASEH/ ASSAiD - A custom lot subdivision of ten,acres of .land into 16 Lots located in the R-1 -20,000 (Single Family Resadential/20, 00 sq. ft. lot minimum) zone, on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue - APN 201-101-14«. Rick Comet, City Planner, reviewed the.. Staff Report, stating that this item had been continued by the Commission at their meeting of May 12, 1982, to allow the staff and project engineers time to 'work out problems with the hydrology of the site. Staff bad suggested several options t6 the engineers which; would result in a redesign of the tract. The engineers have requested a continuance of the public hearing to the June 9, 1982 Planning Commission agenda: Chairman King opened the public hearing". No one wished to address the Commission and the public hearing was closed Motion® Moved, by S eranka, seconded by <Rempel to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 10246 to June 9, 1982. AYES CO ISSTO ERS SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, STOUT, RE EL NODES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-07 - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS ;- The location of a church in an existing building in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 10722 Arrow Route in the. Industrial Park Area _ APN 08- 622-24. Commissioner Sceranka abstained from vote on:this item due to conflict of interest and left the podium at 7:20 :p.m. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.. Planning Commission Minutes -3 May 26, 1982 Chairman Ting opened the public hearing. Pastor Merry Kuhns of the ;Church of the. Foothills addressed the Commission stating that his church was requesting the approval of a' Conditional Use Permit: to allow them the use of this facility as a temporary meeting place until they purchased land for a permanent facility. 'there were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82-07. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, STOUT, KING, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA Commissioner Sc ranka abstained from vote for the previously stated. reasons and returned; to the podium at 7:30 p.m. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-08 - NEW WALK MINISTRY - The proposed interim use of industrial buildings in Subarea 4 for a church and related office facility located in the General- Industrial, category at 9050 .Archibald and 9606 7th Street - APN 20 -17d-46 & 47. Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report indicating that this was a. request for a use similar to the previous item with one additional factor, New Walk Ministry has been operating In that facility without fire district approval and approval. of certain building g codes by the City Building and Safety Division. Staff recommended. to the Commission that public assembly not be allowed at this facility until those con_ - ditions imposed :by the Fire District and Building and Safety Division were met. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Vairin what types of code enforcement, the City had taken to seek compliance. Mr. Vairin replied that the City Carle Enforcement Officer had. contacted the church several times and informed there that they were an violation of not having a Conditional Use Permit and the building and Safety in- spectors had also been in,contact with them informing them of their_ cede and Fire District violations. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Ken Walker of the Foothill Fire District addressed the Commission Planning Commission Minutes --4 May 26 1982 stating that the fire. District dished to withhold approval of the. Con- ditional Use Permit until the District had met with the ppl.icant to discuss their plan for the use of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked fir. Walker what the Fire District had done in their line of enforcement. Mr. Walker replied that the fire District had; been working with the Applicant since yid-1981 seeking cede compliance. Commissioner Stout asked; if there bad been any attempt at compliance on any of the Fire District requirements. NO. Walker replied that compliance had been very slow and there were some requirements that the Fire District fait needed to be complied with before the issuance of the Permit. , Mr. Howard Sharp, 949 W. = th Street, Ontario, representing New Walk Ministry, addressed the Commission. Mr. Sharp indicated that he was an alder in the Church; and had recently been placed in the position of complying with the requirements and seeping a Conditional. Use Permit for the expansion of the facility. He stated that he was fully aware of the steps that needed to be taken to gain compliance with the requirements of the Fire District which they fully intend to do. Mr. Sharp stated that the requirements of the two hour fire wall was one of the main requirements that they were waiting to peat in until approval of the Conditional Use Permit was granted in that this was a. very costly item and slid not wash to install the wall and not have :the approval. granted. Chairman icing asked Mr. Sharp if he was in full agreement with the recommendation that no public :assembly be allowed until the requirements were meta. Mr. Sharp replied that if the church were to stop public assembly until all the requirements were met, it could mean the loss of their con- gregation and he could not guarantee that the pastor of the church would comply with this recommendation. Chairman King asked Mr. Sharp hose long he thought it would take for compliance. Mr. Sharpe replied that he felt it would take at least 30 days. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the church did not comply with these requirements when they first occupied the building. Mr. Sharp replied that he did not hold that position in the church at that time and that the individual who was responsible for obtaining the permit in the beginning was no longer associated with the church. Planning Commission Minutes 5- May 26, 1982 Commissioner l empel stated that the fact that the doors did not have panic safety devices alone was 'enough for him to vote no on this project because this was placing the lives of all attending functions in that building in jeopardy. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Commission had a responsibility to the church congregation just as the applicant does and that he had a hard time believing that they would loose their congregation in the thirty days it would take to comply with the requirements. Chief Richard Feuerstein of the Foothill 'F re District addressed the Commission stating that the Fire District: and the City Building and Safety Division had been attempting to meet with the Applicant since July of 1981, but that the Applicants would not cooperate and meet with theta. He further stated that he did not feel that there was a problem with the refu:sal, to do the work but ;with communication. , He indicated that he felt a "Catch 22" ,situation was being created it that the Appli- cant was saying that they would not comply ith the codes until they had a Conditional Use Permit and the Fire District was saying that they would not have a Conditional Use Permit until they complied. The Fire Chief suggested that the Applicants 'present the District with a plan stating exactly what they intended to do with the building and what the configuration of the building would :be along with the time frame for the completion of these items. Michael V air i_n, 'Senior Planner, indicated that this could be accomplished with rewording of one of the conditions of approval . .Tact« lam, Community Development Director, stated that there was a problem in doing this as the City would: be granting approval of an unsafe building for a certain amount of time and possibly be liable if something dial happen. Commissioner Ccer°anka asked Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, for clarification as to the liability to the: City if they granted approval, of this Conditional Use Permit Mr. Hopson "stated that there would be much more of an argument that the City allowed an unsafe use to exist if approval was granted with a condition that they had been informed was an unsafe condition than if the City granted, as suggested in item p of the Resolution, that the e until the conditions had been complied ed with be used unt btarldznl, could not 1 because of public health and safety. file further stated that perhaps :i t did work ca hardship on the Applicant, however, it was also a Hardship created by the Applicant. Clan Richards, Vice-President of Pacific Commercial Brokerage and leasing agent of the property', addressed the Commission. Mr. Richards informed the Commission that the Applicant had approached the City as to the possibility of moving into the building in the first place and bad been mom told by the former City Planner that they could move into the building Planning; Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 1982 but that the City was in the process of adopting an Industrial Specific Plan and that after its adoption their use would either comply or not comply and a Conditional Use Permit would have to be obtained. The Applicant desired to expand on their facility and the landlord informed them that they would have to get a Conditional Use Permit before they would agree to extend the lease and allow them to occupy additional space Mr. Richards stated that the building is fire sprin l.ered and has three exits in front and back which: 'remain open when the building is occupied. He suggested that the Commission approve the permit and present the Applicants with a priority list of items to be completed. Art Pol, Associate Pastor, addressed the. Commission stating that crash bars could be installed on the doors before the nest church services. He further stated that funds had been raised to complete the require- ments of the Building and Safety Envision and the'Fire District and once approval had been granted the church fully intended to comply with their requirements: There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy called the Commission's attentionto the fact that the applicant seems to have a, problem in complying with requirements as in the case of the County and as pointed out by the Fire Chief in their request for meetings. He further stated that since the building; was fire sprin lered, if the panic bars were installed by the next public assembly date and a list of priority items to be c-ompleted by certain dates was complied he could vote to grant approval;. He asked the City Attorney ghat the liability to the City would be if approval were granted under these conditions. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, replied that he would recommend that the Commission do what they wished regarding compliance without the City's approval first. Ile stated that a tentative Grote could be taken that would state that in the event that Building and Safety and Fire District conditions were met the Commission would be of a mind to grant approval of the permit. Mr. Hopson stated that from the City"s point of liability, he would rather have the formal vote continued to a date giving the Applicant time to comply with these requirements. In this way the City would not be granting approval to a project which they had been told was unsafe. Commissioner Pempel.'statd that he was agreeable to this type of vote in that the Applicants;would be using the building knowing that it was unsafe for public assembly, but not with the approval of the Commission. Chairman. Icing asked for a straw vote :if that was the consensus of the Commission Commissioner Rempel made the motion that the item be continued thirty days to the ,Tune 23 1982 meeting and, that the formal vote for the CUP would be made at that time. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 26, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would second the motion with a stipulation that a work and progress report be brought back to the Commission in two weeks and a calendar of events be established. The straw vote was taken with only Commissioners Re pel and Sceranka casting aye votes. Commissioners King, Stout and Tolstoy voted No, therefore the motion failed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was voting no because public safety was involved and that the Applicant seemed to have a problem in com- pliance with jurisdictions which they were under. Chairman King stated that he bad a tendency to favor the Resolution as prepared by staff in granting approval of the CUP because of the con- dition which stipulated that there would be no public assembly until compliance of the requirements. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that this was only antago- nizing the Applicant and felt that Commissioner Re pel's motion would allow them the opportunity to continue meeting without looking for ether facilities. Chairman King stated that he felt this was the strongest statement that the Commission could make in not allowing public assembly until the building complies with code. Commissioner Sceranka asked ghat would happen if the use was denied until. such time as they complied. Would; they 'still be able to use the building until that time? Jack. Lam, Community ity Development Director, stated that they were in the building now and that he thought that the point that the Chairman was making was that the Applicant was it the building under those conditions and the liability is now theirs and not the C ty's., Commissioner Repel stated that he felt that the Commission was placing the Applicant in the position. of staying in the building, thus breaking the law and this should not be the case. Chairman King stated that it was a value judgement in that they would be in the building at their own risk. Motion: Moved by Tol.stoy, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2-08 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TCILSTOY, STOUT, KING,; SCERANKA NOES: O I S IONER.S: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 26, 1982 Commissioner Rempel voted No for the previously stated reasons. : 10 p.m. The Planning Commission "Recessed 8: 25 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened G. ENVIRON 'CAC ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT O. 12171 S`1"i�l'111�NSON costom lot subdivision of C Lots on 1.3 acres of land in the R-1- 20,00 zone located at the northwest corner of 1 ludman Avenue and Whirlawway Street - APN 1061- 11-0 & 07 Curt Johnston, Assistant planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Com aiss.f.oner Sceranka asked what the reasoning was for the Equestrian Committee's requirement of a 40' easement and the easement on the south side; of the property. It appeared to him that the Committee was asking for an additional l ' for this particular project. Mr. ,Johnston replied that they were not asking for additional. area, but that this area was to he a local feeder trail of 15 feet. Michael Vairin, Senior planner, explained that the Committee had reviewed the tentative map and in their review saw that there was the ability to use the drainage easement along the west boundary to coincide as one trail. for direct access and the one on the south to provide those people to the east to ,come;down through Haase streets to get on the trail. and go north up through the Demons area: which would allow them to connect with the Regional. "Trail System.. Commissioner ^Tol.stoy stated that when the drainage,, easement was improved it would most :Likely be concrete lined and this did not: seem to be, an ideal_ situation to have people get in as concrete lined -ditch; to use it as a trail. He asked Mr. Rougeau if it -should be designated that the trail, not he within the cemented ditch. Mr. Rougeau stated. that with the improvement of the De wens Channel the amount of water going down that easement would be a great deal less and that the Improvement would more than likely not he a concrete ditch but a -gutterno more than ten feet total' Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was all for equestrian easements, however, felt that this one needed to have a little more thought pant into it so that it not be in conflict with the drainage of water. He further stated that there was a problem with the trail, proposed for the south side of the project in that there was a, 14 foot: gip in the street grade. Chairman ling ripened the public hearing. Planning Commission';Minutes - _ May 26 1982 I Bob Gilbert, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission stating that he was In agreement Frith Commissioner To stoy°s comment concerning the trail, to the south. He felt that it would be almost impossible to grade that area so that a horde could het from the bottom to the existing trail system Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that one of the Conditions of Approval. strafed that ra detailed equestrian :system be submitted prior to recordation of the map and these problems could be worked, out at that time and the solution would be brought back to the Cominission for "their review. Paul Rouge.au, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the additional Condition to be imposed on the tract that the Commission received dust prior to the meeting. Bob Gilbert strafed that he understood the drainage problem, however, wished to have the condition worded so that it would be .capes; enough to allow the engineers and staff to work on as solution to the drainage problem* Tom Stephenson developer of the project, addressed the Corunission and stated that lie had wondered if LewisHomes could be required to go back and redo the street as they caused the probl ea) in the first place with the 14 foot cut and if he could sue the County for ,this situation. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, strafed that in answer to the first question, no. In response to the secured question, the answer is probably yes since that a na..aca.ic°i.pal.ity had concentrated runoff onto the Applicant's property.- There were no further public comments and the public hearing;was closed . Motion., Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout., carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 1.2171 with a change in Condition T.i S to be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES COMMISSIONERS: RP Pp, STOUT, KING, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE H. ENVIROMIENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL P NO. 4 - LEWIS l�RV'ELOP NT _. �..__ COMPANY division of 20.45 acres into 8 lots within the General Industrial area, located on the north side of _4th Street, east of I-15 "freeway - APN 229-283-49 Paul Rouf eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 26, 1982 Ccamtm ssitwrier Sderanka abstained from vote on this item due to conflict of interest and left the podium at :05 p.m. Commissioner ltdmpel asked if there would be a problem with the mainten- ance of turf block in the industrial area. Mr.. Roug eau stated that this was the normal. treatment, and felt that several hundred feet of turf block may be a problem, however, the: lower section of Lot 8 would be a problem in what to do with that. He further stated that the treatment would not necessarily have to be turf bleak. it could be decomposed granite or some other form of treatment. Chairman ding; opened the public hearing_. Jerry Bryant, representing Lewis Homes, addressed the Commission stating that he had questions on some of the Conditions of Approval. He Basked for clarification of condi ti.twxt 45 of the City Engineer's report concerning dedication of d minimum of 40 feet from the adjacent property awaaer to the north. He; stated that: according to their records, this requirement had already been met. Mr. Rougeau replied that if the dedication already did exist, then there would be no reason for the condition; however,, there was some doubt can the part of the Engineering Division that dedication had been received by the City. Mr. Bryant requested that. the ,Applicant be allowed to install permanent pavement on the emergency access react from Hyssop to the.. property untie, such.'time as Oath and 7th Street interchange were constructed. As this interchange was part of the Assessment District, the access would then revert back to an emergency access only at the time the ,Interchange is constructed. Mr. Bryant also stated that in regards to condition 50 of the Engineer's-Report the wording be changed to read that landscaping would be installed or branded for pricer to recordation, Mr. Rou8eau indicated that it should be understood that It would be bonded for Mr. Bryant asked for the Commission's comments on the access. Chairman King stated that unless he could be persuaded otherwise, lie felt: that "the access should remain for emergency use only and not be used can a; regular basis. Mr. Rou eau stated that the interchange construction would not be underway for a long time in the. future. He further stated that the parcel map as shown would have access by going south on the existing frontage road to the freeway so the Lath Street connection would not be that great of a factor in the viability of this property, Mr. Rougeau stated that the main concern was that when the industrial area was developed there would be pressure brought about by individual. owners to close the access off Planning Commission Minutes -11- May, 26 1982 from +th Street and the City would be stuck with a. permanent access there;. The property owners and inquirers about the; property had been. forewarned by the City that the access policy would not allow access at that point. There"were no further e public coTmnents and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner ltempel stated that he agreed with staff can bringing the access Gaff: of 4th Sheet adjacent to the on and off ramp and felt that there had to be an access from the north off Hyssop. Mr. Rou eau stated that if the dedication a,s there as the Applicant had implied, all the developer would have to do is put in the Pavement. If the dedication or Gaffer of dedication had not been made, there could be as problem in obtaining it but without it the property would be inaccess- ible. Motion: Moved by Eking, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel. Map 7349 with the amendment to the condition regarding emergency access. The amendment would he that the first 40' would be decomposed: granite or hydr.oseedewd and the remainder would be included into a paved parking lot. ES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, STOUT, RE1fP L, TOLSTOY NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CONDaSSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA Commissioner Sceranka returned to the podium at :30 p.m. 1. STATUS REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR E Es"TIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN - Determination on the scope and. content of the Environmenataal. Impact Deport for the litiwanda Specific Plan. The Plan covers are area of approximately 3,000 acres generally bounded by the City Limits on the north and east, Arrow Route: on the south, and a dine approximately 1000 feet vest of E't.awanda Avenue can the crest (Victoria Planner Community boundaries) . Tim Beedle Senior Planner, reviewed the; status of the ytiwandaa Specific Plan updating the Commission on the,progress of than Etiwanda Specific , Plana Advisory Committee and indicating that the draft Plan was antici- pated to begin public hearings in September of 1982. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the pcatential environmental effects of,the Specific Plana as outlined in the Initial Steady and stated staff was seeking the Commission's recommendation to prepare a Focused Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 26 1982 Environmental Impact Report. Chairman King opened the public hearings. Cecil Johnson.; an Etiwanda property owner, addressed the Commissions and asked wheat the scope of the EIR would be to specific property owners. Otto i routil replied that: the intent of this EIR would one to cover_ specific :areas that the Specific Plan addresses and would riot cover grading, for example, since the Specific Plan dues not propose to do grading in the area. If fir. Johnson brought a development proposal to the City, lie would be Basked for a report on effect's of the grading, but would not he asked for a report on the areas which the Specific Plan EIR already covers. Mr. Johnson asked if wildlife and endangered species nand areas of historical interest would he addressed its the EIR. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that these 'types of things would be covered by the expanded Initial. Study, Alex Catania, Eti.wnanda property owner, addressed the Commission and asked it: the effects of the East Avenue Bypass would be studied in, the EIRA Commissioner Sceranka replied that circulation would the studied and addressed on the Environmental Impact Report Them were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Loved by tS eranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, unanimously, to recommend that staff prepare d Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwjn.d,a Specific Plan. OLD BUSINESS J. TIME EXTENSION FOR. SITE APPROVAL 7 -0 - CABLE TV OF A,L'T'A LO - The development of a receiving site; and trailer on property located at 8387 East 1' th Street" in the A-] zone - APN 02-021- 6 & 37. Rick" Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that this item was continued from the May 12, 1982Planning Commission meeting to allow staff and the applicant time to meet and discuss construction of a permanent facility. The applicant is in the process of negotiations with the Cucamonga County Water District .and staff" reconniiended approval of a time extension for six ( ) months. Planning Commission ;Minutes -13- May 26, 1982 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving the time extension for Site Approval, No. 79-09. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CfO 1,ilSSlClNERS: NONE DIRECTOR'S REPOWIS K. REPORT ON-INITIATION OF ZONE CHANGE A change of zone from -3 (Multi-Fanilly Residential.) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for approximately 34.4 acres of land located east of Hellman Avenue, welt of Amethyst, north of lea Mesa Drive, and south of Monte Vista, Street Rick Gomez, City Manner, reviewed the Stab: report stating; that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission initiate a zone change in the above-described area in order to makes it consistent with the General Plan. The proposed zone change would then be legally advertised and public hearings 'held to receive public :input: There was discussion, by the Commission concerning the zone designation and the desire to have special, studies donee in the area. It was the consensus of the Commission that, given the demand of st ff's work schedule and the lack of time to complete the desired studies; the zoning of th:ia property remain R-3.; ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Renpel, seconded by Scerranka to adjourn. ' :50 p.m. `I`her Planning Commission Adjourned Fie:sp CtfUlly serl :ritted, JACK LAM, Secretary i Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 26, 198 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 12, 1982 CALL TO ORDER.;, Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting; of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Perk Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road;, Rancho Cucamonga. He then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL; RESENT: COMMISSIONERS Herman Rempel,, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tofstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Pick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; .loan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion. Moored- by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the April 28, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.: ANNOUNCEMENTS ; Chairman King recognized ,Boy Scout Troup 611_ of Upland; which were in attendance and invited diem to ask questions on any items before the Commission. Mr. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reminded the Commission of the Foothill Community; Property Owners meeting; that would take place at the Lions Park Center on Friday, May 14 1982 at 10 a.m. He indicated that Mr. Kenneth Topping, San. Bernardino County Planning Director, would be present to discuss the Foothill Community Plan. Mr. Gomez" stated that Item B Listed on the Consent Calendar would be pulled for discussion at the request of the applicant.._ Mr. Gomez indicated that after action taken by the Planning Commission this evening, Items A and F would be forwarded to ;the Rancho Redevelop- ment Agency for their adoption and ;approval as a result of recent, adop- tion of a resolution by the Agency requiring all such items to come before them on the Agency Consent Calendar. Mr. Comet stated that Item I, _Development Code, would be added to this agenda N CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman King indicated that Item B could be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed ender Public hearings, however, he doubted that the Commission would be in a position at this meeting to render a decision on this matter. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve Items A and C on the Consent Calendar, with Item A to be for- warded to the Rancho Redevelopment Agency for their review and approval. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2-10 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL ®- A revision to approved plans for Phase IB Rancho Cucamonga Business Center to allow construction of a 205,000 square foot warehouse distribution building can approximately 12 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served. category APN 2 2 - 61-2n , 30. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL ;MAP NO. 5525 B. TIME EXTENSION OR SITE APPROVAL 79-0 Mr. Comez advised that the applicant has been unable to locate a new site for his receiving station and could therefore like some ;comments and clarification from the Planning Commission as to what constitutes a permanent receiving station. Mr. Gomez added that the applicant was present and would add additional comments for the Commission. Chairman ling opened the public hearing Mr. Phil Whistler, manager of the Alta Loma. T ' Station, asked for re- classification of the present equipment building from that of a trailer to permanent budding designation. lie explained bow the equipment was moved to its cement foundation and felt that the reclassification would be in order. Further, that this building would be moved to another site although one has not yet been established. Mr. Whistler stated that he presently is negotiating with the. Cucamonga County Water District for a site Chairman King asked the Commission what their feeling was relative to this matter. Commissioner Rempel stated that this item should be brought before the Commission after a full evaluation has been made. He indicated that he felt this installation is similar to that of an Edison substation on a smaller scale and that the criteria would be of the same type. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would prefer to wait until. an evaluation has been completed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 12, 198 Mr. Gomez stated that the time extension could be acted upon and that , staff could dame back with a report relative to the issue of a permanent structure, Chairman King stated that he would rather continue the entire matter. Following brief discuss-Lon among the Commission, it was move by Sceranka, seconded by Tol.stoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting as a public hearing item. PUBLIC HEARING D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT;AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9649 = LANDCO A custom dot subcdivision, of 22.4 acres of land in the R7-1- ,6-'-0 0 zone into. 4C lots located on the southwest darner of Hermosa and Wilson - APN -172 -14 17. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked Mr. Rou eau to discuss the drainage of this proposed tract-and the kind of drainage structured- that would be required. Mr. Rougeau stated that the current plan is to drain almost everything into the street, and from, there into a storm drain over to Hermosa Avenue to a point considerably south of the tract and below the next street, to Man ant . Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would be through a regular conduit. Mr. Rougeau replied affirmatively, stating it then would exit south t the Alta Loma basins. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the lots on the south side. Mr. Rougeaau stated that the track portions only will drain to; the 'property line and into a concrete dines at Hermosa. a. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Hornbeck, 1:50 S. <E1 Moline, #101, Pasadena, representing the Engineering Company and applicant indicated support for° the rapproval of this project. Them being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman ding, raise concern on the preservation of eucalyptus trees along the north and east perimeters of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 12, 1982 Mr. Vairin replied that at this point in time no detailed survey has been completed as to the health, and condition of the trees, however, this would be accomplished prior to development. Commissioner Repel stated that there is no problem, with tree preser- vation along the streets but he felt that where there were grade dif- ferentials this could be a problem Chaf.rman King stated that forgetting the trees on Hermosa and Wilson, he would like to have as many trees in the east and west tree row saved. He felt that the condition was vague and 'requested that as many eucalyp- tus as possible be saved. Mr. Vairin indicated that Condition C-2 requires that this be done. Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, stated that they wriI.l try to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Sceran.ka asked if there had been discussion on the type of fencing to be used, in terms of specific types of fences and not block walls;, making reference to Condition I of the Planning Division as stated on the resolution. Mr. Vairin replied that in terms of requirements for this tract, they will be required to put in a concrete extruded fence in the split rail style of Fox hollow. Further, that this condition is being installed so that in the event a property owner comes along later he would be re- quired to comply with the condition, Commissioner Tol toy asked where a person wishing to install a fence would come for approval. Mr. Vairin replied that he would go to the planning Division. Mr. Vairin stated that if the Planning Commission wanted more teeth in this, they could do so through a condition requiring that this be reviewed by Design Review:, Commissioner Tolstoy felt; that this should go before Design Review to b sure that good design was being met: Motion: Moved by Rempel,_ seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-46, approving Tentative Tract 9649, issuing a negative declaration and adding a requirement that fences be reviewed by the Design; Review Committee. R Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 12 1982 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT D TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10246 - ALKIIASEH/ ASSAY - A custom lot subdivision of ten acres of land into 16 lots located in the H-1- 0,0 (Single Family dlesadential/20,000 square foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Toad and Maven Avenue - APN 1-111-14. I Assistant planner, Arlene Troup, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be would like to know where the grater on Masada- goes because it appears that it would have to turn at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Rouge au replied that it will go into a concrete gutter and it woul.d turn there, some of it goes down Poplar Street to Mayberry, and down from there. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that. on Hillside Road the elevation at Haven. Avenue is greater than the elevation to the east and right now there is a drain that goes there to the brushland and it appears that it goes west to Masada. Mr. Rougeau stated that at the present time there is a break in the curb that is not needed now or in the future.' Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is worried about the land nor-th of Hillside and its development because it will sheet" across into the gutter and go onto Masada. Mr. Rougeau stated that tie had not looked at the north property in detail_ but that it would be examined to see if the water should g underground to Haven. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mayberry already has a water problem which may became excessive if this tract is allowed to dispose of its water this way. r. Rougeou stated that further review and study would be given to this. Chairman ding opened the public hearing.` Mr. Dave Sargis, representing the original_ owner, addressed the Commission. Chairman ding asked Mr. Sargis if he sees any way,; given the acreage i this tract, that a more creative design night. be accomplished. Mr. Tian Guerra, representing; the developer, stated that this had been researched very thoroughly and Commissioner olstoy's comments were well taken relative to the drainage problem. He indicated that there is a water barrier. at Hillside just west of Haven and a drainage problem at Mayberry. Planning Commission Minutes 5- May 12, 1982 He indicated that in response to Chairman King's question, this is the best Galan they could come 'up with. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would need more information before he makes up his mind on this project because he felt it needs more research concerning drainage Mr. Rougeau asked if the Commission would like Engineering to work with the developer for additional improvements. He indicated that a drainage pipe could go through one: of the single family lot lines but it would mean that they would._ have to tear up an existing yard. r. Guerra stated that this is the best plan that they could come up with. Commissioner Tol-stoy stated that something must be :done on Hillside Road.: He indicted that he also has a problem with the 90 degree turn because of the difficulty of making the Water turn in that direction. r. A.L. Adkins,- 10363 hillside Road, spoke of his concern for water drainage on Hillside: Road and the bridle path along his fence line He asked who would be responsible: for picking up the horse manure and indicated that his dogs might make the hoes skittish. Mr. Rougeau indicated that it may be necessary to have an asphalt 'curb , along Mr. Adkins lot line and that a design could be made for those lots. Mrs. Juliette Wallace, 5605 Masada, stated that Commissioner Tolstoy's comments are well taken because she lives in the Sewers tract and the water° is a great problem. She indicated that one of the lots in her subdivision must be pumped because of the water problem and that the water does not tarn in the street very well . Mrs. Wallace also asked how dust would be kept down when the work pro- ceeds on this development and about the existing fence along the Seivers tract Mr. Rougeau stated that these are things that 'can be answered when staff domes back to the Commission with their report. He indicated that dust control is required now and would be controlled. Chairman Ring stated, that lie felt there is a consensus that this Matter be brought> back to the Commission. Commissioner Toistoy asked that drainage at the signal for Chaffey" College where there is a cement crass at Wilson also be examined when this is studied. Chairman King stated; that he felt the design of the street layout is unimaginative and that it could be done getter, perhaps without as much yield, and asked if there would be support among the Commission for better design.. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 12, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Chairmen King; however, Commissioners Rempol and Sceranka, did not agree Lotion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tols oy, carried unanimously, that this item be continued to the neat regular planning Commission meeting and that staff study a method 'to change the drainage system with the provision; that if it entails the redesign or'redivision of lots, that tract design also be examined, i 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8: 10 p.m. The planning Commission reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7404 DAON CORPORATION A division. of 1.4.36 acres into 4 parcels within the Industrial Park area located on the north side of Arrow;Route between Red Oak and White Oak Streets - APN 208-351-27 Commissioner 8deranka stepped dorm from any participation can this item due to a possible conflict of interest„ :Paul' Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the proposed use tor. this property is p y needed in the industrial area and he was glad that this kind of use is being planned. For" the record., Commissioner ;Tolstoy stated it was his hope that Mr. Corrigan would exercise his good taste in architectural review as the Commission would, in review of the project, Motion. Moved by Rempel., seconded by To:lstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-47, approving Parcel, p 7494 and issuing a negative declaration, with the inclusion that this item be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency for their review. C. ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. -01 - 8TELLA - A request to develop a Nightclub/Cocktail Lounge in the C-2 zone. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman ding invited the applicant to speak, stating that it was; probable that the Commission would be unable to make a decision on this item at this:meeting as they are discussing the concept in general, Planning Commission'Minutes -7 May 12, 198 Mr. Teter Stella, the applicant, asked if parking requirements would be ASK one stall for every three persons in attendance. Mr. Vairin restated the parking requirements in the Code indicating that the ratio for the proposed use would be one stall for every three occupants. Mr. Stella asked about the requirements at the Boar's Head and what is the difference between. it and other C--1 areas Mr. Vairin replied that it was his recollection that the initial use of the Boar's head was that of a food server and in that respect they meet the code. However, he stated, the use proposed by Mr. Stella- would not meet the provisions of the existing code. Commissioner Tolstoy supported Mr. Vairrn's response. Further, he indicated that the Boar's dead was proposed as a dinner house without any a chol c beverages being served with entertainment being :secondary when it first cage before the Co mission: Mr. Stella stated that the hours of operation for his proposal would be p.m. to 2 a.m., when the mall shops would be closed. Chairman King stated that the Commission istrying; to establish of this type of use is allowable in a C_2 zone and whether a Conditional Use Permit would have to be issued in conjunction with allowance of this use in a C-2 zone. Mr. Stella stated that he did not understand where this leaves him . Commissioner Rempel Mated that he agreed that, this site needs to be looked at and that it would need a conditional use permit. He also agreed that such a use would have to be in a C 2 zone. Commissioner pempel stated that to some degree., the Industrial. Specific Plan covers this and he felt that this concept of locating in a C-2 zone is applicable. Chairman ding asked if everyone is in agreement with this type of use being; located within a C-2 zone with the proper conditional use permit. Commissioner. `T°olstoy stated that he would go along with that but that he probably has an unpopular view at this point. Further, that he has nothing against cocktail lounges but he would like to see them, built on a single piece of land where there are no conflicts with surrounding properties and cited the Club 66, as an example. He felt that there should be some direct ingress and egress and cited the problems that have arisen with the Boar's Head and the Bob's Big Boy parking lot, stating that there should be no conflicts with other businesses. Commissioner Tolstoy also stated that attention should be paid to the surrounding residential area. Planning Commission Minutes May 12 1982 Mr. Vairi.n stated that the conditional use procedure would address these concerns. Commissioner Sceranka stated that since the Development Code> is presently being reviewed, this would be a good opportunity to establish study and criteria for such a use. Rick Gomez, City Planner, asked if the Commission is looking for specific criteria to be placed in the code. Commissioner `1'olstoy stated that the applicant should be given some guidelines when this would come before the Commission for their review. Mr; Gomez stated that certain criteria of the Conditional Use Permit process would have to be met as well as certain findings being made. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded. by 'Tolstoy, carried unanimously, that staff prepare guidelines, and either place them in the new Devel- opment Cole, or prepare the guidelines sooner to meet with the requests of any applicants. Mr, Lam, Director of Community Development, explained the Commission's- action to Mr. Stella and indicated that should he desire to ;proceed with this, staff would work with him in the establishment of criteria for this use. E. FISCAL YEAR 1982--83 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM/SCHEDULE Mr. Gomez reviewed the staff report stressing that this is a preliminary work program which would be reevaluated in light of the Commission's comments and the budgetary constraints of the City. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the 'Tree Preservation Ordinance would be separate from the Development Code or be included in it. Mr. Gomez stated that this would be a comprehensive ordinance and; the tree preservation aspects would be included in it Commissioner Sceranka stated that on page 9 he felt that the designation of Urban Design Element update was insensitive and should be: redesignat- ed, to Community Design. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he knew that this is a small project; but asked; where street signs were going to fit. Mr. Comet replied that this is being worked one now. Commissioner Tdl.stoy stated that he is not going to be liege .long and stated a need to have this completed. Planning Commission Minutes - - May 12', 198 Commissioner Rempel stated that the Street Naming Ordinance is another project that needs completion Commissioner Rempel suggested that these 'committees meet every Monday evening until both of these projects are finished, Chairman Ring asked if there was any ;further input the Commission could give to the. Work Program. Commissioner Cceranka brought up the street naming , n the industrial area for eastern cities and felt the Committee should do the naming. Commissioner Tolstoy= felt that some of the older families' names should also be considered and felt that the Historical Commission should pro- vide some i.mput Commissioner Sceranka agreed. r. Gomez asked if there was any priority that would be given- by the Commission; relative to the projects listed. Chairman Ting felt that Foothill Boulevard in the Redevelopment area should have .some criteria established and a concept that is not done on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Gomez stated that the development of a zoning map and the Foothill Corridor study 3s essential and is a major undertaking of the Develop- ment Code. He indicated that a new design study might take place under the Redevelopment Agencay. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he has no problem with the priorities as listed: The Commission asked why the regional shopping center was :Listed twice® Commissioner Rempel stated that one listing was the 1980 project and the second, the 1981 study. Mr. Lam indicated that these listings were major projects that the Commission wanted some work on and that the latest word is that this coming year they will be bringing in some site plans. 1. DEVELOPMENT CC111 Mr. Gomez asked that the Commission review the work program, schedule of events and asked if there was anything that they wished to add. He indicated that as this goes along, more detail would be added to the format. Planning Commission Minutes -10 May 12, 1982 Mr. lzim stated that when looking at the priorities, the Commission should keep in mind that there could he shifts depending on how the budget genes» Further, that the Division would be down three staff members by attrition by the time the City goes into the budgetary process. He indicated that Mr. Gomez was examining how best to utilize the remaining staff. Commissioner Sceran a stated that there .is a problem In the industrial. area: off of 9th Street in the;Chaf,fwey Vocational Training Center. Iles, indicated that the parking, procedure taus been revised with. the Lent closed cafe as Chaffey is charging for parking fees. This, he stated, has caused a lot of parking in the street, Ceara aissieaner Sceranka suggested that; the conditional use permit be looked at to see what can be done about the parking problem. Mr. Vairin replied that two years ago the college was asked to correct the parking situation and since there had not been any adverse commearts, it was assumed that the parking problem had been resolved. Mr. Vairin stated that recently, comments have been, received and asked that the college be. contacted using the authority of the Commission t ask that this be corrected in terms of the conditional, use permit., The Commission concurred. Chairman King :asked wheat is happening in the Vanguard and Centers with the New Walle? Ministry. Mr» Valrin replied that this will come before the "Commission at their neat meeting. Commissioner Steranka stated that dur-Ing the: election there ''teas a lent of discussion about the notification process in conjunction with new pro- jects and asked if advance warning could be given to avoid some of the contr over z.es that have arisen in the past.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many of the people who appeared before the Council and Comm,a.ssien had hidden agendas and it was unlikerl ' that advance: notice would do much to uncover the real motives. He indicated that there was no way of,knowing that density was the real problem. Commissioner Sderanka stated that it was possible that if the Commission had let them know of the project and the residents had given input, the situation might have been resolved rather than handling it after the fact lair» Vai.ri,n advised of the current procedure and stated that notices could be placed on subject property. He indicated that there is 'rasa guarantee that an individual. will read, the notice, but it would get exposure. Commissioner Rempel, stated that not all residentsreceived notice, only those when Live within 300 feet, Planning Commission Minutes _il- May 12, 1. 52 .......... — -------------- ................................... Mr. Vairin stated that the posting will help. Commissioner Rempel suggested that a zoning map would take care of this. There was discussion on notification procedures, including the certified mail process and requirements of notification under the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Lam stated that the City's policy of sending certified notices was being_a ended and hereafter notices would be sent by first class postage. The Commission discussed double notification and there was consensus that this should be done with the developer assuming the cost of the second mailing. Mr. Lam indicated that this would necessitate an amendment of the fee resolution. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Citizens Advisory Commission receives the Monthly Status Report, and if they did not, if they would be put oil distribution to aid in advance notification of projects. Mr. Lam indicated that staff would draft a notification procedure for the first meeting in June for the Commission's review. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 9:07 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JA&K LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 12, 1982 CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA= PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting May S, 1982 CALL TO ORDER I Chairman Jeffrey King called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning I Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led In the pledge of allegiance. I ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King `II, ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel STATE" PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, City Attorney, Rick Gomez, City,Planner; Rill Holley, Director of Community Services; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary;' Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior Planner' PUBLIC HEARING Chairman King began the public bearing to discuss the Terra Vista Planned Community. Michael Vair n_ Senior Planner reviewed ed To pic rc #1 concernin g the Green „y Concepts of the Terra. Vista Plan. Mr. Vairin stated that staff was recommending four revisions to the Greenway Concept which included a need for a comprehensive conceptual plan for the major and secondary greenways secondly, that greenways be a minimum of 20 feet aide; thirdly, fencing is to be provided along all; the - reenrays and be consistent in; design; and fourth, that a phasing and implementation plan be required for the installation of the greenwa s, all of which shall be included in the .final text. Mr. William Holley, Community Services Director, reviewed the park plan for the Terra Vista Planned Community. ter. Halley` indicated that as a requirement of Ordinance No. 105 and the formula reached to determine the cumber of acres required for parkland, Terra Vista has a deficit of 40.7 ;acre . Mr. Holley stated that the Terra Vista plan did not fully maximize the joint use of land between parks and schools, and offered some recommendations can how this could be achieved;. Mr. Holley also discussed ;the park retention basins and explained that there were design, maintenance and safety problems associated with this concept. It was recommended that the retention/detention basin concept not be employed in any park/school joint use project and that theMilliken/Church Street park. retention/detention basin be reduced from 14.9 to 8 acres, be passive in design, and receive 50% credit towards the park requirements. It was also suggested that as an alternate recommendation the Milliken/ Church Street park be eliminated entirely and replaced by a standard retention basin. With regard to the greenway and trail, system, Mr. Holley indicated that this was a. definite asset to Terra. Vista, He recommended that 6 acres of the 22.6 acres claimed along the major greenway for parks he removed from the total, a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek Channel as a continuation of the trail into the south section of Base Line, and that a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek Channel from the section north of Base Line into Deer Creek Park. t was further recommended that Tura Vista be required to dedicate land within Deer Creek park, in an undeveloped state to the City, that up to 50% credit for private open space be available based upon, Ordinance o 105, and that the Terra Vista text show a method for implementation of the private open space plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the other Commissioners concurred, he would like to suggest that the parks and greenway concepts be dis- cussed before going on to the flood control and drainage. The Commissioners concurred with this suggestion. t happens when the. developer received a Commissioner s�otaer 'Iolsto ' asked what h p density bonus for affordable horsing', Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, replied that in the Victoria. Plain a �t distribution plan was devised to show the expected, number of density _ p P welling units to be built in an area, with a margin of flexibility included. Staff has been penciling in the tracts as they were approved to keep a record of what was approved versus what was expected and if there were an exceeding factor, staff would be aware of this and addi- tional fees would be imposed. Commissioner King asked if the concepts of density bonus and the re- quirements for additional park space conflict. Mrs Vairin replied that the City requires 5 acres per 1,000 people. When a density bonus is added there are more people added and this need could be supplied either through fees or additional park land. Chairman thing opened thepublic. hearing. Ralph Lewis, Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission. Mr. Lewis stated that his engineers were present to show examples of park retention/detention basins and to explain to the Commission how this concept world work in Terra Vista. Mr. Lewis indicated that his main concern was with the credit for private open space, and that: he felt that 50- 100% credit should be given, Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 3, 1982 Chairman King asked Mr. Lewis if he had any problems with the numbers and amounts listed in Mr. Holley's report. Mr. Lewis indicated that Elaine Carbrey would be presenting charts which would show how the figures for Terra Vista had been calculated. He also stated that he had no problem with moving some of the park sites to join them with schools. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Lewis if he had discussed the calculations for park dedication as proposed, in the Terra Vista plan with staff. Mr. Lewis replied that Kay Matlock had several meetings with the Community Services Director to discuss these calculations. Jeff Spornik of Gruen and Associates presented a slide show to the Commission which presented several parks which used the retention/detention basin concept in other cities. A questionnaire was also distributed to the Commission which had been sent to several cities who presently are using this concept for retention basins. 8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Chairman King stated that he would like to stop the presentation at this point and make sure the Commission understood the issues before them so that they could be discussed on an issue-by-issue basis, Chairman King stated that be felt ~that the issues before them were (1) the amount of park space that is actually shown in the plan and the amount of private open space that will be provided along with, the credit that should be given; (2) the amount of space that is being saved by joining two uses together thus cutting down the amount of park space required in the interior and placing that park space above Base Line; and (3) the amount of acres that are present in the retention/detention basin areas as well as the amount of credit that should be given. Mr. Holley stated that the issue of the 124 acres of park land should be discussed. The question was posed as to if the plan showed 124 acres or not. Elaine Carbrey presented a chart to the Commission which showed how the figures for Terra Vista were reached. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City Council stated that for every household the calculation of 3. 1. would be used, why did Terra Vista use 1.5 and 24362 Ms. Carbrey replied that these figures were derived from their population Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 3, 1982 estimates. Chairman King asked if this 3.1 figure was the: one Council selected to be used in the computation. Staff stated that this was correct Commissioner Tol:stoy asked if there were 124 acres of park land in the Mara.. as presented to the Commission. Ms. Carbrey replied that there were not 124 acres but only 85 acres in the revised plan were shown. Inds. Carbrey explained the chart presented to the Commission. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr.- Holley if the only points of contention' were the percentage of credit for joint use parks and detention and the private open space Mr. Holley replied that this was correct_. The figure of 100% credit for it acres of park land was not available under Ordinance No. 105. Kay Matlock of Lewis Homes read sections of Ordinance No 1.05 to the Commission.r Commissioner 1olsto yasked Robert Dougherty, City Attorney, for a legal o of the: Ordinance. interpretation Ir. Dougherty replied that he would like to tale a few minutes to study the Ordinance and respond later in the meeting. Chairman dint; asked for discussion of the issue of credit for the reten- tion/ detention basin. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the detention basins were required to build "feria Vista because of flood control problems; however, the park design would have to be completely different and be designed as a passive park." He stated that he could not see this area, as an active play area for children, therefore would not warrant a 100% credit. Commissioner Sceranka< stated that he would like to .see a report done that would discuss the increased cost to the City to maintain the fac°ill - y including increased liability insurance and the amount of time the facility would not be in use given the criteria of how much water would be contained in the basin at peak times. This would give the Commission a foundation to base their decision on as to haw much it would cost the City to maintain such a. facility and aid them in determining how much credit to grant. Chairman Kiang stated that, assuming the basin was properly designed, he did not see a reason why full credit would not be given, Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 3, 1982 There was further discussion an the retention/detention basins and Chairman Icing suggested that staff ;could further examine this concept and report back to the Coimnission at a later meeting. Chairman King stated that he would like to sees tlae developer and staff sit down and discuss the aspects of the concept and include the report suggested by Commissioner Sceranla spa that the Commission would have as better basis to snake a determination of how much credit to grant. Commissl.orler Se^era kaa stated that, lid would also like to seed report o which projects were given private open space credit to see, what the precedent had been on, that subject., Chairman K-ing stated that lose would like to see one other issue examined further and that was how much park space can be coat down in the interior areas and he shifted to the "city" park. above Base line: Bob Dougherty stated that before the Commission moved on to the next item,, the would like to give an interpretation of Ordinance No. 105. He stated than the: Commission was dealing with two subsections of the Ordinance;ance one dealing with the credit for private open space in the normal subdivision context and the other with the credit 1.n the planned community.. The controversy seemed to be what the wards "park standards" mean in Subsection F. Lewis contended that it meant the standards for- dedication as set: forth in Subsection ll and that section o reads "standards for dedication" which discusses the standard as being a ratio of 5 park acres to 1,000 population. Staff indicates that park standards should revert back to park credit in Subsection k Mr. Dougherty stated that he disagreed with staff can this issue. If the staff interpretation was taken, there would he no 'reason for Subsection li in that: it would be rendered redundant as the maximum credit available under F would be 50 maximum and the minimum %, which is the saute as available In Subsection E. He further stated that the Planning Conunission`woul.d have the discretion of granting credit from 0-100%. 9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10<0 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Paul ltou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report retarding flood control and drainage. Staff recommended that if there were a change in the location ;and/or ;size of the parksites, aaddit! gnarl. detention basins be ,provided, whether in a park or not. t was further recommended that no occupancy permit be issued to anybuilding in the project until, the lncprove ments by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Veer_ Creek Channel and the portion of Day Creek levee which would eliminate the major- source, of flood hazard to the ;site: Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see staff take a look at the liability and public safety issues of the, joint use retention basins as pointed out in the Engineering Staff Report. It was Commissioner Sceranka's opinion that this issue was being blown out of proportion. Chairman King stated that he would like to end the discussion tonight, if the other Comm,issioners concurred, and have staff meet with, the developer to resolve some of the issues before the Commission this evening. It was recommended that the hearii.,ig be continued to May 26, 1982. Commissioner Sceranka stated that lie would like to see the issue of having the "City" Park moved to the west of Deer Creek dealt with as he felt that this should be looked into before Terra Vista was approved. Chairman King concurred with CoTranissioner Sceranka and asked that staff look into the pros and cons of moving the "City" Park. A Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Res ectfully submi t t ed,, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 3, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 28, 1982-CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffry King called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission' to carder at 7 p.m. The meting was: held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CO , ISSIONERS Herman Rempel , Jeff Sceranka Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:: Neste STAFF PRESENT: Rick Goinez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy to approve the Minutes of the meeting of April 5, 1982 with a correction by Coimnissioner° Sceranka to page 11, second paragraph with reference to South Coast Plaza. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that Plaza should be changed to Village. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of April 14, 198 , CoTmiis inner Sceranka abstained from vote as he was absent from that meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam Community Development Director, announced that City Planner Riche Gomez is the father of a baby girl, Ricole, born April 24, 1982. Mr. Lam further announced that staff had been working on a Development Cade Outline and Wok Program which would be 'presented to the Commission tonight tinder Director's Reports, :item C. Commissioner R mpel stated that he woul.d be enable to attend. the Design Review meetin.g scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1982, and that an alternate should be selected to attend these meetings in his absence. This position was previously held by Commissioner Dahl. Chairman King was appointed as alternate to serve on the Design Review Committee. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TRACT MAP NO. 12176 - DAt A sub- division of 11 .06 acres into 15 lots within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Center located at the northeast corner of Civic Center Drive and Mica - APN " 08-351 - 2. Lloyd Hubb , City Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there were a formal access route for public use since Lot A was surrounded by the outer lots. Mr. Hobbs replied that it was not necessarily usable by ;the public but for the use by the owners of the lots abutting it. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, -indicated that the draft CC&R's had been submitted and they did not indicate that they intended that the easementsThese easements were to be ranted to the corner _ �r_ I be public.� T lots that do not otherwise touch Lot A. Chairman ling and Commissioner Sceranka stepped down from the podium at : 10 p.m. and abstained ,from vote due to conflicts of interest Vice-chairman Rempel, opened the public hearing .lack Corrigan, representing the Daon Corporation, addressed the Commission. Ile requested that Condition aS of the City Engineer's Report be amended to read p Lots instead of S lots so that the figure would be in agreement with the. CC& 's. r. Hopson stated that the CC&R's indicated that the co on area improve- ments are to be begun when lets are sold and this; condition was worded that the :improvements were to be completed when 9 lots were sold., Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, stated that there would be no problem in changing this condition. Mr. Corrigan also stated that he was concerned with- the stipulation that the City he a part of any amendments to the CC R'slie felt that this condition would lie der the marketability pity of the lots. Mr. Hopson agreed to this change in they conditions but that section 2.12 could not be amended ,without the City's consent. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if Mr. Corrigan could discuss the architectural plans for this center. Mr. Carrigan replied that there were certainrestrictions in the CC&R's regarding architectural design and there was also a master set of CC& .',d for the entire park, thus giving some control over the architectural aspects of the lots Planning Commission Minutes - - April 28, 1982 Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Corrigan if some type of shared parking arrangements would be made between the lots since there did not appear to he physical barriers which would separate them from the shared access. Mr. Corrigan replied that the reciprocal, agreement was for shared.; access only There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.. Commissioner Tolstov stated that he felt this; was an innovative: idea and a very good 'project which he hoped would be copied by future developers. Motion: Moved. by Tolsto , seconded by Rempel, carried to adapt the Resolution approving; Tract 12176, with the revisions requested by the applicant. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: `l"ol stay, Hempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS:ISSIONER,S:: None ABSENT: C011MISSIONLRS: None ABSTAIN* Ct? 1lSSIINERSM king:, Sceranka Chairman icing and Commissioner Scer'anka returned to the podium at 7:24 p.m. S. GENERAL PLAN A�KNIA ANT NO. 57-01 1 - CITY OF RANCHO CUC' CN A - A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim improvements to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial to collector standards. Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, reviewed: the: Staff Report indicating 'that this item was brought ]sack to the Commission per their request in order that staff seep approval. from CAL TRANS for this amendment. Mr. Hobbs indicated that CALL . NS had reviewed and concurred with the change with a requirement that access connections be, limited on Highland. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Vito Ike Vito Francesco, 615 N. Euclid Avenue, Suite 101Ontario, `California, stated that lie was representing the, owners of the "ill acme parcel at the southwest corner of Rochester and Highland. They are concerned that their access from the ranch house to Highland Avenue would be lost as a result of this amendment: Mrs lluhhs- replied access would be restricted in conformance with the current access policy. If the property were developed in the future, Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1982 access would be minimized to the arterial. There were; no further public comments and the public hearing closed. Commissioner missioner To toy expressed his support of the project, however, also expressed the opinion that access onto Highland should be as minimal as possible. He further stated that he did not meant that people should be deprived of access that are in that area now, but future development should have as little access as possible Motion: Moved by Rempel,: seconded by Sceranka, unamious.ly carried, to adapt the Resolution approving General Pharr .Amendment No. 2- i Taw ,NYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel , Sceranka, `.ioistoy, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noner ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. DEVELOPMENT CODE Rick Gomez, City Planner, presented the Commission with copies of the Development Code and,Work program Outline. Mr. Gomez explained that the Development Code was being created to combine all building-related issues into one comprehensive book The 'Development Gods and Work Pro- gram Outline were presented to the Commission ion to allow them time to review theft and: prepare their comments for the May 12, 1982 meeting. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was being done with the furniture store on Klusman; and foothill which was displaying illegal signs and had furniture displayed on the outside. Mr. Lam replied that the Code: Enforcement Officer had taken action against the furniture store. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was being done with the.; suggestion b the Commission that staff 'look into some method of having a person sign off on the General flan data when they purchase a home or property. Mr. Lam replied that staff has been, working on this request and i checking with other cities that have a similar regulation. He stated that most of the difficult' arises in enforcing the regulation. Commissioner tissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that the Board of Realtors should be able to hemp in this situation and possibly something could be worked out with them. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1982 Commissioner s eranka stated that some time ago the Commission had discussed a list of priority projects and felt that it should be brought back to the Commission soon for discussion. Mrs Lam replied that this list could be presented to the Commission at their next meeting can May 12, t982. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolatoy, seconded by King, carried unami.ou ly, to adjourn. d: 0 p.m. The Planning ommi i. n adjourned Respectfully omitted, w JACK LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 28, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 14, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, meeting at the Lions Park Community Center, 91.61 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m. He then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jeff Sceranka STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the March 24, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Gomez announced that the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee would meet at the Etiwanda Intermediate School on April 27, 1982 to consider the draft goals, objectives and conceptual plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since the people of the community have gone through a negative phase in City government he felt it important to speak to the positive aspects. He stated further that the Industrial Specific Plan, which the City had recently adopted, is unique and all involved staff members, especially Tim Beedle, were to be congratulated for it as well as the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that this is the largest specific plan for industrial development within the State of California. Mr. Gomez commented that the Industrial Specific Plan has been submitted to the Inland Empire Section of the American Planning Association as an entry in the Meritorious Program Award Category. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 81-01 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAPS Parcel Map 373 Parcel Map 6395 PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11893 - C/L BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of 17. 2 acres of land into 36 lots in the R-1-20,000 and R-1-I2,000 zones located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire - APN 1043- 1--0 . Senior Planner_ Michael Va.rrin, reviewed the discussion that trams, place at the April 6, 1982 meeting between the homeowners and City staff;, stating that the seven issues which most concerned the homeowners were listed can the staff report, Mr. Va rin further stated that also in- cluded within the staff report were conditions that would best mitigate the concerns expressed by the homeowners and indicated that M '. Bill Volley, Director of Community Services, was available to answer any questions relative to the park issue Mr. Vairin reminded the Commission of the time limitation for a decision on this subdivision, stat ng that May 12 is the final date, and any alteration of that date would have to be through voluntary continuation by the applicant Bill Holley, Community Services Director, apprised the Commission of the memorandum he prepared regarding the meeting he held with the homeowners. e stated that the residents felt that a 'mini park would be appropriate in this location and he indicated in his memo that such a park would be infeasible. Commissioner Tolstoy-stated that at the time of discussion on the General Plan, the Commission had made it quite clear that any designated sites shown on the map were not fixed but that they were floating. Additionally, since, this site is not viable because of money and terrain, he asked that Mr. Holley show the Commission where other alternate sites might be located. Mr. Halley pointed out two other sites, one around Almond on the south side of Sapphire and the Heritage Park site. He further indicated that the area adjacent to the DeMens channel could be used for trails and Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 14, 1982 hiking. Mr. Vairin indicated that staff met with the Equestrian Committee this afternoon to look at what they viewed as a potential problem with the master plan of trails in this particular area. He pointed out on the tract map the west boundary, how the creek veers to the left towards the City of Upland. He indicated that the best way to alleviate a problem would be to include within the CC&R's a condition that easements along lots 24 through 36 shall be reserved for equestrian usage of the tract and adjacent tracts because they provide important linkage to the City's master trail system and shall not be obstructed. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Nastase, representing the developer, C/L, stated that the roadway that Mr. Vairin has discussed along the western boundary will be constructed as a permanent access road by the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District and he had no way of knowing whether they would agree to the condition as stated by Mr. Vairin. Mr. Vairin replied that Mr. Nastase had told him that this would be an access road. Mr. Nastase stated that they had agreed to an easement but be was unsure if they would agree to regional-wide use of this. Mr. Vairin indicated that the major concern is that this area remain unblocked, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in this City there is a commitment to trails and if the right-of-way along this easement is blocked, it would seem to him that this tract would have to provide an easement for trails. Mr. Nastase stated that be did not mean that the easement could not be used, only that this would have to be reviewed by the County. Commissioner 'Dols toy asked what would happen if the Flood Control District did not agree to use of the easement for trails. Mr. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the Flood Control District would object to this and the CC&R's would say you can't build fences across them or place obstacles in front of the trails. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to make sure that whatever occurs, the integrity of the trail system be protected. Commissioner Rempel stated that the other answer is that if they consider blocking the trails, the City will have a lot of problems along all the Flood Control Channel. He indicated that this should not be of that much concern. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 14, 1982 Chairman ding asked haw the negotiations relative to this portion of the Flood Control Channel_ differ from any other area. 1r. Vairin indicated that there is not that much difference and if they had provided use in other places they would have to do this as well. Chairman King stated that the City is working with the same basic theory and concept on this that is used on all other easements: Mr. Na:sta.se stated that the ownership will be retained by the individual lots and the people will have easements and not fee: title. He indicated further that as ;long as the Flood Control allows their easement for public utilization, it is all right with theta. Mrs Nastase stated that he disagreed with the staff recommendation and condition that lets one through seven be redesigned to provide wider lots. This Condition is unjustified, he said. Mr. Don Dracha.nd, 6056 Indigo Avenue, speaking for himself and the people in the audience, stated that many had paid a premium .for their lets to ensure that they have a view. He indicated that the site under consideration by the Commission tonight had been designated a park on the General plan. and that the developer had also indicated that a park would be located here. The first indication that it would not be, was two weeks ago. Mr. Drachand indicated that the meetings with the Community Development and Community Services Departments had been com- Amok municative and cooperative, that they tried to help the residents as touch as possible. However, he stated that the park: site would have more access on the south side than what had been stated by Mr-. Holley and disagreed with the maintenance estimates for upkeep on the mini park.. He provided the Commission: with a letter indicating the steps he felt could be taken to secure a park Mr. harry Crowell, developer, stated that they did everything they could to develop a park site with the City. He indicated that this property had. been purchased about 4-5 years ago and that it had been designated single family. Further, that all production had been stopped." on this property pending outcome of the General plan. He felt that this sub- division should be approved by the Commission at this meeting_ and that he would be walling to sell a portion of this property to the City for a park. He asked that this be approved with the conditions that had "been previously 'outlined. Mr. Tom Veloslcy, 6167 Perdot, .asked. that,. if this tract is approved,pp , it e done with the addition of conditions as outlined in the staff report. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman, King stated: that he would begin comments with the park issue. He indicated that the park site is still available for a City park and that he had no problems with the conditions of approval as outlined that had been added by staff along with the condition relative to the eques- Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 14, 1982 tr i.an trail easement Chairman ling stated that he saw three things against this area having a parr. He indicated that there is a disproportionate area in Alta Loma' that;have' parks as they relate to the rest of the community. He indicated that if people view the General flan as it is prese.ntl.y designated, most of the property north of Banyan have one-half acre plus lots and there is more private opera.: space which cuts against the placement of additional park sites in this area, Additionally, he indicated that there was an individual who talked about mini parks who wanted to have one in this area. Chairman King indicated that it had been stated by Mr'.. Holley ey that the City does not wish to have a number of mini parks and by granting the opportunity of a mini parr: in thisarea, the. Commission would be setting a precedent for this policy throughout the City. Ile indicated " that he did meat feel this would be appropriate for a park site and felt that the reasoning given by Mr. Volley should:, be adhered to. Chairman King ,Stated again, that he has no problems with they; proposal_ as it exists with the conditions added by staff relative to the trail system. Commissioner Rempel stated that this area has opera space that is access- ible to the residents by way of the tram system along Cucamonga Creek and. the spreading ground that is adjacent. He indicated that this is area that the people can use. Ile felt that the County would: not allow. it to be used. Commissioner Rempel further stated: that: the people in this area have: a view in, both directions and that this subd vision wi l:l not detract from this view. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that both C Comm ssioners have spoken well on the issues and he agreed with four of the five conditions outlined in the staff report. However, he did not understand :how thereould be at y mitigation of reptile and rodent displacement. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they would like to see a park in this area but that this is not an ideal park site. He indicated that he did not see hole the Com- mission could do anything else but approve this subdivision. Commissioner Rempel stated that Chairman Kin had touched briefly can the inability of the City to purchase more parks and other areas in the City which needed parks more. He indicated that there are other ways to acquire parks, stating that the homeowners can negotiate for this land and purchase it themselves. Mr. Hopson stated that there is a delicate balance in states and federal. constitutional law in terms of exactions that municipal bodies can make on a developer.. He indicated that you cannot take,somebody°s property without paying for it. He indicated that You can have exactions for the benefit of the,general population and have a developer pay a fee but the law strikes the balance. In this case, he indicated that the developer gust pay d fee for the development of this site and since this is done and is a maximum, the City may not take anything more without paying for Plantain Commission Minutes - - April 14, 1982 s Lt Mr. Hopson indicated that the City Council has set fees and rude a decision on whet will be purchased by these fees. further, that it has not been deckled as a policy matter to take City power to condemn the property for additional park sites Mr. Hopson stated that the City cannot say dedicate 3.4 acres and we will approve your tract, because if they do this, the City must pay whatever is required. iir» Vairin stated that Item should also be checked as a condition on to require the City Attorney to review the CC& 's before recordation of the tract. Chairman King; reopened the public hearing. Mr. ferry Pa1.ies, 6067 Indigo, ,expressed concern relative to the com- paction of lasts one through seven. He Indicated further that the bats in the area are all, of 130-15 ,foot frontage and lie felt that as proposed, the acts in this subdivision would be incompatible with the area. Mr. Garry Crowell stated that the deletion of a for to accommodate r Crider frontages would add $40,000 to :the rest of the project. lie stated that he doses not see, the advantage of this, since the proposed frontages are 7- d feet, which be felt are adequate. There being no further cnimssents, the public hearing was closed. Moticsiat Moved by Tol.stuy, seconded by Rempel carried uaaanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 2_40 approving Tentative, Tract No. 118 and issuing a negative declaration, with the conditions added in the staff report as well as the provision of an equestrian easement and the addition of Item - . 50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 7:59 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened D NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMFNT AND PARCEL MAP 7350 - RANCHO LAND COMPANY divi.:;ioaa f O acres into 2 parcels within an industrial area, located at the southwest corner' of 6th and Utica Streets 210-087-07. Mr. Paul lluugeau, Senior Civil. Engineer, reviewed the staff report Chairman King opened the public heari_ngw Planning Commission Minutes - -- Epp i i. 14, 1982 There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-41 approving parcel Map No. 7350, and issuing a negative declaration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ES ENT AND CONDTTIONAL USE PE T 82-04 - HARDER The use of an existing 1,620 square foot building for a dance studio in the General. Industrial category (Subarea 3) , located at 9613 Arrow Route, Suite "G". City planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King stated that within the staff report there is talk about noise attenuation on one side. He asked why it was not required on both sides. Mr. Gomez indicated that this was covered -in Condition No. 3. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-42 approving the environmental assessment and Conditional Use Permit No. 82-04. Commissioner Tolstay stated that he still, has problems with some of the uses which are being approved in the industrial park. He stated that the Commission is allowing inappropriate uses. Chairman King stated that he does not , feel comfortable with some of the approvals; however, he is not sufficiently uncomfortable not to vote in favor of this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that store fronts would be the place for this use but realizes this to be an economic issue. He stated that when the industr1al area is built out, he felt there would be additional traffic problems. Commissioner Rempel stated that, this has been approved as a conditional use permit and can be revoked at a later time if problems occur. F. 14AVEN AVENUE MEDIAN DESIGN City Planner, Rick Gomez, stated that this is being brought before the Commission as a discussion item and that prior to it being brought Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 14, 1982 before the City Council., staff would like to meet with any interested group relative to these median designs. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that the Alta Loma duo en's Club and: individuals had provided the existing landscaping along Haven Avenue which consists of Cedars and p rancantha Commissioner Tol.stoy asked for an explanation of the Bo unite which is being considered for the median. n. Mr. Coleman explained that a trade name for a stamped concrete process that can be made to look like alluvial. rock, quarry tile, etc. Chairman Kiang asked about its cost. Mr. Coleman replied that the cost is one-third of the real. thing Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Bo-mn niter really looks good and asked how long it would stay that war. Commissioner dlempel explained the process of how it is made and indicated that it would probably be longer lasting than the alluvial rock which is mbeded into concrete. Commissioner Rempel stated that die would like to see the expansion joints follow:fray the design rather than have a straight cut. Mr. Coleman stated that the use of Bowmanite would provide a more con- sistent appearance. Further, that the Lesny Corporation is proposing the use of Canary island Pines and shrubs within the median, in front of their project. He indicated that: the General. Plan in its guidelines for medians, recommends the use of columnar trees. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before commenting, he wished to go back to the rock. He asked if staff has formulated specifications for the ix of the concrete and asked for assurances that the mix be checked. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that with all due respects to columnar trees on Haven, be would like to see a departure. He indicated that Haven Avenue is the only candle the City" has to the Chaffey brothers and Euclid Avenue. Ile felt that every effort should be made to make Haven Avenue as spectular as possible. He recommended the use of Jacarandas or Crepe Myrtles in the' median Commissioner Rempel expressed his agreement and :felt that more than: one variety in the median would add more color. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that die wanted only one variety of tree with the use of groundcover to provide variety and texture. Commissioner Rempel stated that it would take d Long time for a Crepe Myrtle to reach its frill height. Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 14, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they will grow to a height of 35-40 feet. Commissioner Rempel stated that he liked the use of Bowmanite and agreed that Haven Avenue is not the place for coniferous trees. He stated that he would like to see some color and shading with the trees used. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is concerned about the feelings of the people who planted the present median and indicated that this had been a labor of love. He indicated, however, because of the method of planting, there was no way that any of the existing plants could be saved, and stated that the City owes the group which planted the trees their gratitude. Chairman King stated that he is not impressed with the Bowmanite and would prefer the real thing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Haven Avenue is a very important street and perhaps a combination of rock could be used. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the City of Upland would have problems with their median in the future with weeds growing in between the rocks. He indicated that the Bowmanite would be better than the alluvial rock imbeded into the concrete. Chairman King indicated that the consensus of the Commission is that the design of the median is all right, but that other ideas are needed, and this should be brought before the community. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 8:29 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 14, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 5, 1982 iI CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffrey King called the Adjourned Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and hearing of the Terra Vista Planned Community to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: *Richard Dahl., Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael, Vairin, Senior Planner * Commissioner Dahl left at 8:10 p.m. City Planner, Rick Gomez, presented the residential issues contained in staff report No. 3 of the Terra Vista Planned Community. Mr. Co Fez stated that staff recommends the total. number of dwelling units within the Terra Vista Planned Community be directly related to the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. That the developer reduce the base amount of units to 8000. By doing this, Mr. Gomez stated, there would only be a small difference between Terra Vista and the General Plan's projected density. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the density bonus is 15 percent it means that all 8000 units would be affordable. Mr. Gomez replied that it would not mean that, but rather, that if the number of units is 8000, 1200 would be affordable units. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the density bonus criteria is. Mr. Gomez referred Commissioner Sceranka to page 3 of the Terra Vista statement indicating that there was not a minimum or maximum,. He indicated that there is agreement with the developer that the density bonus would not exceed 1200 units. Mr. Gomez recommended that the Commission discuss the policy issues relative to the number of dwelling units within the proposed planned community in light of consistency to the General Plan goals and objec- tives and with previous decisions of the Planning Commission as it relates to Victoria Planned Community. He further recommended that the number of dwelling units be established as 8000 and that the affordable housing criteria be amended to include affordable housing definitions for better accountability and to set a minimum amount of affordable units to be delivered and the maximum number of bonus units that could be awarded. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the 8000 units built are affordable, how many additional bonus units would the developer be able to get? Mr. Gomez replied that if the maximum is 15 percent, they could obtain 1200 additional units. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the definition of affordable housing is one that the City has already used? Mr. Gomez replied that it is. Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the portion of the staff report dealing with neighborhood center locations and community commercial design. He indicated that the applicant had provided a revised list of permitted uses within the commercial areas to reduce the overlap that existed in the previous presentation. Mr. Vairin stated that the neighborhood commercial centers have been relocated in keeping with previous discussion by the Commission to the southeast corner of Milliken and Base Line with a smaller one at the interior of the:--project at Cleveland and the loop road. Further, the consultant will be showing new conceptual plans for the Community Com- mercial area and the kind of design feeling that will be depicted at the corner of Haven and Foothill. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant has also revised the statement relative to Community Commercial referring to the acreage that would be allotted from 55-60 acres to 35 acres. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report portion which dealt with circulation. Mr. Rougeau indicated that the developer has taken a good, approach relative to circulation. Further, that on some minor traffic and circulation issues, agreement has been reached between the developer and the City. Mr. Rougeau stated that one issue, that of sidewalks on both sides or one side of local streets, remained to be settled. Mr. Rougeau stated that the Commission has expressed some concern relative to pedestrian crossings and indicated that there will be four points within the planned community where signalized intersections will not be Planning Commission Minutes -2- April. 5, 1982 provided. one, the, major greeanway, and three others on the secondary green way. He indicated that at two of these a pedestrian signal would lie provided and that two tethers would work quite well with signs being provided at they crosswalk. He stated that the two that would have signals would be they major greenway' at the park and another can the western side where the secondary greenway- is expected to carry quite a bit more pedestrian" traffic. Mr. liougeau stated that one more item of concern was the placement of streets along Milliken Avenue.' He indicated that staff granted to,be sure: that this would not affect future circulation,'on Milliken. Mr. Rougeanu stated that the applicant has hired the traffic: consulting firm of K n man and associates to study signals at those intersections and the progression of traffic at Milliken. Mr. l;ougea,u stated that the study has indicated that the existing acing is very good and that good traffic progression could be obtained. Further, that even if adjustments are made in the future, good street locations and good signal, tanning would be available can.. Milliken. Commissioner Tclstoy asked for comment of the statement on page 8, of the staff report where easement through private property is to be approved on the project-by-project basis, Mr. Rougeau :stated that it may be necessary to get into a gr enway to provide maintenance with a truck., therefore, access through such an easement might be required although: this is not the most desirable situation. He indicated that if the easement is required, staff will take a careful look to avoid problems in the future. oatmri:ssiouer Tolstoy stated that are easement :through a parking lent at a center would be more desirable than through private property. Mr. l ougeau stated that easements through private property are ones that staff :is afraid of because of the opportunity to get into some hard feelings. he indicated that these would be looked at very carefully on a case-by-case 'basis. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that going through a parking lot or service round of a; condominium complex is all right but the other alternative is a posh one, Commissioner Tdl.stoy asked if there had been any discussion between staff and the developer on the issue of crossing at a major road as to than possibility of rising a textured roadway. Mr. Rougeau replied that the developer is enthusiastic about that, especially where there is some protection by a traffic signal. He i.nda ated':that where there will riot be signals, it is has feeling that: a textured roadway should not be used because it offers a: false :sense of security to the pedestrian and because often, a driver is unaware of it. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April, a, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the pedestrian crossing could be of a MINK different col.ora Mr. Rougeau replied that if the color 1s"used only occasionally, the pedestrian wi 1.1 not be as careful. and the driver will be surprised when he encounters it. Commissioner ilempel suggested that an arbor or some like method be used to alert the pedestrian and driver of than crossing that would also be visible frcm the road. Per. Vaairin stated that this has been discussed with the applicant at great .Length and that they are 'working on this Commissioner iiempel suggested :further that a beach taught also be added to the arbor area. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the. use of dimples In the street. Further, that safety of the pedestrian should he ensured at every crossing. He Mated that he would like to sea:. than Planning and Engineering staff research this. Commissioner Scera Ica pointed to the map and indicated that the area of most concern to him is the intersection of the loop road'and parkway where' they parkway is adjacent to the street. r. Rougeau stated that the pedestrian will be fully protected by a traffic signal at the crossing because the area of concern to Comm, s done,* ceran as is a major crossing. Commissioner Dahl stated that if he understands this correctly, it will. be at both ends at the park. Mr. Rongeau stated these areas are where pedestrian` actuated signals are recommended. Chairman King stated that he realized, that the Commission is dust at the beginning of the hearing process can this planned community, and, knowing that there will not be any final decision on. this tonight, asked if the developer wished to address any of the issues which have been discussed. Ms. Shay Matlock, representing Lewis Development Company, stated that it s their feeling that the staff recommendation to lower density is unnecessary. further, that their studies have shown that the densities proposed will work and reducing the awaits will not snake that shush differ- ence in being in compliance with the General Plan projections. Ms. Matlock stated that there is a need for good balance within the city and their plan goes a long spay in providing it. She stated that they would like to seas the densities .stand as proposed. On the issue of density bonus, Ms. Matlock stated that any plan is com planning Commission Minutes 4- April 5;; 1982 plcated and they would like to have more time to work with staff". I On the other issues,. Ms. Matlock stated that Gruen and Associates would rake presentations. Chairman ling asked Ms. Matlock if the applicant has any objections to the General Plan definition of affordable housing. Ms. Matlock replied no, but that their concern is flexibility and how' affordable housing would be implemented. Commissioner Sceranka. stated that he thought it makes sense to have the number set at €000 dwelling units, with 15 percent of these units as affordable housing ' Commissioner Dahl stated that he understands this but there are two issues, one involving overall density and two, the density bonus He indicated that he has no objection to the City Staff recommendation of an 8000 dwelling units base which is cutting approximately 800 units out of the project Chairman King stated that his personal, preference is that the Commission wait to hear the presentations of some of the other issues before. any " recommendations are made to staff on appropriate densities. Commissioner Tolstol staged that he did not have any objections to what Chairman king said, but did not see why the Commission couldn't settle the issue of density at this time,; Commissioner Rempel stated that if the figure of 8700 dwelling unfits is used and the density bonus is added in, the Commission could see ghat the figure would get to. He indicated that he would go along with the: staff report which could "allow a maximum of 9200 units. He further stated that it is not realistic to have all 8000 units affordable;and felt that a better definition of percentage ecenta e of affordable should b developed., Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see 8000 units with a 15 percent cap as a "guideline and foundation and if there is an appropri- ate reason for changing, it could be done at that time, and stated that he would make a motion to that effect. Commissioner Bahl seconded the moti.ona Commissioner ltempel asked if what Commissioner Sceranka is saying is there would be a maximum cap of 15 percent affordable and if they have 1000 affordable units they could only have 150 units a ' a bonus. He indicated that this is not what staff is saying. `further, that if 100 units are "built, they would only be alloyed an additional 15. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April. 5, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka stated that it would be 8000 pleas 15 percent, if all 8000 are affordable Commissioner Repel stated that this is not realistic. Commissioner Dahl stated that if the Commission is looming at the afford- able issue and he only builds 100, he can only build 15 more. He in- dicated that he had to agree with Commissioners Hempel that it depends on what kind of development he makes to give him the maximum amount and that a limit must be set as to the amount of overall density that they want to see in Terra Vista. Mr. Vairin-stated for clarification that the numbers suggested are similar to those of Victoria in that they are stating that there is a maximum density bonus allowed and that 1200 units are to be affordable. He indicated that if he builds 25 percent of the 8000 units affordable, this does riot mean that he gets a 25 percent density bonus. , Commissioner Sceranka stated for clarification his is motion is 8000 units plus 1200 as a "maximum for density bonus no matter what the com- putation is. Commissioner Rempel stated that the :report indicates that if he builds 100 units, he would only get 15 more. Mr, Vairin stated that he was trying to use an example that even if he built a project of 100 units and they were all.. affordable, he would only be allowed the limit of 15 percent.; Chairman King asked why he could not get 15 percent period. if he builds 1200 affordable, he gets a 1.5 percent density bonus, he doesn' t get 100 density bonus r. Gomez stated that 1200 is 15 percent of 8000. Chairman King stated that he understands this, but that he does not thank that this is what they are driving; at. He thought that if they build 100 affordable houses, 15 would be added as a density bonus. If they build 1000, they get ;150. Chairman King stated that what staff is saying; is that if they build 1200 out of 8000 affordable, they get' 1 00 freebies, or a density bonus. r. Vairin stated that this is what 15 percent of 8000 is. Chairman King stated that this would be 100 percent Commissioner gceranka staged that his motion will be a maximum of 8000 units plus 15 percent and whatever the formula warps out to be. Commis- sioner Sceranka stated that what Mr. Vairin is, trying to say is that the developer would" like`-to have 1200 units as a bonus for every 1200 units of affordable housing that he provides and this is not what his motion I Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 5, 1. 82 is. Ile indicated that 1.200 is the maximum based on justification: of what staff has used for the. number. Whether they get to 1200 or number less than that is yet to be decided and what he is saying is that they must have a holding capacity for Terra Vista.- Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that there are two different issues and he; felt that these should be taken up separately. He felt that the density bonus should be the, second issue and should be taken up as a separate motion. He indicated that he was not sure that the City would be in the best position if it is defined the way it is stated. He indicated that there is a provision in State law regarding density bonuses which allows for agreement between the City and the developer where by if the developer - is willing to build 25 percent` affordable, which means housing for either low-income people or moderate-income people, the developer receives a bonus of additional units or other incentives. He indicated that he doubts if they wouldd be able to build for low-income people because the cost of housing' is just too high. His idea of affordable is to build moderate dust housing for middle income people® He indicated that if he provides 25 percent, affordable, the City is to give him a bonus either of additional units or other considerations like a waiver of certain City fees, use of some of the redevelopment money for sewers and sidewalks, etc., Mr. Lewis did not feel that the Commission should just limit this to 15 percent. Because the Commission might find that they would have to use City funds or redevelopment funds, he felt that the City should allow some cushion in this regard. Mr. Gomez stated that the Planning Commission has some options. He indicated that 1200 units is the most the City will allow as a density bonus .in addition to a maximum 8000 units. He indicated that Mr. Lewis is correct in that there would be other ways of making up the density bonus in other types of services by using the redevelopment agency or Community Development block Grant programs. He indicated that the.. criteria .is unknown at this point. _ Commissioner Sceranka stated that this is what he is saying, that they are setting a holding capacity' limit of ' 000-plus 1200 Tani is>as a affordable housing incentive. Commissioner Rempel :stated that he felt 'there: should be an addition to the motion that the criteria for this be established at a later date. Commissioner Sceranka stated, that he would have no problem with this. Commissioner Dahl stated that he would accept this. The motion carried. Chairman ling noted. no because he felt that the. Commission is grossly premature in snaking the density determinations at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 5, 1982 Chairman King asked if there were any persons in the. audience not connected with the developer which wished to make any comments relative to the commercial issues. There were none Chairman ling invited the developer to comment. Ms. lay Matlock. of Lewis Development Company, stated that representa- tives of Cruets. and Associates, Elaine Carberry and Jeff Scornik, would make a presentation relative to commercial uses. Elaine Carberry stated that at the last Terra Vista meeting, the Com- mission indicated its displeasure with two neighborhood commercial centers located at Milliken and Base Line. Ms. Carberry stated that because of the. Commission's comments they have allocated a small parcel of 4 acres at Base Line. and Milliken for professional offices. Also, a small 4 acre parcel has been reserved for neighborhood commercial at Terra Vista and Cleveland.- The recreation commercial area would contain small market such as a health food store and a small market in the MSC area to serve the higher density housing in that area. By doing this; there::.- would be a market within one-half mile for all residents of Terra Vista. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of market is envisioned in the MSC area. He asked if the developer is talking about a 7-1.1 store. Ms. Carberry replied that they do not see a 7-11 market there; however, It would b , on the scale of a 7-11. Further, it could be a ground floor of a residential structure Commissioner Tolstoy stated that his concern is that a 7-11 is a conveni- ence type market and he had nothing against that kind of store. Ms. Carberry stated that what they are providing is the land for a` market to go there. She indicated that they dial not know whether another large market could be supported and they were looking for flexibility. Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that; he did not like a 7 11 type market in that location. Commissioner ball asked if the ''consultant was earmarking; a center in the community commercial area, s» Carberry replied that they 'present what they envision. Commissioner Dahl stated that he did not envision a super market in the community commercial; Further,, that when the General flan was discussed le thought there were to be two anchor stores similar to the Mountaingreen Center in 'Upland. ilalph, Lewis stated that when Ms. Carberry shows the conceptual drawings, Planning Commission Minutes - -- April 5, 1982 this will, be clarified. Commissioner Rempel, stated that in a way he agreed with. Commissioner lulstuy and in another way fie disagreed. He further stated that in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach fie has seen neighborhood commercial, which contains a smaller market that .is very successful. further; that in such a;'location where the market may not draw more than +{ICI—00 people on their better days, they will not make it unless it is a- 7-11 or a Circle K. Ms. Carberry showed conceptual. drawings of the community commercial area which contained modified _parking at Foothill and Haven. The area would contain financial institutions, restaurants, and would have green rays connecting down to Foothill and Haven. The conceptual plan also con- tained clustered areas and showed how as you moved away from this. clustered ;area it would narrow to a central plaza-< She spoke of the special, architectural element that would tie this together with trellis- ingr arbors and stated that they have agreed with staff that this would be a 35 acre center and advised that Mr cornik would present a panorama of Foothill, Boulevard by way of slides. Commissioner inner Tolstoy stated that they have come a long way but there is still mucky in the presentation that scared him because it appeared that nothing in the'presentation was definite. Mr. Lewis stated that the reason for this is because it depends on who the tenant is and what their preference will be. Further, that, If they are able to get a larger department; store they will asks, for a change because earlier the inference was that they will rant ask for more than the 35 acres. Commissioner issioner Dahl stated that he thought this to be an excellent design in separation of service and commercial areas. He; felt:that it could work:'and that the fears he had prior to the presentation have been Put to rest. 7; s p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8. 20 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Dahl_ left the meeting at d a 10 p.m. Chairman king recovened the meeting and Jeff Scornik made as presentation with a panorama of Foothill Boulevard. Shown were the Corporate Park as a window into the community and beyond; Executive Parks with varied set hacks that promotes a sense of variety and that contains small earth berms; Auto Plaza with undulating berms and display pavilions; and the Medical Park with another open space window into the community. Mr. Scornik explained tkae" various tree varieties. Mr. Scornik stated that the illustration and site plans which had been shown would be indicative of the ultimate development. That individual materials and Planning Commission Minutes - april. 5, 1982 p i building shapes and anther factors would be expected to differ; in detail. He stated that they can provide design guidelines and regulations that would implement, the general intent as depicted in the slides and drawings. Mr. Scornik stated that development along Foothill Boulevard and Haven is expected to begin as soon as the community plan approval is given. He reiterated that full bui.l_dout is not anticipated for '10- 0 years, Mr. Scornik stated that the developer wants a high quality ty development as much as the City does because he wants a gonad return on his investment. Chairman .icing stated that relative to the design of the, commercial area t foothill and Haven, the; Commission is attempting:' to make a link from the intersection, into the greenway. That the Corporate Park area does a far more effective job of caving a window into the community than doss the community center. He indicated that the Town Center should have the same openness that the Corporate Park has leading into the main greenbelt. He indicated that as presented, the Town Center doses not have a, free open feeling. Mr. St.oraaa.k stated that from t1aa._ standpoint of exposure and acc.oi;s the Corporate mark was designed for the kind of patronage that is expected He indicated that there are not the major streets to accommodate the access required the shopping center development at Haven and Foothill -viable. He indicated that the exposure at foothill and Haven ;is very attractive and the development doesn' t require the dame kind of exposure that the Corporate mark has. Chairman King stated that he is not saying it is necessary to shift the two uses. He felt that the most i.mpOrtant ietersection in the Community has to be the most attractive and that the Town Center does not conform with ghat fie would envision for the area. Commissioner Tol.:stoy stated that he agreed with Chairman King :and didn' t raise the point because he dial not want to make a decision until he sees the development plan for that intersection. Further, he hoped that since they are the professionals, it was his hope that they could design a center that would meet the developer's requirements and the Commission's wishes. Commissioner Rempel stated that the. Commission must consider as number one, the real use of the center. He further stated that;parking mast be in proximity to the use since people don' t mind walking a short way but not 300-400 feet from the shopping center. Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be worked out and that the consultant has dune a beautiful job on the plan. He indicated the cost factor that must be taken. ;into account and that he did not know of a chomping ouster. ;that doesn' t have parking around it. Commissioner TolMstoy stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempel but there are enough.' design methods such as digging a hole and keeping cars out of view, Cie indicated that enough of an issue has been grade. That Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 5 1982 i staff, the developer and the consultant knows that the Commission wants to hide the parking:* Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would speak directly to what the General plan Advisory Committee summed up for what they saw in the Town Center. He asked that the South Coast Village be looked at as a prototype of low profile buildings and landscaping. He further indicated that the South Coast Village would provide the feeling and appearance of the rural. community. He stated that what they are doing is all right but it must be understood that oars are not to be the dominant feature of the center. r. Scornik indicated that he understood this and stated that they have modified the look of the parking lots by berms Commissioner Rempel stated that in every picture which was shown, the sidewalks have been in a straight line. He felt that much could be done to enhance the project by undulating and meandering the sidewalks. Commissioner Sceranka asked where service stations would be provided within this plan. Ms. Matlock replied that they have some ideas but they are not yet finalized. Commissioner Sceranka asked if they would know as the hearings progress because be has some strong concerns'. 'Ir. Vairi.n stated that most of the. 'service stations are listed as permitted uses but that he felt this could be handled through the Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Sceranka asked. the Commission whether they thought the 25% figure of mixed uses within the categories is good where there are specialized uses allowed,. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that it is his hope that the uses in these zones will be adhered. to. He noted, however; that an auto part store would be allowed in Hone Center and he did not feel this use appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that he hoped the Commission would not dilute the Center's theme. He felt that` a 25 deviation is pretty high. Further, that CUH's or some other system is needed and the developer, staff and the Commission should go through the designated uses and clean them up, Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt D should be eliminated. He felt that the 5% deviation would defeat the whole purpose of the section, Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is more than enough retail; he doesn' t think, it appropriate to water it; down, before they start. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1982 GIs. Matlock replied that this can be modified in anyway that the Com- mission desires Commissioner Sceranka stated another of his concerns is d grocery store: in the R-C zone. He indicated if there is a store there, he would like to know what kid and how it would be integrated. further, that there rust be criteria. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before uses are established, guidelines must be provided for the neighborhood center. He indicated that it must be a theme center. He indicated that he does not want the Commission to say company YZ com is coming in and that. they tell.. the Commission we must y g have so .and so. He felt that the Commission must tell the XYZ company that there are certain restrictions and that he would like some guide- lines like those for Foothill, Boulevard. _ He wanted these to be really unique centers. ' Commissioner Sceranka asked staff to look into one more compatibility thing prior to the meeting. commercial That was recreational comm cial and . g, he noticed that when-the Commission 'gets into neighborhood centers there are sometimes conflicts with people who get in and out quickly and those who stay for 2-3 hours. He felt that mixed use compatibility must be.; examined to see there are no problems for the neighborhood commercial, Commissioner Rempel stated that if this is looked at, the City's own zoning must also be examined. Chairman Ring asked if there is consensus' that some smaller stores in the neighborhood commercial. might be placed in; the MAC zones The consensus of the Commission was that they could be. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt it should be there and that it should not be a, 7-11 type Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought the consensus is that the Commission must come back with a designation of compatibility of certain things in certain areas. Chairman King asked about "the general feeling of the town center. He asked if the Commission liked it as presented or whether' it needed more work. = Commissioner Rempel stated that the place to bring it tip is Design Review and not at this point is time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Design Review is where the final planning will be done. He indicated that the text of the document must provide some safeguard so that the Commission doesn' t receive junk Chairman Rini; asked the Commission if they feel comfortable with the Planning Commission Minutes -12- _ April S, 1982 concept or it they felt this needed more work. Commissioner lealstoy asked what Chairman Kingts objection is Chairman King stated that as he visualized it it does not create the openness that he would 'like to see at that corner. He indicated that there is no reason that parking can't be underground and that this is an extremely crucial corner and he would like to see a more open feeling. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is a very important issue and lie; wished to disagree with Chairman King. He indicated that the only gray it can be said is that when the developer brings this into Design Review (the people on Design Review) will have to male choices. He indicated that the overall theme is great.. Further, that whit you see is a foot, print but it doesn" t: tell the, entire story. Co maissi, ner °T'olstoy stated that Design Reviews will have to say it is not open enough or that changes will have to be made. Chairman King stated that it appears that there is consensus thon.. Commissioner Rempel stated that if you take what they have pictured here, it is difficult to see the openness because it is not done to scale Ms. Carberry stated that the stale that was used is I to a 100. Chairman Ring stated that-., there is one more point that he wished to make and that is he would like to see <a lot of grass because what' they.have shown is not as pleasant as it could be. Commissioner Rempel stated that the point should not be belabored. He agreed that it could use less hard surface and more grass. Commissioner Sceran a stated that the planned community at this point is at the conceputal level and criteria of open space, rural character, low profile, and the minimizing of parking lots. He indicated there was consensus can these„ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that staff mist be sure that these concerns are addressed in the text Chairman ling stated that they would go on to the commercial issues. _Conmiissioner Tolstoy stated that in the neighborhood coatmerci.;al area, the Commission gees to have some concept of what that will be. Ms. Carberry and Mr. Scornik addressed the Tissue of circulation and stated that from staffs standpoint this is not an issue as there tare less trips than what is contained in the General Plans Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 5, 1982 Ms. Carberry explained the loop system proposed as well as internal and external access. leis.. Carberry stated that a candidate for the primary trans%t route .is the loop parkway and explained the bus pull. outs that are designed. 1* s. Carberry explained the median sire and greenway",as another element of importance in the circulation system. Ms. Carberry explained the underpass that was proposed at the intersection of Milliken and Vase Line that would allow a walker or biker to go for a mile without encountering automobile traffic. She indicated that at a previous tweeting this had been discussed and the question, was raised as to why this couldn' t be done elsewhere in Terra Vista. She indicated that the flat terrain of "terra Vista makes it necessary to take the walker or bicyclist rip and over rattier than under. She indicated that hike ramps will'be required. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the traffic and, environmental l study shows: 20,000 cars a. day on the loop road on the southwest side where it intersects with the park at tine second crossing at the town center; He stated that lie is most concerned with that crossing and what will be done to avoid congestion there Commissioner Tols toy agreed with Commissioner Sceranka and suggested an underpass., Ms. Carberry stated that they will take ai took at this Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wants staff to look at this as cell., as his concern is the level of traffic and how it will be handled. Ms. Carberry described a pedestrian crossing at Marina del They that functions quite well with a volume of traffic comparable to what is anticipated here. Commissioner Sceranka stated that at: this stage in the plan many options roust be examined. Ms. Carberry stated that there is a condition that each major-intersec tion have a crossing and showed the crossings that are proposed at intersections and mid-block. She stated that there woul.d be d ;signal, at ,the junior%high, ;and a: signal, opposite between the 'park and the elementary school. lbs. Carberry also addressed the safety factor of using to tur z. ed material at crossings, stating that their traffic engineer did not feel. this is safe, either;' Commissioner si.oner Toi s toy suggested that there be an addition;at this point, nt that a median be planted appropriately sir that it will allow motorists o Look over the crossing. Commissioner Rempel asked if there is some way to prevent someone riding a bicycle from going straight into traffic and suggested that a post be positioned there to prevent such intrusion by making the cyclist walk Planning Commission ssion Minutes -14- . April 5, 1,982 his bike across Chairman. King suggested that instead of low shrubs, there be a cleared area to ensure that the motorist sees the pedestrian area. I Commissioner Tol.stoy suggested that this might be -a good place for hardcape". Commissioner T lstoy asked what the resolution is concerning sidewalks and whether they are wanted on one or both sides of the street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that in the Victoria planned community, the option was given of going either way. The consensus of the Commission was that the 'Planning Commission and staff be given the. authority to determine the best option on-a case-by- case basis. Mr. ' airin stated that the items duscussed here tonight would be brought back to the Commission at the next hearing in one comprehensive package with' revised text. Motion: Moved; by T lstoy, seconded by l empel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the next scheduled nearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community, May 3, 1982. :25 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned ; Respectfull , submitted, JACK LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 5, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 24, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman King at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff King, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Shinto Bose, Senior Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner -APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to approve the Minutes of March 1, 1982, with recommended changes in wording on pages 5 and 15. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to approve the Minutes of" March 10, 1982. Chairman King abstained from vote as he was not present for that meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the Planning Commission Tour was to be Saturday, March 27, 1982 and that the bus would be leaving City Hall at approximately 9:00 a.m. and. be returning at around noon. Mr. Gomez also announced that there would be a Town Meeting on March 30, 1982 to discuss the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This meeting will be held at the Etiwanda Intermediate School Auditorium in Etiwanda beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Gomez announced that the Planning Commission meeting this evening would adjourn is April 5, 1982 to discuss the Terra Vista Planned Community. This meeting could be geld in the 'Lions Center beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Gomez further announced that an addition would be made for tonight's meeting under Director's Reports, Item ,J to discuss the Sharma Conditional.. Use Permit. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2- 3 - NORTHKIRK The development of a church facility on 3.3 acres of Land in the -1 zone, located on the east side of Haven, south of Highland - APN 2C2-641-24 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7237 - HAVEN AND HIGHLAND ASSOCIATIO - A division of 11.3 acres within the R-1 zone into 3 Parcels, located on the southwest darner of Highland and: Haven Avenues - APH 202-641 -24 Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report Commissioner Sceranka asked if the staff _could review those concerns in the Staff Report, regarding the parcel. alignment, Shinto Bose, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the vacant piece north of the church site is the main reason for statements concerning the realignment of the parcel-. If Parcel 2 was kept _residential, it Mould pose a design problem, for; this Parcel Map. The Engineering staff felt that this would be an isolated area for a residential. area. Commissioner Sceranka asked what CalTran's requirements were for this parcel. r. Base replied that CalT"ra.ns had recommended strongly that arrangements were made so that access would not be from Haven avenue Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be a median break in Haven Avenue, located at the proposed New Street. Mr. Bose replied that there was no recommendation for a median break. in Haven Avenue Chairman King opened the public hearing., Larry Bliss, 7333 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission and introduced Pastor Jerry Lyman of the Northkirk Presbyterian Church. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 24, 1982 Pastor Lyman addressed the Commission stating that a large number of the congregation were present for this;meeting. He urged. Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit saying that it would be an asset to the Community as well as to the;Church itself. Pastor Lyman informed the Commission that hischurch had been meeting since 1979 at the Alta Loma High School and they were quite anxious to be in their permanent church facilities. Commissioner Sceranka asked Pastor Lyman whether his congregation or the Church Site Committee had discussed with the Engineering Division's suggestion that the site not be aligned the way it was proposed. Pastor Lyman replied that the; congregation and committee had been made aware of CalTran's suggestion, but had not made any plans to follow through with CalTras suggestions; Larry Bliss addressed the Commission regarding the compatibility of the site with surroundingproperty® Mr. Blass stated that :he had spoken with many of the surrounding property owners and had been informed that they welcomed the addition of the church to their neighborhood. He stated that one of the concerns of the surrounding property owners was the visibility of the parking lot, - This project was conditioned to have lighting in the parking lot and. the parking lot would be adequately landscaped with trees to screen visibility. The property owners were concerned that there would be`too many trees to block their views and that any Eucalyptus trees could stain their swimming pools. He felt that these concerns could be worked out with the property owners. Mr - Bliss stated that an appropriate design had been selected in which pedestrian access was being provided from. Haven Avenue. As to the use of the north. parcel, Mr. Bliss stated that there were no plans for this parcel at this time. The property owner is not proposing any use in the near future until the freeway situation is resolved and until. the future needs of the community are known. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Bliss if be had ever discussed with staff the possible realignment of the parcel. Mr. Bliss replied that he had discussed this possibility with staff, however, to align the parcel north to south with the cul-de-sac street along the east side would require the church to purchase an additional $70,000 to $80,000 worth of land which they could not afford to do. Commissioner ling asked Mr. Bliss if it concerned 'him that, assuming the freeway went i ., the proximity of New Street; to the freeway would be approximately 80' and that the only way you could get into the project site would be by going south can Haven making"a U-turn at 19th Street and if going north can Haven you would have to make a U-turn on Highland to go south. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 24, 1982 Mr. Bliss replied that it would be more than 280' before reaching a ramp to the freeway because of dedicated right-of-way. He stated that he had timed the lights at lth Street and roughly 1215 seconds elapsed to give cars time to pull in or out of the street. He felt with those controls and primary uses" being on Sunday and not during peak rush; hours, access would not be a problem. Dick Nelson, Chairman of the Property Committee for the united Presby- terian Church, addressed the. Commission stating that the property on Haven was selected by the Committee because this location would be near the new center of the City. He stated that he felt the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area® The Committee checked the General. Plan and oning and saw nothing that would indicate that this would not be a compatible site.. He had not personally been in contact with anyone who was opposed, to the proposed church site, but had been in contact with property fawners in the area who were in favor of the site. He further stated that the reason for the street being placed on the north side of the street was because CalT'ra.ns had suggested a common easement or one break in. the street to:both properties was pre- ferable than two separate access points: ' Jeff Hill, 9607 Cameron Street, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was in favor of the project as a member of the church and also a resident of the Community. Floyd Alen, 6402 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was not a; member of the church, however, was an adjacent property owner wishing to voice his support of the project. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner To stay stated that lie agreed with the people who had spoken in favor of the church being at that site, but had some problems with access. Any car coming out of New Street would have t+o 'travel up to Highland Avenue of the Freeway, whichever intersection happens to be there, and make. a U-turn to travel south; on Haven Avenue. Commissioner olstoy stated that it was his opinion that that was not a goad situation} He felt that the Commission should not approve the design for a street "where people would have to make U-turns in order to go the direction they needed to. He further stated that he also had a problem with the cut in New Street that close to the proposed Freeway property. Be suggested that the church be constructed in a north/south direction, New Street be eliminated, and that the curb cut be placed as far south as possible and possibly break the median so that cars would not have; to go north and make a U-turn. e problems would. be e that he felt that wears o Commissioner Renpel stated p Haven. H felt that the proposal of the created b placing a' cut across aye _ _p y P p applicant was the best solution. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Bose to tell him the problems he thought Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 4, 12 would be created in the 290' from New Street to the freeway on ramp. Mr. Bose replied that the problems he could foresee would be those of rear end accidents caused by people coming at a higher speed approaching the on ramp and people slowing down to turn into New Street. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the 290' was adequate distance to provide for a turn onto the freeway and still allow for access onto Haven. Mr. Bose replied that it was adequate distance. He further stated that he felt it was inappropriate at this time to take dedication on a street at this location. It was kept open on the parcel map by providing only one access from Haven to provide a joint-use driveway at the property line. Future development would be required to dedicate at the time of development. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that through the Design Review Committee, Planning and Engineering staffs, they came up with the most appropriate design for this site. Ile further stated that he did not feel that a major traffic problem was being created. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82-03. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EIS, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RAIL ABSTAIN* COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved b nk y Sceraa, seconded by Rempel, carr n ied to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7237, including the offer of dedication for New Street. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSTAIN* COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy voted No for the reasons previously stated., 7:50 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 24, 1982 Upon the Commission's return to the podium, Chairman King stated that there were some: concerns voiced. over the zoning of the parcel located north of the church site. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff look into some of the issues as it relates to the 'land use and zoning on that piece of property north of the church site. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS T AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-0 -�MEN.. _. PIC 'N' SAVE - the development of a 85C 000 s "uare. foot ware- house distribution center, offices, truck service center, and a 25,000 square foot; retail .share on 91.4 acres of land in the. General Industrial category to be located on the north side of 4th Street, 2300' west of'Etiwanda - APN 229-285-50, 51 Michael Vairin Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Rempel asked where the excessive drainage from this site would, go into the normal channel. Shintu }lose, Senior Civil; Engineer, replied that there was no actual design at this time, but chat is intended is for an outflow device from the retention basin which will come out in a pipe into an existing double culvert across 4th Street. The pipe will be extended to connect o Day Creek Channel when that channel is improved Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mary Frankel, representing Pic: 'N' Save, addressed the Commission stating he would answer any questions the Commission had. There were no questions and Mr. Frankel: introduced the project architect, Doug Lowe. Mr. Lowe, of VCA Architects, stated, that them were two areas of section three of the Resolution which he wished to talk about. The first item; was the condition for a color band around the building. Mr. Lowe stated that the architects had intentionally presented the: design without a color band at the top of the building. The building had been designed to be grey' over' grey in color to give the appearance of the building setting upon a 'base. A small detail band had; been "added to the plans, which the architects felt was aesthetically pleasing, but did not feel that s three foot stripe was aesthetically pleasing and was objectionable. The other area of the Resolution which Mr. Lowe addressed was the con- dition providing for landscaping along the eastern property Line. He stated that the easterly property line was, at a minimum, 13'' above the street and that landscaping along that line would not screen the building from viewer, Commissioner Sceranka asked if there would be truck loading docks being screened by this condition. Michael Va. rin, Senior Planner;, stated that he felt that the 'landscaping Planning Commission Minutes - - March 24, 1982 had been provided for and that this added Condition could be eliminated. Commissioner Rempel stated that sandblast texture would be. preferable to paining the building. This would provide a better locking building aesthetically for a longer period of time. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2-01 -with the deletion of the conditions requiring a color band around the building and landscaping along the eastern property lute. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTO , RE EL, KING NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAIIL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS NONE D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7280 - THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION - A res _dent .al subdivision of 23 acres into 2 lots, located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue - APN 2 0-O I-S and 6. Shinty: Bose, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the applicant was not resent therefore the: public hearing was p� present, � p E closed. Motion: Moved by R mpel seconded;by Sceranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel_ Map 7280. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, RING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAH STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11893 - C/L BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision"of 17.2 acres of land into 31 lots in the Rx-1-=20,000 and R-1-12,000 zones, located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire APN 104 -411-Q1 . Planning Commission, Minutes -7- March 24, 1982 Curt Johnston., Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing Bob 1astase, representing tin !G Builders, addressed_. the Commission on stating that /L his held this property for a number of years and with construction_ of the Cucamonga Creek, it is a more viable piece of property, and they wish to proceed with this subdivision. Thomas Velnosky, 6173 Peridot Avenue, addressed the Commission in apposition to the project stating that his main concern was with the continuation of Peridot Strut. After having lived on a street with through access, he had decided that we would prefer to raise his family in an area with: no through, traffic and had selected his home on Peridot because it was on a cul-de-sac strut. He was also concerned about the variation. in elevations which would result from the custom lot subdivision. i Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Velnosky if he had spoken to the developer, prior to this meeting. Mr. Velnosky replied that he had not spoken to the developer, but hadp p received a notice by certified mail and had called the Planning Division to discuss this tract with a Planner. Ikon Rachan a resident on Indigo Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that he pretested the way that the Master Plan had 'changed the project from -a park site. He further stated that he objected to houses being constructed on that s` which g ich might obstruct his view for which he paid �_ a premiums Jack Ambegaoker, 81.1 Peridot Court, addressed the Commission stating that he was also concerned about the continuation of Peridot Dave Chapin, a resident on Peridot, addressed the Commission stating that he was also concerned about the continuation of Peridot.. He felt that by staggering the lots to not obstruct the view of the existing homes, the: building of homes would not be objectionable on that site. Commissioner Sceranka asked. Mr . Chapin if he would: tell him the approxi- mate time those= hones were sold. Mr. Chapin replied that it was appro imatley three ` ears". Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Chapin what he thought the intended use of the adjacent property was going to be r. Chapin replied that he was told it would be a Bark.. Commissioner :Rempel asked if Peridot now ended in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Chapin replied that it does end in an asphalt curb. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 24, 1982 Commissioner Rempel asked if there was a concrete curb to determine that it was not actually designed to dead end in a cud.-de-sac. Mr. Chapin replied that when the homes were purchased the builder informed, them the property was invaluable and could not be built on and that it was County property to be maintained for flood control purposes. Commissioner Sceranka, asked Mr. Chapin if he would object to a park site being at that location with access on Peridot. Mr. Chapin replied that he did not see where it would have to have access on Peridot, but rather access would come from Banyan. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Chapin, what use he would suggest for that site. Mr. Chapin replied that he saw no other use than a park site appropriate. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the property was private property and the Commission could not state that they was no land use for that site and that a land use would have to be established. Commissioner Rempel informed the homeowners that the General Plan: designa- tion for a park in that location was not in existence when they purchased their homes three years ago and that was only established as a park site last year. He stated that he was not implying that they were not told that a park would be at that location, but the argument that it was General Planned as a park site when they purchased their homes was not a valid argument. Bob Nastase submitted a letter to staff which he sent to Mark III regarding the lot 12 directly adjacent to C/Vs site to attempt to work something out for the temporary turn-around since it does not have an adequate access. He stated that he did not know how he could deal with the problem of the street being designed to go through. It had been plotted for as it was designed to go through and the City had committed it, as a through street. Commissioner Rempel. stated that it was the County and not the City that had committed the street to a through street. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman King asked if the purpose of Peridot going through was that of fire access. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that it was one of the original Conditions of Approval and a concept that is being continued into this subdivision by providing through access as per the fire district requirements. Chairman King asked if there were a way for Peridot not to continue Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 24, 1982 through, yet still, provide for fire department access. Jack loam, Community Development Director, replied that any discussion of an alternative to this solution would have to be reviewed with the Foothill Fire District. Commissioner Rempel informed the property owners that the developer din not have to submit his subdivision for half-acre gets because the General Plan designates land south of Banyan 12,000 square foot lot area. He also stated that he did nat ,feel that their concern that all of the residents in the new development would be traveling on Peridot was;; valid-. The shortest route for most of the residents world be to g north, 'not south on Peridot and then back to Banyan. Commissioner 8ceranka asked Chairman Ring if he could once again open the public hearing so that he could 'pose the question to the property owners if the traffic caused by twelve or thirteen. homes traveling on Peridot would be a significant enough impact that they would want the project denied Chairman ling opened the public Tearing Mr. Velnos .y replied to Commissioner 8ceranka"s statement by stating that the number of homes would almost double the amount 'there now and he felt that it world be a significant impact. he also felt that the fact that there were no sidewalks on those streets was a major concern. Chairman King closed the public hearing Commissioner l2empel stated that the: new development would have sidewalks on at least one side' of the street. He also informed the property owners that they could approach the City` with a request for sidewalks. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that his concern was for streets in the City which were long and cul.-de-saes and that by keeping Peridot a cul-de-sac sac it world not be good policy for fire safety reasons Commissioner 8ceranka stated that he would like is see the project con- tinued until the: next meeting if it was agreeable with the developer spa that he could meet with the property owners to discuss their concerns and give them information on how they were doing things and why. Bob Nastas , of 1L Builders, stated that he would be agreeable to meeting with the homeowners and wished to have staff and the Fire District present at this meeting. . Motion: Moved by Tol.stoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried,, to continue Tentative.. Tract; 11.8 3 to April 14, 1 8 ; however, the Commission did not feel that it was necessary for staff to be present at the homeowner's meeting. Planning Commission Minutes _1 -- March 24, 1982 YES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTO , SCERANKA, KING NOES. COMMISSIONERS: RE El ABSENT: CSC) ISSIONERS: DAH ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner ltempel: vested No on this continuation ;as he: dial not feel that the map needed to be. changed and did not feel,: that anythinp would be gained by the continuation. 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission an Recessed 9:40 pm. The Planning Conmiission"Reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEW AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT S Cf - Amending Cl-1 and C-2 zones to _allow arcade uses subject,: to review and approval of a Conditional, Use Permit. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it was staff's intent not to prohibit or restrict these kinds of machines from liquor store's. Mr. Gomez replied that. the Ordinance would alloy up to three machines in unspecified areas within the C-I and C-2 zones. Commissioner Steranka Basked if thought had been given to making an exception in the cases of liquor stores:: He felt this was not a desir- able place for young people to Sather to play games. Mr. Gomez replied that liquor stores had not been singled out as an exception to being allowed to have machines. Commissioner Talstoy stated that lie shared the concern of: Commissioner Scerank'a in that liquor stores were not a, good place for children to b playing these machines. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that he had: worked closely with Assistant Planner, lean Coleman, in :drafting this Ordinance. They had come up with the condition ia7.` the Ordinance that there avast be adult supervision in establishments at all, times where these machines were placed. He further stated that they could not come up with a solid foundation, for; stating; that liquor stores should most be able to have video games. Commissioner S eranka asked if there was a definition of a liquor store. Planning Commission Minutes -If- March 24, 1982 . Vairin replied that he did not think that the present Zoning Ordinance contained a definition of a liquor stare, but felt that the definition: would have to be that the main use of the store he,for the sale of alcohol-tc beverages. Commissioner '. olst y stated that he had a concern relative to the definition of adult supervision. r. Vairin replied that adult supervision would mean an adult can the premises at all; times able to see the machines. Commissioner Bcerankn asked if an adult was a person over 18 or 21 years of age. `led Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that are adult was a person 18 of age or over. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of Section III D-2 of the Ordinance regarding storage garages for the use of atr ns. Mr. Vairin replied that the statement was a hart of the original Ordinance and that was the reason it was included :in the amending Ordinance and he interpreted it to be steerage garages es for use by the stare owners as storage area. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that if the Commission was not comfortable with that terminology, they could cane the wording of the Ordinance. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that he Would prefer it to read ,storage garages for the exclusive use of the above stores and businesses and eliminate the use of patrons. Chairman drag opened the public hearing. i Bob Glasc.aank, representing the Sign Ordinance Review o mitte , addressed the Commission and asked if the floor spa°ace requirement had been changed from the draft Ordinance. r. Va ri.n replied that it had been changed to read three machines or cif_the floor space, whichever was less. Mr. Glascock asked if the definition of an amusement device had been changed in the original Ordinance. Mr. Vairin replied he thought the definition had remained the same} Mr. Gl.ascotk stated that his only concerti then was',the same as Commissioners Sacerank.a and Tolstoy regarding; the placement of amusement devices in liquor stores, gather than that he felt it was 'a very goad Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -12-:.. Mauch 2...4, 1982 There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that a provision needed to be placed in the Ordinance so that machines could not be placed in the ingress and egress of a store. Commissioner Rempel stated that this addition could be made along with the square footage of the machine being calculated in the 5% floor space figure. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see a provision in the Ordinance to prohibit anyone under 18 from playing the machines in a liquor store. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the problem in doing this is in the area of the definition of a liquor store. In doing this, children would not be able to play the machines in stores where liquor is sold that is not a liquor store, such as supermarkets and convenience stores as they also sell liquor. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see staff work with the Sheriff's Department and the City Attorney to try to work out a solution to the problem of the machines in liquor stores. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance to City Council with the suggested changes regarding storage garages, square footage of video machines and machines being kept out of the ingress and egress to stores. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE NEW BUSINESS G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 81-29 CHADO - The development of a 4, 190 square foot furniture store on .38 acres of land in the C-2 zone, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue - APN 207-102-16. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Richard Chado, Applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he ,felt that he was proposing a well designed project and his only request was that egress be granted off of Foothill for fire access and safety reasons. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 24, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka asked if,the Fire Department had reviewed and commented on that access. Mr. Vairin replied that they had reviewed the access and that the access may be an emergency access only point. Commissioner Rempel. stated his concerns regarding the placement of a new building on the corner of the site without knowing what was proposed for the remaining portion of the parcel. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempel since they would be using part of the existing larger parcel for ingress and egress to their loading dock and part of their parking. The Commission should know how he Is planning to integrate this with the other parcel. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he disagreed with this requirement because the applicant had followed the suggestions of staff and was consistent with prior approved projects and felt that he should not be required to come up with a site plan for the remaining portions of the parcel. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it was not a matter of whether this project was good or bad, as he felt that anything at that intersection was an improvement. But since he did need to have ingress and egress from the large parcel, the Commission should know how he planned to integrate these projects. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt this was a serious concern especially if the remaining parcel was sold and there were no site plans for it. Rufus Turner, architect for the project, addressed the Commission stating that the Commission would have every right when the time came for devel- opment of the site to make sure that it coordinated with what is being proposed. He stated that the concern of joint use of ingress and egress could be satisfied by a lot line adjustment since the ownership of both Lots was the same. He also indicated that there are no plans for devel- opment at this time for the remaining section of the parcel. Chairman King indicated to the applicant that he would like to seer a good faith effort to improve the appearance of the Roller City site. That particular intersection of the City is very important in that it sets the tone for the City. As it looks now, it is not setting a proper tone. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he agreed with Chairman King and felt that this was the first step to improving that intersection by giving them the opportunity to develop this site in a fashion that is consistent with the rest of the development on Foothill. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 24, 3982 I Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review'-81-29. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA,` TOLSTOY, RE Et,, DING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT. COMMISSIONERS:: 1}AHL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-0 - R.EITER The development of three one-story office buildings totaling 41,072 square feet on 2.95 acres of land generally located can the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald. Michael Vairin, Senior planner, reviewed the Staff Report stating that this project is past of the. ongoing Cucamonga Business Park , The Applicant is requesting specific approval of the three: office buildings as indicated. Mr. Vairin indicated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed the,; original architectural drawings submitted and felt that they did not meet the design expectations of the City. Since thee, the Applicant has submitted new architectural drawings incorporating suggestions of the Design Review Committee; however, these new drawings have not been reviewed by the Design Review.Committee because the Applicant requested full Planning Commission'review. Mr. Vairin indicated that one area which had not been. addressed 3n the new drawings was that of the :trash enclosure located along Business Center Drive. The Committee felt that the trash enclosure should be located somewhere in, the interior of the project so that it would not become a focal point along Business Center Drive. Mr. Vairin also indicated that the Engineering Division was recommending that the driveway access on Arrow be eliminated. Mr. Vairin reiterated the Planning Commission's policy ;regarding detailed landscape plans and the submission of those plans prior to the issuance of building permits and the type of landscaping and design in conjunction with the architectural design of the building should be compatible. He indicated that although the architectural drawings probably centered more can the building than on the landscaping, he felt that it should be stated for the record that the actual development would include more landscaping near the building for accent. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was the basis for the recommendation to eliminate access on Arrow Route. Shintuu :Bose, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the recommendation was based upon the Resolution for access control;and the statement that if access can be provided from some interior street, then access from a major street should be discouraged., Planning Commission Minutes -1 d March 24, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that it was appropriate to remove the access on Archibald as stated in the Resolution to be con- sistent with the established, policies; however, since there was 1,50p between Archibald and the driveway on Arrow, there would not be a traffic conflicts Henry Reiter, Applicant, addressed. the Commission stating that he felt that the access> can Arrow did not a resent problem because traffic can. p Arrow is minimal. Commissioner Rempel agreed with Commissioner Sceranka that a user would not go into a project without access. He felt that access on Arrow was the best solution to the problem. Commissioner To .stoy stated that he agreed with the. other Commissioners regarding access. He stated that the Design Review Committee should look into s requirement for projects to provide a walkway from the a arkin loot around the building. He cited the Sizzler project as. one p � p 7 where you have to walk on the landscaping or in the parking lot in' carder to get to the front of the restaurant. He further stated that he would like to see this project provided with such a walkway. Motion. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 82-05 with the addition of the walkway, access on Arrow to remain and eliminate access on Archibald. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: „ SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTCY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL STAIN, COMMISSIONERS: NONE DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-08 - SHARMA - A hearing to consider the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for Preschool located at 9113 Foothill, based on failure to comply with Conditions of Approval . 10: 15 p.m. Commissioner Sceranka stepped down. Rick Gomez, City Planner, informed the Commission of Mr; Sha ma's progress toward the completion of the remaining items of his CUP. All the Con- ditions had been completed with the exception of those regarding land- scaping. He indicated that staff had agreed with Mr. Sharma to approach the Commission with the request for'a sixty day extension to allow him' the opportunity to contact a landscape contractor to assist them. Planning Commission Minutes -1 March 24, 198 Motion: Move] by Rempel, seconded by Tolsto , carried, to grant ,Mr. Sharma a sixty day extension to submit landscape plans and complete landscaping as per Conditions of Approval. ICE: C p.m. Commissioner Scer nka returned to the podium. Tack Lam, Community Development Director, presented to the Commissioners copies of the final Industrial Specific Plana Mr. Lam; indicated that copies had been distributed to the City Council and Chamber of Commerce and 'recognized Tim Beedle and his staff for their time and efforts in working with the Industrial Committee to develop this plan. Mr. Lam also thanked the Chamber of Commerce for their participation in the completion of the plan. I. DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASE II OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11934 -- WILLIAM L` ON COMPANY Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report regarding; Phase If of this Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how much landscaping would be provided on the flag lots„ Mr. Johnston replied that they would be totally landscaped. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka to adopt the Resolution approving Phase II of Tentative Tract 11934. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: _ RE EL, SCER . . A,, TOLSTOY, DING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AHL STAIN, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned to a Regular Adjourned meeting on April .5, 1982, to discuss the Terra iota Planned Community. Planning Commission Minutes -17-- March 24, 1982 Respectfully submitted, E JACK L ecre� pry I Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March , 1982 CITY OF NCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 10 1982 CALL TO ORDER The 'Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman, Herman Rempel, at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. Vice Chairman Rempel led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL, CALL PRESENT: COMMISS10NERSt Richard Dahl, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tdlstoy, Merman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff ling (Excused) STAFF PRESENT:: Rack Comet, City Planner; Edgard Hopson:, Assistant City Attorney; .loan `cruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolsto , seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of February 1.0 1982. Motion: Moved. by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of February 22, 1982. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar and Resolution No. 82-26, approving time extensions. A. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE. FOLL014ING: Director Review No. 8 - + Director Review No. 81-06 Conditional Use Permit No. 81--02 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 82-0 - RECKERT - A change of use from an existing single family residence to an insurance office on a 8,264 square foot lot in the C-2 zone, located at 9666 Estcia Street - APN 208-192-14 PUBLIC HEARINGS C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - S - A hearing to consider the - vocation of the. Conditional. Use hermit for a preschool located at 9113 Foothill, based on failure to comply with Conditions of Approval ; Rick Gomez, City planner, reviewed the staff report and presented the. Commission with two additional memos; one from the: Planning Division and the other from. Building and Safety Division, detailing the latest status of the Conditions of Approval. Mrs Come.z indicated that some of the required conditions have been completed ,since the last meeting; however, some still remain, Commissioner Sceranka asked if the project has gone ahead with due diligence, Mr. Gomez replied that the applicant is moving ahead; however, Mr... Sharma., the applicant, has had some difficulties with his contractor and progress is slow. Vice chai.ran Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Sharma indicated that he had been advised' by telephone what the remaking conditions are. Commissioner Sceranka asked how 'long Mr, Sharma felt it would take to accomplish the remaining conditions. Mr. Sharma replied that it world take some time to redesign the parking -lot in order to pull everything together. He 'indicated that he did not wish to waste either his time or money on something that would have to be redone:; Vice chairman Rempel asked how;much longer it would take to comply with the planter and hydrology conditions. Mr. Sharma replied that tie felt it would, take: about two weeks. Vice chairman Rempel stated that the Commission would set a time of two weeks from this date for the completion of the remaining conditions. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there is d way that the parking lot repair can be accomplished and still meet the conditions. Mr. Gomez replied that Condition No. 1 can, and should be stet as soon as possible; however, that conditions 2 and „3 could take a 'longer time. Commissioner Hempel stated his feeling that the items mentioned could be completed within two weeks Planning Commission Minutes - ® March 10, 1982 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka., seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting with the stipulation that the applicant complete the conditions of approval and that staff bring back their recommendation relative to conditions 2 and 3. Mr. Gomez asked if it is the Commission's intention to bring this item back as a public hearing. Vice chairman Rempel stated that if the conditions of approval are com- pleted as required, this could be brought back under the Consent Calendar. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that if the items are completed this will be a Consent Calendar item; otherwise, this would be a public hearing. Vice chairman Rempel stated that this would be so recorded. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-02 - TT 11915 - MAYER - A change of zone from R-I (Single Family Residential) to R-3/P.D. (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) and the development of 44 patio homes and 322 townhouse units on 35 acres of land in the R-I zone located on the south side of Arrow, between Turner and Center Avenues - APN 209-091-05, 06, 07. Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail. He indicated that throughout the staff report, the units are referred to as townhouses and should be referred to as condominiums. Vice chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr, Norm Reed, Project Manager for the Mayer Corporation, stated that their presentation would be brief. They wanted to show what a quality and sensibly-priced development this is. Mr. Gil Martinez of Florian, Martinez, architects in Fullerton, gave a slide presentation depicting what this project would look like after completion. He focused on landscaping, showing variations of berming, sidewalks and plant materials. Mr. 'Reed stated that his firm has met with the North Town group and had addressed their concerns relative to landscaping, views and parks. He indicated that this project would be aimed at a variety of economic groups to reach many people in the community. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 10, 1982 r. Reed indicated that they are in: substantial agreement with the con- ditions, except"with the following:s ' Planning Division Conditions No. be modified to be an average of two 15-gallon trees per lot; No. 7 be :left to the determination of the developer as to location; No. 9 be modified to allow discretion of the developer and that they work with the City on this, No. 13 also allow discretion; No's. 16- and_ lq be li changed from "shall" to "may" for greater flexibility; and No. 17 be dealt with differently because of the different product :types. Mr. Rougean stated that it would be in the best interest of the City to keep ;the wording of "shall" in Condition No. 19. He indicated that the suggestion can Condition No. 17'is acceptable. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it would be possible to have a reimburse- ment agreement can this. Mr. Rougeauu stated that there is a small,amount of undeveloped property on Turner between the market and this tract that could be worked out. He indicated that the entire north frontage on arrow could also be worked out. Commissioner Tol s toy asked how, Condition No. 3 fits in on similar projects. Mr. Vairin replied that it is probably more than what has been required. e indicated that because° this is the kind of project which they ,felt would be necessary to have some trees in front. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the modification to Condition No, 3 would be acceptable. Mr. V irin replied that if the understanding is that this would be an average, it is all right; Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like Condition No;, 7 to be at the discretion of the planning Staff, Mr. Vai.rin replied that when staff gets down to detailed landscaping, it will be worked out with the developer. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Design Review Committee dial not say that window boxes would be' required for all windows as expressed in Condition No. 9. Mr. Vairin replied that the word "all." could be changed. Commissioner Sceranka. stated that Mena 13 of the applicant's "list was not in disagreement but is what staff proposed. Vice ;chairman Rempel asked if three separate homeowners associations are going to be established. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 10, 1982 Mr. Reed replied that this is their intent. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that the Planning Commission had received one letter from a. Mrs. Flores whose concern was the loss of view which would result from this project. Further, that she has been-a resident for 50 years and was afraid that the beauty of the area would be blocked by two story units. Mr. Coleman explained that the units which would be adjacent to firs. Flores' residence would be one story and therefore would not block her view. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had attended several Community Advisory Commission meetings in North Town concerning this project. He indicated that one of the mayor concerns expressed at these meetings was that this net be a walled-in project. Further, that the developer has proposed a wall system that would be unobtrusive and reduce any rafitti.; through the planting of vines; to cover the walls. Commissioner Sceranka, in reply to a concern raised by Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that this would not be another Sunscape. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in her letter, firs. Flores mentioned problem she has been having with street_;lights and asked that City staff contact the Edison Company to, see if this could be fixed, "there being no further comments, the public bearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that in her letter, Mrs. Flores stated that this project would take away her Cod given beauty. He indicated that it was his thought that this project will help her vista and not destroy it: Commissioner Dahl stated that. he thought this project will upgrade the area as a whole and brim up property values. Vice chairman Rempel expressed his hope that this project will be built within a reasonable time frame as one of the problems the Commission has had is being unable to paint to a single residential project that has been approved by this Commission. ; he stated that he hoped this would be the first one .so that the community could seer the difference between ghat had previously been approved by the County and what in being approved. by the Commission. Commissioner Sceranka thanked the developer for going into the community and talking to the residents about the project. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by 'Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt resolution No. S - 7 approving 'tentative Tract No. 11915 with amendments to the conditions as proposed by the developer with the exception of Conditions 16 and 17 which will include changing they word Planning Commission Minutes - - March 10, 1982 "shall"" to "may" and the addition of a condition for a directional. sign in the project. Commissioner Sceranka asked that the Engineering staff respond to Mrs. Flores in writing, that the City is working to correct her problem. Mr. Rougeau replied that this would be done. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this would be good because people don't know what the City controls. He further stated that the City should take every opportunity to let people know what proper agencies that they should be dealing with and, not assume that the City takes care of everything. Vice chairman Rempel stated that the City does have a responsibility to notify other agencies and also to inform citizens what those agencies are so that the next time they can notify those agencies directly. Commissioner Rempel asked that she be sent a copy of the staff report so that she can see what the project would look like. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9441 AND 11609 - NUBANK - The development of 84 single family homes on 1/2 acre lots located on the south side of Wilson, approximately 1000 feet east of Archibald. Michael Vairin, Senior, Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, in- dicating that one condition that must be determined is the requirement for a sidewalk on one side of the street. He indicated that the applicant is asking for the complete elimination of the sidewalk condition for the entire tract to give this project a rural character similar to that of Fox Hollow. Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the applicant proposes the deletion of the standard curb and gutter and replacement with a new roll type curb and gutter which, from the engineering and planning view- point, creates problems. Mr. Rougean stated that when the Resolution regarding sidewalks is reviewed in the context of this subdivision, it seems that sidewalks are not being required because this is not a school route. In addition, that from a safety standpoint, sidewalks for pedestrians, especially children, should be provided for the entire tract. Mr. Rangoon stated that the most important aspect of the applicant's request is the decrease in water carrying capacity that would result. Ile indicated that storm drains could be employed to take care of run off, but would be far more costly. Also, Mr. Rougeau cited problems which result through erosion if roll curb and gutters are used. He asked the Commission that if roll. curbs and gutters are used that con- sideration be given to the inundation problems that may result. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 10, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Villa Dr. is the closest to the ,creek and regardless of the type of butters that will be put in, the Commission must: address itself" to the north-south streets and driveway approaches that cause erosion problems in the parkurays; Mr. Rougean stated that if there is a likelihood that grater will. wash up Onto than parkways, commercial driveways will be required. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like some along Villa especially beca.ase of the -9% grade. Mr. Rou ea;au stated that this could be done or that a storm drain could be installed which would lower the level of water. Commissioner ssioner Dahl asked if there was any reason that Conditions 23 and 4 were left off. Mr. Vairin replied that these had been previously covered in that =original conditions of approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie realized that this tract is Mitch improved over the former tract, and lie understood, why staff left out the Conditions of the previous tract; 1-lcawever, he felt that all conditions should be shown in the fixture sax that everyone knows what they are. Vice chairman Rempel stated that the difficulty is that this is not a tract map. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he understood this but that: everyone should know where everyone is Mr. Tam stated that this could be taken care of on the master condition form. Vice chairman Rempel stated that can the issue: of sidewalks, the driveways along "villa are not the problem but rather the bottom end of the tract Is where it starts_ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he has a real problem with the dog le there. Mr. Rou eau stated that the present plan calls for a storm gain system for the entire tract 'ice chairman Rempel opened this for public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Vice chairman Rempel stated that sidewalks are needed on one side of the street at least because of the traffic ;safety factor. Planning ommission Minutes -7- March 10, 1982 Commissioner Dahl, agreed that sidewalks are needed on at least one side: of the street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there has to be as way to have sidewalks and not destroy. the rural character of tile. area. Vice chairman Remmpel stated that he was not saying that it must be of concrete or adjacent to the street: Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see the engineering staff understand that the typical. sidewalk would not be appropriate were,; that, a new and unique design is needed Commissioner Tolstoy stated that a walkway is needed to get away from_ the traditional sidewalk and edge treatment. He indicated that he is unable to day how this should be designed but asked that staff and the applicant develop some new standards that could be used in these kinds of situations Vice chairman Rempel stated that one possibility would be the addition of a modified ruck curb in the: area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that .it has to be economical, too. Vice chairman it mmmpel, stated tlkat it does not have to be what they have n Up',land. ,` Commissioner ;c°eranka reiterated that the Commission did not say they have ;to be on both sides of the street, He stated that he understood ._ the problem with rural cubs and drainage but that Alta Loma is not a lost cause; and the rural character in Alta Loma is important. And where opportunities exist, it is important to incorporate the rural.: character in new projects as much as possible Vice chairman Rempel stated that staff, the developer, and Design Review should work together to develop ;some kind of solution to this and future projects. Commissioner Tcxlstoy stated that he would like to see only the streets and curbs portion of this project come back spa that it will not hold main the whole projeAct. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstay, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-29, emphasizing the concern and conditions of the sidewalk area and that this be brought t back to design Review and Planning Commission o that the new rural. standards may be examined. commissioner To .stoy stated that since the applicant walked in after this Item had been discussed, it would be good that: the Commission's concern of the water be mmmentiOued. Planning Commission Minutes -8 March 10, 1982 I Mr. Rougeau stated that the Commission has directed staff to develop a new standard for rural streets and sidewalks and he looks forward to something different, that would also work. He indicated that if the water carrying capacity of the street is decreased, it would have to involve picking up that capacity in the storm drain system. He indicated that there would have to be a reexamination of the hydrology and it appears it will mean an increase in the size of the storm drain system. Nice chairman Rempel. stated that in working with the curbs, those con- ditions can be achieved: Motion: Moved by iDabl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 8: 11 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted; L , ecre ar Planning Commission Minutes - - March 10, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jeff King at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegi- ance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff Sceranka, Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Chairman King opened the continued public hearing of the Terra Vista Planned Community and Related Environmental Impact Report. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed in detail staff report No. 2 which dealt with community facilities, commercial land use, mixed uses, and Foothill Boulevard design guidelines. He stated that more refinements would be necessary and eloborated, on the concerns contained within the staff report. Mr. Vairin stated that the hospital designation use and function would be discussed. Further, that park sizes would be discussed at a later date as it would be difficult to know their size prior to park analysis taking place. Mr. Vairin stated that the hospital location would be highlighted. The hospital is proposed to be located at Rochester Avenue, just north of Foothill. It was indicated by staff that this location might be awkward as not in the central core area. Mr. Vairin spoke of the proposed 35 acre Community Commercial area, as shown in the General Plan, and the additional 25 acres proposed by the applicant and their implementation mechanism. Mr. Vairin stated a number of questions concerning intended uses outlined in the text. He indicated that there were several uses repeated in the areas of financial park and corporate park. He stated that this was discussed with the applicant. lie indicated that the applicant is looking for flexibility; however, they seem to understand that in order to be successful there is a need for some theme which limits the design and uses of each of these areas. ..... ......... Mr. Vairin stated that the General Plan had provided a very strong statement relative to residential land use along Foothill Boulevard. He stated the auto plaza is not consistent with the General Plan for this area. He felt that the applicant right be missing a good opportunity with the hospital location as a magnet or focal point to have the related medical uses around it, fusing it with medium density residential uses which could be more compatible. He indicated that the auto plaza would have to be eliminated from this area, Commissioner Sceranka asked if this were eliminated, what would be: done with .t? Mr. Vai.rin< stated that this would be the next question. He indicated, however, that the Office Park or Corporate Park could incorporate a auto park and felt that the auto plaza could trove to Milliken. There being no further questions from the Commission at this time, Chairman ling opened the public hea.ring... Ms. lay Matlock, representing Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission by stating that the questions raised by staff revolved around the intent of the uses. They had worked closely with the text that they felt the intent would be understood. Ms. Matlock stated that they would revise the; text to clarify what the intent is Further, that Gruen and Associates, in their presentation would try to focus in on this issue and others raised by staff, Commissioner Tolstoy asked Ms. Matlock if they imaged what the difference was between Community Commercial and. Commercial. on Foothill Boulevard. ' Ms. Matlock replied that the differences are primarily in land use and function. She indicated that as proposed in the text, the Commercial area would. contain a home center. This would contain uses oriented towards home businesses such as home improvements nursery, decorating, etc. Further, that a community center would contain general, retail outlet department stores, and restaurants. Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked if she would see a grocery store in that area. Ms. Matlock stated that this is not what they would envision. Commissioner 'Tolstoy then asked Ms Matlock why they did not call it, what they envisioned it to be. i Suh Park, representing Gruen and Associates, stated they would have a presentation on community and cominercial uses and Foothill Boulevard frontages, Further, that they are working on:the draft text in order to clearly represent the spirit and intent of the plan and to insure its implementation. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 1, 1982 Ms. Elaine Carberry, Planning Director, for Gruen and Associates, spoke of Community Uses. She indicated that the "U" marked on the map would have school and parks in joint use. This, however, would only be in the Etiwanda area as the Central School District had not accepted this con- cept. She indicated that there would be joint usage between the community uses and the park in this area. Ms. Carberry stated that the two neighborhood. centers at Millikenand Base Line were located there because of their accessibility from the loop parkway without going on the major arterial to reach the neighbor- hood center. Ms. Carberry stated that the use of the two neighborhood centers at the location of Base Line and Milliken have created a gateway and focal point to the community. Jeff Scornik, Gruen and Associates, gave a slide presentation showing the concepts proposed for Foothill Boulevard relative to land use and landscaping. He indicated that what is proposed for the Community Commercial Center is one stop shopping. Mr. Scornik indicated that each center would have its own unique design identity conveyed by the arrange- ment of the buildings on the site. Further, there would be a pedestrian connection from one center to the next via the greenway system. He in- dicated that the landscape treatment will provide 'a variety of visual experiences along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Scornik proposed rows of trees and berms along Foothill as a major gateway at Haven and Milliken, with Rochester secondary gateway. The Town Center uses were discussed along with the projected expansion of the Center at Foothill and Haven. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that from the slides shown, it appeared that there was not a vista into the green belt. He indicated that Foothill and Haven is a very valuable corner and he did not want to see a gigantic parking lot. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when you look into that greenway you see open space and beyond. That Foothill and Haven needs to have a statement which is not being provided by the concepts that are being proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is a special intersection. That the General, Plan reinforces this. at he has seen presented, is a token. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this should be one of the most exciting places in the City. Commissioner Sceranka stated that from the concepts shown on the slides, there is no way that a parking lot could look the way it has been presented. Mr. Park stated that what was shown is at a different angle than eye level which would not appear the same. He stated that this would be explained later in the presentation. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 1, 1982 Mr. Scornik explained that the Corporate lark features office buildings which are arranged around a central open space which provides a major window towards the park and beyond tea project the image from '"Foothill of landscaping and open space with the possibility of including a water element. He indicated that there would be screened parking. the Executive `park featured residential, office and commercial uses. Also :shown was the east-west pedestrian spine that would connect to the other centers. Commissioner Tol.stoy' asked what the commercial uses would be and how they would differ from the Community Commercial. r. Park replied that they had an explanation which they would make later. . Scornik explained the auto medical parks which would contain the hospital and medical. offices and their setbacks. He indicated that this, too, would be a major window into the community, visible from Foothill. He showed slides indicating how this would be viewed from Rochester Avenue and also the sound attenuation that would be provided. Both Commissioner Sc ranka and Tolstoy stated that from their perspective, the Community Commercial. would, feature cars. Mr. Park replied that the greenway is a visual park and pedestrian entrance to the Community Commercial at this location. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he can' t understand that concept and as proposed, this would book like a large parking lot. He stated that he would be unable to accept this. ' Further, he asked if there is some way to lessen the visual impact of parking on Foothill. Mr. lark replied that this would be difficult to do® Commissioner Rempel stated that to put buildings in the front can. Foothill is ludicrous, to say the least. He indicated' that,this would be the wrong treatment and that he did not know of anywhere you have a commercial development that parking is not up front Mr. Park slated that tenants want visibility from Foothill and that the Commission must appreciate that. Commissioner Tolstoy' stated his appreciation of this fact but did not want a sea of cars. Mr. lark, asked if Commissioner Tol.stoy is familiar with the Santa Anita: shopping center-. He indicated that the treatment along Baldwin Avenue could be used here. Planning Commission Minutes - - March 1, 1982 Mr. Vairin stated that a funnel concept could be used here and could be achieved by moving the buildings slightly and using the intersection to provide a change of perspective. Mr. Park stated that what the Commission is asking could be achieved through the use of landscaping and bringing the buildings closer to the corner. However, he indicated that this would take a great deal of care so that the concept is not destroyed or jeopardized. Mr. 'ark stated that the greenway is more symbolic and less 'active as it gets closer to Foothill. Commissioner Rempel: stated that the scale is deceiving and that the parking area would he 100 fee.t in from Foothill. He discouraged buildings_; tip front and that this is being done similar to the Hahn Center or the Santa Anita Center, ga l p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Chairman :King advised that the Commission would like to see visual diagrams of what is proposed along Foothill boulevard. Mr. Park replied that they would dime back with this at the next meeting. Chairman ling stated that in terms of the staff report, the Commission would like to approach this on the basis of the nine recommendations made in the staff report. He asked that the location of the neighborhood commercial centers be the starting pdiscussion.oi.n.t of ' ' Mr. lark stated that basically, they do not support that the neighborhood commercial centers should be in the middle of the villages as this would not <work in the real estate market. He indicated, however, that they were willing to move one of the centers to Base Line--Rochester, although this had not yet been discussed with the Lewis es. Chairman Ding stated that it seems inevitable that:.: when you take ;into consideration where they are located that anyone who uses the shopping centers will have to drive. Air. Hark ;stated that the neighborhood commercial exists for residential use only. From a theoretical planning standpoint of placing the shopping centers in the middle and away from major streets, it has not worked. ' Mr. Russ Hart, representative of Grubb and Ellis, a commercial properties company in Newport Beach, stated that the typical anchors in a neighborhood commercial shopping center would be a super market and -a suffer drug store. These stores would be in the 40,000-50,000 square foot range. Air. dart stated that in Corder: to ,justify an acceptable location there would have to be a population of between 10,000-1 ,000 people to support it. He :indicated that the Lucky stores still build 28,000 square foot Planning Commission Minutes -5- March ;1, 1982 buildings using the one and a half mile radius but are reluctant to locate: where a street cannot be considered a cross county arterial. H stated that to put a center in one residential section as recommended is a mistake. Mr. Hurt spoke of the Irvine villages which had this concept for an approximate 10-year period which was abandoned about two years ago. He indicated that ghat has happened in Irvine is downsizing of the centers because they were not supported by the residents only. Chairman Ding asked if there is any other group with a smaller retailer interest its this type of store that;might be used that are not of the 7- 11 or Stop, and Go type. Mr. hart replied that a Ranch market or a smaller super store could be accommodated secondary to a neighborhood market. But, he stated, the Commission should not; loose sight of the fact that not only the needs of the people living in Terra Vista weed to be accommodated, but those of the entire; area;. Chairman King stated that it would seem that you could have the super commercial at the intersection with: smaller centers in the interior. Mr. Vairin stated that the basic difference being discussed is the scale of the centers. The Commission will need to decide what scale and style of centers are appropriate for Terra Vista. Commissioner Sceranira started that we have gotten to a paint to where retailer is trying to maximize his profit and is unable to justify that. Mr. Hart stated that: they are not talking of coning out of the ground within 12 months but are looking at 24 months to 10 years into the future. He stated that this mast be kept in mind and that they need larger site plans rather than smaller ones. He indicated that bath transportation and energy must be considered and the super market ,concept would be hest for the neighborhood commercial center. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to purse the village concept of a shopping center where foot traffic is promoted. He stated that he would like its identity and ` that, of the village upheld so that a person did not have to get into his car and drive in order to get to the shopping center. He felt that this is a valid goal even though the retailers might not like the approach Commissioner Sceranka.. asked if it would be impossible to have two centers at Milliken to serve that many people. Mr. Hart replied that this was not impossible but they are in a juggling act There the concerns of the Commission and those of the developer must be balanced against how to construct an environment that will.: readily be attractive to the retailers from an economic standpoint and what would , be aesthetically appealing. He indicated that they have done a reasonable job with this type of compromise in the past. He stated that how quickly Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 1, 1982 the second center at this location. would be built is a big question and it will be a number of years before it will be constructed. He indicated that they are looking at 4-5 years down the road for the first center and possibly another 4-5 years beyond that before the second is built. Commissioner "ceranka asked what about Church Street for the location of a neighborhood center. Mr. Hart replied that it would not be a` good site Commissioner Rempel stated that getting back to the practical side, when would anyone do a week's grocery shopping without taking a car. He indicated that the only time you would walk to a store is when you are doing incidental shopping. further, he indicated that an interior market would have to charge between 5-10 percent more than those on the exterior and that would mean that fewer and fewer people would be willing to use it. Commissioner Rempel' stated that from a practical standpoint, a center would be located on a major arterial, and the sooner this is said the better the Commission will be; Mr. Lewis staged that when he discussed location centers with Gruen and Associates he indicated to them that the community seems to want a greenbelt and presented some of the parameters that should be considered. He indicated that if it were up to him he would not have the: greenbelt at Foothill and Haven and that the shopping center was a compromise because tie felt it belonged at Haven and Base.. Line, but this was not approved. He indicated that the Commission had voted on this location but for various reasons the City Council turned this decision over. Mr. Lewis' stated that Commissioner Rempel was right, that you don' t do your weekly shopping without using your car and for this reason the neighborhood enters were, located as shown. Mr. Lewis stated that his first choice for location of these centers is Base Line and. Haven; second choice, Milliken and Base Lane, and third, Rochester and Haven.` Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the closest shopping center to Terra , Vista is in the Victoria Planned Community. : Ir. Vairin replied that it will be located at Etiwanda ;and Base Line and the others will be located along Highland. He indicated that the neighborhood commercial breaks into two areas from 5 1.5 acres per center serving approximately 1.0,000 residents. He indicated that the second kind would be the convenience commercial'which would be established in the interior to localize the area and that would be within walking distances. He stated that these would be at the Planning Commission's discretion on each development. The second point Mrs Vairin made was the issue of ;the village concept., He .indicated that the General. Plan discusses these uses and states Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 1., 1982 that these should be used as focal points. These are two different concepts, he stated: Commissioner Tolstoy; stated that he hears what Mr. Vairin and Commissioners. ,cer nka and Tempel had stated, but asked if there, could be a compromise to have one of the centers located. at Cleveland and the other at Rochester. Be asked why they have to be located right across from each other? Mr. Lewis stated that they don' t have to be, but one reason for their location is that Cleveland does not go mirth whereas Milliken would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what about one at Milliken and one at Rochester? He asked why both of them must: be located so close* He indicated; that people are loyal to the store they shop in and his:objection to the location of both centers at the same intersection is the traffic that would; be created. Commissioner Tie Opel ;stated that Mr. Lewis has said that they"don't have to be across from each other and that he would like to see one located at Haven. He stated that Mr. Lewis has also supported convenience markets. Mr. Lewis stated that they will be looking at this as the community grows Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he still felt there could be a compromise and they are saying that they need two super- stores. He indicated however, that he would not like the 7-11 type stare but a general store approach. Mr, Lewis 'stated that it is his feeling that the bigger° ;markets will b better for the community. Further, that there is not the risk involved in having ;the larger markets because of their funding as compared to the smaller ma and pop store. He stated that he would agree with one store at Milliken and Base Line. Commissioner 8ceranka stated that he did` not have a problem with a stone at Miwll!ken and Base Line but that he has a problem with two stores being located there; Re expressed concerns with the current concepts of the big guys with the peripheral stares that are smaller and their inability to survive,, Chairman King stated that he would prefer one large commercial center on Base Line and would like to have another center located' i.n the interior of the project. He stated that he did not know what the consensus on the issue is and asked that Mr. Park rethink it and came back to the Commission on this. Chairman King asked what is proposed in the recreational: commercial centers? Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 1, 1982 Commissioner Steranka stated that he felt that the uses should be restricted to the concept as stated in the staff report. Chairman King asked for discussion on the hospital. Mr„ Park explained why the hospital was, located where it is and indicated that the concerns expressed by staff would not exist because by understanding the scale of the proposal. Mr. Vairin stated that they are concerned with, consistency with the General Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if people in the Rochester tract were apprised of the possibility of a 'hospital being located in the area. Mr. Park indicated that they had presented the idea, of the hospital at the meetings held with residents. There was no opposition Chairman King asked why it was felt the hospital would ,be better ;located at Rochester rather than Foothill? r. Park replied that it is their feeling that it should be located in a more serene environment and not be exposed to the heavy traffic that exists on Foothill. Commissioner Rempel- stated that: he felt that the hospital should be accessible from another direction other than Rochester as well.. Mr. Park stated that they are: planning to have another approach and Rochester should not be used entirely. Chairman King asked if any of, the. Commission members had any concerns with the location of the.: auto plaza in relationship to the hospital. Commissioner diempel stated that he has no problems with that. He stated that as far as residential on Foothill, he would prefer what is tieing presented;, compared to the. General Plan. He felt that if it would require an amendment to the General Plan, then it should be done. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see residential breaking up more within the uses and maybe coming"down to Foothill and the reason for this is that he has seen it done in other cities and it seems to work. He indicated that the design would be important to see if this can be done, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the. Commission had first begun its talks about the dllayney Flan and then the General Plan, it was deter- mined that strip commercial was not wanted on Foothill. He further stated that if you go to the east end of the city: and travel to the west end you will find it is too darned commercialized. He proposed a compromise indicating that he would fight if Foothill Boulevard is as commercial Planning Commission Minutes -9- Larch 1, 1982 as it is shown. He is willing to go along with whit they have if it is modified not to appear as commercial. He asked that they take the medical park and the auto plaza along Foothill boulevard and blend them: in a :manner that they will not appear as standard commercial uses. He indicated that this should occur for the Corporate parr.. also. Commissioner Tolstoy' stated that he would like to see the hoe center moved in proximity to the Community Commercial Center and also make it look 'non-commercial. He further stated that the Corporate Park, Executive Park and Medical park does not have to look commercial. Mr. Park stated that this is the intent of their plan, that is, to make it look non -commercial. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that they spear this way but he wants to see it in the text, further, that he wants to see what they will get. He indicated that"he does not want to see this described as, for illustrative purposes only, because when they get to the tentative map and set it out to see what it is all about, he dial not want them to come back and: say that they deed more visibility and that it should be more commercial. Commissioner Tolstoy' stated that he would buy the plan if they comply with the recommendations made but that he would vote no if they did not. Mr. park stated that it is their feeling that locating residential right on Foothill boulevard is not a good public policy but instead, there are a number of techniques that have been spoken about that can be employed. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he does not grant this to look like Holt Boulevards 'Mr. Lewis stated that they have agreed that if they say it, they will,, do Commissioner Re Opel stated that in looking at Foothill to the area north, it will show what the Commission is talking' about and answer the question of design. Further, that what is needed is a panoramic view. Chairman King stated that since Terra Vista is located so centrally in the City, perhaps there is another plan to pit the hospital more central as well. Mr. Lewis stated that National Medical Enterprises - (H ) was the first to contact them and felt that where it is .located would best serve the community, especially the industrial area.. Mr. Hopson stated that this corporation also built the hospitals in Ontario and Montclair, Chairman King stated= that hospitals generally do not treat the rinds of injuries that are common to industrial accidents, as these are handled Planning Commission Minutes _10 March 1, 1982 by clinics. Further, that perhaps another location, central within the community would serge the needs of the community better. Commissioner Scerana stated that when we are planing ;for the tenant, it is unknown whether the tenant will actually turn out. He further stated that his biggest concern about the hospital: is that Rochester is a major access:point and that none of the people in that area bought ' their homes with the thought that this would be the came. He felt that the traffic which might be generated here will be a burden and what is needed is a quiet Arista. He felt that Milliken would be a better location. Commissioner Rempel, stated that there would not be that much traffic generated by a hospital of 250 bed capacity.: Evening visiting hours would generate the most traffic. 9. 20 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 9; 32 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened r. Vai.xin stated that staff had feedback on almost everything with the exception of the expansion of the Community Commercial area. He further stated that of the Commission felt they have provided sufficient information on the hospital location to work with the developer. Chairman King summarized,what the Commission has spoken about. He indi- cated that in terms of the Neighborhood Commercial Center, the Commission is split. It appeared that there were no problems with the Commercial Recreation and the things they wished to avoid with the overlapping of commercial cases. Chairman Ring stated that at Foothill and Haven they want to :see ,a. little more detail relative to a more human view of the sites, and the last thing, viewing what Commissioner Sceranka said, they are not in total agreement on the hospital site. Commissioner S eranka stated that he wished to speak to the figures used in the text and referred to figure 17 on page 4®S figure 21, on pages 4-12, and figure 24 on pages -15. He indicated that he wished to make himself totally clear that he will expect to see as a reality what is drawn in the pictures. If the picture shows that there will be a water element, he will expect that the finished product will. contain a water' element. He stated that if the developer does not intend to do what i shown, it should not be shown. Relative to landscaping and setback, if it is shown, this is what he will expect. Commissioner Tolstoy stated has agreement with Commissioner Sceranka and reiterated that Foothill has got to be broken up so he does not feel it is in a commercial setting. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with. Commissioner Sc:eranka and stated that a panorama view from Foothill or some kind, of graphics is needed to show w the Commission what to expect. Planning Commission "Minutes -11- March 1, 1982 Mr. Park stated that a lot of effort has gone into the development of the Foothill Boulevard concept. Mr. Park explained the expansion of the Community Commercial center and the development of the regional shopping center. He indicated that as they were developing the plan they put in a condition as suggested by staff because they could not wait forever for the regional center to be developed. fie indicated that having a two anchor stores is extremely important to having the Community Commercial center and that they need some kind of assurance that it will, not be left out and will be triggered. He indicated that if there is no market, it will not be triggered. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the Community Commercial Center for expansion as shown on page 6-6. Mr. Park replied that the intent is to allow the other development to proceed. Commissioner Sceranka asked if what Mr. Park is saying is that they would be allowed to expand. Mr. Vairin stated that staff did not want the Community Commercial Center to be in competition with the regional, shopping center. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the statement that is being made in the text is the opposite of what they are trying to say. Mr. Vairin stated that staff's problems are twofold on this issue; one, that the 35 acres that are currently shown can accommodate what they are trying to do; and two, that they can accommodate the 2-3 tenants that are desired in a center of this size. He indicated that an automatic triggering would make this center the same size in comparison to a regional center. Commissioner Rempel stated that what Commissioner Sceran. ka is saying is that this option can only be exercised if three major anchors go in, or in other words, when the regional center gets three major tenants, the option will be ready to be exercised. Commissioner Sceranka asked, why they wanted the right to do this. Mr. Vairin replied that, it is totally a protection clause to allay their concerns. Commissioner Sceranka asked if when. the Hahn Center gets three anchors will they be allowed to expand. Mr. Park replied, yes. Commissioner Sceranka, asked why they want the option to expand their facility? Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 1, 1982 Mr. Lewis stated that originally they wanted the regional on their corner but the City;felt differently and told them that they would give the head start to Hahn. It was their feeling that three anchor stores would be a sufficient head start and they felt they ought to compete. He cited the concern that Ontario would be first with the regional center, and, if this were the case, they wanted to be ready to provide an alternative. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would .feel far more comfortable if at that point Mr. Lewis would give the City d plat . He indicated that he did not like to see the development with n option. Further, that he did ,not wish to say anything that would appear as not being; 100 percent for the development" of the Hahn Regional Center. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that if the Commission says that they will provide the option requested by this applicant, they will be in trouble. He stated further that he did not want the Hahn Company saying that they were told that they have: the regional center and then discover that they are in compe- tition for it. He stated that after much deliberation :the City has said that they want it and have put it into the text of the General Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his assurance that if they do not get the regional center, they will want the next best thing and, if 'the Lewises have the best site they will get it, but that he does not want to take the chance at this time. Commissioner Rempel stated that he wills. be the first to say"that if the City does not get the Hahn Regional Center, that the L wises will get the go ahead. He stated however, that Mr. Lewis was forgetting ;the aspect of traffic and why his site was not chosen in the first place. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would be the second to say this. Commissioner Steranka stated that this would complicate the: whole traffic problem because of the other tenter going in at the freeway.. Further, sine. the City made the decision based on months and months of discussions and ;felt that "Foothill and I-5 was the preferred site, what the Commission should be doing in 'terra Vista is go to the Community Center site, maximi i.ng that, and not trying to maximize the idea of a regional shopping center there because that would go against the decision .of the City Council, and the Planning'Commission. He stated that he is unable to see putting a Community Center in a position to where it is a -regional before the issue is resolved.. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this would be a Community Center and asked that this be made the best Community Center in the whole world. He felt that this is the way it should be approached. Mr. Lewis stated that this is what the City may wont badly and then it would be too hate to develop because it is not shown as having the potential for`:a regional p center. He stated that it is difficult to talk to department stores when there are no plans for them. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 1, 18 Commissioner Sceranka, stated that from the Caty's point"of view, the `Hahn Company has made commitments and it is close to being built and the only thing standing in the way is the housing:market. It would not be, in the Ci_ty's or the community's best interest for the City to say we're not sure you're going to build the center, so we're going to open this to competition, Commissioner Sceranka stated. Commissioner "Tolstoy asked how, at the L wises option, they would change that over and take care of the traffic situation, , He indicated that at the time that both the City and developer feel that it is a possibility, they should come back to the Commission and the Commission should,see how this might be mitigated. Commissioner 1olstoy stated that the corner will not handle the traffic and he did not feel that it could ever be mitigated, Mr. Lewis asked. Ms. Matlock about the traffic; and she replied that the study they did has shown that the traffic impact was not traffic 'substan- tial because of the office land use and their differences in peak hours. Commissioner Tol.stoy` stated that he would like to have our Engineering' Department examine that. Chairman King asked if the two options could be kept open by coming back before the City, but that at the present time, something this specific is not needed in the text. Commissioner Sceranka stated that we have a Community Center approved and asked chat the definition is and hoc mangy stores would be allowed Mr, V irin stated that the General Plan speaks of junior department ,stores and limits the amount of square feet in an acre size but does not state a maximum or minimum number of stores that could be allowed Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt the clarification on this should be that they be allowed to have the number of acres they need to have the best Community Center they can have. 'Then, if they want to go beyond this and increase the acreage to the sire of a regional shopping center, they should go before the City Council and planning Commission , and ask for this change. Mr. Vairin stated that an amendment should then be added that this be reviewed by the appropriate bodies when such a charge is desired. r. Vairin stated that staff hopes to cone back on, April 5 with revisions to residential design criteria as well as the residential issues that have been discussed tonight, He indicated that staff will be meeting with the applicant discussing several of the issues and will develop a comprehensive agenda for the next meeting Commissioner Sceranka stated that signs were not discussed. Planning Commission Minutes -14- Mauch 1, 1982 Mr. Vairin stated that the document lists them as permitted 'uses and the City has a regulatory ordinance on signs that are 'already recognized as something that is going to be used for a specific given use and is not recognized as a permitted use per se as defined in other kinds of uses. He stated further that this should: be stricken from the text because it really is overlapping a regulatory ordinance which has already been adopted Commissioner Sceranka asked, if they want to`change the sign regulations and make it different, how would they do it within the text? Mr. Hopson replied that he is not sure that the sign ordinance can be changed this way because them is nothing in the General Plan for specific zoning that can change the sign use without changing the sign ordinance. Commissioner gceranka stated that in some cases there are different street standards, sign standards and parking requirements and asked if it is legal for them to establish different standards in the Planning Commission. r. Vairin replied that under the Planned Community Ordinance, it lists things that can be changed but the signs are not one of those things.. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that before signs are discussed, the text needs to have more graphics and signing information. He indicated that if the applicant wants to refer back to the little green book that was shown at a previous meeting, this is whit he would like to see furnished. e stated that he does not wish to talk',about signs until he sees what their concepts are. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his feeling is if the ordinance says that they can't incorporate the sign requirements 'within this plan there is no point in discussing it. Mr. Hopson stated that he felt the Commission could say this is what we want and they can come back with standards that are more stringent. Further, that they ;just can't come;back with something 'that'is more lenient than what the ordinance would provide. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Ding, carried unanimously, to adjourn this meeting; and public hearing; to April- 5, 1982 at the Lions Park. Community Center, 10:03 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Planning Commission Minutes -15- larch 1, 1982 Respectfully submitted, JACK La cro tar 'I Planning Commission ; :mutes -16- March 1, 1982 CITY CAP RANCHO C UCaMCNGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting February 22, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman ;Jeff King called the Adjourned; Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLLS CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman. Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff SceranRa (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Tim lieed`le, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; _ Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Crontil, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lain, Director of Community Development Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL ;OF MINUTES Motion. Moved by Rempel:r, seconded by TdlstoyM, carried unanimously, to continue the approval of the Minutes to the 'March' 10, 1982 meeting because they were incomplete ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that there would be another Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting and public hearing of the Terra Vista Planned-Community on Monday, March 1 1982 at the Lions Farb Community Center. Mr. "Lam stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan would hold a meeting o Thursday, February '2 , 1982, at the L"tT anda Intermediate School.. He invited everyone in the audience to attend, __ Mr. Lam advised that the Planning Commissioners Institute would begin on February 2426. Mr. Lam introduced Rick Gomez, the, new City Planner, and stated that he had officially begun employment with the City today. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-08 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-23, and approving the requested time extension listed on the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 - LEWIS - A request to amend the Land Use Policies of the <General Plan, that would allow the City to consider development plans within a Planned Community area, prior to adoption of the Planned Community. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that he recommended an addition to the Resolution of Approval for this General Plan amendment to read: "This exception shall be limited to only one per planned community area and shall not encompass more than 5% or 50 acres of the planned community area, whichever is less." Mr. Vairin indicated that this would limit the number of times that a developer could do this without chipping away at the entire planned community concept. Chairman King opened the public bearing. Mr. Richard Lewis, the applicant, stated that his firm would appreciate any help they might get to facilitate their move into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated that this would be their headquarters building. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the wording proposed by the applicant to replace the policy statement contained on page 30 of the General Plan was apropos. Mr. Hopson replied that he had no difficulty with what the applicant proposed or with what had been proposed by Mr. Vairin. Further, that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine the kind of wording and recommendation they want. Chairman King asked the Commission to comment. Commissioner impel stated that what Mr. Vairin had proposed is applicable and should be added, but he did not know how it would fit into the whole policy statement. He further stated that the developer should not be allowed to continue to erode the planned community and the limitation suggested by Mr. Vairin would insure that it stays intact. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 22, 1982 Chairman King stated that he was in agreement with what Commissioner Rempel said and asked if there was anyone with contrary views. Commissioner 'Tolstuy stated that he has a philosophical problem in that a planned: community denotes a condition of planning and standards, and, when you "viol-ate the planned community without investigation into the plan, what you have is patchwork planning,, to which he is opposed. H indicated that one very important thing about a planned community is the coordination of the circulation, architectural, landscaping, and community design standards including signing, He asked if this is all-owed who would set the standards? The planned community or patchwork planning? It appeared that it dilutes the very thing that a planned community is for in allowing deviation from City standards by creating something unique. Commissioner Tolstdy asked what would happen if, after the. Commission has done some thinking about Terra Vista, they decide that an office should not be ,located at this site -- they have not set land usage. He indicated that there could be some conflict with signing and landscaping which could mike it stick out like a sore thumb Commissioner Dahl stated his agreement to a point in that he thought if they were looking at major impact on the entire planned community it would be one thing. He :stated that given the circumstances, they ore it to the City and to the Commission that when it becomes known that a company of the: stature of the Lewis Company wants to locate within the City, that they would do everything they could to be sure that the architecture Landscaping will be excellent. He felt that this could all be handled with proper design review. He stated that he was encouraged that a major developer like Lewis would be interested in locating their headquarters in the City. Ike was also sure they would not put something rap that they would be ashamed with.. It was his personal feeling; that it will be one of the most beautiful buildings in the City. He stated that the Commission must look at certain exceptions by looking at the circum- stances. Further; that they trust move from their`,present. site and that they should encourage this move to Rancho Cucamonga. He stated that he did not feel that this would impact on the planned community. Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought the applicant realized that there may be some things he must do at a :Lager date to be sure that this complies with the Planning Commission. Further, as was discussed. in Design Review with the applicant, this is something that would look good in that area. He felt that to hold somebody up for 6-9 months before they would be able to submit building plans on that location within the planned community, or any place else, would not be right. He indicated that there are always exceptions to the general rule and this should be studied to see if it fits into the citywide plan and not hunt the planned community. Commissioner °Tolstoy stated that it is too bad that this had to be brought rap by the Lewises. He further stated that speaking in general, Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 22, 1982 1 it is odious to use this project but there will be other Planing Commissions and he is not picking on this one in particular, but doing this violates the thinking of what he believes is the gray this should go Chairman King stated that voting on this :item would be held until the next item is discussed. C. GENERAL PLAN NT 82-01 CITY OF RANCHOCU ON A - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General. Plan to change the land use designation in the area fronting 4th Street extending approximately 1400' 'nort between Eti_wanda Avenue and the AT & SF railroad tracks. This land use designation is recommended to be changed from heavy Industrial to General., Industrial. Senior Planner, Tim Feedle, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Dahl asked if this piece is presently owned by West Coast Liquidators, Mr. Pee.dlt replied that a portion of it is. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if'when the Commission heard the Industrial ' Specific Plan was this shown s the amendment is stated Mr. Beedle replied that this was shown as the general industrial area and was in conflict; Chairman Ring opened the :public hearing. There being no comments from, the audience, the public hearing was closed. Lotion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Remp 1, carried to adopt Resolution No. 8 23, approving the recommendation for changes 82-01-A and 8 -C1- to the General Plan, with: an addition to General. Pavan Amendment 82-01-A, adding the verbiage as proposed by staff-. Commissioner Tolstoy abstained for his previously stated reasons. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 -0 -B - CITY OF RANCHO CUC ONGA - A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill~ Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim improvements to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial_ to collector standards Senior Civil. Engineer, Paul. Rougeau, reviewed the :staff report. Tie asked that the public hearing be opened to accept any comments and., that after hearing this item, the Commission continuethis to April, 28 1982. Commissioner Re'mpel asked if these is anything in the foreseeable future that could determine the traffic count as would be generated when the portion of Victoria starts and whether 44 feet would be sufficiently wide to carry this traffic® Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 22, 1982 Mr. Rougeau replied that; in his opinion it would be wide enough. He indicated that only a few public street connections will be allowed and that the Victoria project does not propose to have any commercial or residential driveways on it. He indicated further that the north side will be protected as future freeway right-of-way, Mr® Rougeau stated that by the time this roadway is developed there will be knowledge as to whether this roadway or the freeway is needed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he dial not: .feel that a 44-foot roadway is sufficient to carry the traffic generated by Gaffey College in the mornings and evenings as well as the Victoria development over the next 8-1.0 years which would be the earliest time a freeway could be developed. Mr. Rougeau stated that there will be enough capacity even with Victoria. Additionally, there will be left turn lanes and future traffic will not exceed the need for two lanes There were further questions by the Commission of the widths of various roadways in the City and, what widths are required for two and four lane roadways. Mr: Rougeau stated that if additional width is needed it can be provided y building the second part of the divided arterial, or if :that sloes not come about, by building extra width on the north. He indicated that one thing to remember is that along with this or any gather, development aping Victoria, the 'City is only going to get the street that has been agreed to by all the parties or one.-half a street which is 32, feet, or until there is development on the north. Ile stated that they do not expect development on the north because that is freeway right-of-way, He stated that this way they get a full service two--way road out of the Victoria Planned Community instead; half; of a 64-foot road. He said that if additional road is required in the future, all that would need to be done is a City Street widening project. He indicated that can the 44-- foot standard, the width has been worked out with the State but not any details. There is the possibility that: the curb will not go in which means it could be widened out. He indicated that they: are getting more road this way than one-half of a 64-foot road. Commissioner Rempel, stated that there should not be curb on the north side of the street to allow the possibility of increasing the roadway. Commissioner Dahl asked why this wasn't stated in the first place. Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked if there is anywhere on the north of this strip that is not a freeway right-of-way or proposed freeway right-of- way in the specific area: between Haven and. the Cherry Gaff ramp. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is: Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked if this' will, be used as a frontage road when the freeway is built. Planning Commission Minutes 5- February 22, 1982 Mr. Rou u 'e plied that t will. be. p Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is enough room: to have a frontage road and a freeway. Mr. Rougeau replied that the plans they have are not complete but they provide for putting ;the freeway on the north and having a. frontage road along the south. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if there would be a problem with drainage if there is Rio curbing on the north side. Mr. Rougea:u replied that he dad not believe there would be a problem. Chairman King opened the public hearing.' Mr. Douglas Corgen, 7333 Heiman Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating that he and Mr. Butler have been required to do an EUR to study the alternatives for handling traffic should the freeway not be built.. He indicated that the City knows what will happen and wanted to know why, if this as the case- he is required to do a study. He asked wiry standards are not set so that a study will not have to be done again. He also asked if the portion of roadway discussed in the General Plan amendment request could be excluded from the ;study he is doing. Chairman King replied that Mr - Corgen could not exclude this from the study because 2r. Corgen's property speaks for itself. Mr. Hopson stated that it is premature to say' what the City will. do. Mr. Gorgen asked why, if standards are set, this must be studied again. He further asked if studies have been done. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission is not making any decision or assumptions,on the freeway. He indicated that Mr. Gorgon's development is in the path of the freeway and a study is appropriate. Commissioner Dahl stated that he could not recall what the EIP required. on Mr. Gorgen's property which is on Carnelian. He asked if the HIP studies the entire circulation of the City. Mr. Gorgen replied that the. entire City will be studied, Mr. Dahl stated: that what they are studying here is the possibility of a street based upon what the City feels will be the impact if there is not a freeway built. He further stated that he felt that Mr. Corgen deserves an answer, and whether this study or any other, would be available to Mr. Corgen. He indicated that this should be addressed using the City"s figures. Planning Commission Minutes -6-` February 22, 1982 Chairman King',stated that the Commission is getting into an area that is not intended and died not see the significance of the item being discussed to the property that is owned by Mr, Corgen. He stated that he understood what Mr. Corgen is talking about and further, that if Mr. Gorgen wished to come back and discuss this he could but that it was not appropriate or relative to what. the Commission is doing here tonight. Mr. Rougeau stated that if this item is continued to April 28, Mr. Coren's 'concerns can be taken care of He indicated that his concerns could be"examined to see if the scope of the work should be changed. Mr. Vito de Vito Francisco, 615 N. Euclid, Ontario, addressed the Commission asking whether the intersection of Rochester and Highland, referred to on some reaps as grange, is going to have only one or two streets going onto Highland and if Rochester would be blocked off„ r» Rougeau replied that Rochester doesn't necessarily have to go through but he was not sure whether this is the case. Mr. Francisco -asked if this is the time to take a position for or against this. Mr. Rougeau stated that there will be a future portion of Victoria that will be studied and it would be appropriate to take a position at that time. Mr. Francisco stated that presently there is a horse at Rochester and Highland with a driveway that goes onto Highland and asked if any action should be taken. Mr. Rougeau replied that public access rights will stay unless a freeway is built, and, if this is the rase, it would be connected to the frontage road. There being no further- comments, the public: hearing was closed . Motion: loved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, - carried unanimously, to continue_ this item to April_ 2 , 182, F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7370 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The division of 32` ' acres of Land into IC parcels for park land :Located at the north end of Hermosa on the west side thereof. .lack loam stated that this property is being divided in three parts and was not reviewed by the City Attorney at the time that; this division was being developed. He indicated that, upon review by the City Attorney change was recommended to show this in concept as three parcels at this three. Parcel_ l> which is the lower portion of the map parcel 2 encompassing existing parcels 2 through ; and parcel 3, which is parcel 10. Parcel 10 is the piece which the property owner will maintain and is not being purchased. Mr. Lam stated that: this modification is requested Planning Commission Minutes -7- Februarys 22, 1982 because it provides better protection for the City in the event of default. He indicated that this exhibit will be used in the purchase agreement with the owner. Further, that as each increment is picked up, the map will be revised. r. Lam stated that a second change would be the addition of the following condition. "That the record owner of the subject property and. the City of Rancho Cucamonga now have entered into and executed some mutually acceptable contractura.l arrangements for the City's acquisition of the subject property, which agreement shall be recorded with the final map if recordation is required by the City." Mr. Lam stated _that, no final map will be approved until the mutually acceptable agreement is entered into by ;the City and property owner. Commissioner Dahl ,stated that this is a City-initiated subdivision so' that the property owner would have the right to subdivide his property again without waiting the standard 2-4 years before being able to subdivide. Mr. Hopson stated that the re ubdivision would be at the City's request and the City's=restriction relative to future reparceling doesn' t restrict the City. Additionally, the method.. and ;size of the pieces that would he released to the City would remain the same and lots 2 through 9 just would not be Legal pieces. Mr. Hopson stated that this was done for the benefit of the property AWAb owner and explained the worst 'case condition that could leave the property owner with a piece of property that he could do nothing with. Commissioner Tdlstoy asked where access to parcel 3 would b . Mrs tam replied that: it would be on the other side Mr. Rouge au started that presently there is rsone, however, future devel- opments would provide access and a tract that is being developed now would provide a stub street. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, stated that it is envisioned that there will be an easement going through parcel No.. 1, and would be dissolved as ether access is provided. Chairman King opened the 'public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Fempel -stated that it bothers him that the City` is picking tip a parr.:site which use will. be limited for a period of time to a very small group of City population. He felt that the City would be better off getting property in some tither area of the City more centrally located and usable by the total City population. He stated that he Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 22, 1982 had no problem with the <parcel map, Chairman King stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempel; however, he could not vote on this matter,. Commissioner Dahl stated that this will: be a' natural park that is special and that an attempt is being made to preserve it He indicated that if this is developed properly it will be used by citizens all :over the City. He indicated that he has a. problem with having parks that you can walk to as he did not know of any City where parks are so centrally located that they can be walked to. Commissioner Rempel staged that he diad not say that this is not a site for a park., but rather, that this is not a site for a park. now. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there is not another place within the City that offers such uniqueness and which would take at Least 50 years to develop. He indicated that it offers a. different kind of park than most cities can give to the public. He indicated that he was able to see Commissioner Rempel',s concern, but if this park is not acquired now, it would not be acquired in the future.. He indicated further that he is a passive park user and not an active park user and he was unable to think of a better way than to get this park now and pay lend in the future, Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by To.l toy, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 82- 5, approving Parcel Map No. 7370, as amended. Chairman King voted no and Commissioner Rempel. abstained. 8:00 p.m; The Planning Commission recessed 8: 13 p.m; The Planning ';Commission reconvened DIRECTOR"REPORTS P. ETIWANHA SPECIFIC PLAN STATUS REPORT Chairman Ring stated that although this is not technically a public hearing, he felt that there were many people in the audience who cared to comment and they would be permitted to.do so at this meeting. He indicated that: he had read newspaper account of the diverse'opinions which exist concerning the process and explained what is involved from the ground up in the development of a plan for the Etiwanda area that would be best for the community. He indicated that there had been quite bit of discussion at the General Plan: and Victoria hearings and it appeared that there will be more in the bringing about- of a specific plan for Etiwa da. Chairman King stated that this is the first stage Planning, Commission Minutes -9- February 22, 1982 and everyone world be able to provide input. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, provided a status report as he reviewed the staff report starting that staff is confident that they will reach completion of a plan that is meaningful. Chairman King stated that those who wished to comment could do so at this time. Mr. David Flocker, 6674 East Avenue, Etiwanda addressed the Commission on behalf of the E,tiwanda, land Owners Association. Mr. Flocker stated for clarification that they had not requested< a change in the make up of the Advisory Committee at the last Council meeting as had been reported in the newspaper. Further, that the Etiwanda land Owners Association had not undertaken any legal action in this hatter. Mr. Flocker stated that what has happened is understandable because of the frustrations that exist with the plan to date inasmuch as the Property Owners Association had sent a proposal to the Advisory Committee and the City Council in 12 that had not been incorporated in the land, use map thus far. He indicated their opposition to a bypass road and asked for an opportunity to present their views before the Commission. Mrs. Mary Catania, Etiwanda landowner, stated that she had asked the City Council where else ER zoning could be found. She further stated that she was told it is a new designation and was not being enforced i the General Plan. Mrs. Catania stated ,that it is not realistic to propose, this kind of zoning an these hard times either to the buying public or the 'land owners as this area °will never be a Beverly hills;. She, indicated that the Advisory Committee is turning their back on those people who want to buy a home today. Mrs. Catania stated her agreement with Mr. Flocker in opposition to the bypass road as a waste of good. land. Mr. Roland Smith, Etiwanda property owner, stated that the proposal for Vase tine and Etiwanda Avenue is not right nor would it divert people from"using the heart of Etiwanda.. an Etiwanda property owner, stated that it was her husband Mrs. R. ianem_ p p �' who had spoken of taking legal action and was speaking for himself and not other land owners. She stated that the Etiwanda Advisory Committee tells Mr. 1leedle and, Kroutil what they want and they do what; they are told. She indicated that the Advisory Committee is dangerously near to being a policymaking body which will create great financial hardships. She indicated that they are to be advisory and are policy makers. Mr. Dewey Hardcastl , 2427 Vista drive, stated that Commissioner TolsLoy had spoken of patchwork planning and, in reaching agreement on plan 2A, Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 22, 1982 the Advisory Committee will, have a lot of unhappy people. He indicated that it dial not seem right to equate quality of life with -2 dwelling units per acre and asked for sufficient density to provide comes for all people: Chairman King thanked everyone for their comments stating that in doing this they make the system work. He indicated that this is a cooperative ; effort that will take time and in the overall process a plan will be arrived at that everyone will be pleased with. C. BRRTH ,M IN CHRIST CHURCH`- o Request for an extension. of time to redesign or remove an existing structure located at 9974 I9th Street. Commissioner Dahl abstained from any discussion on this item. Michael Vairin, Senior planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King;stated that it appeared that the church had not decided what to do for sure with the existing house on the church property. Mr. Vairin replied that at the present time ;this is considered to be a temporary building and not part of the permanent master plan; however, to remove the building at this time would be a burden to the church in terms of 'lack of spice.: Chairman ,King'asked how long a time extension they had requested. Mr. Hopson replied that ;the letter they submitted requests a two-year extension. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that should the Planning Commission decide that an extension be ,given could another extension beyond this be received if asked for or would it be an extension period with no renewal. Mr. Vairin relied that another extension could given.h x b v x, g Chairman King stated that his feeling would be to extend this for a two- year period. Commissioner Bempel stated that adequate landscaping is being provided around the building and 'indicated that he would make a motion that staff work with the applicant in landscaping and screening and keep the building for a two-year period. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with a part of Commissioner Rempel's motion but that you would not get sufficient dense landscaping within a; two -year period and it world teen be ripped out: Planning Commission. Minutes -11- February 22, 1982 Commissioner P,empel stated that he would amend his motion to include some type of screening to enclose the site and also, the addition, of wood trim Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion, and the motion carried, to approve the time extension for a two-year period. 45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed :55 p.m, The Planning Commission reconvened H. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY - Residential land Use and Design Guidelines Mr. Lam stated; that this hearing was a. continuation of the one begun at the February 1 meeting, and that the next meeting on Terra Vista would be held on March 1. Mr. Vairin recapped what had taken place at the previous meeting and stated that the developer had provided revised material which had been included in the Commission's agenda packet. He suggested that based upon the material received, the March l meeting focus on the community facilities issues, commercial issues, and the mimed use issues. He indicated that it is staff's desire to wrap tip residential and those new topics at the first meeting in April. Ms. Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Development Company, stated that for clarification, '8782 dwelling units is the maximum that is intended for this project assuming that the park site is purchased and developed as; a park.. Further, the maximum figure would be adjusted only to the extent that density bonuses are granted for housing in accordance with state policy. She stated that on the question of number of units and consistency with i the General Plan, they are working with staff and for the moment they - would let that 'issue ride. She further stated that they are working with staff on traffic and that mayor changes may be required on ghat they are comparing. Ms. Matlock stated that they feel this project is consistent with the General Plan in every respect and that they want to reduce traffic goals, work on the transit and trails which will be explained by their consultant, Gruen and Associates. " Mr. Ki Sub Park, Gruen and Associates, explained that the presentation they were making at this meeting would focus can modifications made to the plan since the last Commission meeting, land use interrelationships and residential design guidelines, including buffers and connection to the greenway system: Mr. Park stated that lighting and landscaping are still under study and would be brought to the Commission later for their consideration. He indicated that if there was time, they would Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 22, 1982 go into neighborhood commercial and recreational/commercial.. Mr. Park then went through the changes which resulted from the Commission's comments and were highlighted by large circles on the Terra Vista Map they were using. Circle 1, intersection of Milliken and Church, where density was increased around the park site and recreational/commercial and decrease of density across from the park. He indicated that this was changed to medium high, and the high density residential west of Milliken was changed to medium high Circle No. 2 was the result of Commission recommendation that loth density not be located; adjacent to Milliken and, was changed to low Tnedium density. This would foster the development of residential next to Milliken. Circle No. 3 resulted from the suggested change to lower density and the density was changed to Medium high and also the community use "U" would be adjacent to the park. Circle No. a was the result of the suggestion that parks and schools in the Etiwanda. School District be shown in the same" location. Ile indicated that land used have been slightly modified from this suggestion!'. Circle No, 5 at the Northwest corner of haven and Base Dine was modified to include a small park in this area to serve residents. Elaine Carberry, Planning Director for Gruen and Associates, presented the residential use interrelationship. She stated that she would summarize major components of the plank She explained the parks and greenway system _a.. linear' ark which ties in the circulation concept and major y p P arterials such as Base Line, "Rochester, haven and Milliken. She stated that the plan is divided into four villages with a portion of the, major greenway in each. Each village has a core or focus where the higher density will be concentrated. She indicated that villages one and two are lower density and villages three and four would be of higher density. Ms; Carberry stated that they tried to create a variety of experiences along the greenway system and explained how it would affect the villages and the town tenter. Further, that the remainder of density was;allocated to get a. mix of uses in each'village with a spread of no more than two land uses in each category. In the area, of noise attenuation, she stated that the greenway would be used as a buffer, as, wel._l as a variety of walls which were discussed such as serpentine,: those with breaks, and also planter walls: Ms. Carberry stated that in terms of village: characters which the Commission wished to have addressed, it was felt that this should: be done by the landscaping and not through architecture. She indicated that this would be clone through the use of different trees in the village. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 22, 1982 Mr. Park stated that two neighborhood commercial centers were proposed at Milliken and Base line. Further, that neighborhood centers would b at the gateway to the community and would be accessible to the villages east and Wiest of Milliken, and would be 'consistent with the General_ Plan. He indicated that another center was considered at the Northeast corner of Haven and. Base Line, but raised concern from members of the Planning Commission and the City Council. From their standpoint it was felt that the location of the: two centers at Milliken and Base Line i ; the most desirable for the community. Mr. Park. Mated that the mixed uses along Foothill: would be gone into at the next meeting. Chairman ling opened; the public hearing. Mr. James Banks, Etiwanda resident, stated that he would like to speak briefly about his concerns with density,; schools, floods, roads and teeth. He stated that he felt the density proposed in Terra Vista is abominable and was more dense` than Victoria. 'Further, the population of the entire city would be duplicated in an area that is 0 -1.5% of the entire community. He indicated that the land owners want more density and he is asking for relief or this would end up like Santa Monica. or Palms. He indicated that nothing specific had been said regarding the resolution of school problems Further, that this entire. area is a flood plain and nothing has been done to stop the proposed building on it; Mr. Banks stated that the Victoria Plan assumes that the Foothill Freeway would be there and there is no support for that assumption. ., Mr. Banks stated that as to teeth, he wants to see the Planning Commission do something that has teeth in it and that can be enforced. He stated further that he was sure that they would never see the amenities that were proposed in Victoria and called for standards that can be lived u to and. enforced.. Mr. Neil 1estlotorn, Htiwanda resident, .stated that when the developer spoke of a. mix it was only some kind of Medium or some kind of high. Mr. John Lyons, Ftiwanda resident, stated that with a density bonus there could be an additional 30,000 persons in Terra Vista and when added to Victoria could bring the population to 82,000. He indicated that when the City population of 60,000 is added to this it would not be the 120,000 which the General Plan ;stated at build out but more than 140,000 and he indicated he would like to see a lower figure. Mr. .Toe Diloric , 10340 Foothill Boulevard, stated that he owns a part of Victoria and wished to comment on the remarks made by Mr. Banks. lie indicated that he has lived here as lone as Mir. Tanks and world probably continue to be here for a lot longer. He indicated that he and Victoria would not come and go. Mr. DiI rld stated that the density proposed Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 22, 1982 here is not high when compared to the rest of the basin and the reason these developments are proposed is because we are all on this planet together and this is the largest concentration of people in the United States. Mr. Dilorio stated that Rancho Cucamonga is particularly blessed with industrial zoning of a vary broad nature and that there is presently very detailed; Industrial Specific. Plan. He indicated that it was calculated with the expectation that some of the people who would worts here would be able to also live here as there would be more fobs than living can be provided for Mr. Dilorio stated that it took three and a half years after the City's incorporation to have a General plan that was the result of a lot of people working together.. He further stated that he wished to speak about the flood control system and transportation capacities. He ,spoke of the federal and local flood control and the. route 30 meeting that was taping place to plan .for a Foothill Freeway.. He Indicated that he would be happy to spend some time with Mr. Banks to discuss these areas with him and spoke of the understanding and cooperation which resulted with those people who entered the learning process. Mr. -Dilorio stated that it was incorrect to simply complain about densities and if the question were put to Gary Frye of why lie is producing 750 square foot houses', the answer in part becomes that even with the land purchase at lower prices, and in his instance, having the company that produced: the largest amount of single family houses in the State and one of the largest in the Country, under the best of conditions, it will cost what has been paid 4-5 years ago to buy this; home. He; indicated; that they must loop at the General Flan in light of the economic base and that he is proud to be a part of that planni'a . He stated that he hoped that Mr. Banks and the landowners in the months to cone would come to an understanding of the complicated details that go into making a General Plan work. Mr. Dilorio stated that he thinks it appropriate . this year th at ear t_ t the counter reaction be made and become part of the record. Mr. ;David F1ocker, 'Ftiwanda resident, stated that: he was speaking for - himself and agreed with Mr.- Dilorio. He stated further that he liked both Victoria and Terra Vista and their planning which would result in an improvement to the area. He indicated that it would be economically infeasible to build only 2,000 square foot homes 'at a 'cost of $225,000 when the average income is $25,000. Further, that these hoes would not sell in the future and what is needed is well thought out planning. Mr. Ralph Lewisasked for an opportunity to make a statement at the next meeting. Mrs. James Fl cker, Alta Loma resident, stated that Mr. Lewis should be commended for the kind of development he has brought to this area.. Planning Commission Minutes 15- February 22, 1982 She stated further that a planned community is getter than a:hode pode and she would rather have this than what they; have in Fontana. Commissioner Dahl stated that he appreciated the comments that had been made spa far by Mr. Banks, Mr. Dilorio and Mr. Flocker, and because of the position he is in, it would appear sometimes by the; statements he makes that he is grandstanding, but the position that he has taken over the past few years, and his voting record shows that, that he wants to make it clear that no matter ghat his position is this is the way he feels. He stated that he wanted to paint out a couple of things and stated that Mr. Dilorio mentioned that he lived here and asked if he is a voter of the. City now. Mr. hiTor o replied that be has voted in every election since. incorporation.. Commissioner Dahl asked him if he is now a resident here, rather than the Beach cities. Mr. Diloro replied that he is. Commissioner Dahl stated that he wanted to ask that question because he understood that Mr. Dilorio was a resident of the beach cities and that he had another office there. Commissioner Dahl stated that one of the things that had been mentioned was the density of our City and the problems -and the fact that the planked communities:are had or good, lie stated that that isn' t the issue. He felt that planned communities are "the hest thing that could happen for the City whether it be Victoria or Terra Vista. Further, that planned communities gives an opportunity of setting the type of housing designs and street designs that he would like to see come about for the City; Commissioner Dahl stated that ;he wanted to make another thing clear that when: they talk about density, that is a different issue. He indicated that you can have a planned community with very, very low density and :a planned community with very high density. He indicated that one of the problems that you rein into and one of the things that he thinks our City needs is some density because he feels we need to serve all the areas of the City from the newly reds to the retired people and singles. He stated that. the City must also serve the: single-family residents with a nice' size yard if that is his lifestyle. He stated that he does not hold with the statement that the housing market is pricing itself out. He stated that he would not buy that but would buy the one statement, if it was brought up, that the interest market is throwing people out. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 22, 1982 I I Commissioner Dahl stated that Mr. lalocker had said that over the next years, the price of commodities would go higher but the average income would stay the sane and he did not agree with this and did not feel that there is any economist in the country that would have the guts to stand up and tell you where the economy would, be 8 years from now, nog would they be able to say where it will be 3 years from now. He did not feel that even. the President of the United States knows. Commissioner Dahl stated that the statement that should have been made is that the type of housing product that is introduced today is for today's market. Whether it will be apropos 5 years from now or 10 years from now is unknown by any developer. He stated that the only thing that they know is that there; will he change. Commissioner Dahl stated that when they talk about the housing market today, it is that it is impacted, and it is difficult for everyone, but he cannot buy the state- ment that density in itself is goad or bad on the basis of today's economy or the economy as it will be affected - 10 years from now. He agreed that the City does need density and stated that he has already made himself known regarding the 750 square :toot. house:. He stated that he did not like it nor did he feel it is a good situation but that is not ghat they are discussing this evening, He stated that what they are discussing this evening is Terra Vista and his feelings are that: this is closer to the center of the City. He stated that of every City that be has ever been in, density does migrate towards the center of the city and the further you go from the center of the city the,lower the density gets. He stated that he happens to be one of those people who believes in a terraced city' and apparently a lot of people believe in a terraced industrial section because that's exactly what we've got and the only difference is that instead of running north and south it runs east and west, Commissioner Dahl stating that looking at what the Commission heard today, there is only one thing that would concern him and what he would request of 'Terra Vista because he had already made his thoughts known regarding base tine and haven, and it doesn't seem like he has won on that one. The one area that he world request of Terra 'vista is ghat he requested of Victoria, that a minimum of 40% and perhaps 40-45% of all areas that are: being shown. as low-medium, considering that the designation of low has been removed have pool-sued back yards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the presentation; has shown that the applicant is making changes and that he had only read the report once and would Like to go. baek and read it main having had the presentation. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would hope that attention would be paid., to buffering of commercial and Haigh density residential uses on the south side of the project. Ile indicated that he still dial not agree with two commercial centers at what is called by the applicant, the gateway to the project. ,. Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 22, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as the consultant was speaking he made a couple of remarks about the difference between village 3 being density and that landscaping would be second. He indicated that if a village concept is used there should be more than changing the landscaping and densities to set the villages apart. Commissioner Tols oy stated that the developer is always talking about marketing and there should be a difference as to whir a person would choose to live in one part of Terra 'vista and, not another, Commissioner Impel stated that he agreed with Commissioner olstoy's comment relative to villages and that it is really difficult to see that they have;true ,'focuses for villages, and he wondered if, instead of villages they are phasing areas. Commissioner Rempel stated that if these are really villages he would like to see what they propose as phasing and what focus there will be. He indicated that there must not be abrupt changes in the ntreetscape and that the same thing holds through with the Terra Vista parkway. He indicated that the whole thing is one community instead of separate areas. r. park said that during a presentation made several weeks ago, the report stated that the parkway would have its own continuous plait and they;would show how this is done at another meeting. Chairman ling asked how, if you are a pedestrian, you gut from one point in the area to another paint. _ Mr. Park replied that it would be done through the gree away system and through the use of signals when crossing the street. He indicated that the north parkway lies where traffic is lowest in the plan. Chairman icing stated that he was a little bit concerned with the two junior high schools can the exterior of the loop and would think, it appropriate to have a crossing where you are not crossing the streets If the intention is not to generate a lot of :traffic, from the planning standpoint it sight be wise to have the same thine across Milliken as you had in the other two places as you cross the loop. _ i On the differentiation between villages,; Chairman icing stated that it really doesn' t make any difference if there are four villages or no villages and slid not feel this is a big issue, Chairman King stated that he thought there is a realtioa.ship between recreational commercial and neighborhood commercial and felt that there is a tendency to relate to residential . He stated that he did not like to safe two neighborhood commercial centers across the street from each other and hetikes some exceptions on how they characterize the functions to be carried can in the recreational commercial. He stated that he saw this as being totally related recreational commercial. Chairman ling stated that based can what he has seen., he is impressed Planting Commission Minutes -18- February 22, 198 Commissioner Rempel stated that this is a big improvement from what they had seen before and that lie agreed wide what Commissioners King and Tol toy had said. Mr. Vai.r n stated that there would be details on this for the next meeting. Commissioner Dahl started that he woold like some comment on his requirement for 40% of the low--mediva density to have pool-size rear yards. Claai.rman King replied, that this doe.s not have his support at the present t irra . Commissioner Hempel stated that he would not cormmdnt at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie would not comment. Commissioner Dahl stated that he only brought this up as part of dark Victoria plan and was one of the issues. Commissioners Rempel and Toi toy replied that they did not remember tha t Commissioner Dahl stated that he had met with staff and Mr. Frye and they thought this was appropriate and it, also appears in the text for Victoria. lie stated that he would like to add that the job that was done on this Planning Commission and the housing element is well done and peat ford excellently. Mr. Lewis stated that he was glad ::to get the various points of view and I that they will continue to be responsive. He mentioned that when he went through the review on their proposed office building there were comment from Mr. Vai.ri..n Commissioners Rempel and acmeraanka and they would be pleased to see how many they have riven effect to when the drawings are brought hack. He stated t,hat they are trying to produce what :is wanted tempered by their requirements of wliat is saleable and; they will, bring this bank next week for answers tea comments that were raised tonight. Commissioner Rempel, stated that there might have been more comments on what had- been furnished by the Lewis Company had it not been received on Friday night with comments expected at tonight's mecatilIg. He indicated that there was not onough time to review everything that had been submitted. Mr. Vair n stated that new ground would be covered at the next meeting and this portion discussed tonight would he brought hark in April . Motion: Moved by banal., seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to March 1 1982 for a continued public hearing on the "Cerra Vista planned community. Planning Commission Minutes _1 - February 22, 1982 i Adjournment 1-0: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JACK_1 etar y Planning Commission Minutes -20- February 22 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 10, 198 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Ting called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:0 p.m. The meeting was held in the Forum of the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Lane Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman ;ling then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT COMMISSIONERS: Merman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, peter Tolsto , Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl STAFF PRESENT: 'T'ed. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Jerry Grant;, Building Official; Jack Lam Director of Community Development, Janice Reynolds,, Secretary; Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager, Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel:, seconded by Sceranka., carried to approve the. Minutes of January 27, 1982. Motion: Moored by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried to approve the Minutes of February 1, 1982 with the deletion of paragraph three can page twelve. ANNOUNCEMENTS, Jack Team, Community Development Director, announced that the presentation of the Lew and Justice Center, heir; J under 'New Business, was requested to be moved up and be heard by the Commission before their consideration of the public hearings Mr. Lam also announced that the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on Monday, February 22, 1982 and that this meeting would also ,include a public hearing; can the Terra Vista Planned Community. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 80-07 AND 81-0 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL. MAPS 52.60, 6114 6076 5997, 511 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 82-02 - BARTON The development of a 5,860 square foot two-starry office building on .369 acre,; generally located on the south side of Civic Center Drive, west of 'Utica, Lot 23 of Parcel Map 6206. D. REVISION TO RESOLUTION NO. 81-80 CLARIFYING THE REQUIREMENT CFw SIDEWALKS ON INDUSTRIAL LOCAL STREETS E. OAK ROAD LOCATED NORTH OF HILLSIDE, WEST OF KLUSMAN Motion: Loved by Rempel., seconded by Soeranka, carried to adopt all items on the Consent Calendar. NEW BUSINESS J. PROPOSED TEST VALLEY LAW AND ,JUSTICE CENTER Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the Staff Report and introduced Mr. 'Bill Valentine of IJOK, San Francisco, who reviewed the Site. Plan"and invited the Commissioners to take a look at the model on display. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that the architects should work to improve the north and west sides of the building and that the hark-like appearance should carry around to the rear of the building. Mr. Valentine stated that they would work on the items recommended by the Commission and try to improve them before the center was formally submitted. 7:30 p.m. The ,Planning Commission Recessed 7: 0 -p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 10, 1982 PUBLIC HEARINGS F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1-0 - SHA&MA -- A hearing to consider the possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a preschool located at 9113 Foothill, based on; failure to comply with Conditions of Approval. Mr._ Lam advised the Commission that this item was being brought lack for hearing, per the: Commission's request. Jerry Grant, Building Official, and Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, presented a list of items yet to be completed by Mr. Sharma under the Building and Safety Division and planning Division. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Sytendra Sharma, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he had been working towards the completion of the items remaining on the list, however, due to the rain he had not been able to complete them and asked.. the. Commission for more time in which to complete the Conditions of ,Approval Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Sharma what the current status was of his licensing with the State. Mr. Sharma replied that he was licensed at this time. Commissioner Rempel asked if the eleven items under Planning and the six under Building and Safety still remained to be completed. Mr. Vairin replied that they were and that there was also a. temporary sign on the premise that needed to be removed . Commissioner Scerahka asked Mr. Sharma when his current term at the preschool ended. Mr. _Sharma replied that he was licensed to operate year round from a.m. to 6 pare. and didnot have a school term as such. There were no further questions of the applicant or comments from the public, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman ding stated that he understood the situation the applicant was in, however, there appeared to be so many items that remained to be completed he felt that the item should be continued. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the same way as Chairman ding, however, felt that a report should be prepared .for the; first. Planning Commission meeting in March to make sure that progress is being made on the uncompleted items. If progress was not made on at least a .weekly bases, staff should report back to the Commission and the Omission Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 10, 1982 would take appropriate action. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that the Commission had been strong in their implementation of standards and the time frames in which people were expected to perfor-m these standards. When exceptions are made for purposes which be felt are valid, it is important for the applicant to be sensitive to the fact that they are being given special consideration for changes in the proceedure and they should not be able to take advantage of that to the detriment of the community. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not feel that this item should be continued indefinitely and that staff should just keep checking to see if he were completing the items. He felt that a data should be set and if Mr. Shama did not complete his Conditions of Approval by that date, staff should come back to the Commission at the next meeting and the Commission should revoke his permit. He further stated that the applicant had been given several extensions already and had still not completed these conditions. Chairman King stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sceranka but he did not feel it should be part of the motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to continue the item to the Planning Commission of March 10, 1982. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, KING NOES; COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAME G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82-02 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11615 - LEWIS PROPERTIES - A change of zone from C-1 (Neigh- borhood Commercial) to R-3/PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) and the development of 1.52 condominium units on 10.4 acres of land located north of Base Line and west of Archibald - APN 202-161-37 and 202-151-34. Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Vairin who owned the vacant land next to the property. Mr. Vairin replied that he was not totally sure who the owner was, but was most likely owned by the Water District. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that since there was a water tank on that piece of land, it probably belonged to the Water District. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 10, 1982 Richard Hanson, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, designer of the project, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and had no questions on the Staff Report or the contents of the approving Resolutions. Commissioner Sceranka asked sir. Vairin if provisions had been made for the tot lot as required during Design Review. Mr. ' ai.r. n replied that Exhibit "I" of the Staff Report would show the location of the teat lot. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lava was concerned about the buffering can the south side because of the loading decks for the grocery and drag stores but sari where it was addressed in the Staff report. However, he did not see Facer the buffering on the west side from the single family residence was being addressed. Mr. Vairin stated that Design review had required dense landscaping in that area, but that an exhibit had; not been drawn to .illustrate that. Commissioner Tolstdy asked if there was to be a wall in that location. Mr. Vairin replied that there was a wall proposed ' in that location that would be five to six feat high along the property line. Commissioner Tols toy asked what the distance would be, from :the. wall to the first unit. Mr. Vai.r n replied that it would be twenty to thirty feet Chairman King asked they applicant wby there was a rather substantial setback as opposed to the other setbacks on the south side. r. Hanson replied that ;it was done that way to buffer. Chairman King stated if that were the case, it seemed that the same problem existed on the east side. Although they are presently vacant pieces of land, ultimately the uses to the east would be the same as the uses to the south and if it were logical to use the distance as a buffering agent for properties to the south, it would also be logical to use it as a buffering for properties to the east, Commissioner Rempel stated that the distances on both sides of the property-mentioned by Chairman King were the same and that this issue was addressed during Design Review. Thera were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 11615. Planning Commission Minutes -5 February 10, 198 I AYES 'COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, RE :EL, TOLSTCY KING TIES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL Motion: Moved by S eranka, seconded by Rempe1 , carried, to adopt, the Resolution approving Planned Development S -C . AYES - COMMISSIONERS: SCE CA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY 1 TNG MOOS CCIVN ASS IONERS M: ONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL H. ENVIRONMENTAL TAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL W 061-4 - K CO A division f 2 .7 acres i;nto 24 lots within the -2 pane l€ cared on the southwest corner of 6th Street, and Milliken Avenue APN 21 --CS2-S, , 10, Paul Rou ea€€, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked. Mr. Rou eau where this industrial tract would fit into the storm drain system. Mr. Rou eau replied that; there would be a storm drain provided by the Assessment District in Cleveland Avenue Chairman King opened the public hearing. Ilan deed, Sate Diego, representing the applicant, addressed the Cammi.ss1€ace and stated that:. his ,engineers were present to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. There were no further questions or :comments from the public therefore the public hearing was classed Motion: Moved by Sterank , seconded by "Tol.stoy, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel, Map 70 1- y AYES CCi 1SSIONERS a SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REy ;EL, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAf1T Planning Commi ss.i on Minutes -6- February 10 1982 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7128 - EJL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of 6.2 acres into 2 lots within the R-1 zone located at the southwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenue - APN 202-19-15. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. There were no questions from the Commission, therefore Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rougeau advised the Commission that the applicant had contacted him earlier in the afternoon and informed him that they would not be in attendance at the meeting, however, wished to state that they had no objections tea-the Conditions of Approval or any items mentioned in the Staff Report. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7128. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCE A, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL 8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission 'Recessed 8:20 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11934 - LYON - The development of 301 single family homes within the Victoria Planned Community, located north of Base Line Road, west of Etiwanda Avenue, and south of Highland Avenue, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report stating that the Commission was being presented tonight with the revisions provided by the applicant to the lower portion of the tract. Mr. Lam further stated that the Design Review Committee had looked at the revision and stated that they were satisfied with the revisions and felt they met with the intent and purpose of the Condition which the Commission imposed on the tract. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 10, 1982 There was much discussion on the design of the park and the elements which the Commission wished to have included in the design of the park. It was the consensus of the Commission that the design of the park be brought back to them for 'review before final approval. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried, to accept the revisions to Tentative Tract 11934, Phase I. , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLST "Y, REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING NOES: OMIIISSI ERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: DAHL UPCOMING END It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff be instructed to research and bring back.. to the Commission for discussion the Parking Standards Ordinance for residential development to see if the standards were adequate to ineet the parking needs of projects with high density. ADJOURNMENT Motion. Moved by R mpel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adjourn. :45 "p.m._ The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully bmitted, a JACK LAM, Secretary , Planning Commission. Minutes - - February 10, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting February 1, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King <opened the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission at 7 :05 p.m. The meeting, a public hearing, discussed the Terra Vista Planned Community and Related Environ- mental Impact Report and was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka Peter Tolstoy, and Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner STAFF REPORTS A. OVERVIEW OF PLANNED COMMUNITY CONCEPTS AND THE TERRA VISTA REVIEW PROCESS Michael Vairin, Senior Planner provided the Commission with':a definition of a Planned Community and stated that Terra Vista, which is being proposed, as well as the FIR, are to be reviewed by the Commission. Be indicated that the EIR is a draft document which will be changed during the course of the public hearings. Mr. Lam stated that for those in the audience, the colored map on the wall is not the one being discussed and indicated that the black and white map contains the land use patterns for the Terra Vista Plan. B. STAFF REPORT NO. 1 Mr. Vairin proceeded to review the staff report and stated that its organization is important in order to achieve a smooth flowing document. He recommended that the final Terra Vista text be reorganized to provide a clear distinction between the Plan and Design Guidelines. Further, that there should be more focus on land use concepts, circulation and statistics. Mr. Vairin stated that the level of diagrams that would be expected as a minimum would be that which was provided in the Victoria Planned Community. Key Matlock, representing Lewis Homes and the Terra Vista Project Manager, stated that they world be happy to reorganize the text in any way that: staff wishes. She indicated that the material now requested would be provided quickly. Commissioner Dahl requested that under the designation Recreation/ Commercial that more clear and concise indication of what they are looking at be provided when they get to ;that paint-. Chairman ling asked if it is the Planning Commission's opinion that improved text can be accomplished as they go along. Per. Vairin replied that he felt it could and that it could be guided in the right direction. He 'indicated `that the text needed to be meshed together with the design guidelines so that a' reader could read it from front to back and have a clear understanding of what this was all about. Mr. Lam provided a booklet that had been prepared by another' planning consultant as an example to the Commission of how staffs request might be accomplished with the guideline organization. He indicated that this would provide a standard against which further development application beyond the planned community could be judged; He felt that this would aid the Design review CommitteeQ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that architectural design standards were not included and that sign and graphic standards were not addressed. Further, that he did' not see anything relating to lighting standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that buffering between uses must be shown and that different kinds of residential uses need to be looked at care- fully. He indicated that buffering between users in the mixed use areas where there is residential must also be sho lie stated that be wanted to know how the mimed uses and residential could exist within the same zone and did not 'see enough material to see how it would take place Commenouihsv�sualner Tc+rstoy eandlat�tl at �nlcarderacearsitttcanbdid not have g graphics e complete, these must be included. I Commissioner kempel stated that the brochure that Mr. Lam provided answers a lot of questions and thought that this type of material should be included irn, the text Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see the areas of discussion groped in categories like landscaping, screening or buffering and not run together in the text. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had some difficulty in reading the plaza, and trying to find where certain areas were addressed within, the Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 1, 198 text. He indicated that when reference is made to a particular development he was unable to find it in the design section as there is no crass reference. Chairman King asked if the applicant was clear can what the Commission desires Ms. Matlock stated that she would question what the Commission meant by a theme for the architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy replied; that he would like to see something that. was not repetitive and indicated that there should be some differences but was unable to determine from the text what the applicant's intentions were. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that architecture could be discussed in how they differ or may be similar. He indicated that the use of pictures was interesting but questioned the note below them that stated that they were used for illustrative purposes only and were not to be interpreted to mean that this is what to expect in 'Terra vista. He further indicated that almost every one of the pictures bare this disclaimer and he wanted to see what it was that 'Terra: Vista will give to the community. " He indicated that he would like to sere something special ;for this area.. Ms. Matlack explained the disclaimer and graphics by stating that it was there because it would take a number of years to develop the entire planned community and what is portrayed at the present may not be what ultimately develops. She stated their reluctance to base it on an actual site plan at this stage. She stated that the basic concepts that are outlined for Foothill Boulevard will apply regardless of the specific site plan that is developed and those concepts are that each center will have a different emphasis of uses in it the layout of each of them will vary; that the landscape treatment will: vary; reflecting the site plaza; that there will be coordinated vehicular access within and between the centers; and that there will be a pedestrian connection between all of them. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with exactly all Ms. Matlock said, but that he knew things would be changed. But, the way he would see this is through the graphics and that is all that he is saying. He further stated that he would like to see how things can be different as they go along and this could be accomplished through the graphics. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had difficulty with the village cluster idea because the difinition in the book states that` a plan of interrelated villages will serve common recreational/institutional functions. He asked if the applicant had any conceptual differences between the four villages in terms of architecture or feelings or were they to be differentiated only through location and where they are in terms of the greenway system Ms. ,Matlock replied that they have more in mind in that. area.. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 1, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka asked if it is contained within the. text. Ms. Matlock replied that it was not but that it could be furnished next week. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his concern when discussing the corporate park concept is, that if the text shows a water element, that this be included in the final plan. He indicated that if key elements of architecture are the same they be listed and if the architecture needs to be changed they will see how it will change and fit in. He indicated that he needs to know how that will be shown. Mr. Vairin explained that he had included a sentence in the staff report that would cover what Commissioner Sceranka, was saying and asked the Commission for direction. Commissioner Dahl stated that the Commission is looking for a conceptual plan in terms of architecture and to tie anyone down to one specific style is ridiculous at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the things he missed is how the greenbelt might tie into the corner of Foothill and Haven. He stated further that over the months there has been discussion that this should be a special place and a focal point within the City and could be accomplished through a greenbelt. He indicated that he may have missed this but could not find anything on this within the text. Chairman King explained that the Planning Commission is looking for more detail. and a little bit more in the way of explanation and there was consensus that the text needs to be organized in a more cohesive manner. Commissioner Sceranka stated that one concept that would be more dynamic would be in the office park section. He indicated that he could not find in the text how this will be addressed and stated that he wanted the criteria for this including where housing would go. Ms. Matlock stated that the planning consultant, Gruen and Associates is working on this and will `be able to tell, more to the Commission at the next meeting. Chairman King went on, to the use of graphics. Mr. Vairin explained that these were basically covered and compared how it was done in the Victoria Plan and indicated where this could be added in, the text. Chairman King asked the Commission what their thoughts were on the disclaimer. Commissioner Dahl stated that this should be addressed just once in the AOL plan by stating that the architectural illustrations are conceptual Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 1 , 1982 and that it need not be addressed on each illustration. Commissioner T'olstoy stated that he felt that a point should be made in the corporate park line drawing, which leads him to believe that it i going to be a water-oriented area He «stated that if this is not their intent then he would not want to find this out at a later date. He hoped that there would be a theme because it makes things stand out and is more important. " He indicated that they should not show something that we are not going to get. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that he liked Commissioner Dahl's idea of one disclaimer and., of the Commission desired, he would be happy to write just one ,master disclaimer. However, he stated that they have certain problems because it will take more than: 10 years to finish Terra'Vista and it is very hard to know ghat they will need in later years. 'He indicated that they are going to start with an office building in the, office park that will be a two-story building and perhaps the next d will be of the same type. He indicated that when they get to Milliken they will be talking to banks but if they go with a major bank. like Bank of America, they may feel that they will want to have a restaurant row, but, there is no way of knowing this now and did not wish to be pinned d own... Commissioner Dahl stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis but thought they should look to certain architectural. standards that would be adhered to. He indicated that if a lake is shown on; the preliminary plan he expects it to be there in the final plan. He stated that he was very upset about what had happened with the either project and, did not want to see it change. Commissioner Sceranka stated that more graphics are needed in the resi- dential design section. ' He further stated that the concept should be clear and relate to the graphics. Chairman King stated that his thoughts were along the same Zane and there needs to be more correlation between the graphics and text. There was no further discussion on "topic No. 1 . Mr. Vairin reviewed Topic No 3, Residential Densities and Consistency with the 'General Plan, contained in the staff report. He discussed circulation and its implications comparing the differences between this plan and the General Plan. He asked the. Commission for their views on these issues Commissioner Tolsto'y asked how the figure of 25 percent rather than 43 percent was arrived at. Mr. Vai.rin replied that the PIS projected a 43% increase in the number of trips made in a days time. This was calculated on the overall density of the plan without taking into consideration internal orientation. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 198 When they looked at this they discovered that: there was a -27% trip generation factor that was totally internal. _" By taking; that and applying it to the overall trip generation factors they reduced it to the 25% figure which represents a more accurate view of the perimeter traffic impacts. Commissioner °Tolstoy stated that the reason this is 25 percent is because they are projecting that the rest of the traffic will all be trips within the project and not impact the rest of the City.- Mr. Vairin replied that this is correct. Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated, however, that the 43 percent figure represents the true number of trips to be projected;. Mr. Vairin stated that the projections were the result of what was done in the traffic "model and are as accurate as possible. He indicated that the Commission'must determine whether the levels projected are acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked at what ;level the intersections would operate at. Mr. Vairin replied that if additional lanes are added as proposed in the RIR and if the densities are as proposed or slightly lower, without mitigation measures they would be impacted. They would operate at no lower than a "D " level if attention is paid to the mitigating factors. Commissioner aeranka asked if any studies have been done on whether, as a result of "Terra. Vista, how much additional infrastructure would be required for expansion or sign°lia;t.ion; or other streets. He asked further what needed to be done to Haven, Milliken, Rase Line, and Rochester, to increase capacities. Mr. Rougeau replied that because of the long build out time these streets will be improved through their own projects. Further, that the industrial assessment district would help and by the time 'Terra Vista develops, enough of the system will be there. Commissioner Cceranka asked if there was a :figure that Mr. Rougeau could give' in terms of percentage of error in what is being proposed and what is the worst case 1 -15 years from now. Mr. Rougeau replied that this is really based on certain assumptions of traffic growth and they are still talking in fairly conservative figures, however, they must figure to the worst case or close to it and they are figuring can a growth of traffic. Commissioner reeranka asked if the Commission should comment on the density at this time, Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 1 1982' Mr. Vairin replied that if the Commission has feelings regarding density and what is being proposed, then comments would be appropriate. He indicated that this is what was done with the Victoria Plan.. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Vair n's ;question is whether there is enough difference between this and the General plan to warrant a change to the General. Plan. Mr. "Vairin replied that it would not warrant a change to the General Plan. Further, that in terms; of conformance to the General Plan,, under the planned community ordinance the Commission has the ability to determine what densities are acceptable and showed the Commission what they were on the chart provided in the ;staff report. He indicated that the General. Plan at mid-point and higher projected figures that are lower than. what: Terra Vista is proposing. Ultimately, the Commission will have to make a determination of whether they feel the figure is high, low or dust right. Commissioner 8ceranka awed if they select a figure at the high point they would have to insure that the quality of life and life style and ether elements are compatible for traffic. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that what staff is saying is that the Commission can use the General: Plan as a guideline and compare the high allowable under the General Plan and the high as proposed by the= Terra Vista flan and you would get a higher density by a thousand units. In theory, he stated, the Terra Vista Plan is supposed to be consistent with the General Plan, not item for item, but within the ranges. He continued that what Mr. Vairi;n is saying is that the fact that the higher density in the General Plan is possible for Terra Vista does that want to make you cut drawn densities generally in Terra;Vista; does it ; bother you that if Terra Vista builds out at the lowest or medium ranges still allowable within the ranges of the General Plan? That's different from the question that was stated, he said. 8:00 p.m; The Planning Commission recessed 8w10 p.m ; The Planning 'Commission, reconvened Chairman King ;stated that assuming that the Commission's only cancer was circulation could they be assured that with a` reduction-of 1300 units, it would sufficiently compensate' for traffic to concur with the General plan. r. Rougeau replied that if the figures match we are working with all the assumptions of. the General Plan and it should work. Chairman King stated that what is being; said is there is a 25 percent surplus in traffic and yet if 1300 units are cut it is not 25 percent of the total units. Planning Comp issi.on Minutes -7 February 1 198 Mr. Vairin stated that in part this; deals with densities and they must all relate together, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission has been talking about circulation and that has a lot to do with densities. lie stated that h felt another issue would be what kinds of densities they are talking about. He indicated that if the low and low medium figures were added up as far aspercentages you would get 5' .1% and if you take Terra Vista and add 7.8 and 31.7 you ;get 39% or a difference of 11% He indicated that you have to consider the high and medium high; and you get a specific number of density from the General. Plan and project this and it distorts what is being proposed in Terra. Vista because of a different quality of density. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one reason he is critical of Terra Vista's text is that if you are going to have a lot of density you must have a lot of quality of design and that he has not been a foe of density as long as there are mitigating factors.` Commissioner Tolstoy further stated than this relates to what they have been talking;'about relative to circulation design. Chairman icing asked if this is a correct statement-that if you reduce 13 you will have more impact in reducing traffic than if you reduce single family detached homes versus reducing quantities of 14 units per acre. e asked if more trips are generated from single family houses than from 14 waits per acre. Mr. Z ougeau replied' that this is correct in that 9.5 trips per day are generated from detached housing versus 6.5 trips per day for the medium high and high densities. He indicated that these have been reduced because of traffic assumptions, Ms. Matlock stated that overall densities of the project can be looked at in a number of different ways and asked that this not be examined solely from the standpoint of traffic. She stated further that they had designed the circulation system to keep the trips inside the project and this was based on the traffic modeling that had been done previously which was not too great. She stated that with the loop road there would not be an effect on any of the other neighborhoods and the increase in traffic over what is projected is largely eliminated by the number in, the project according to; the EIR Mr. Rougedu stated that this can be read two of three different ways. He indicated that if table 7 is analyzed and you compare the number of trips between the General Plan and 'Terra r Vista., he indicated staff wants this 1, rifi.ed by the traffic consultant before they go along with the PIR. Mr. Rougeau stated: that on pages 3-70, using the number of trips in the General "Plan versus the project proposal and the assumptions used in the General Plan versus those used in Terra Vista for internal circu- lation it still comes out that you have 22,000 trips left over. He indicated that if you take this and the table on the preceding page I Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 1, 1982 and following page, there are discrepancies and it is staff's opinion that these should be determined by the traffic consultant. Commissioner Sceranka stated that what Mr. Rougeau is saying is that we do not have enough data. Mr. Rougeau replied that what they are saying is that the difference of trips is 22,000 more but that they don' t know if you can widen the roads to handle this. The question would be how you want to mitigate this. Commissioner Dahl asked where this is. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is at Archibald and Foothill. Mr. Vairin stated that the document talks about internal traffic on the loop road being a 22% figure. But they do not take into account that the General Plan also had a percentage figured for internal traffic which was not factored in which again creates a difference between the two. He indicated that there are a number of items that must be looked at closely. Ms. Matlock stated that there is another reason that they hoped the Commission would not make wholesale decisions on traffic grounds. She indicated that if Terra Vista is never developed the traffic at Foothill and Haven will be increased. She indicated that Foothill and Haven must be developed to its full cross section if Terra Vista is never developed at all. Mr. Vairin stated that the City is in touch with its traffic consultant to see what is proposed in the General Plan and how it is to be compared if Terra Vista doesn' t develop or remains ambient. He stated that this would provide a firmer guideline. Ms. Matlock addressed the issue of whether their density is consistent with the General Plan. She indicated that the figure given in the staff report relative to the General Plan gives a mid-range density figure for their area and also a maximum. She stated that the figure that they have always understood is the maximum and their figure goes both higher and lower. She said that the base figure in this analysis that the figure is starting from has always been questioned because it has been based on planimeter readings. She stated they also have done planimeter readings and have come up with a different figure. She stated that they feel that the maximum they propose is appropriate and within the General Plan and cited reasons for it being related to affordable housing and ability to live within the working area and transit centers. She asked that the Commission look at the plan, to see if it makes sense the way it is and not make wholesale reductions in it. Mr. Ki Suh Park, Gruen and Associates, consultant for the Lewis Company, stated that the General Plan shows 7500 in the low density, and the high is 9420. He indicated that they are proposing 8700 units. He Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 1, 1982 indicated ;that they would provide more backup into what they feel their land use interrelationship is. He indicated that the Commission could not Look at the traffic plan for absolute comparison. He felt that development would occur simultaneously in different sections of the City and the net differential is whit must be examined,; Commissioner Dahl asked if Mr. Park is looking at s figure. of 8782 as the high figure Mr. Park stated that this is the maximum they want to put in. He indicated: that the only exception is the paint that deals with afford- able housing. Mr. Ham stated that in booking at these figures and the low, medium and high: point, during discussion onthe General "Plan the densities were always in the mid-range. The circulation section was done this way as well, and the reason;for that is in the rest of the community you are not going to accomplish these densities because of the streets, etc. , and the reason you use the mid ranges in the planned communities is because they are planned developments utilizing gross densities. That is why in Victoria s maximum was established in the mid-range densities and he believed that this is how densities should be compered Commissioner Dahl stated that,we show 7502 as a medium density and 9420 as a maximum. Mr. ' airin stared that the reason this was put in is because they did not understand that this was the maximum number being used for 'Terra Vista. Commissioner Dahl asked if the applicant would be willing to make 8782 his maximum figure instead of. :10457. Mr. Lewis replied that Ms. Matlock =alluded to the 7502 figure and he was afraid that this would be: buried into their memory and everything would be compared to it. lie stated that he felt that city staff calculated incorrectly and asked if they could meet with staff to go over this. He indicated that if they are wrong, they will correct their figures but he felt that there is d discrepancy in the-Gener 1. Plan figures. Commissioner Dahl stated that the only thing that he was alluding to was the 8782 figure being mid—range. He indicated that if this would be their maximum the other figures could be crossed off. Chairman King asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. r. Lyons Pti,wanda resident, stated he looped the Planning Commission would not go with the maximum densities and that the community would have that assurance. He;stated that traffic had been discussed here and at the general Plan hearings and he was of the understanding that Planning Commission Minutes _10 February 1,; 1982 level D would be unacceptable to the community. He asked the Commission to examine traffic on Mountain and Vineyard Avenues and he hoped that there would be a more acceptable level of traffic for Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated that since Victoria has been approved and things are not as they had been proposed he would caution them to go slow on Terra Vista. Commissioner Rempel stated that there is only one lake that may have disappeared in Victoria and is subject to negotiation. He indicated that it is not really a lake but a pond and that there are not any discrepancies between what was proposed and what is being approved. He did not think that the Commission has gone into, the area of finalizing densities and as far as the City of Rancho Cucamonga is concerned, he hoped that they would never build a street like Mountain Avenue. Mr. Lyons stated that presently there are 21,000 dwelling units in the City and that between Victoria and Terra Vista that number is again proposed which would increase the City 100 percent. Commissioner Sceranka stated. that both Terra Vista and Victoria will be built over the next 20 years. He stated that they are trying to set specific parameters and foresee what it will be like 20 years from now and they are trying to do long-range planning. Commissioner Rempel stated that be did not feel that the planning process could be slowed down and that there is absolute urgency in completing the planning process. He indicated that this build out will not be determined by what this Commission decides but by what subsequent Commissions do and it will be> constantly changing. Commissioner Dahl stated that no matter what the Commission does in this planned community or in the past planned community his position is extremely clear that once he is comfortable with a project and supports it that is what he expects to see come forward. He further stated that if it moves from what was brought forward he will refuse to support any phase of that development. John Lyons stated that Commissioner Dahl is to be commended for that. Mr. Vairin stated that part of the overall discussion is tied into the next topic which is residential distribution. Chairman King stated that although the Commission was not talking about circulation as the subject, it appeared to be the bulk of the Commission's conversation. He indicated that they need something to look at the overall densities in Terra Vista and Victoria and need more explanation of what is being proposed and whether it is consistent with the General. Plan; how it relates to the impact on traffic and density; and where it would be appropriate to reduce densities. Commissioner Sceranka stated that what the Commission needs to do is take a look at the plan and determine if the service level and design Planning Coimnission Minutes _11- February 1, 1982 criteria densities are appropriate He further stated that they will get more data to look at the relative numbers but did not feel at; this time it is right to compare consistency with the General Plan until some other determinations are made Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt that in, light of the traffic analysis and densities in the area around Base Line and Haven it should be changed to low density whore medium is now shown... He felt that this should be redesignated low and low-medium density as the people in the area would feel more comfortable. Commissioner Dahl, asked how it would affect Haven if density was reduced. r. Rougeau replied that it is hard to assess because it would be. the result of ,the development north of "Base Line. Commissioner Dahl stated : that all along ,Haven there is low density type housing although higher up there are higher density tracts. He indicated that if there are 4 units per acre and this creates 6-7 trips a day x 1.4 units per acre ;you will still be cutting trips out and he felt that this should continue to be of, the same type units that are presently there. Commissioner Rempel -stated that Commissioner Dahl missed the point than in beeping this low density residential you will have children trying to cross the street. He stated that single family residential will add to traffic and that single family residential should not take place along a highly travelled street Commissioner Rempel stated that there are areas that need changing and he was happily ;surprised 'when'he saw that staff had changed the interior loop in Terra Vista because he felt it should be changed Commissioner Dahl stated ,that' the aesthetics of the surrounding area should be:retained Chairman King, stated that he was in concurrence with Commissioners Rempel and Sceranka in that it is more appropriate to structure a higher density along Haven because it will provide for better landscaping and buffering along Haven. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would seem that all along Hagen it is a wailed community without any ingress teas or egress and so this i i irrelevant. He indicated that: if there is low density you will have fewer people crossing the street and he 'agrees with Chairman King on improved landscaping and;buffering He felt that higher density there would be better. ,I Planning Commission; Minutes 1 . February 1., 198 it For the clarification of those in the audience, Commissioner Sceranka stated that what the Commission is talking about is not high density but medium density. Commissioner "lolstdy felt that higher density in this area would provide an opportunity of making that area better and provide more open space. e questioned hoer people would get away from congestion along Milliken and ,asked that this be addressed. Commissioner Rempel stated that on pages 4 54 there is a good illustration and this type of drawing needs to be elaborated on to provide more visuals or graphics. Mr. Ki Sash Park stated that they hoped to present more consistent plans so that the Commission would more thoroughly know what they have;in mind. He indicated that they would provide more visuals and details to discuss e further indicated that since this is all. in one color, they would attempt .to separate the public from the private greenways and show this in more detail. Commissioner Scerank.a expressed his concern with the two neighborhood/ commercial shopping centers at Milliken, stating that he did not want theft there. He said that it would make perfect sense to have the 's in the northwest quadrant of the City because of :the adjacency to the parks and RC. He stated that there are two high density sections in the plan directly, above the office park and commercial.. He felt that the high section north of the loop could be better located if the M was to the east of that, next to the park. Chairman King stated that it would appear that a ].or of the issues that the Commission will deal: with revolve around density and the issue of density. From his standpoint he felt the best way of approach and focus is through discussion of some sort and an oral presentation detailing the: organization and approach combined with a visual presentation. He indicated that he would like to know why they have planned the way they did and stated it would seem that it would be better focused if the Commission could have conversation in back and in front, and that he would like this for the nextmeeting. lie indicated if the applicant came prepared .to give an explanation rather than none or a very general presentation, it would be better. Mr. Park'replied that he would be very happy to make a" detailed presentation. Commissioner Rempel staged that he would like a visual or graphic pre- sentation to show how high density and the greenbelt area. relate. Mr. Vairin suggested to the applicant that this be done for the February 8g p y 22 meeting as there would. be ;room can the agenda for it. Mr. Lewis stated that he would be delighted to have :it moved up to the February 22 agenda andasked if staff would like them to come in and Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 1 1982 explain how the plan was alone or show how changes could be made based on Commission. comment. Chairman ling replied that it should be both ways and that if they feel that.; they'have';the best thing going on wheels it should be shown so that we know what the logic is behind it and incorporate it in the presentation. Commissioner Remp l stated that Mr.. Lewis had observed a lot of consensus tonight, _ Mr. Lewis: stated that they would tray to get in before the 22nd in carder to have their material reviewed. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission may ask why this had not been done' and explained that it would be more meaningful to the applicant to have the input from the Commission relative to land use. Mr. Lam suggested that Mr. Park put something of that scale on the wall so that each speaker could point to it rather than a slide projector which flips on and off. Mr. Pa.rk. Mated that this would be done Mr. Ilan Russo, a resident near Haven and Base: Line,, stated that he agreed completely with Commissioner Dahl'Dahl's comments relative to the density issue at Base Line and Haven. He indicated that they had been lead to believe that the area-near" them would be recreationally devel- oped and then a neighborhood commercial shopping center was proposed. He indicated that there had been negative reactions to the shopping, center and they wanted to see low density more in keeping with what is already there. He stated that he did not see how the Commission or the developer could ignore the wishes of the people who are there. Chairman ling stated that the lower density and foot traffic can Milliken makes much sense. He indicated that the point he and Commissioner Tol.stoy brought up relative to most quarter acre development on major thoroughfares there is a block wall. He indicated that the point is not necessarily that they are unsightly but that there are better ways of landscaping and which would look better from ;the road. He stated that if they say there should be quarter' acre lots can the east side of Haven they; must ask how they can treat landscaping so that there are not block walls on broth sides of the street, -sl Commissioner Dahl stated ,that you can have a very good visual effect with good 'landscaping and used; as an example Mountain Avenue between <I 1 th Street and Base Line. He, indicated that he was not convinced that just because there would be 7200 square foot Tots that there must also, e ugly landscaping: Mr. Russo stated that the: Commission could not ignore the houses that are already there as some must face Haven and Base Line... He indicated that most houses will face inside and there will be a lot that can I Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 1,- 1982 be done with landscaping but that there would be a lot of block walls, too. He indicated that rock could also be used with shrubs and trees. He felt that there should be some consistency to blend the old with the new as the walls cannot be knocked down. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Commission understood his concern but that one of the things that must be addressed is whether or not the opinions that he has specifically and Mr. Russo's concerns are being ignored or if they are being dealt with in a different way. He indicated, that if you take a 130-foot street it will carry 50,000 cars and that is a lot of impact on homes on the west side and that is something signifi- cant to consider and far beyond what goes in on the east side. He indicated that they do not want to create the same frustration on the east side of the street that will be on the west side of the street and they will try to mitigate this with greater setbacks and different types of housing stock. He indicated. that Mr. Russo is sitting behind a block wall and drainage channel, road, median, more road, setbacks and housing stock and he stated that he cannot see in any way how those units could bed detriment to the existing neighborhood. He indicated that this Commission, is dealing with problems that the County did not deal with and that 4-14 dwelling units per acre can provide more open space than 4 dwelling units per acre can. Commissioner Rempel. stated that when the term medium density is used, you think of apartment houses that will be right up against the street. He indicated that the housing that goes in will be comparable to single family residential and this is how development standards have been set up in the City. Mr. Russo thanked the Commission for listening and asked that they analyze what he said. Mr. John Lyons stated that the Lewis Development Company should do something to educate the Etiwanda community about the plan. Mr. Lewis indicated that they held two open meetings and sent notices to all residents along Haven and in Etiwanda but that they would be happy to meet with any neighborhood group who wished to learn more about the Terra data, Plan. Mr. Lyon replied that the meetings were held over the Christmas holidays and many people were unable to attend or were out of town. Commissioner Sceranka commented on the remarks about keeping the proposed development in line with what is already there, and indicated that be did not want a carbon copy of what is already there. He indicated that he wanted to add or improve on what is already there with amenities and type of landscape treatment. He indicated that they want to provide a place that people can afford and he wished that some of the projects that have been approved by this Commission would be built so that people would see what they are like. Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 1, 1982 Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt the ity°'s standards are very high and that they are asking for quality in the City. He questioned statement made about improving the quality of life in the City and whether or not each and every one of the Commission would be happy to , live in one of these units, he would refer back to his statement that a 750 square foot: house centerlined on a 3000 square" foot lest would be the type of house that every one of us would want to live in and he did not feel that ,everyone sitting in this room would want to call this home so he has some problems with it. He indicated that he has no problem with density in the right places. In Tura. Vista, because it is in the center of the City, this is where density is most appropriate. H indicated that landscaping and appearance can be taken care of. He felt that impacts should-be lessened in ;single family areas where' there are 7200_square foot lots. He felt that no argument had been made against what he said about not having 14 dwelling units per acre along Haven Commissioner Rempel stated that all you have to do is drive up Dayton which is the street just west of him and tell him that just because you have; a 7200 or`8000 square foist lot you will automatically have a nice looking lot or that a home of 1700 1800 square feet assures that it will be nice. He indicated that these homes are degrading his property. Commissioner Dahl stated that Commissioner Rempel. was using a poor illustration. , Commissioner Rempel stated that you can' t have bath. Further that neither one of those are criteria for what he is saying;: Mr. Va.iriz summarized 'Topic lira`. 4 and asked for consensus among the Commission in setting up specific guidelines® He indicated that the standards are not standards as stated and there are many ambiguous terms that are statements rather than guidelines. He indicated that more diagrams and cross sections are needed for grade separation and design detail. He asked for the Commission' s consensus, Commissioner Dahl stated that the Commission had already provided -'consensus through the green book that had been passed along with the descriptions and emphasis it contained. He indicated that the emphasis placed on design standards was excellent and needed to be incorporated into the text. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would concur with staff recommendation on the last section of the report. - The Commission gave. their consensus on this also. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded; by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn to February 22, 1982 for the second Terra Vista public hearing,. Chairman King stated' that he would encourage community participation in the hearing process. - Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 1, 1982 Respectfully sub itted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 1, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 27, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Forum of the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King (Commissioner Sceranka arrived at 7:10) ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes of January 13, 1982. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the meeting tonight would adjourn to February 1, 1982 for the first public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community. This meeting would be held in the Forum of Lions Park Community Center at 7 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REVISIONS OF CONDITIONS FOR TRACT NO. 10277 - BA��IAN�, WO�LFF, ANTS ASSOCIATES - A 30 unit single family subdivision located at the northeast corner of Almond and Carnelian requesting a change from public to private interior streets. Chairman Jeff King stepped down at 7:10 p.m. and abstained from vote on this item due to the fact that his family owns property in the area of this project. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau if he would explain Condition 2D of the Resolution.. Mr. Rougeau explained that this Condition was to retain the access easements provided for in the original subdivision. He pointed out on the map the easements provided to the adjacent properties and indicated that these are easements that would be provided whether the streets are private or public. This Condition was intended to perpetuate this easement. Mr. Rougeau also suggested that if the Resolution was approved, the term northwest be changed to read north. Commissioner 'To lstoy asked if people who would have to use the private access would be forced to join the Homeowner's Association for this tract® Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the Department of Real Estate would require reserves and maintenance to be part of the dues paid by the lot owners. He indicated that problems sometimes come about when the members of the Homeowner's Association do not want to share their private streets with people who are not members and not paying the Association dues. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if he were a, property owner to the north, he would not like to be forced to pay for the use of the private road through the tract. Mr. Rougeau stated that this would be dependent upon whether the property to the north was subdivided or left as one large parcel. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the property to the west of the tract and if there was a street proposed to go to that lot. Mr. Rougeau replied that it was a one or two acre lot with an existing home on it and this was the reason for not placing Carnellan Street straight north as it would cut right through this property. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it would not normally be in the City's best interest to have Carnelian go straight up to provide access to property at the north. Mr. Rougeau replied that to go straight up would be better than a jog in the road. Commissioner Sceranka, asked how access would be provided to the King property. Mr. Rougeau replied that access would come from Almond Street. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Andrew Barmakian, owner of the tract, addressed the Commission. He Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 27, 1982 i stated that he was proposing a development which would offer a greater cross-section of homes to the public. He further staged that he felt that private tract and the type of homes being offerers would increase surrounding property values. Mr. ,Harmakian responded to the statement concerning the Homeowner's Association by saying that if the property to the north of his tract remains a single-owner property, he would allow that owner to use the private street; however, if that property were subdivided, he felt that it would be to the property yawners advantage to carry on the private tract concept. Commissioner Sceranka stated- that he was confused as to why it was sig- nificant to be concerned about the access to the northern properties. ' He asked Mr. Rougeau if there was a problem with this. Mr. Rougeau replied that he did not see a problem as that when the streets were public they were not providing access to the north. Mr.- ,Barmakian stated that he did provide an easement at the end of the cul-de- sac for Mr, King and would retain that easement as it was promised that way. He further stated that he would continue to work with the King family and if need be, sign an Agreement with their on access. 1r. Sam Angona, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he thought that the proposal by Mr. Barmakian was very good project and thought the idea of 'private streets would take the burden of main- tenance and up keep from taxpayers. Mr. Jeff King, adjacent 'property owner, addressed the Commission stating that he did not wish to speak in favor or opposition to the; project and wanted to indicate that there has been no contract or agreement relative to other portions of the property joining into the private roadway subdivision. Commissioner Dahl asked if there had been no agreements between Mr. Barmakian and Mr. ding regarding access. Mr. 'King::replied that contract provided .for two means of access from the subdivision to northern portions of the property and that was the extent of the contract. No commitment whatsoever was made that whether or not the property to the north was subdivided if it world join into the private roadway system. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Hopson if that property owner,would be forced into joining the Association or could they exercise the option of not ,joining. Mr. Hopson replied that the Department of Real Estate would not allow annexation of property. Once the developer looses control of the property, the homeowners will be able to determine who uses streets and this is where the problem arises due to the fact that they sometimes do not want outsiders to use their streets and will: not allow' future development to join their association. He indicated that if it were recorded in the CC&R:'s that property to the north would be provided access easements Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 27, 1982 through the tract, it would be the legal right of those property owners to use their streets. Mr. Hopson indicated, however, that he could foresee that problems would come up in the future. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. King if he were concerned about access to the northern property if there were no access provided through this tract . king replied that he;would not like to address this question and would be glad to answer questions providing background or factual_ information. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. King if he were the property owner or if it was just in his family. Mr. King replied that it was owned by the family., Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the fact that this tract was to have private streets and' a Homeowner's Association bothered Fire King. Mr. King replied that he did not wash to address this question Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Barmakia.n :if he would be ,apposed to moving the gatehouse to allow the straight road to remain as a public road.. Mr. Barmakian replied that this would not help Mr. King's problem. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his one solution was to allow the street in question to go straight and have it become a public road and make the rest a private development. Access to the other lot could be; provided through the Si4ever's ;property. He stated that he did not feel comfortable in making access all the way from the left to the one piece of property with the notch cut out;: He felt that this development may be blocking off toss many adjacent property owners. There were no others who _spoke: in favor or opposition to the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka proposed a motion for discussion. His motion was that the street that goes up on the left become a public street and the private development begin. to the right of this street. He asked if this motion would be appropriate. He asked 1r. Rougeau how this would affect the access easement in Condition 2 . Mr. Rougeau replied that this would require some rewriting of the Res- olution as it would 'still be referring to the access easement can the cut-de-sac. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his intention was to not provide an access easement to the private street Commissioner Rempei stated that this could not be done as it was provided for in the purchasing agreement. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 27, 1982 Mr. Lard stated that the 'Commission could allow the election that the streets become public and not private as this was proposed by the appli- cant and not by the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated if the owner of the property to the north waives their right to have public access to this project he was satisfied with this project and asked if it was appropriate to include the agreement between the property owner to the north and Mr. Barmak an in the motion. Mr. Hopson replied that it could be included as long as there was an alternative if an agreement could not be reached to the satisfaction of Cite staff and which met the intention of the motion and does not stale- mate the project. He stated that it was not unusual to condition project in this mariner and that if it were conditioned to state that in the event that an agreement could be obtained from the property owner to the north that is satisfactory to the Commission that runs with the land if public access would be given up and in that event all the streets would be private. If an agreement could not be obtained, then the western street would be public and all the rest of the streets would be private Commissioner Rempel asked if the map before them was the original map. Mr. Lam replied that it was Commissioner Tolstov asked if it were understood in the conditions that all- the streets in this development would have to meet City standards even of they were private streets. Mr."Roug au replied that it was understood... Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the revision of Conditions for Tentative Tract 10277 for the change from public to private streets provided an acceptable agreement Could be reached with the property owner to the worth of the project. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TCLS"1OY, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS:NERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING Chairman King abstained for the previously stated reason and returned at 7:50 p.m B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT`_NO. 9647 -- COUNTRY HOME, A custom/tract subdivision totaling 15 ,lots on 4.5 acres in the l zone located at the; northwest corner of Heilman and Church N 208-021-22. Planning Commission Minutes -5 January 27 1982 Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner reviewed the Staff Deport. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked hock much dedication was required on Hellman Mr. Rougeau replied, that eleven feet is the requirement for this street. Chairman King opened the ,public hearing: Donald Martin, co-owner of the project, addressed the Commission stating that he was in agreement with the Resolution and Conditions and would answer any questions the Commissioners had. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wanted to commend the developer of the creative. design of the wall and felt that it would be a favorable improvement can the present situation. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 9647. 7:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-08 - A hearing to consider the possible revocation of the Conditional_ Use Permit for a pre- school located at 9113 Foothill, based can failure to comply with Conditions of Approval. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff` Deport, Commissioner Dahl asked to date what conditions were still to be met Mr. Vairin replied that the conditions not stet that were listed on the attachment to the Staff Report were conditions not met as of the date of the suspensions Mr. Lam stated that the issue was not which conditions have not been completed within the last few weeks, but was ;the fact that staff had cooperated with the applicant by giving 'him extensions and allowing him to operate while completing conditions and the applicant was: not making progress towards their completion. Most of the work that was completed was of a sub--standard nature and had to be redone. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. 1r. Sharma, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he had been in contact with the Building and Safety Division and had been working toward the completion of his Conditions` of Approval. Planning Commission minutes -6- January 27, 1982 III There were no further comments and the ;public hearing was closed. There was further discussion regarding the conditions and licensing of this facility. It was the Commission's consensus to continue this item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 81- 5 to the. February 10, 1982 Planning Commission meeting and that the Building and Safety Official, ,ferry Grant, he in attendance to answer questions concerning which conditions had: and had not been met and to also answer questions con- cerning licensing and occupancy of facilities of this type AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, E " L, SCERANKA, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE- ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE D. ZONING ORDINANCE NDMENT NO. 52-01 - A Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -01 modifying Section 61.0219 of the Zoning Code providing, for; regulation of compact cars. Jack. Lam, Community Development Director, reviewed the:. Staff Deport. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission could request the City Council to draft an Ordinance to provide for the ticketing of cars parked in compact car spaces that were regular size cars. Mr. Hopson replied that the Commission could suggest this to the City Council and felt it was worth mentioning. Commissioner Tolstgy asked if this would he possible since it would be private property. Mr. Hopson replied that if signs were posted stating that a person could be ticketed for parking in compact spaces if not driving a compact car and it was written in an ordinance, then the police could ticket those individuals Commissioner Sceranka stated that there was a provision in the Industrial Specific Plan;to trade off compact car spaces for bicycle spaces and felt that this might be a consideration of the Commission in this Resolution. The public hearing ;was opened. There were no comments in favor or opposition and the public hearing was closed. planning'Commission Minutes -7- January 27, 198 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had read a report that indicated that half of the cars purchased in the United States last year were larger cars and asked what would be done with these compact spaces when they were no longer,in demand. He also stated that he felt that it was a dangerous situation when large cars park in the compact spaces and encroach into the. right-cif-way. Commissioner Rempel stated that Design Review would regulate the placement of compact spaces so that they would not encroach into the right-of-way and that ticketing of cars would help eliminate people from parking is compact spaces with regular size cars Chairman Fling asked if all the Commissioners concurred with the Cl figure and that the 'Design Review should use n great amount of discretion and sensitivity as to where compact spaces are placed and that City Council should consider some type of a ticketing process as well as the trade off;for bicycle spaces ` Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sc .rank , carried to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Zoning, Ordinance Amendment No. S -ill with the incorporation of the bicycle use. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCE ice, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TOLSTOY ; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioners Tolstoy and Dahl voted no on this project as they felt on- site circulation problems would be created by the approval of this Resolution Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Scerank:a, carried,, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the drafting of an Ordinance which would authorize the posting of sighs designating that persons parking in compact car spaces with regular size cars would he ticketed and the authorization of the police department to issue those tickets, -;1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOTE Commissioner Dahl stated that, this would be at the discretion of the police department to determine in some parking lots which were compact spaces and which were not, therefore he was apposed. Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1982 NEW BUSINESS E. RESOLUTION 79-15A LANDSCAPE STANDARDS - A Resolution revising landscaping standards for Special Boulevards, Secondary and Collector Streets to implement the General Plan. Michael. Vai.rin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report stating that he wished to propose a change in, the attachment to the Resolution under the Special Boulevard section-. He indicated that the wording in the first two items did not come;out as intended and the intention was to have the frontages at 45' average depth and if parcels were not very deep, the 20% figure could be used. Mr. Vairin suggested that the language be changed to react; A landscaped area atong the Special- Boulevard frontage ;shall be provided at an average depth, equal to 20% of the 'depth of the property as measured from the face of the ultimate curb location® The landscaped area need not exceed 45' in depth,, however,, in no case shall these be less than 2 ' of landscaping measured from face of the curb. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution revising the landscape standards with the rewording as suggested by Mr. Vai.rin. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL,, REMPEL, RING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner 'Tolstoy proposed that: the Commission appoint a committee to coordinate a street signing program. He felt that street signs should be designed to give a sense of pride in the Community. Commissioner Dahl concurred with this suggestion and recommended that a committee be formed to analyze designs for street signs. The following committee members were selected: Rick Gomez, ;lack Lam, Herman Rempel and Peter Tolstoy. :This committee is to report back to the Commission with its findings as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel:, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously to adjourn to special meeting on February 1, 1982. 8:53 p.m,, The Planning Commission Adjourned. Planning Commission Minutes -9 .January 27 198 Respectfully submitted, JACK jeVcary CITY, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Zing called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to carder at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Forum of the Lions Party Community Center, 9161 Base Lire Road, Rancho cho Cucamonga. Chairman ding then led in the Pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT:: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl Herman Rempael Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolsto , Jeffrey King ABSENT: C011MISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner; Lloyd Hobbs, Cite Engineer; ,ferry Grant, building Official; Cart Johnston, Assistant Planner; .loam Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of CommunityDevelopment; Paul Rcau eaau, Senior Civil. Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by R:empel,, seconded by Tol_stoy, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the December 9, 1981 meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the December 17 1981 meeting. it ttNCEMEN ~ Mr. Lana advised that Item F of this agenda would not be discussed, He indicated that a number of people in the community have expressed a desire to discuss this item and at opportunity would be given to, them to do so before this again comes before the Commission. Mr. Lam further advised that since this item is a parcel map it would be held for the zoning hearing and; these items would be dealt with concurrently. He asked that the public hearing be opened and closed at 'tonight's meeting with the project to he readverti.sed as a new project at some future date. Mr. Lam ,rated that the 1982 Planning, Commissioners Institute will. be held from February 24 through the 26. Further, that because the Commission would hold a regular meeting on February, 24, a new meeting date would have to be established. he asked if February 22 would he acceptable to the'Commission, stating that the new meeting; date would be advertised, to advise of the change. I II -- ------------- It was the consensus of the Commission that the second regular meeting date for the Planning Commission be changed to February 22, 1982. Mr. Lam indicated that tinder Director Reports, Items 0 and P would be reserved. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-01 dealing with time extensions for varl'olis tentative tracts. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve Items B and C of the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE POLLOWING TENTATIVE TRACTS: Tentative Tract 10046 Tentative Tract 10047 Tentative Tract 10349 'Tentative Tract 10277 Tentative Tract 10316 Tentative Tract 11606 Tentative Tract 11625 Tei-itative Tract 10035 Tentative Tract 9441 Tentative Tract 11609 B. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAP: Parcel Map 5126 C. REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 11605 - N1311ANK - A chaage from a 65 unit condominium development of 66 lots to a 65 unit development on 70 lots located at the southwest corner of Base Line and Hellman. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7244 - THE Tit BERT MAYER C—OP—UPORATION - A residential subdivision of 23.1 acres into 2 lots located, on, the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue - APN 290-091-5, 6. Chariman King opened the public hearing. There being no Comments from the floor, ttie public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to remove this item from this agenda and reschedule it at some future date. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 13, 1982 J D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 81-01 - LAWLOR - A request for a change of zone from R-1-20,000 and R-1-14 acres to R-1-30,000 for approximately 46 acres es of land, generally located on the north side- of Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN 200-061-12, 200-051-06, and 1061-172-03. Chairman King stepped down due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Lam reviewed the staff report stating that this item, is a request for a change of zone from R-1-20,000 and R-1-14 acres to R-1-30,000. Commissioner Dahl asked if presently there is a zoning classification for R-1-30,000. Mr. Hopson replied that the Zoning Ordinance is flexible enough to permit this zoning classification and that there is justification within the Ordinance for it. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Leon Redding, representing the applicant, concurred with the rec- ommendation. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt Reso- lution No. 82-04, approving a zone change to R-1-30,000 for 46 acres of land and recommending a zone change to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy voted no for his previously stated reasons that a larger site should be made available to those individuals who would prefer them. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it was his belief that the property to the north is extremely sensitive and that the vote of the Commission on this portion of the property should have no reflection on the northern piece. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, SCERANKA, RE EL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 13, 1982 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-18 JAS - The development of a contractor's service yard including two buildings totaling 1 ,795 square feet on 3.5 acres of land in the General 'lndustrial/Rail. Served category, located at 9460 Lucas Ranch Road APN 10-013- 2. Mr. Vairin reviewed the staff report. Chairman King ripened the 'public hearing. Mr. Juan Baires, contractor, stated that he was willing to answer any questions. There being none or any further comment, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No:: 82-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 81y-18 its concurrence with the findings for this project C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL P 7344 - THE MESSENGER COMPANY An industrial subdivision of 4.56 acres into 1.3 lots located on the south side of Foothill, east of Maple Place - APN 08-351-03 Mr. Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff, report. Mr. Hopson asked about lot 9 described in the staff report, stating that it appeared to front about 300 feet, whereas, lot 13 appears to have less than 100 feet and might have as little as 90 feet of frontage. Mr. Vairin stated that for purposes of this item, lot 9 had to be included. Commissioner Rempel stated that if that assumption is used, lot 1 should .also be included. Mr. Rouge au replied that sincelot 11 is an interior street, it need not be included. Further, chat the intent is to provide for lots with smaller frontages, Commissioner Ring asked the. Commission what their ideas- were relative to access on lot 13. Mr. Vairin replied that speaking for the Planning ,Staff; he did not see the necessity for shared access on lot 13. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. ,I There being no comments, the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimsouly, to adopt Resolution No. 8 -06, with the issuance of a negative declaration, approving Parcel Map No. 7244. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 13 198 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7218 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL COMPANY - An industrial subdivision of 1-5.43acres into 2 lots located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 8th Street APN 229-261-47. Mr. Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Westling, representing R. C. Industrial Company, stated that at. present there is no building on the right side of this property, but that one is proposed. Mr. Nestling questioned item 10 of the Engineering Report relative to undergrounding the utilities. He indicated that they will be serving lot 2 and that they did not plan to run them to lot 1 and asked if this would be satisfactory. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would require the street to be excavated to go to the lot. Mr. Westling replied that they would bring the utilities five feet beyond into lot 1 . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought the utilities should be stubbed out and asked if the street was already there. Mr. Westling replied that the east half is already constructed but the west half was not. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the street goes in the utilities should go in also because by doing this the street will last longer. He indicated that it is his opinion that breaking up a street to put the utilities in damages the street in the long run. Mr. Rougeau stated that if it was all, right with the Planning Commission, what Mr. Westling had said would fulfill the requirements of the item. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-07, approving Parcel Map No. 7218. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 13, 1982 OLD BUSINESS I. APPEAL OF GRADING COMMITTEE DECISION ON GRADING PLAN FOR 5171 SUNSTCNE STREET - JOHN D. ROSE AND ASSOCIATES .Jerry Grant, Building Official.,, reviewed the staff report and explained that currently there were no lots of the type proposed in the city. He indicated that a lot of the type proposed would not fulfill the condition of the Grading Ordinance ;and therefore the Planning Commission's guidance is requested. Mr. Grant stated that the Planning Commission has a determination and decision to make on whether the staff approach of modifying grading is correct, and if it is, then the Commission has two alternatives as outlined in the staff report: Chairman Ring asked what Mr. Grant sees that are drawbacks, or, if a position is taken, what grading is wrong, and what argument would he give Mr. Grant replied that from a "technical -standpoint, fill could be brought in and the site could be properly compacted to prevent any problems. Further, that technically there is no problem that could not be overcome with; proper grading. He indicated that the question is one of an aesthetic nature and whether the purpose has been achieved of proper grading and, limiting slopes in the City. Chairman King asked: if Mr. Grant were to take a position to argue;against the proposed grading if it would be done from an aesthetic paint of view: Mr. Grant replied that essentially that would be the case. Commissioner Sceranka asked in terms of the lots is the north, northeast and east low the grading of this lot would affect those:. He: indicated that:his primary concern was the impact on the: lots to the north. Mr. Grant replied that the lot to the north could drain to Sunston.e and that: the lot to the northeast slope's almost completely to this lot and as a consideration of the grading review, it will be required to have an easement because it would be difficult to drain the lot without it. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the grading were less severe what effect it would have on drainage. He further asked if there was any feeling of a negative impact on the properties to the north and northeast Mr. Grant replied that he dial not think there would be a problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was very concerned with the city getting proper grading. He indicated that this proposal violates sections A, C and D of the Grading Ordinance and e reminded the Commission that one of the reasons that the City incorporated was because the County allowed such grading. Planning Commission Minutes -6- , January 13, 198 Commissioner Rempel stated his disagreement. He indicated that this proposed slope does not compare with the County and the grading as proposed would improve the corner and make it look more like a hillside lot. He felt that the overall slope would flatten the existing slope and, he concurred with the applicant and what he is trying to do. Commissioner Rempel further stated that he thought that this is a proper application of grading. Commissioner Dahl stated that he has ridden over to the site and does not agree with the statement that this piece of property is in a natural state. He indicated that it appears to have been cut and filled. Commissioner Dahl stated that he did not feel the Commission would be going against the ordinance because there is a grade to the property and what is being proposed will bring it closer to what it should be. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried, that the grading as proposed is in compliance with the Grading ordinance and that the Planning Commission approves the appeal with an amendment to the motion that this does not set a precedent since it cannot be determined what the grading on this lot was previously, and because the grading in this area is as it is, it is logical and equitable that the applicant be allowed to grade as proposed. Further, that the final grading plan be brought to Design Review for final. approval. Commissioner Tolstoy voted no for his previously stated reasons. 7:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-38 - DONAT - The development of a total of 37,000 square feet of office buildings on 3.25 acres of land in the C-2 zone, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue - APN 208-301- 16 & 17. Mr. Dan Coleman reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that because of the fact that parking is in front of the building which faces Foothill Boulevard, what conditions did the Committee make to provide for berming to obscure the view of the parking lot. Mr. Coleman replied that 2 to 3 foot berms were required but if the Commission feels that more is needed, the condition can be amended. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the terming would be similar to K-Mart rather than Gemco. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 13, 1982 Mr. Coleman replied that since this project would be on the south side of the street the berming will be 4-5 feet below and there will be a hedge row along the parking lot to obscure the view into the parking lot. Commissioner Sceranka asked in terms of the alley, is the City, going to maintain it as a matter of policy. Mr. Rougeau replied that the City will and that it will be resurfaced and fixed up as part of this development. Mr. Rougeau further stated that in the future, the Planning Commission and City Council may be asked to give up alleys because of their maintenance. Commissioner Sceranka stated that if the City is thinking of abandoning alleys in the future, why are they approving them, now. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is because access is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of drainage there will be and whether it will flow to Ramona. Mr. Rougeau stated that this project would improve the water flow and that drainage would be routed to Ramona. Commissioner Rempel, suggested that a concrete swale be constructed down the center of this alley to eliminate future problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement. Mr. Rougeau stated that this will be required. Mr. Kirk Donat, agent and architect for this project, stated his con- currence with staff's recommendations with the exception of 4 items. Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Donat if the CUP that was previously approved would be nullified as a result of this project if it is approved. Mr. Donat replied that this would be so. Mr. Donat asked under the Planning Commission conditions if Item No. 4 would, be an issue or slow down the project. ,Mr. Coleman replied that tentatively, this will be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Hopson replied that implicit in this is that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment passes in order for the CUP to be approved. He indicated that if it does not pass, there would be a problem. Mr. Vairin stated that this would be handled through language that should this happen, the spaces would be redesigned. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 13, 1982 Commissioner Tempel asked if there could be language that a variance be granted. Mr. Hopson replied that there are provisions within the ordinance that administratively a deviation could be permitted; however, if it is too great, a formal application would have to be made. Mr. Vairin stated that a 10 percent deviation is allowed and this would be within the requirement. Mr. Lam stated that there would not be a problem because the Industrial Specific Plan discussed this and there would not be a difference between this and what was approved. Mr. Donat stated that Condition J-3 requires a cash deposit and they would prefer a lien agreement. Mr. Donat stated that Condition L-2 relative to the installation of underground utilities was of concern, with the implication of utility poles on, the south side of the property. He indicated that there are houses to the south and installation of those service lines would dis- rupt service to those houses. He indicated that this would create a reasonable hardship to the applicant that they wish to have this addressed along with the vacation requirement along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. S,.B. Donat, the applicant, asked how quickly the vacation process could be completed to allow recordation of the parcel map. He indicated that he was concerned because of the economic implications of availability of construction loans. Mr. Rougeau replied that the vacation of alleyways is a process that takes 6,-8 weeks and that a frontage road to the south is essential. He indicated that they could continue to discuss this to help him out but there really is no way of speeding up the process. Mr. Donat stated that his concern is to get the title company to insure the lender. Mr. Hopson stated that they will not insure the loan unless it is recorded. Mr. Donat stated that he thought they were already to go with a minor revision, Mr. Rougeau stated that the application process will take a certain amount of time and there was nothing that the Commission can do to hasten the process. Mr. Vairin stated that a point had been brought up that he was unaware of relative, to phasing and indicated that there should be a recollmienda- tion for a phasing plan to be submitted for review for items such as landscaping across the frontage, the seeding of pads, etc. for the first phase. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 13, 1982 would includeesurf resurfacing of the Commissioner c:erartk asked d i that:. _ alley and further asked about the cash deposit. Mr. Fougeau replied that Staff had been asking for lien agreements only to find that applicants would rather make a cash deposit. He indicated that they could work: this out. He indicated that the median island will not be first. Further, the utilities on the .south side of the property would be a question for the Planning Comtaissi:on, He indicated that the applicant can be required'. to underground up to the houses or underground what he has but it would :not accomplish anything.' Commissioner Hempel stated that he would agree that the transformer should be underground but to bring it back up on the other side is not pratical and he would agree with the applicant's request. Commissioner Dahl stated that not too long ago the Commission looked at areas to be undergrounded such as Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rougeau stated that this is along the alley and not Foothill. Commissioner Hempel felt that this project has a good design„ Motion; Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-08, with an amendment to discuss the phasing plan; modification to condition No. 4 so that if there is a problem with the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would not; have to go back to the Commission; modification; to allow a lien agreement; instead of a cash deposit; that the utilities have facilities on site that are typical of underground but that they would not have: to go through the alleyway, and, that: the applicant's concerns with altranws requirement relative to the entrance be worked at between the City and Caltrans. H. ' DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11934 - VICTORIA - WILLTAM LYON C - The development of 301 single family homes within the Victoria. Planned Community located north of :Base Line Road, west of Etimanda Avenue, and south of Highland Avenue. g � Mr. Vairin reviewed the staff report stating that since its preparation Staff has had an opportunity to discuss it with the developer. I . Vairin indicated that there is a typographical error in the document which reads that there should be 20 feet between buildings in the 7200 square foot lot area; however, the original text which was approved reads that there should be 10 feet. Mr.. Vairin asked that this require- ment for 20 feet be stri en from the report. Mr. Vairin provided clari.- fica ion on item. 5 indicating that architectural treatment would be unnecessary in places such as the Edison corridor or areas that would not be visible from the roadway. Mr. Vairin indicated that in require- ment 7 of the staff report, the intent is for slopes that are highly visible. (Further, that there are only two items to clarify on the Planning Commission Minutes _10- January 13, 1982 conditions ofapproval: _ 1. The variation of roof material in the 3000 square foot lot area such as tile, aaa SOnite, etc 2. The height of the proposed fences in the Planned Community.- lie indicated that the ,developer will provide fencing in the 3000 square foot lot area and has asked for d minimum of 5-foot fending.; Mr. Vairin stated that the Ciity's requirement adopted by the Ci,ty C".ounci.]. for;fencing minimum is 5.5 feet for any unit that has a pool or spa. He suggested that the fencing issue be taken up as a separate condition with future review by the City Council. Jerry Grant, Building Official, provided background information on the requirement for a .5. 5 foot fence height. lie indicated that; this was minimum and not a maximum because of a sloping condition. He indicated that it is the City's policy to encourage Ca-foot fencing height and not 5-foot fences. Commissioners Rempel. and Tol toy stated that this is something that would have to be hashed out at some future time and felt that a 6-foot requirement is ridiculous. Mr. Vairin also indicated that clarification is needed relative to storage of recreation:on vehicles. Ilse :.,arg ested a ward amendment slriicking the words "all lots with" and substituting "for".< Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not understand why` Condition o 4 is there. r. Vairin repi.ixed that it is a condition of the planned community text that was notrealized at the time of Development Review and was heeded for clarification so that there was understanding by the developer. Commissioner Sceranka asked if these is a particular requirement on Condition Flo." 6. Mr. Vairin replied that there was none that he was aware of. Chairman King asked the Commission if they would like to address their questions ons as they arise or if they wished to have the applicant's rep- resentative make his presentation and then raise their questions. The consensus of the Commission w s to wait until. after the applicant's presentation, , Mr. Bob Jacob, representing SWA, addressed a landscaping concern in the 000 square foot lot area. lie indicated that they want to extend quality throughout the project and explained that alders, pins and eucalyptus Planning ;Commission Minutes January 15 1982 1 Red finnan, would be used along the parkway. He stated that these trees have extremely 'rapid growth and will reach a "height of 0 feet art. few years. He also explained that turf lock would be used at the end of the streets that are visible as you look downy them to break the corners and to give a more appealing effect. fir. Jacob also explained that trees would he planted in front of the fences. Mr. Crary Frye, representing the William Lyon Company, spoke of a few architectural. changes that they proposed and stated that with the con- cept presented they would maximize space and the look of space. Mr. Frye indicated that the drawing that is being shown to the Commission was not correct in that the fences should be drawn in hack of the area. Mr. Frye pointed out the, steep roof lines in the development w1fl ch is to provide a n"doll house" or or "cute" concept and painted out the variation: in the side of the houses. Mr. Frye stated that the color palette would use more than earth tones and felt that asphalt shake roofs are appropri- ate for this area. Mr. Frye stated that originally they thought that -zero lot line would he hest but after rethinking the concept felt that what they have presented is more favorable. He provided a drawing of froth concepts stating that the ley difference and what lend them to go to the center-plotted concept was the interior space. He indicated that because of the kitchen location they would be unable to go to a zero lot line. Mr. Frye stated that pride of ownership was important and in detached houses this concept will be more saleable than the zero lot 'line. He indicated that this ;company would be around for a long tiara: and it is the long-term that they are looking at. Mr. Frye stated that relative to the condition on fencing, they want to install a five-foot fence with a ground crass of .four inches which would raise they height of the fence to 'feet 4 inches. He indicated that their concern is not the cost of as six-foot fence but rather that it would he overbearing and they were coming from the aes hetical point o view. Mr. Ronny y Tannenbaum stated that overall, the: developer has done afi good Job on the plannedcommunity; ''however, it appeared that, on this sub- division they have taken larger homes and simply shrunk them and he, would have preferred if the streets were not maximized and if theme were some zero lout lines:because what ;is being proposed is not the kind of innovation they thought they were getting. .30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 9:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that this tract needs to set as good example since it is the first to :be filed in the vast unimproved portion of the city. He, indicated that some of the thinks the Planning Commission g - 1.3,, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes l - January should look at is innovative tract design. He stated that part of has phi_losphy is ai variety of product to minimize the tract. appearance and that variable lot size, architectural, excellence, good landscape, design, and 'efficient use of space are important, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he supports reasonable density and smaller lot sizes and has done so through the General Plan and the Planned ned Community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the, 3000 square Coca lot size area especially does not meet his expectation and felt that Mr. Frye has done an admirable job on many aspects but needs to do something with the 3000 square feast lot area and hoped that the Commission would address this Commissioner Dahl stated that; when looking at the, elevations, there is no problem. lie then stated that he wished to apologize to everyone for making a maaJor mistake in the first- place. lie indicated that when looking at :3000 square foot lots they were looking at zero for Lines. He farther indicated that five-foot side yards are of very :Little use and that they needed to change the roof materials on this tract.. Commissioner Dahl stated that if the hones are 750 squ are feet he will not accept it; as something feasible even for the first time home buyer. Be stated that. he is not opposed to growth and is reasonable in that regard but that a garage is bigger than what is being proposed as as home. Commissioner Bahl stated that when the issue of boulevard trees was brought_ up, the developer felt that they should not be specimens and that the size should be lowered. He indicated that the developer is chapping; away at everything that was originally proposed and that would make the planned community unique. Ile indicated that: until lie sees aa: major change on the entire site he will vote no on each and every item. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not agree with Commissioner Dahl relative to the size of; the Mouses. He indicated that this is the only thing that will bes'affordable for a small family y and for older I people. Commissioner io.I- toys stated tla.at many years ago there were P Hollywood bungalows that are still there, in demand, and are not ob- jectionable. le. Commissioner Dahl stated that looking; at the standpoint of affordability he didn' t know what: the 'price of a 50 square foot home would be versus as 950 square foot home»: tie farther stated that o-Ing; back, to 1930 they were building 900 square foot homes. After World War 11, there were 900 square foot homes and less, and those have progressed to be problem areas of the cities today. lie cited the Kaiser Development project in the Cater of Ontario, as an example. lie indicated that an apartment or condo project would be acceptable in 750 square foot sizes, but not a home.. Planning Commission Minutes -13- alaanuaa ya 13, 1982 . 'Cxommissionex Repel stated that the reasons the Ontario project is having problems is not because of the size but because of the construction of.. the emits and they have deteriorated, rapidly because of it, lie indicated that there are some small Units off of Euclid in Ontario that have fared wel.I and stated that this is not something that should be discussed at this time.. He stated that the Commission musty go forward and was unable to understand the equation that; just because something is smaller, it will. be a slum area Commissioner Dahl stated that to 750 square .root home is too small and he would stand on it. He: indicated that there were some rather reasons such as the lacy. of -zero ;lot Lines and the lack of open space promised which rendered him incapable of supporting the project. Commissioner 3c.eranaka stated that lie was reacting to what Commissioner Dahl stated. He gave his early background and the kind of home he grew up in. He stated that it was not up to the Commission ion to evaluate how big is big enough and that everyone' should have an opportunity to own a home. He stated that if one were just getting married today and there was an opportunity for theme homes he would choose this over an apartment: Commissioner Sceranka stated that in locking at what is trying to be accomplished he can' t believe that Commissioner Dahl would not find this innovative and did not know of any project that is being bui. .t. Bice this He indicated ;that creativity must not be a tanned phrase. Commissioner f,eeranka stated that he liked the 5-foot s dcc yards because of the storage possibilities and felt that having side yards was better than the zero lot line. He stated that the parkway is the biggest feature and felt that the design of the project and its circulation is unique. He stated that if the Commission doesn' t do something g to _allow people to bony in this community they can write off" a lot economically for this community. There was discussion on zero lot lines and open space. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission must look at the Thole project. He indicated that the church site is not in this phase and that it will have an opportunity of coming before the Commission at a later date as will the phcasinag of the park. He stated that he felt there is a lot of innovation and that the Commission never stated that this will be a zero lot line project of 3000 square foot. homes. Commissioner Tolstoy= stated that if lair. Frye brought in a project with ail zero lot line in the 3000 square foot ,]mots he would not .Like it and would', feel, that it would "need variation. He indicated that there needed to be more variation on the south side of the: 3000 square Toot lots but did not want the cost of the louse to go cap. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 131 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that with a little manuevering, they could make this a lot more interesting. Chairman King stated that he has no objection to a 3000 square foot center-plotted plan. He indicated that he shares the same concern relative to variation and relief with creativity or adding a good mix. He further stated that looking at the 3000 square foot area most every- thing on the north side is acceptable, but along the south line there are some boring aspects. Chairman King stated that be would like to see the majority of the homes center-plotted with an, intermingling of zero lot lines and with a right- hand next to a left-hand lot line. He felt there should be a little more mixture to create spice. He also stated that perhaps the widths could be varied and felt there should not be any revision to the size of the units. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the architecture for these types of units is excellent and what the Commission needs to see is just a, little more variation. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 82-09, approving phase I of Tentative Tract No. 11934, with amendments to delete Item 4C, a change to allow some zero lot line units subject to the review of the Planning Commission; change to require fencing to be at a five and one half foot height, unless changed by the City Council.. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Dahl voted no because of his previously stated reasons. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about RV storage and whether what had, been presented to Design Review relative to turn radius and traffic flow had been resolved. Mr. Vairin replied that the developer had not yet resolved this but will design this to fit the minimum standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he understood this to be a temporary situation and asked What the final disposition of RV parking would be. Mr. Frye replied that he did not yet have a specific design:. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that recreation vehicle parking must be convenient and that he hoped that -.it would not just be one large lot but several smaller areas to serve the community. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 13, 1982 Commissioner Reinpel'_stated his agreement with Commissioner Tolsto . Commissioner Rempel stated that at some future time the lot size should be a function of elevation and that it would he well to discuss this at some future meeting prior to the next development being brought before the Commissions Mr. Hopson asked who would be responsible for the plant material within the interior streets. He felt that some comment would be appropriate here. A the responsibility 11�an1W�t of r Tram stated that an tree in a arson s and �s � �' p p the property owner and., if the trees are in the public right-of-way or a major arterial, parkway, it would be included in the City-wide maintenance district. He indicted that there would not be any staff support on interior streets and that he disagreed with the developer that interior ` streets should also be covered in the maintenance district, He indicated that the City Council. would male a decision on this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie felt the interior streets should be included because the City may want to do some maintenance. Commissioner Sceranka also felt that interior trees should be part of the maintenance district because of the difficulty in getting some people to trim trees. r. Lam stated that he is not saying there is a right or wrong way of doing this. lie indicated that this boils down to a policy issue. Further, that the issue will be brought forward upon the annexation of the district. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this issue would be brought before the Commission. He indicated that he would like to provide input to it and that'there should be some: guidelines. Mr. Liam stated that this would be taken tinder advisement. Mr. Frye stated that their belief is that interior street trees should he maintained within the maintenance assessment district. He indicated that there are ;some mechanisms that could separate the maintenance district for the planned community and this would be a lee oint.- p y �' _ I i ! Mr. Hopson asked who maintains the recreational vehicle center and who allocates its spaces. Mr. Frye replied that they dial not have ;an answer as yet for the permanent RV center :and did not wish to answer specifically at this time. He indicated, however, that ,adequate space would be provided for the residents. Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 13, 1982 L. REFERRAL OF GRADING AND WALL LAN FOR TENTATIVE "TRACT 1160 Dan Coleman reviewed the. staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that. the 1 -Beast wall, appeared to be out of scale and asked what; the alternatives to it are. Mr.. Coleman replied that moving the retaining wall bar.k of the lease right.-cad'--tva.y lire with trees and shrubs at the base of the all, pulling the: sound attenuatiran wall six feet at the trap, pleas providing vines would hell). Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not imagine the size of the wall. Commissioner gceran. .a :stated that there had been a lot of discussion On this and he asked who would see the wall and what its purpose is;. Commissioner Tolstdy stated that lie understood but asked about the people at the south encl of the wall , Commissioner Sceranka stated that he slid not feel., they plant material would be a problem because of the sw<.ale, and drainage that would be at the base., of the wall . He felt that this would provide adequate moisture to sustain the plain left. Mr. 'Vairl:n explained the, wall.- and 0iere the vines would be planted. He also provided information on the construction of the wall itself and how the vines would be pulled through the wall. There was further discussion of the wall's construction between the Commission and. the Building Official Mr. Paul Coombs, rej,')resenting the applicant, stated that the wall. has not changed significantly from its original. approval and the reason for this is because of the unwillingness of the railroad to grant an easement.` Mr. ,Coombs also explained how the water would drain beneath the wall. Commissioner To stay asked if there will, he provision for the water to drain. Mr. Coombs replied that there would he Following brief discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that the wall, as proposed, be allowed. Mi REPOT ON VIDEO GAMES D ARCADES Dan Coleman reviewed the staff report , Planning: Commission Minutes -17- January 13, 1982 .......... "" I Commissioner Dahl stated that Exhibit "A" lists non-arcade businesses with video games and asked if there Have been any complaints against these and what the nature of the complaints have been. Mr. Coleman replied that most complaints come from arcade owners. Mr. Vairin replied that nuisance complaints have been recieved. Commissioner Dahl asked how a determination is made on how many machines constitute an arcade. Mr. Coleman replied that there is really no way of determining when it ,is incidental and when it is primary. Commissioner Dahl asked why they were unable to come 'up with an answer. Mr. Vairin stated that it becomes a judgement of reasonableness of when it is TIO longer Incidental. Mr. Dahl spoke of the video games at the Straw Hat Pizza Palace and stated that the only way the games could be controlled would be through a CUP. Commissioner Sceranka stated that any of these users have, the machines because it is good for business and the bottom line is when they go out- side the door, they are creating a. nuisance, He indicated that you can restrict the nuisance factor in a reasonable way and that the Commission should not be dealing with numbers of the machines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had been in a fast food facility which had four machines. He indicated that it was a small store and there were so many people in -.it playing the machines that it presented as hazard if a fire were to break out. He felt that patrons would be unable to get out of the store. Chairman King stated that arcades should be allowed in C-1 and C-2 zones with a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that each request should be examined on a case-by-case basis and that an artificial. number should be created to determine when the number of machines constitute a business and when it is Incidental. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt arcades and, video games should be allowed through the CU11 process, but for the City's protection, an ordinance should be drafted to give some framework» lie felt that these should be regulated in some fashion. Commissioner Rempel agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy, Commissioner Sceranka asked if additional parking spaces were required for the coffee shop at the K-Mart facility and how a determination is made for additional parking spaces if arcades are involved. He asked Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 1.3, 1982 what difference it makes to the City in terms of enforcement if there are machines. He indicated that the number should be removed and that the nuisances should be dealt with as they come up. Chairman King stated that there was consensus from the Commission that video games and arcades be dealt with through the conditional use permit process and that an. ordinance be drafted to provide some framework for their regulation. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to go beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 11 p.m. Commissioner Dahl stepped down. N. TERRA VISTA HEARING AND TOPIC SCHEDULE Mr. Vairin reviewed the staff report. He indicated that a tentative schedule had been provided to the Commission which would set meetings once a month with a limitation in hours of between 7 and 10 p.m. He indicated that February I was set as the first 'Public hearing date. Cbairmian King asked if based on what was presented and the fact that the Commission has two regular Planning Commission meetings a month, if there would be a possibility for a meeting and a half on Terra Vista on a monthly basis. 11 p.m. Commissioner Dahl returned. Commissioner Dahl asked what the agenda is in March. Mr. Vairin replied that a staff report will be provided for the Commission on the 24th of February which would indicate that March I or March 24 would be available for extra items. Commissioner Dahl stated that it would be possible to have an extra meeting in March. Mr. Lam stated that a lot of consideration needs to be given to flexi- bility as this proceeds. Further, that realistically, the Colm-flission will have more meetings than what are being scheduled. Mr. Vairin stated that notices will be sent to everyone within 300 feet of the proposed project and that each meeting will be continued to a time specif i.e. Commissioner Sceranka recommended that the schedule be changed to one meeting per month and that a portion of the second Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes _19- January 13, 1982 of the month be set aside to also consider the Terra Vista project. He indicated that decisions could be made at the second meeting on what had been presented_ at the first Terra Vista meeting. Chairman King stated that this system would create the same Morass as the General Plan Mr. Vairin stated that this system would mean that the. Planning Commission would be invloved in a long meeting if this were to happen. Mr. Lam asked Commissioner 8cenanka if officially there would be two meetings a month or a holdover® Mr. Sceranka. replied that there would be two meetings and whatever was not handled at the first meeting would be covered at the second meeting for a specific 'amount of time. Chairman King disagreed with this proposal stating that the Commission would became burned out as they did with the General. Plan and the Victoria meetings., Commissioner Rempel stated that if Commissioner Sceranka was saying that the Commission should spend one to two hours additional at the regular meetings can Terra Vista, that is too much time. Mr. Lam stated that if there is an opportunity to hold additional time; on this it can be plugged in He stated that realistically if it is once a month for the meetings, there will be times when the Commission would -meet more often Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would officially like one meeting per month because he is ""meetinged ;out". He indicated that Terra vista is important and needs the Commission's best thoughts and unless there- is only one meeting per month ,this would not be the case. 3t was the consensus of the Commission that there be one Terra Vista meeting per month with the first meeting to take place on February 1, 182: Motion: Moved by ling, seconded by Tolstoy, tarried unanimously, to go beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Commissioner Dahl sated that he had met with the Trails Committee and they have expressed an interest in the addition of one more person to the Committee to represent the Etiwanda area:. He asked the Commission to consider this request, Planning Commission,Minutes -20 January 13 198 : Chairman King instructed each Commission member to recommend one person to Nerve on this Committee. Motion: Moved by Sc.eranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. P. ILIG __. S1.0 DRAIN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT � COMPREHENSIVE � FLAN R_EVu SIt7N _0. 1 Mr. ,Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff report. Motion: Moved by Rempel:, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 5 -10, recommending public review, certification and adoption of the Draft EnVironmental Impact Report on the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan revision No. 1, Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka carried unanimously. to adopt the priorities within the Sturm Drain Ilan and recommend adoption by the City Council, 0. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9r». Rougeau reviewed the staff report stating that this has been. forwarded to the Planning Commission following recommendations made by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Commissioner Sceranka, asked about improvement to Hellman Avenue from Base Lima going south and also Arrow, going south. Mr. Rougeau explained the storm drain priority and how it would affect the area referred to by Commissioner Sceraaka stating that the first project listed on the priority list will take care of the problem. Mr. Rougeau also stated that Item No. 3 on the listing will, correct.:. the Cucamonga storm drain while Item No. 4 is the completion of the same project. He indicated that the entire first part of the priority list will tale care of the problem. Commissioner Sceran a stated that he did not see a proposal. for the area south of-Foothill. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is staff's feeling that this will he accomplished by developers. i I Commissioner Tolstoy asked what Item No. 4 on the 81-82 Capital Improvement Program cost Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, replied that the estimate was $400,000. Planning' Commission Minutes , - 1-- January 1:3, 1982 He further stated that the total cost of the project was in the neigh- borhood of $350,000 and was approximately $50,000 tinder cost. Commissioner Ta,-)lstoy asked why staff is recommending Item No. 5, the Alta Loma Channel. Mr. Rouge au replied that it affects many existing properties. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-11, recommending approval of the five-year Capital Improvement Program and finding consistency with the General Plan. Q. MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FOR VICTORIA DEVELOPMENT Mr. Paul. Rougeau reviewed, the staff report. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 82-12, recommending review and >adoption of the master plan of drainage for the Victoria Development. Commissioner Dahl, voted no, reiterating his previously stated reasons regarding Victoria. ADJOURNNT'NT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by roistoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 11:35 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully subml.tted, 'JACK iAM, Secretary P.1,anning Commission Minutes -22- January 13, 1982