HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jan-Dec 1983 MINUTES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING MINUTES
um
Regular' Meeting
n
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout celled_ the Regular Meeting of the City of Ranch
Cucamonga Planning i i n to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lions Perk Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho r:d rr , CA
Chairman Stout titan led in the pledge to the flag.
ROLL, CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dave r, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stoat
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Addle Juarez,ez, Larry Ni l
STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Frank
Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City
Planner; `Edward . Hopson, Assistant amity Attorney;
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse,
Administrative try tive rp t ry; Peal Rougeau, Senior, Civil
Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMNTS
Rick Gomez, City Planner, wished everyone a Merry Christmas from the Community
Development Department
MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the October~ 26, 1983 Planningi i a meeting,
corrected.,rest d. Motion loved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carvied unanimously,
to approve the Minutes of the November , 1983 meeting.
CONSENT CALEN All
Commissioner Barker ~abed, regarding Item A if there will be a financial
it p nt as a result of acquisition of the alleyway requested by the property
owners in the form of increased taxes. . Hopson replied that there could b
n increased valuation of the real property portion of the property ty owner's
tax bill but it. would have a very small effect. Further, this would not cause
reassessment because the acquisition is not a remodeling, addition to the
property or a sale thereof.
Motion: Moved by Rrnpel', seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt AM
the `Consent Slendr.
A. REQUEST FOR ALLEY R VACATION R`II ENorth/south alley located
crest of Center* and south of 26th Street.
S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT RS'V Ew 6 SASRI - The
development of two industrial: mannfacturing buildings totaling
130,272 square feet on 6.1 sores of land in the Industrial Park
category (Subarea 6) located on the northwest corner of " th'Street
and Utica Avenue APN P -01 1 17
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6 DIKE
The development of a 37,000 s . ft. ice cream bar manufacturing
buildingon 5.8 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served
category (Subarea 10) located can the northeast corner of 7th Street
and 'Toronto Avenue APM 09-401 6.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT` 12 MARTIN A
tract suabdi icon of 5 lots on 1 .85 sores of land in the R 1 zone
located on the west side of Hellman Avenue at Palo Alto APR
208-021
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Stout oopened the public hearing.'
Mr . Ron Martin, the applicant, stated that he was familiar r with the conditions
of approval and they are acceptable
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempe . stated that he would like to'see this completed because
this was a problem'before. Co issiondr Re pel questioned reopening the storm
drain and ghat the intent is because it is really plugged up.
Mr. RouS au replied that the, intent is that with the addition of the larger
tract as well, as this one there will be galls in place along the railroad
right-of-way that will prohibit the water from overflowing the way it has
been.
Commissioner emp l asked if it would be more practical to take that drain out
to Hellman to the top lot
Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 14, 1983
Pou d u replied that staff is looking at that possibility nd also for the
easiest ways to maintain the drain in the future so that it will stay open.
Commissioner Rempel stated that undergrounding the drain would cause a lot of
problems. M. Pou eau replied that if a pips' is used it will only plug up
again. Further, that a concrete channel will be put into Beryl and Hellman.
'Motion, Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. , approving Tentative Tract No. 12530 and issuing a
negative declaration
E. I C L ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT 1 JENSE
custom lot residential subdivision of 27 lots on 1 .49 acres of land
in the (Very low Residential) district, located on the south fside ;
of Summit Avenue, east of Eti aandd Avenue PN 225-181-02 and 03.
Senior Planner, Michael; airin, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Vairin further
stated that he received from the applicant this averring a possible solution to
the character considerations on Summit ride and showed this to, the
Commission on the overhead projector.ector. The change combined the three lots to
the north and increased the number of the leas below as they were large enough
to support this change. Mr. Vairin stated that the Commision now had four
options; 1) to approve the map as submitted tonight; ) to approve with one
rend lot as deseribed in the resolution of approval; ) to approve as revised
and shown on the screen tonight; or 4) to continue this item until all areas
have been addressed per the Etiwanda SpecificPlan.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Frank Williams of Associated Engiedru, representing the applicant, stated
that if this map is, approved per the changer ;presented this evening, h
requests that condition one of the resolution be deleted. He indicated that
they would accept condition one of the resolution if it does not mean that
they proud have to accept fewer lots and if the Commission wishes further*
study, they would request a continuance of this matter rather than decrial of
the project. _ r. Jensen, the applicant, stated that he agreed with staff on
the, impact removal of the windrows would have on Summit Avenue.' e indicated
that his engineers feel this is an adequate project and meets the minimum
requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Flan. He felt that this project should
be approved
There being no further comments, the public hearing was clewed.
Commissioner Baker stated that Mr. Williams had alluded to a problem with the
alternative
Mr. Williams replied that the steepness of the slope would ;be a problem and
could be complicated by the removal of a lot slang Sumgait because It would
then create a split level condition rather than normal construction.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 14, 1983
Mr. Vairin stated that since staff only this evening received the new proposal
concerning the lots, and if the Commission wishes to examine the proposal, he
would recommend that this item be continued in or to determine if it meets
the criteria of the Etivanda Specifie Plan and also the grading issue.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to have some discussion on
whether the lots should be eliminated. Further, that when the Commission
receives a reqnest for subdivision he would like to see what the configuration
of the property directly across the street is to see what will happen there.
He indicated that there will be another street there eventually and that it
will have to be a street out from the west side of the lot. He said that
widening it out would not, make it match the street because the lots on either
side are not that much wider than the 100 feet.
Mr. Vairin stated that the Design Review Committee felt that since those lots
already have homes on them and would not be further developed, that the two
streets would probably be aligned.
Commissioner Rexpel stated that eventually it will be a public street although
now it is private with homes facing onto it, but it has no bearing on 'these
lots. Further, the plan as proposed is adequate and he would like to see
condition one of the resolution under the Planning section eliminated.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-140, approving Tentative Tract 12462, deleting condition one
under the Planning section of the Resolution, and issuing a negative
declaration.
* * * * * I
F. ENVIRONMEWrAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12 B - The
development of 432 semi-attached single family manufactured homes on
45 acres of land within the Victoria Planned Comm unity t designated
Medium and Medium-High Residential, located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - a portion of APN 227-o8i-o6.
Commissioner Rempel stepped down from discussion of this item due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Commissioner Barker asked if a quorum exists since Commissioner Rempel stepped
down. Assistant City Attorney, Hopson, replied that the rules of the Planning
Commission indicate that three members of the Commission constitute a
majority; however the fact that the Conunission, started with a quorum and a
member has now stepped down, would be a reasonable extension under the rules
of 1978, that the Commission is unable to act. Mr. Hopson stated that he had
anticipated the absence of one member of the Commission at tonight's meeting,
but not two, with the possible disqualification of another member. fie asked
that he and Mr. Gomez be allowed to take a brief recesa in order to study the
questions.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 14, 1983
7:29 p.m. the Assistant City Attorney nd Mr. Gomez .left the table.
Chairman man tout advised that the Commission would go on to the next agenda
item.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 aFORECAST
c t6'm lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20.9acres of land in the1
0,000 zone (Hillside Residential pending) , 'located north of Almond
Street, generally west nf` Sa phira Street A H 200-051-06 and 07.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report and provided slides
for viewing by the Commission of the subject property.
Chairman Stout asked if someone could show the Commission where the large
ravine is In relation to this property..
Mr. Johnson painted this out to the Commission.
.. Vairin stated that the boundaries re essentially a bluff to the Canyon.
Chairman Stout asked if the iR would be for the ntir piece or just a part
f it. Mrs. Vairin replied that CEQA adira that cumulative impacts be studied
and the entire site would be lwcuirdd at
Chairman Stout opened the public heaving
Mr. Jim Previti, 9513 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucam gna, the applicant
stated they will develop 21 acres and the reason they applied for this is :
because the division they are miring is within the FireDistrict's seven
minute response time and is the only portion which can be developed under the
regulations. _. Mr. Previti stated that he had spoken to staff and indicated
that it would be are economic burden to do a full glil rather than, a fridrraed gill
for the 16 lots involved. Further, that Mr. Vairin indicated the there are 12
points which must be addressed relative to this piece of property and Mr.
Previti felt that the City should" allow this subdivision as the first phase
because they could spear to he 12 points. He indicated that they have
consulted with a geologist and civil engineer and could sufficiently address
the issues
r Joe Gorman,n, environmentalist, Claremont,i stated that Mrs. Previti Is
r°el.aactant to do a complete environmental impact report because of the economic
impact. Mr. Gorman agreed with the staff evaluation that the character of the
land changes drastically from the southeast portion of 21 acres to the entire
tract both in topography and hydrology `as well as soil and would require a
certain amount of cautions approach in developing it.
Mr. Gorman resat over Pat 11 the environmental checklist, indicating those
areas with which he agreed and those with which he had questions. He stated
that he felt the applicant should uld approach the EIR in a piecemeal fashion
Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 14, 1983
that the problems could be answered; the political me nie hi h are a small
problem could be worked out, and a document could; be prepared that world
sufficiently address staffs concerns in terms of the structures that people
would build.
Mr. Gary Healy, Madole nAssociates, distributed map to he Planning
Commission which he had prepared that addressed items 1-12 of the addendum t
Part Il of the Initial Sturdy, indicating his disagreement with slope
conditions, hydrology, lead use and planning on ider tion , and utilities and
public services.
r. Darwin Mark, lead planner for the applicant, stated that the Commission
would be hard ;pressed to see what part of the applicant's lead is being
developed. Further, that with the low number of bats proposed for
development, it emphasizes the applicant's concern for the sensitive mature of
this property. Mark felt that the problems to the north of this piece of
property could be addressed at a later time.
Mr . Art Bridge, 871 Banyan, owner of the adjacent piece of property to the
south and southwest, stated that he is well,acquainted with this piece and
rat er that an SIR is essential fo
r
considers t t be extremely sensitive. � h_ ,,
the entire piece and should not be done on a piece real basis. Mr. Bridge
stated that the Fire District is being very generous when they say tha the
area being considered at this meetin,g is within the seven minute, response
time, because here is d fire hazard which must be addressee.
There being no farther comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner
r re r^ stated tr a he was not satisfied with Dry. Gor ran's comments
that the environmental Issues should be approached hed in a piecemeal fashion. He
indicated tha it would make cease to address the ;entire area and asked that
this be done
Chairman Stoat stated his agreement with Commissioner Barker's comments and
indicated he felt the previous Planning Commission made a mistake in allowing
the lower area to be developed ped without ut an R R. Further, that because one
mistake had been made should not mean this Commission must compound the error
Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been considerable sturdy on this
whole piece of property about four years ago and because of the 'lay of the
laud and the flat laud of the leer piece, it was felt that it was not
essential. Commissioner Re pel stated;that you cannot divide this piece of
property from; the rest and the entire picture gust be looked at. He indicated
that the drainage trust be examined as well as ghat will happen to the east: of
this tract. farther, that the Commission is not being shown what is happening
around and above the item in question
bey 1 1
T"larrrrrr Commission Minutes woer , ,
Commissioner Rempel stated all of these areas must be addressed and the only
way to address than is through a oomplete environmental study.
Chairman Stout stated he sees'this area as sensitive as that above Beryl.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that staff
be directed to prepare an environmental impact report to study all of the
issues involved as outlined in the initial study.
Chairman Stout stated the Commision would return to Item F, Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract 12433 - K & B.
Mr. Hopson stated that the Planning CoMmission rules indicate that two members
of the Commiasion or less than a quorum could be used to adopt minutes.
However, to say that two members could perform the official act of adopting a
trant m,ap would be stretching the rules, in his opinion. Mr. Hopson stated he
felt that less than a quorum should not approve something as significant as
land use determinations or a tract map, and this being the case, did not feel
that this item could be considered this evening.
Mr. Gomez stated the applicant has asked for a eontinuance of this item.
Chairman Stout asked if testimony could be taken this evening without a
quorum.
Mr. Hopson replied that the problem is that the purpose of a hearing is to
have a quorum of the formal body hear the testimony and since they are not
present ,, the testimony tonight would serve so purpose.
Commissioner Rempel again left the Commission table.
Mr. Frank Scardini, 11601 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles,= indicated they would
not want to put anyone on a spot and asked for a continuance to a date
certain.
Chairman Stout asked if January 11 , 1984 would be agreeable to them.
Mr. Scardini replied it would.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried, that this item be
continued to January 11 , 1984.
8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 14, 1983
R. ENVIRONMgNTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LUMBER The development of a 31 ,200 . Rt. building for 84 Lumber
crrr-2.55 acres in the industrial Par t orgy (Subarea , located
on the west side of ven, south of 8th Street APN 1 i1 .:
Assistant Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Johnston had an overbead slide showing the detail
of the driveway approach.
Mr. Johnston showed the Commission the driveway approach h for 84 Lumber and the
adjacent property, KVL, on the overhead projector and explained the situation
to them.
Chairman Stout asked who owns the driveway approach that sides-can to the
driveway.
Johnston replies that it is owned by Kyt and the property is L-shaped or a
flag lot r° Johnston further stated that thane is a MWD easement which
precludes any building on any portion of the easement to the east of this and
is one of the reasons that the street is shown on it
Mr. John Rickey, 293 Birchwood, r°a a A 94556, stated that he would answer
any questions
Chairman Stout asked if any agreement had been worked on between the applicant
and KVL
Mr. Rickey replied that he thought they had a preliminary agreement.
Bob Kirkland, 8978 Raven, Rancho Cucamonga, read a letter dated December
7, 1983, addressed to Paul Rougeau, to the Commission which stated that n
agreement had been reached between KVL and 84 Lumber. Further, that Mrs. Base
:Mated to him that there would b a road whether one is madded or not. Mr.
Kirkland stated that he is opposed to the 84 Lumber project because of the
access problem and they they will not provide access for the 84 "Lumber
project. Purthar t Mr. Kirkland said that the road would adduce 6.12 eaves t
3.2 and would destroy West Coast Netting by going through h the property.
.` Paul Roo au, Senior Civil Engineer, referred d to Sub rya d and the
Industrial Specific Pharr. He indicated that the road in question is necessary
to connect 8th Street with Haven when the railroad undercrossing goes in
Further, that when development f" circulation for the Industrial paaif"ic Plan
was taking place, it appeased Logical to have the road run-along the north
side of KVL property and tarn to Acacia because that is the only plane where
it could cut into Hausa Aetna due to the median island. Mr. Rougeau stated
that this is not are essential requirement for Eighth Street because it could
intersect at others places, and it has been explained to Mr. Kirkland that the
only time the road would be obtained would be if ,he subdivided. Further, it
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 14, 1983
is vaguely possible that at some point in time the city could condemn the
property to put in a road if It felt It was b lut ly necessary for ;
circulation in the,area. Mr. Rougeau stated providing access to 84 Lumber
will absolutely not affect the street going in or not going in
Chairman Stout stated that 1 . Rougeau indicated there will be a median cart in
Acacia. lie asked if another driveway is pert in for 84 Lumber and the median
rat was placed at that driveway could the driveway be closed off and could; KVL
be forced to use only the one driveway for 84 Lumber der that there will b
only one opening to Haven
u darr replied that this could be donebut it would create a problem with
the street across because the offset goes the other wry and it would therefore
not be aligned
Chairman Strout asked if there would have to be some legal technicalities
worked out for the access between 84 Lumber and KVL.
r. Rougeau replied that is correct because there is no that the City can
fonds term to provide the access.
Chairman Stout asked ad r° ire land if it is his position that if he provided
the access for 84 Lumber it would cause a road to be placed there#
lr Kirkland replied that Is is his feeling that his flag lot will be consumed
by that mead and not shared
Commissioner r p l asked where the DWP easement, is.
Kirkland replied that their driveway is In the Middle.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the road Mr. Kirkland is talking about that
world affect his factory is the road that will go north and not this road
Chairman Stout stated that It sounds like the problem is a legal issue that
should be settled by the terra; property owners involved.
There was brief further discussion relative to the driveway between r.
Kirkland and Chairman Stout.
Cyr. John Rickey stated Mr. Kirkland has thrown a curve to him tonight and it
is his understanding that there will not be a curb out or d left turn approach
on Haven because if you go north you can tumor north anyway.
Mr. Hcr g au replied this is not correct as there are median breaks at 7th
Street and also at Acacia
r. Richey stated that is not his understanding.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 14, 1983
Mr. Rougeau stated looking at the circulation plan you have a major street at
kith ST'reet.
Mr. Gomez stated there are other alternatives that can be considered, and if
the Commission wishes to have more information brought back to them, this item
could be continued.
Chairman Stout closed the public hearing.
Chariman Stout stated he did not think the access problem is insurmountable
and asked if there is a plan for a street there at the present time or not.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the current conditions of approval do not call for
improvements for any future street, only Haven. Further, there are no plans
to improve the north side of the driveway as a street.
Mr. Rickey stated that he is at an impasse and he needs to now if they will
be able to get into his property. Further, he and Mr. Kirkland used to know
what will. happen.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he cannot see that the street will ever come
Rio wn from the north into the property.
Mr. Kirkland suggested that the decision on this be put off until the next
meeting.
Commissioner Barker asked what role the Planning Commission will play in this
if the applicant and Mr. Kirkland do not reach an agreemnt and whether the
Commission could come up with an action. Further, he asked if the Commission
could adopt a resolution contingent upon the two parties coming to an
agreement and then this would not have to come back to the Commission.
Mr. Gomez stated that if you allow an opportunity for an out there is always
the possibilty that negotiations will not be continued in good faith.
Mr. Stout stated that this is a civil issue that will have to be decided
between the two parties. However, because of 'the Commission's thoughts and
plans on= how they want Haven to be, this is the only solution. If agreement
is not reached, her stated, this can be brought back to the Commission.
Mr. Hopson stated that he does not see a legal problem with this and is the
only way it can be done.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-141 approving CUP No. 83-17 and issuing a negative
declaration contingent upon access agreement between the two parties.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 December 14 , 1983
S: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT 1 - TRUAX total
development and arabdl l`dl~ rs of 16.5 sores into 123 lots, trprisin
122 zero ;lot line units in the R-a Pkl zone, generally ;located on the
west side f Center, between Arrow and 26th Street 1< 10
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if the suggested call is contained within the resolution.
r Johnston replied that there is a condition for a wall and staff feels that
it is adequately covered.
Chairman Surat opened the public haring.
Daryl Anderson 145 Main Street, Tustin A, apprised the Commission of
the housing product.
Chairman Stout asked what the price range of these hones will be.
Anderson replied between $89,000-100,000.
There being no fUrthar questions, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Ramp 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. d 14 , approving Tentative Tract 12525 and ;issuing a negative
d elaration
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE T An amendment
to Title 14 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section
14.20.110 of Chapter, 14 PO, Signs, to change the maximum height
limit for a wall sign on an industrial building from 20 feet to a
height not to project above the roof°l.ir .
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if the-change in the ordinance would allow d sign to b
placed between the six story buildings in the Barton Plaza.
Mr.; Vair in recalled that this is not the type of use that will be affected b
the change in the algn ordinance as it will. €nl ;affect industrial ial brzll.drr a.
r. Gomez stated that the change is dependent on the use and not the zone in
which the building is located.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
i
Planning ra iaai ra Minutes 11 December 14, 1983
`>I
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion., Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, oarrierw unarwi orrsl � to adopt
Resolution No. 83-143, recommending are amendment to the Sin Ordinance to
specify the maximum height limit for wall signs on industrial buildings.
Chairman Stout stated that a request had been made by Mr. Jock Butler to
address the Commission regarding this project, DR 8 1 ', pepperwrood.
r. Butler presented a letter to the Commission which asked for relief from
conditions imposed upon his project by the Commission to reach agreement with
the "vista del Verde development, adjacent to his project relative to
drainage. e indicated that the owners of the Vista del Verde were asking are
excessive amount for easement to be used for drainage which would be
unworkable from their point of view . Mr. Butler;stated that they have Bret the
requirements of the Resolution and have designed something that would handle
the drainage flows and asked that they be given the necessary permits in order
to proceed with b il.dn s
Chairman Surat asked if when the original Pepperwood project came through the
drainage was to flow, to the south and there bead to the: east and flow through
Ironwood.
.' Butler replied yes and no. He indicated they were givers two options and
they would have to get an easement from the 'property owner. He further
indicated that they elected to go south because it was in their best economic
interest because of the shorter distance. However, that propery owner lives
in Lebanon and they are seeable to get to the free owner in order to get the
easement and therefore had to go to the east.
Chairman Stout stated that the problem is that the other project was
conditioned to take the water, all the way over to Hellman. He indicated that
the water" from Mr. Butler's project will dump into a twrood� which is what
they have been trying to prevent
r.' Butlers asked for a waiver of the condition as a temporary means to allows
his project to more forward
Chairman Stout asked if what Mr. Butler is saying is he had no objection to
eventually hooking rap to a pipe that would take the water two Hellman.
Butler replied that is correct. Mr. Butler stated for the record, that
they are also willing to make are additional cash-contribution as long as it is
reasonable.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 December 14, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that this Commission promised the people living in the
tract adjacent to his development that they would no allow water to go into
their streets and he felt obligated to tell them the truth in that it was
beyond their power to realize this problem at the time this was being
considered.
Mr. Butler felt that the truth should be told.
Chairman Stout stated tha since this is a public hearing problem he did not
know what official action to take.
Mr. Hopson stated that there is an ancillary problem to the one raised. Mr.
Hopson stated this is not an unchangeable matter but the policy of the City in
the past has been not to allow projects to pull permits on an incremental
basis but only when all conditions of the project have been received. He
indicated that if a project is allowed to pull grading permits and then
proceed with the grading, a significant investment has been made which could
affect the City's ability to deny approval later >because of the substantial
investment made in the improvement of the property. Mr. Hopson indioated that
this is not a policy that is cast in concrete but is an issue of more than
where the water is going. Mr. Hopson stated that there is another policy,
that of school letters, which may or 'may not be forthcoming.
Mr. Butler indicated that he would be picking up a school letter the following
day.
Commissioner Barker stated that the concern is that there would be a
substantial investment of money with some changes made to the property which
may create a problem that would be unable to be adjusted.
Mr. Butler stated that they would not alter the property and drainage pattern
significantly.
Mr. Gomez stated that if the Commission agrees with what has been presented
details can be worked out with specific actions that would be triggered by
certain dates so that it is not a temporary solution that will be for a long
term.
Chairman Stout stated that for some reason it appears that these two
developments cannot get along and he asked, if this is the case, how will the
problem get solved.
Mr. Hopson stated that the problem must be solved.
Mr. Vairin stated that the condition states that water must be received from
all adjacent properties.
Commissioner Hempel stated that this property must drain into this street or
another street into the tract.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 December 114 , 1983
Chairman Moat stated that it can't get to the development throu h the pipe.
. Butler stated that they can give the easement they purchased to the Cztyt
because It the City own.9 the easement and the drainage ystem that is
installed, there is no way to prevent the owners of the other property from
hooking It up
Chairman Stoat stated he would find it hard to believe that the City world
accept that
Following brief discussion, Mr. Hopson stated that It world be possible to
leave the final decision for specific approval to the Grading Committee. r.
Butler stated that they are within 10 days of pulling their permits
Commissioner Rempel stated that is why It has been left up to the City
Attorney s to work out the language.
r. Gomez stated that the letter from the school district plays a very
important part in this
Jim Frost, Councilmember, asked if he is led to assume that the developer will
purchase a school letters as opposed to another process.
r. Hopson stated that all the Planning Commission did was impose a condition
that the school district issue a letter. Outside of that, the City has stayed
out; of how an; autonomous public entity will see whether they will issue a
enter or not. He indicated that he has been surprised by what he has rood in
' the newspaper. Further, that if someone providers a school letter and the
signature on It is not a forgery, the condition that the Planning Commission
has` set is satisfied
Commissioner Rempel stated that since this is a condition imposed by the
Council, we would e hard pressed to ask how the letter was obtained.
Chairman Stout stated that he had asked Mr. Gomezfor `;a brief overview of what
has been; going on as Car as projects are concerned and ghat was presented to
the Commission at this meeting was a brief newsletter )4hich has been very
informative. He indicated that lie would life to move .it Grp on the agenda the
next time so that more people will benefit from it. Commissioner Barker
questioned whether there will bed quorum for the fourth Wednesday of the
month. The consensus of the Commission was that there will not be a quorum.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 December 14, 1983
Motion.* Moved by Rempel, seonded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
to the January 11 , 1984 Planningiin ;meeting
i
ADJOURNMENT
9:40 p.m. ThePlanning fission adjourned.
Respotfully id;
r �^
.x
�o #0.Aez
SecretaryDs u
a
Planning Commission Minutes 15 December 14 , 1983
CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regulars Meeting
November 9, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m The meeting was held at the
Liana Park Community Canter, 9161 Pace Line Road# Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout than led in the pledge to the flag..
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dave Ranker, Addie Juarez , Larry McNiel,
Herman Rmpl, Dennis Stunt
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner* Rik Gomez,
City Planner; Edward Hopson,; Assistant City: Attorney;
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse,
Administrative Secretary; Michael 'airin.,
Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Planner, Rick Gomez, advised that the Foothill Community Plan had been
before the County Board of';Supervisors for its first public hearing at their
November anti i . He further advised that since the City appealed the
adequacy of the SIR, it was recommended by County Council that no testimony be
taken and the hearing was postponed to November 21 . He indicated that both
the Plan and 'the EIR would be heard at that time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion Moved by R mpol, seconded by Barkers; carried unanimously, to adopt
the Consent Calendar.
A. STREET NAME CHANGE Approval of a change from Pepper to Culpepper,
located south of Baca Line At Beryl.
R. REVIEW OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT
PUBLIC NEARING
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1 CAR ® The revision to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of Gad Church for the
development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the
R 1-PC,000 zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson
Avenues - APN 01 -C1 . (Continued from October Pia , 1983 meeting.)
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report and Assistant
Planner, 'Curt Johnston, presented =slides of the church site.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Reverend kloward, pastor of this church, addressed the Commission and asked if
the conditional use permit previously approved on November 22, 1982 is still
legal and in effect. He called attention to the staff report of that date and
page 4 of the standard conditions. He advised. that ;the drawings which were
submitted at that time shored a sidewalk and not a bridle trail and advised
further of the deep cut that would have to be de which would be
approximately 5 feet deep and run approximately 200 feet to the east in order
to accommodate a trail. Pastor Howard stated that he was not opposed to a
bridle trail but asked that it be placed_ on the crest aide of the street.
Pastor Howard said that on duly 7 there was revision to the conditional use
permit which changed the equestrian trail and that they had not been notified
of this change® He stated that because of the sanctuary placement, the horse
trail would be highly visible and horse droppings would not be an
aesthetically pleasing view. ;
Chairman Stout stated that there are several things in the report and asked
Pastor Howard if he was in agreement with everything else.
Pastor Howard replied that because of financial constraints its would be better
for them to install the improvements t the time the sanctuary is built and
advised that he was aware of the safety factors involved. He asked for a lien
to do the work at a later time
Chairman Stout stated that he granted to be dune that Pastor Howard was given a
fair chance to address everything in his presentation to the Commission at
this meeting
Mr. John Vail.., member of the church board., addressed the Commission. He
stated that one of his duties as an animal control officer was the destruction
o "injured animals, namely, ; horses. He advised that the ways the equestrian
trail is designed would not be a good safety factor because of the animals
having to crass the busy street
Chris Wincheck, Keys Associates, engineer for this project, felt that the
equestrian trail would be better if located on the crest side of Archibald* he
advised of the additional slope adjustment which would be needed if the
equestrian trail is located on the east side; and felt that a lien agreement
for improvements should be considered
There being no further comments, the public hearing was chased
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 9, 1983
Mairman Stout stated that the issue of the community trail would be taken
first
Commissioner YrNiel stated that the church- has a very real and just position
with the placement of the trail and asked if there was any particular reason
for placing it on the east side 'other than the recommendation of the
Equestrian Committee.
Chairman Stout replied that he did not attend this particular meeting but as a
member of the Equestrian Committee he 'felt there is an improved subdivision to
the north of the church project and the Committee may have thou ht it would be
quicker to gat a trail by placing it on the east aide.
Co=issioner. Re pel stated that a trail on the east aide will have problems
later on because there is a single family residence wher sin right -nwayr' will
be difficult to obtain and he also cited the difficulty of horses getting
across the busy Archibald thoroughfare. Commissioner; Remp :l stated he dial not
see any-reason why the equestrian trail could not be located on the west side.
Commissioner Barker stated that he did not see any Magical reason for the
trail being located on the east side of Archibald.
Chairman Stout stated that it wakes better sense to locate the equestrian
trail on the west side of Archibald and that ;he is not in favor of having
horses crass a street 7 feet wide that is busily traveled.
Co issiener Remp l stated that horse crossings in equestrian areas should be
designed in such a ways that people know they are in an equestrian area. tie
requested staff to look into materials which could be used for the crossing
which would provide horses with a safer crossing.
Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner He rpel's remarks were well taken'
as long as someone comes up with a non-skid crossing terial.
. Vairin stated; that standard condition B-17 should be eliminated and that
item M-3 should be noted for the sidewalk requirement.
Chairman Stout asked the Commission to address the 'request for deferment of
improvements on Archibald.
Commissioner McNiel asked if we had told them we would do this before.
Chairman to t stated no, that it has arrays been done the other stay inasmuch
as there are safety considerations.
Commissioner Rempel stated the improvements should be dame n
Chairman Stout stated that there has been some misunderstanding in that Edison
would be given a break as far :as their piece of property on the northwest
corner, He indicated that is not the case and that they will be required to
pact in the improvements as well He indicated further, that they have part in
landscaping so it will only be a matter of time before the improvements are
put in
Planning Commission Minute - November 9, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that one of his observations has been that people who
attend the Commission meetings are unaware of the consistency of the decisions
made by the Commission. He indicated that it has been the policy of the
Commission not to defer improvements and if they require the improvements the
applicant is not being singled out. Chairman Stout stated that it is
difficult to see how the Commission makes its determinations if people do not
consistently attend the meetings.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there has been some change in the building plans
to alter the number of students from 40 to 60 in condition no. 6 under the
Planning Division in the resolution.
Mr. Vair replied affirmatively, explaining that they will be going into a
larger building
Chairman Stout stated that he went to the site over the weekend and found that
the building will be extremely large. fie indicated that he had given his
approval to the size of the building and that landscaping is required per the
standard condition; however, he asked that staff and the applicant work
together to attempt to mitigate the size of the building. Chairman Stout
stated that Commissioner Barker expressed some reservations with the
arehitecture and now, he does too. He indicated he would not withdraw his
approval but he felt that the applicant should address the size problem.
Nbtion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MoNiel, carried to adopt Resolution No.
82-108A eliminating the requirement for an equestrian trail on the east side
of Archibald; requiring a six-foot, dedication and requiring sidewalk and
improvements on Archibald and Wilson.
Commissioner Barker voted no stating he did not consider the building design
or site plan adequate when he previously voted on this and felt it still
isn't.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8116 - CASTILLO - A division of
1 .3 acres withFn the-R-1-T zone located on the south side of 9tb Street
at Comet and Bowen Streets - APN 207-531-21 .
Senior Civil Erag ineer$ Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if this is a site where there is existing residential
built around it and how they are going to subdivide a residential parcel.
Mr. Beau au replied that in keeping the house and barn this is the maximum
number of lots they can gain from the property and since 'this is only four
lots it lends itself to the parcel map procedure.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gary Sanderson, engineer representing the applicant, stated he is in
agreement with all conditions with one exceptiont the undergrounding of 12 KVA
lines in parcel one. He indicated that it would be a problem to do it.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 9, 1983
Chairman Stout asked if this requirement would be cost prohibitive
Sanderson replied that it would,_ be inasmuch as large eucalyptus trees
would have to be removed in 'order to do it
Rou eau stated that the utility lines are under rounded for the rest of
the tract and is a condition that the City wants to get on all; projects
However, Mr. Rou eau . stated that if the late on either side of this
subdivision do not have underground utilities, it would be a _lent of expense;
for little benefit
Chairman Stout asked if it would be possible for the applicant to enter into a
lien agreement in the event the utilities are underground in the future.
Roueau replied that could be done.
Dennis Desrochers, a, resident on Comet Street, stated that as he reads the
map it does not show that Bowen will connect with Comet. He asked if this is
correct as the residents do not grant it to connect. He stated there are 23
children in the cul-de-sac and it offers security to the residents not to have
the street go through. He further stated that the tract he is in has
underground utilities.
Chairman Stout asked if he is indicating that the large 12 KVA lines are
underground.
Cyr. Desrochers stated that all the hones surrounding this parcel have
underground utilities
Chairman Stout asked if the homes that 'front 9th street have underground
utilities. He indicated he granted to be sage because it would be verge costly
to just put
this parcel split underground .
Sanderson stated: that his client was willing to enter into a Lien
agreement.
Chairman Stout stated that :he wanted to be sure that all., the large lined are
above ground
Mr'. Sanderson shored the Commission a,photograph of the parcel.
Chairman Stout stated ,that this would be a contingency situation in that if
they are above ground the applicant would enter into a lien agreement in the
event of future underground and if all surrounding lines are < currently
under roundr the applicant would, be required to also underground them.
. Sanderson asked for clarification of whether that meant if power lines
across the street are under rounded they would be required to also do so
Chairman Stout replied that is not ghat hemeant* rather, that if the lines go
across the property and they are underground on either side he is required to
underground them also. In any other instance the applicant would enter into a.,
lien agreement.
Planning Commission MinutesNovember 9, 1983
There being no further commentso the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by -lie el, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. 83-137 approving Parcel Map 8116 with the condition that if the
12 KVA lures are parallel to the property on the south aide, they will be
undergrounded if the property on either side is alsond r and . If this
is not the ease, the applicant shall enter into a lien agreement for any
future under grounding.
E. AMENDMENT TO FINAL The
applicant is requesting approval for architectural, site plan and
amendments to the lot lines for the previously approved Tract 11350, 114
townhomes located on 10 acres of laud on the northwest corner of Base
Line and Hermosa APN202-182-13.
Senior Rlanne o Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report..
Chairman Stout stated that this is the first project that he has seen like
this where the lots seem to be contiguous with the building
llairin explained that these are townhomes and unlike condominiums, the
laud is owned by the homeowner.
Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the common areas are also
Dunned by the residents through an individual interest in the common area and
through their membership in the homeowners association.
Chairman Stout rt asked if the purohaae of the townhome and participation in the
homeowners association is like a piece :of stock.
Mr. Hopson replied that it is aimi;lar.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
r. Chandan Dos, 4801 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, stated that
he was in agreement with the ;conditions of approval.
A Rory Steins , 10029 Lomita: Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that his house
bads rep; to this project and was built by Learry Development. id indicated he
had a letter which had been signed and dated by Mr. Lowy while he was a part
of the Learry Development Corporation and wished to secure the rights which
were contained in those letters
Chairman Stout asked if the conditions in this particular project had been
reviewed by Mr. Stein.
Mr. Stein stated that he did not see any changes but had not had are
opportunity to review their
yairin stated that the condition for the wall and the other requirements
were still intact and the homeowners could hold the Lowy Development
Corporation responsible for, them. He indicated that the resolution will
indicate that Lowy Development will have responsibility ili.ty for tract conditions
because they will go with the land
Planning Commission Minutes - November 9, 1983
Hopson stated that while many conditions have been satisfied with the
recordation of the tract crap, staff may want something in the resolution to
approve any changes in the building lot size and indicate any unsatisfied
conditions of the tentative tract map 11350 remain in force. Be stated-that
it `would not hurt to restate it so that for the homeowners and everyone else!
it will be clear.
Chairman Stout stated that in certain agreements between the applicant and the
City there is some agreement abort hoer construction would take place
Hopson stated that the successor to Lesny Development is bound to those
agreements anyway.
M. Stein stated that per their last agreement the residents were to be
notified 5 days it advance of any work. He indicated that work was done on
November 4 and there had been no notification when they took out a stand of
eucalyptus trees almost two yearns ago. Further, weeds have been allowed to
grow extremely high and constitute a fire hazard. He indicated that the
residents would like to get some commitment from the developer before: they
proceed; with any work
Mr. Hopson stated that this tract has been finaled and the developer can sit
on it for as long as they want
Stein asked if they are in breach of their agreement already because of
the lack of notification.
Chairman Stout stated that Mr. Stein would have the burden of proving ghat
commencement of construction is
. Hopson stated that perhaps it would be apparent since the developer is
doing engineering and upsizing his bits that they intend to go forward since
they would not be spending money if it is not their intent.
Mrs. Janice Coss 100 Lomita give, asked if it is true that they could
r it is for0 years.
lease the parcel
Hopson replied it is true but if it becomes a problem with weeds, they
must abate the problem for safety reasons and the City could do something in
that instance
Mrs. Coss asked what needs to be, done in order to get it cleaned up.
Mr. Vairin stated that preliminary grading has begun and that staff will be
surge that the Building Official goes to see this site and gets it cleaned up.
s. Goss stated that there is also a problem with squirrels, mice and 'other
smalls animals as well as children who have dug; holes and have; started fires.
She also complained about dirt being dumped here.
Art: Cre fly, 'mobilehome park resident, stated his questions regarding the
widening of Hermosa have been answered.
Planning Commission Minutes' 7 - November 9, 1983
r pas stated that to alleviate the fears of the neighbors, they are
committed to the project and will begin within 90 1 C days..- He indicated that
because of market changes the project has been redesigned. He further stated
that they will give the residents notification prior to construction starting.
Chairman Stout stated that because of the project size not everyone may have
been reached regarding the change.. However, he felt that a ,good faith effort
had been made by the developer in trying to reach people. He explained that
there would now be two bedroom units with a price range of between
78 000 91 ,CCC. Further, that the City would make every effort to take dare
of the weed condition
Commissioner Rempel stated that as he thinks back to when he was growing up he
would have loved to have a lot this size in his back yard in which to pl,ay.
Motion: Moved by, Rer p l., seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, ,to adopt
Resolution No C , with the provision that any unsatisfied fi.ed conditions of
the tentative map 11350 remain in force
r 19 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed
c 0 P.M. Planning Commission Reconvened
NEW BUSINESS
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 27 -° SRC/GREEN TREE
The development of two warehouse buildings (304 ,215 square feet) on 13.25
acres of land` in the Industrial Park category (Subarea ) located on the
northwest corner of Base amine and Hermosa - APN 202-182-13.
City Planner Risk Cornet, reviewed the , staff report and made a slide
presentation
Chairman Stout asked for an explanation of the grade separation problems on
Seventh Street
r. Rougdau replied that in order;to provide the spur track for this building,
the railroad will have to core up with a designs to locate the switch north of
Seventh Street and run it very close to the existing spur on 7th Street to get
the maximum service for the spur. Mr. Roueau stated that the conditions of
approval have been formulated in such a way that Engineering will have the
freedom to require the railroad spur designed it such a way that it 'does not
interfere with the grade or the smoothness on Seventh Street. Further, that
in talking to the developer Mr. Rougeau dial not think there would be any
problem.
.' William Simpson, representing Santa Anita Development, Mated he had Bret
with Mr. Rougeau and Mr. Gomez and the outcome of the discussion is in the
rendering which was presented to the Commission at this meeting. He explained
the textures which would be incorporated, along with color, and intensified
landscaping throughout the parcel highlighted by increased use of specimen
trees. Further, he stated, if the spur switching starts north of Seventh
Street, they will have .full railroad service to the area.
Planning Co i.ssion Minutes -8- Novembers 9, 1983
Chairman Stout asked if the developer is dead set on having a white
building. His feeling, he stated, is when there is a building as large as
this one is proposed to be it will stick out and tend to look dirty after a
short period of time
Mr. Simpson -replied that they are not committed to the light color and` that
the building could be done in earth tones
Chairman Stoat asked about the 15 percent requirement for landscaping in that
the developer is submitting a proposal for 11 .6 percent. He further asked if
there is some reason the percentage e of required landscaping ; would be
impossible to meet
Simpson replied that it is an economic reason and that there is no
physical reason. He indicated that the building has been treated in such a
way that the architecture would compensate as well as the landscape quality.
r Stott stated that he is not in favor of putting In unreasonable conditions
but this building; will be located in the industrial park area and the City
grants any building located there to have fancier treatment than the regular
industrial area. Further, such treatment would be consistent with this
particular zone.
Mr. Gomez stated that if he dial not make his point clear, ;the Commission could
make some variance based on the installation of additional landscaping.
M. James Watson, the developer, stated that both of the larger structures on
the crest of the property have limited street frontages and he had hoped to
condolidate the landscaping more on these street frontages. Further", if there
was limited landscaping near the railroad spurs there it would not be seen,
more could be located on the frontage; lots along Sixth and, Seventh Streets.
Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Watson to address the intensified landscaping
and asked further if this will result in larger box trees, berri. g, etc.
Watson replied, that is what he meant.
Commissioner Barker asked if the trade off" will be in larger trees rather than
in percentages
ter°. Watson explained what types of landscaping he meant.
Commissioner Barker greys asked if this intensification really meant there
world be fewer trees and less landscaping in the interior areas.
Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant will be spending, the sage amount
of money by doing less in the railroad area and the sage amount with perhaps
larger trees where it is more visible.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gomez if ghat Mr,. Watson has said is true, not as a
Matter of disputing what has been said, but as far as the project is
concerned. He further asked if it is possible to keep the same amount of
landscaping and redistribute it.
Planning Commission Minutes - November 9, 1983
r Gomez replied that some consideration must be given to the spur and that
area because the building n rms would tale up more room than what you would
have in the typical industrial park setting. He explained the breakage and
clustering of the buildings s and the space considerations. He indicated that
the building mass 'is relative and because of this they could reach or exceed
the 15 percent requirement.
m Gomez stated that this is a catch 22 situation, however, because they are
trying to put a building that should be in a general industrial area in an
industrial park setting.
Commissioner Re el stated that in an industrial park use there is more
intensity of people type uses and that is why there is such a high requirement
for, landscaping and this will; not be a people .intense building. Further, that
this area still eventually be totally concealed from Hagen Aenue.
Mr. Gomez stated that if the lots in front were to have screening they Mould
look more like those which 'should be in an industrial park setting because
they would be somewhat masked from the industrial use
`there being no further comments, the public hearing was chased
Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission feels that if the 11 .6 percent or
12 percent landscaping is sufficient, hove the intensification of landscaping
will be ensured
Commissioner Rempel stated these are not final landscape plans and that the
Planning Division must make sure that ghat the applicant is talking about is
done
Mr." Gomez stated that if the Commission concurs with what has been discussed ,
condition no. 2 should be deleted and condition no. 1 expanded upon with
language' for the frontages along Sixth and Seventh
Vairin, stated that staff will define the bermirng, plant material, and
plant size by modifying the condition 'regarding plant size to 25 percent for
specimen size trees, if the Commission concurs
Mr. Gomez stated that ,the Commission Mould be approving the site plan' and
staff would couple this with the landscaping and ; include a revision to
conditions four and six; of the Engineering conditions
Commissioner "Hempel stated' that the building color should be a natural
concrete with; a textured surface to eliminate the necessity of painting the.
building
Motion: Moved by Re el, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-138 with' amendments to amend condition no. 1 , delete
condition no and further evened the Engineering .vision's standard
conditions no and 6.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 9, 1983
C ZONING ORDINANCE DETE I A O C A TA LOMA FEED STORE A request
to determine if a feed store facility is appropriate for the VL District
of tiwanda
Rick SO e , City Flannery, reviewed the staff report and narrated the slides
which were shown of the property in question.
Chairman Stout opened the meeting to receive oo ents u
The applicant was not present.
Mr. dim clanks, Etiwanda resident, stated some people are concerned with a
retail store on Etiwanda Avenue' and his concern is with the tool that the
Planning Commission is using. He indicated that the interpretation of the
tiwanda Specific Flan language is being used to authorize the store although
it does not appear in the definition; the people who drafted the Etiwanda
Specific Flan did not intend it to be there. He indicated that allowing a
retail store here is stretching the definition and that there will, be trucks
parked in front of the store and it seemed to him that if they warm a stare
there, there must be some other way of achieving it.
Mr. Banks reiterated that if the Planning Commission can interpret the
language of the Specific Flan to include a retail stage use , it can interpret
anything in any ether, zone. Further, that if it is done by this method, the
matter does not have to be posted or mailed. He indicated whether you want a
store or not it should not be done by interpreting the language because that
will open the door to a lot of other problems
r. Stout stated that it appears the applicant is not present and since this
is not ',a public 'hearing item and the applicant is asking for guidance, it
would serve no useful pour ose to continue this
The consensus of the Commission was not to continue this item.
. Stout stated that he felt this request is starting to stretch what is the;
interpretation of a similar use of oo ercial on a street like Etiwanda Avenue
especially since ;it is a key street to the Etiwanda area further stated
that he is somewhat perturbed that this use just seemed to spring 'up without
anyone knowing about it with the appearance that the applicant is now asking
to ratify that decision. Chairman Stout stated that :if he wants some kind of
change to commercial designation he should go through the public hearing
process' as this change is not a similar use .
Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that with all due respect,
Section 203, pages , which is a part of the Commission's package says that
retail , sale of products raised on the property is a permitted use and what
someone is saying is 'there is not a; whole lot of difference between retail
sale of products and this use.
Commissioner Barker stated although he is able to see how something like this
could happen`, he is uncomfortable with the manipulative interpretation because
the language is fairly clear and the Commission would be establishing a
per°cedent .in allowing this use in a residential a rea.
1983
11November
Minutes a� Commission_Planning
Commissioner mp stated that when he was working kin on the Eti and , Specific
Plea he was one of the individuals whobrought Grp the fact that the area south
f the school world be ideal, for some type of farmerts market and he felt that
is where this type of use should be rather than bringing it north of
Victoria. This was the intent, he said, of the Commission as a whole at that
time and what the residents were saying.,
Commissioner uarez fret it would open the door* to everyone if this were
allowed.
Commissioner WNiel asked how the fed_store got there.
Mr air in explained that it was done without benefit of staff input and
consideration and appeared one day.
Commissioner Barker stated it would only be reasonable to alloy the applicant ,
sufficient time t ; relocate his business.
air;in stated- that normally in enforcement situations p 1 0 drys is
allowed for relocation.
Commissioner irrl stated that he would not be opposed to having an agrarian
store in this general area because he felt it is needed but asked if the
Commission is",talkie about the procedure r raised by Mr. Banks.
Commissioner Remp l stated that such a use is not permitted in the equestrian
only area
Mr. Gomez stated that; this use determination is for a feed store a VL
District and that <other commercial sites in the Etiwanda Specific Plan could
be potential sites for this type of use.
Chairman Stout stated that in order to allow this use the Commission would
have to make d finding that this is in conformance with some of the temporary
agricultural ral rises. to indicated that the consensus of the Commission is that
it is not similar and it appeared ed that the Commission is unanimous in that it
is not a Similar use
Gomez asked if there in a specified time _;,.in which this use should be
bated
CormUssioner Barker stated he would allow 120 days for the applicant to move
into a commercial zone
The on nary .; of the Commission was _ that, the applicant be given ; 120 days _
during which to relocate.
H. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT APPROVALS
Rougeau briefly summarized the staff report he had provided to the
Commission stating that among the conditions for approval l of the Vista ,del
Verde subdivision was , that drainage be Crept off existing streets and not
directed towards Eastwood Avenue. However, the P pp rwood project which was
approved prior to Vista del. Venda and now ready to begin building, was
Planning union Minutes -12 November 9, 1983
conditioned In soh a way that, drainage could be conveyed to neighboring
residential streets or accepted by the adjacent property. The developer,
Poa eau stated , chose to take his water to adjacent streets because it was the
most logical thing to do in order to drain his project. In doing this, the
promises given to the residents of Eastwood Avenue e in the existing subdivision
would consider this a breach of promise to thews in that the water would come
through theirs residential streets
Mr. Pou eau discussed the ramifications that ;might occur in the conflict
between these two projects regarding drainage.
Bar. Jack Butler, developer for the Pep erwaodd projecto stated he would like to
reduce the possibility; of that problem coming to light and carry most of his
drainage to Hellman Avenue directly through the Vista del Verde project but
that will involve cooperation from that developer and will have to occur some
time in the future because the Pepp rwrood Project is much farther along in
planning than the Vista del_:Verde project
Chairman Stout asked where the particular parcel in Pep er'waood would normally
drain
Pou eau replied that it.would be southeast and run up against lots in the
Eastwood tract and then run all the way to Arrow's
Chairman Stout asked if the Pepperwood, project is zoned P 1 .
r. Rou eau replied that it is planned for multiple family.
Pou eau stated that the property between 'vineyard and the single family
development, because of its physical features, will drain towards Hellman. He
indicated that the master plan of drainage sets all drainage from this area<
towards Hellman.
Chairman Stout asked if there has been any consideration of taking drainage
along side of the existing tract along Vineyard.
. Pougeau stated that there will be an intensification of water and if the
property owner would accept the increased flows it would be all, right.
Commissioner Barker asked how much water is being talked about.
Rou eau replied that the drainage; and hydrology studies have been done for
the Pepper°w cod, Vista del Verde and existing single family homes and the
streets will handle the flow. Farther, that it will be noticeable in a heavy
storm but should otherwise be all right. Mr. Rougeau stated that Hellman is
scheduled for larger storm drains sometime in the future, but this is not
going to be for quite some time
Commissioner Barker stated that the Pepper oo l people could work with the;
Vista del Verde developers in taking most of the water to Hellman but that
they couldn't do it yet. He asked: why that is
Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 9, 1983
Mr. Rougeau replied that if that were to happen now they would, creed an
easement and a lot of temporary ;construction. He indicated that the major
storm m flow should go dowry Fastwood.
Commissioner McNiel asked why this aarr*t brought up, when all the Pdpperwo d
people were in the audience
Mr. Vairin stated that originally the developer proposed that this .would go
south but the others property owner was not amenable to that and is why he was
forced into this
Chairman Stout stated that he personally felt uncomfortable without a deeision -
f the people who have the problem. He indicated that it hurt the Commission
to make a decision and there fired out that the water will drain through their
tract
Mr. PcauS au stated that perhaps the best way of describing ghat happened is to
say; theme were uninf rmed promises and the other ;property will also have to b
geld that there will be water on Eastwood.
Chairman Stout stated that if there is some other way to do the drainage
without throwing the P pper,wood project out of kilter, the City should do
it He felt that the people should be told face to face about the water
situation
Rougeau stated that all the property peaty owners in the existing tract can be
acetified of the problem and be given an explanation of what happened. He
stated that Pepperwood was not a public hearing project so the residents were
not notified
Mr. Vairin stated that the Commission could direct Engineering to come up with
another drainage solution because this is not the only solution to the
problem
Chairman Shut stated that ghat is proper and .what is dire process are two
separate issues and he does not want to make a decision at some session where
the property owners are not present
Commissioner McNiel asked if the drainage that is coming down Eastwood could
eventually be put into a larger system.
Mr. Pau au stated that it could e dare by going underground and through a pipe
in the Pepper wood property and going quite a way down Hellman. He indicated'
that there is very little fall to the property.
Vairin stated that it appears that the Commission dues not want to move
without notifying the property owners. He indicated that at a future meeting
an information session could be held which would allow time to contact there
and staff" could there prepare a more detailed report
Chairman Stout stated that he would feel. much more comfortable with that
approach. However, he dial not Blast want to tell the people at that meeting
that this is what is going to be done. He asked if legally that point has
been reached.
Planning Commission Minutes -14-
November 9, 198
ai in replied that in his opinion that paint has not been reached
Mr. a ea stated that the Engineering i isi n meads to doge Grp with another
sutarawrr and see if there
o remedy this without having to notify
the property owners.
1r. Jack Butler, the e eloper, -stated that there may be other solutions but
they have looked at their pretty carefully and he did not feel that there would
be another solution other than going thrown the existing neighborhood.
e further stated that he does not want to have this project delayed while
trying to find whatever solution it may be. He indicated that if the
Commission provides a drainage solution in Vista del Verde they will be happy"-
to do that. He further r indicated that they have are underground pipe that goes
two Eastwood which could be carried through h "vista del Verde.
Chairman Stout stated that the residents may say, however, that, the reason the
pipe must be pat in is because of the Pepperwood project
. Butler stated_ that he has complied with all the conditions and he wants t
begin construction of his project.
Commissioner Tempel asked what the elevations were at Pepperwood.
;. Gene Lisle, engineer for the epperw ood project, replied that at the
southeast corner of the property the elevation is about 1200 feet and thaw is
a common grade across with about 13 feet of fall to the Vista del Verde
property.
Chairman Stout asked bow much of that is used up just going to Eastwood
Commissioner Hempel stated that they fall about one percent.
;. Lisle replied that is correct more or less and that they actually have a
law spot
Commissioner Rempel asked if they will drama to Hellman.
Lisle replied that a condition of approval is they cannot raise their
property because of property owners to the south complaining about headlights
shining into their property.
Sawa earn stated that there is a conflict in the two conditions Further,
that in talking with the vista del Verde'people it looks more and more like
they will not be able to get their own water, to Hellman in a surface channel
without wiping out all the landscaping. He indicated that another possibility'
would be for the two developers to share the east of the pipe to Hellman
although on the surface it looks like it would be difficult to do anything on
the surface
Butler stated that he had some discussion with Mr. Stampley and he is not
as far along in his project as Mr. Butler is and did not know what his
drainage problems are but now he is better informed.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 9, 1983
Butler, stated that he would be willing to have W. Stampley use a section
f his pipe and work something out.
Commissioner, Rempel stated that he could Cher see something worked out
between the developers rather than having this go to d public hearing.
Commissioner liel stated that if this is the case and Mr. Butler wants t
grove forward , the Commission should bring these people back again and let then
know that this is a t ray condition wherein his property will drain
through their neighborhoods.
Butler stated that they are very sympathetic and they want to help but
they reel burdened because they are ready to go and this kind of thing could
take months. He indicated they creed resolution now.
Mr. " irira stated that it appears that the Commission want this to be worked
out between the developers but if a solutionis not possible, that this should
came back for a hearing with ,the homeowners of the existing ubdt i i n.
Chairman trust stated that if it turns out that way the homeowners cyst be
told that the drainage to Eastwood is going to be a temporary situation.
Chairman lb Niel stated that the Commission had given the homeowners firm
promise that the water would, not drain`through their streets.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the developers go forward in
working out a solution to the drainage problem.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNi.e,l., carried unanimously , to adjourn
to the first regular lar eeting of December ber% 14$ 1983. Because of holiday
commitments , a quorum rind be unavailable for the November 23, 1983 meeting
and it is therefore cancelled
9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
C '"'C
ep;z�y ,secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -1 November 9, 1983
CITY CP RANCHO CUCA ONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 26, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :00 p.m. The meeting was hold in
the Forum of Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Paso Line, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout thorn led in thepledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addio Juarez, Larry toil, Hermann
Ron pol, Dennis Stout
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Norco
STAFF PRESENT* Frank Dreokman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City
Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;
Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior
Civil Engineer; Michael yirin, rrior� PlannerAtICC `f
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced there would be a Foothill Community Plan
public hearing before the Saar Bernardino County Planning Commission Thursday,
October 27, at 9 a.m. , t which time they would tags action and forward
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. He advised that the Board of
Supervisors would be reviewing the Plan at their November 7, 1983 meeting.
Additionally, the Environmental Review Beard had reviewed the; Environmental
Impact Report for the Playa and recommended its certification.
Chairman Stout asked if there more objections voiced at that hearing.
Mr. Gomez replied that both he and Tim Po dle were present at the meeting and
expressed concerns on behalf of the Cite
Michael Vair n, Senior Planner, announced ` that the City Council would be
considering adoption of the Draft Development Code at their November 2, 1983
meeting.
Chairman Stout announced that the Fall Conference of the City/County Planning
Commissioners would be held November 3, 1983 at the Red Liana in Ontario.
io.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 26, 1983
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moored by Rempel, seconded by McNi:el, unanimously carried, to adopt
the minutes of August 30, 1983.
Commissioner Barker requested amendments to pages 9 and 14 of the
September 28, 1983 minutes. The amendment to page 9, 4th paragraph, was
needed to read "t. . . before all of the hurdles had been jumped". The
amendment to page 14, 5th paragraph, is to include statement . that the
previous Planning _Commission had been aware of freeway corridor before the
General Plan was adopted
Motion: Moved by Harker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the minutes of September 28, 1983, as amended by Commissioner Barker.
Chairman Stout requested amendments to, the minutes of 'October 4, 1983, pages
and 6. He stated that there was discussion by the Commission regarding a
parcel between Hellman and the channel, south of 6th Street, and the
possibility of a General Plain amendment to dwelling units per acre being
brought back to the Commission during the next amendment cycle and requested.
that the minutes reflect this discussion. Further, the 7th paragraph of page
should read ". . or land" rather than 11 . . of land".
Motion: Moved by Rempelo seconded by Harker, unanimously carried, to adopt
the minutes of October 4, 1983 as amended by Chairman Stout.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the minutes of October 12 , 1983.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10277 - HA MAIN - A custom lot ..
subdivi ion consisting of 22 lots on 24.36 acres of land in the R 1 0,000
located on the north side of .Almond, east of Carnelian APN 1061 1 1 C .
H. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1186 (PD 81 7) ROBERTS A total'
development of 87 units on 9.75 acres of land in the R-3/PD zone located
on the northeast corner� of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue AP
0153, 25, and 26.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 P8 HIMES PETERS The
development of 15 industrial buildings totaling 67,1<43 sq. ft. on 4.3
acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 3) located on
the north side of 7th Street, east of Hellman Avenue APN 0 171 37
portion) .
i
Planning Commission Minutes - October 26, 1983
i
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A13-29 - FORHAN - The
development of two industrial buildings (76,000 and 70,000 sq. ft.) on
8.30 acres of land in the General Industrial area (Subarea 14) located on
the east side of Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street - All 229-283-49.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 -31 - BAD AN - The
development of a 17,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building on 2.10 acres of
land containing an existing 22,100 sq. ft. industrial building located in
the General Industrial category (Subarea 3) at 8613 Helms Avenue - APN
209-021-31 .
Commissioner Barker requested that items A and B be removed for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by cNiel, unanimously carried to adopt the
remaining items of the Consent Calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10277 - BARMAKIAN - A custom lot
subdivision consisting of 22 lots on 24.3 acres of land in the R-1-20,000
zone located on the north side of Almond, east of Carnelian - AliN
1061-171-02.
Commissioner Barker stated that this tract was approved prior to the placement
of the Equestrian Overlay District on the map and has no provisions for the
keeping of animals or access provided for trails within the tract, therefore
felt it should be discussed by the Commission.
Chairman Stout asked if there were any in the audience who wished to address
this item.
Andrew Barmakian, applicant, asked Commissioner Barker why this item was
pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Barker explained that the intension of both the City Council and
Planning Commission is that the area in which Mr. Barmakian's tract lies
should be an equestrian area; however, the CUR's for this development do not
allow the keeping of equestrian animals, thus it was pulled for discussion.
Mr. Barmakian advised that the CUR's for this tract were reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney prior to approval, and that the only reason this
tract was before the Commission for extension was because he could not afford
to put in the street improvements for the remaining 22 lots at this time. He
stated that his intentions for this development were to build nice homes on
large lots where someone would not have the smell of horses to contend with.
Further, that he was not belittling anyone who likes horses or has horses,
however, does not happen to share that same feeling. He stated because this
is a free country, those who wish to have their horses should be able to have
them, however those who do not wish to live with horses in their neighborhood
should also be allowed that freedom. Additionally, that the intention of his
concept for this tract was clear when it was approved, there is a great
investment already into this project, and felt strongly that the Co=ission
should allow the continuation of this projeot as accepted by the Commission
and as originally designed .
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 26, 1983
r
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Barmakian if he realized that this would be the last
extension which could be granted for this project
r. ;Barmakian replied that he was not aware of this
Chairman Stout explained that assuming a time extension is granted this
evening, but the tract expires at the end of the 18 months, 'by law the
existing tin Is cannot be reestablish because there is an ordinance in effect
which presently prohibits this type of tract. He advised that the only reason
this tract could exist is because it has apparently already accrued without
that provision.
Edward Hopson, assistant City tt rney$ advised that the Subdivision Map Act
provides that tentative traots only have a finite lifeand have to be final d
within four years. Further, whit Mr. Stout was pointing out is that the
seeond, third and fourth phases will expire unless that are finales at some
point within the 1 ®mnnths.
Barmakian asked if he pats in the next seven lots of phase two, would it
also be necessary to start phases three and fur before the end of the 1
months?
Gomez replied the lots would not have to be constructed, however, the
tract would have to be finaled.
r. Hopson explained that the improvements would have to be bonded for or what
ever is necessary to final the map.
r Bar kiln stated that ra problem exists in that two of the bats have
already been sold to people who had read the U1 's and purchased them because
they do have animal restrictions.
Chairman Stout pointed out that the problem would only wrist if the Commission
does not grant the extension or if the reap is not finaled withinthe 1 month
time period because it would be subject to ;the ordinances and regulations now
in effect
[r. Ssr s isn replied that he understood this and if the time tension is
granted this evening, intends to bored for the improvements or whatever is;
necessary to final his map _
Sr. Hopson advised that Mr. Bar kiln would have to meet, all ,the conditions
necessary to final the reap, not only bond for the street improvements.
Terry Christiansen addressed; the Co=ission stating that he was a purchaser of
one of the lots in this tract. He stated that he has horses but prefers to
have thus boarded elsewhere and had purchased his lot with the understanding
that the 's dial not allowhorses. , Further, it would be a shame to change
this development after it has already been started.
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1
Pam Henry addressed the Commission stating that she is a member of the
Equestrian Committee who reviewed this tract prior to approval. She stated
that at that time the map illustrated lots around the external area of the
tract which would have horses and gates which would lead out onto the trails,
and was viewed by the Committee as a good compromise. She advised that a
trails requirement had been checked off on the condition form which is in the
tract's file., She stated, however, the Commission has brought other tracts
into compliance with the current ordinance and asked that consistency be
retained. She further stated that CUR's which prohibit horses are too
restrictive because it takes 100 percent of the residents to change them. She
also expressed concern with the surfacing being used on the trail. around phase
one and stated that it is not the proper treatment and asked that the
Commission have this corrected.
Gene Soism addressed the Commission stating that he is a horse owner and also
is in favor of Mr. Barmakiants tract as it would increase his property
values. However, recalled when this tract was approved that the perimeter
lots could have horses and would have access to the trail system, also that
the trails would be put in, which he understands is not being done. He
recommended that these conditions be required of the tract.
Chris Benoit, Equestrian Advisory Committee member, addressed the Commission
stating that the Committee was not aware that the CC&RIs for this tract would
exclude all the lots from keeping horses. She expressed concern that if this
tract is non equestrian they would close off the private feeder trails which
link up to major trails.
Mr. Barmakian stated that he had discussed the slag base which was used on the
trail with the Engineering Division and had already advised them that he would
correct this.
Chairman Stout asked what would be a reasonable amount of time to change the
slag.
Mr. Barmakian replied thirty days. He further stated that trails have been
provided for equestrian use which would meet with all of the requirements and
had been designed to traverse the City.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, advised that the reason the trails requirement
was checked on the standard condition form was because a master plan of trails
is required for the tract; therefore, it was not that Mr. Barmakian did not
comply with this requirement, as he did, so by installing the master plan trail
across the southerly part of the tract which is shown on the plans. Further,
there was no requirement, for a community trail northward, however was placed
there by the applicant. In terms of equestrian orientation and whether this
tract would preclude horses, Mr. Vairin referred to the minutes of record and
stated that a comment was made that it could depend on where the lots were
located in the tract. He advised that there is no condition which requires
the tract to be built with or without horses and the choice was left entirely
up to the applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 26, 1983
Commissioner Rempel stated that, as discussed during the Development Code
hearings regarding the overlay district, he felt that tracts which already
prohi
bit horses in their MR'MR's should be allowed to be built. He pointed out
that it seemed the Commissioner's had no problem with this during the Code
headings and recalled that the City Attorney had advised that this would be
the correct procedure. He recommended that this tract be granted an extension
and be allowed to continue.
Commissioner Barker stated that he would like to see equestrian orientation on
the north and east sides, but could accept Mr . armakian'd point of view that
placing the access between the first and second phases would be impossible,
and between the second and third phases would destroy the central corridor.
However, would like to protect the access to the feeder trails and would like
to see those trails put i first because .it would be some time before the
project is completed
Chairman Stout and Commissioner McNiel questioned the trails shown on the map
and asked if they are a condition of the ramp
r. Hopson replied that in >order to final a tract, whatever appears on the
approved map gust exist unless amended by a body which has the power to do so.
Commissioner Mrtiel stated that in light of the fact that this project had
prior approval, and the fact that there are people who may not ant to lie in
are equestrian area, this project should be allowed to continue
Commissioner Juarez stated that she would prefer_ to see the additional
equestrian trails in place
Chairman n Stout stated that his position is well known on equestrian Issues; ,
however, the fact that this treat was approved previously with a specific
purpose in mind and that an adequate compromise was made in the north and east
trails as well as the community trail to the south, he would to in favor of
the tract as it currently exist with the understanding that these trails are
to be incorporated at the proper time and as long as the tract is finaled
within the eighteen months. _ He added ,if the tract is not finaled within that
time and comes back as a new tract, he would; be against it; being made an ,
exception to the overlay district policy.
Commissioner 'darker stated he was concerned with the northern and eastern
trail access and asked if it would be possible to bond them in with the next
phase
Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Bar loan if it would be possible to place a
fence along the north south and east future lot line areas, which would be
the inside limits of the equestrian easements, within the next 18 months.
r Barmakian replied that he would be agreeable to placing a fence along the
future lot lines; however, the trails would necessitate an excessive amount of
grading which could not be accomplished at this time. He advised that a fence
had already been constructed along the eastern 8 lots.
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1983
Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution
approving an 18 month time extension for Tentative Tract 10277 with the
understanding that Mr. Barmakian will construct the fence along future lot
lines.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES., COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried-
Commissioners Barker and Juarez voted no for previously stated reasons.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 111869 (PD 81-07) - ROBERTS - A total
development of77 writs err9.F57�cres of-land in-E-h-e R-3/PD zone located
at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN
201-252-23, 25, and 26.
Commissioner Barker stated that he requested that this item be pulled from the
Consent Calendar because the conditio rs require the revisions to come back
before the Design Review Committee; however, he was of the opinion that they
should come back before the full Commission as the revisions were major in
nature.
Mr. Gomez stated that any item can be required to go before the Commission if
they so desire.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolation granting a 12-month time extension for Tentative Tract 11869
(PD 81-07) with the condition that the revisions are to be brought back before
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-18 - HOWARD - The revision to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of God Church for the
development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the
R-1-20,000 zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson
Avenues - APN 201-381-01 . (Continued from September 28, 1983 meeting.)
is Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report which requested a
continuance to the October 26, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. He advised
that 'the applicant's engineer had submitted the grading plan to the City this
afternoon, however, staff did not have sufficient time to review the plan and
pre arse a report for the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1983
Chairman Stout opened the public raarir
Pastor Lawrence Howard, 9540 Ironwood Ironwoodo addressed the Commission agreeing with
the continuance data of November * 1983 for discussion of the grading plan;
however, expressed concerns with the community equestrian trail requirement on
Archibald for:the project.
Mr. Gomez recommended that the Commission take action to continue the item as
suggested by staff to November 9 for discussion of the grading plan and
suggested that staff could meet with the applicant to clear rep
misunderstandings regarding the equestrian trail requirements.
Chairman Stout requested that staff present the Crr issue with a chronology
of this project at that meeting.
Pastor Howard asked for clarification of ghat would be discussed November 9tb.
Chairman Stout replied that the grading ,plan would be discussed; at that
meeting
Gomez advised Pastor Howard that staff would be meeting with him pricer to
that meeting to discuss misunderstandings dins regarding the equestrian trail
requirements
Pastor Howard stated that the equestrian requirement was not discussed at the
last meeting.
Commissioner Ra rp l advised that conditions can be checked on the standard
condition fora as required ed ritbout Commission discussion.
Pat Werra asked if the grading plan could be submitted without the equestrian
trail at; this time for discussion and added later.
r. Gomez replied that staff and, the grading committee would review the plan
ti
area f �rara wereareas not addressed, theywould ads theCommission at the
November 9 meeting.
Chairman Stout abased the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Barkero seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue
Conditional Use Permit d to the Planning Commission meeting of
d. pPlanning Commission ion Recessed
d. a - Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission
inut s -8-: October 26, 198
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN �4" 1l l�f A P
`EST A request to amend, the General Plan Land Use Plan from
Officeto, Neighborhood Commercial on acres of land located at, the
northeast corner of Archibald and Base Lime APN 202 1 1 . ;Continued
from e tember 28, 1983 meeting.)
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE t B SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS
A change of zone from A P ('Administrative Professional) to ; 1
(Neighborhood o e cial) on 9.44 acres of land located at the northeast
corner of Archibald and Base Lire - AP1 2 1f 1-27. Continued from
September 28, 1983 meeting.)
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
t Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jack Tarr, Sycamore Investments, addressed the Commission advising that he did
not feel staff had complied with the Commission's request at the September
greeting which was to develop language for consideration that might be used to
allow small shops ;in a center without a major supermarket. he addressed the
staff report which stated that one of the reasons behind the two center policy
was to assure the vitality of commercial eases within any two centers and
disagreed by, stating than this would mean a regional center would only have
one dress or shoe store. He ;pointed out that competitors drag more people for
comparisons shopping. Mr. Tarr referred to the definition inition of Neighborhood
Commercial and the subheading of neighborhood shopping center and pointed out
that the two reenter policy was clearly in the definitions; however, in the
subheading of convenience commercial there was. no mention of this policy.
Further,_that according to the General. Plan text - convenience commercial areas
are not indicated on the lard use 'plan 'because of their small size and because
their locations is gub e t to City planning and Planning Commission review and
felt this is what the Commission could interpret. r Farr distributed
material to the Commission which suggested various land use designation
alternatives. One suggestion was a new land use designation which would allow
three neighborhood centers already in existence at a designated
intersection. He stated that the General Plana is a tool in planning which is
subject to change to adopt certain lased characteristics surrounding a
particular piece of property.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
o issi. ner Rempel stated that problems exist in putting anything other than
0o eroiel at that intersection. Further, that high density as well as office
rased would congest the intersection much more at certain tines of the day. 1e
stated that most people are going out of the area to purchase personal items
such as shoes and clothing and would like to see these types of stores
suggested for this area
Commissioner Juarez ,stated her concerns that approval of this amendment would
set a precedent in other areas of the City. ;
Planning'Commission Minutes - October PAS, 1983
Commissioner perpel addressed this concern by stating that this cannot happen
in any gather area of the City that is not already built up. Further, that
offices are no longer practical because they are overbuilt in the City and
denying this request is asking for someone to forget abort this piece of
property for another fifteen to twenty years.
Commissioner Barker stated that his concern at the September 28 meeting ,was
whether an additional land use designation was needed or if the General Flare
met the needs not only of this piece of property, but generally for the entire
community. In trying to determine the differnee between OP and any other type
f commercial designation, he thought that maybe a soft goods retail not
included in the. Cp designation aright be considered s are allowed use. His
rats would be to deny this request; however was not comfortable with placing
all of these permitted uses in a devised Cp because there is no basic
difference between that designation and any others commercial designation.
Commissioner McNiel stated that this is a major intersection of the City which
is going to be a high traffic, high density situation no matter what is placed
there. He referred to the list of rases proposed by r. Tarr as permitted rases
in a new designation and rarely apposed to a convenience food store.
Chairman Stout stated : that he did not see a reason to change the Office
Professional use and that adding more yeses would not change it With respect
to this parcel, he stated that the request should be denied because there were
not adequate reasons for changing.
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by Barker, carried, to dear General Plan,
Amendment d tk ki
COMMISSIONERS: AYES: JUAREZ, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
COMMISSIONERS: NOES, REMPEL
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:: NONE -carried
Commissioner Rempel voted no because of previously stated reasons.
Motion: Moved by Barker, moved by Juarez, carrieda to deny Zone Change
dtirli
COMMISSIONERS: AYES BARKER, JUAREZ, MCNIEL EMPELt STOUT
COMMISSIONERS: NOES: NCNB
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: NCNB carried
Commissioner Rempel, stated that he had no choice other, than decaying the : rase
nhsnge because there is no General playa amendment.t. Further, if the amendment
had been approved his vote would have been the gather way.
Planning Commission Minutes. 10- October 26t 1983
Rick Comet, City Planner, advised the applicant that this action is final
unless appealed by the Applicant to the City Council.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSWNT AND PARCEL MAP 8218 - DAVISRy t,CP I A
division of 4.74acres of laird into one parcel within Subarea 3 of the
Indrratr*ial Specific Plan located on the north side of 7th Street, east
aide of Hellman Avenue 'APN 209-171-49through 56.
Paul Rnrr earn , Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Bill Davis, pl a t, addressed the Commission o s urri it the Findings
.` the staff report and resolution.
There were no farther public comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the
public hearing
Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8218.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RR P L, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT
NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT:ENT:_ COMMISSIONERS., NONE -carried
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P R I"P 0 E I - The
development of a 77square foot shopping center for Lewis Development
on 8.67 acres of laird in the C P zone located on the 'south side of
Foothill Boulevard, between Hellman and Helms Avenue APN PC P 1 P ' and
26.
ASSESSMENTK. ENVIRONMENTAL RCEL SAP 8063 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A division of . c a r s of land into R P arrrdla within the p zo
ne
located on the south aide of Foothill Boulevard , between Helena and Hellman
Avenues = APN 208-261-25and 26.
Prank Drde roan, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout capered the public hearing
Jerry Bryant, representing Lewis Development Company, addressed the Connission
stating that . the applicant concurred with the staff reports and resolutions
concerning their portion of the development; however, the Tana Pell
representatives had issues for discussion.
i
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 26, 1983
j
Jim Middleton, representing the 'Taco Bell Corporationt addressed the
Commission stating concern with the size of the colonnade suggested by staff
and the scale of the 'Taco Bell building. He suggested that a smaller:er scale
might t be used to be architecturally compatible with the Taco Bell building.
Regarding the trellis proposed by staff, Mr. Middleton stated the applicant's
opinion that significant problems exist with trellis structures and would
prefer not to include their in their design
Riche Gomez, City Planner, explained that staffs intention was that the
columns be in proportion to the 'Taco Bell building, not the same scale as the
ones being used in the center. In response to the trellis, Mr. Gomez
explained that staff felt it would tie the Taco Bell exterior in with the
center and simulate wood.
Pat- Cerra, 8218 Kirkwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission
expressing concerns with the -foot high wall at the rear of the property and
that the pavement of the main building would block mountain views. He
suggested that the major portion of the buildings be placed in the center of
the project with parking in front and at the rear. He also expressed concerns
with flooding which Haight be causedby this project and asked the developer to
address this issue.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the item before the Commission at this
time is conceptual and that grading contours, location and placement of
buildings, etc. , are not being discussed this evening. hie suggested that
these issues could be discussed when the project comes back to the Commission
for reviews of the precise plans.
Chairman Stout explained that the only items for approval this evening is the
Taco Bell site and that the rent of the site plan is conceptual only.
John. Reynolds, 8215 Kirkwood, Rancho Cucamonga,a, expressing concerns with
flooding and asked for clarification of the driveway Locations for the Taco
Bell restaurant, how the trash would be taken care of and what type of
buffering would be used, between the buildings and the residential tract
l Diaz, representing the architects for the center, addressed the concerns o
the adjacent property owners. Regarding the issue of flood control, he
explained that this would be taken dare of by engineers working with the
City. He advised that there is a large drop from Foothill to the south
property line so the views would be somewhat obstructed and explained that the
setback on Foothill Boulevard would prohibit bringing- the buildings any closer,
to that street. Regarding the issue of the rear walls, the -foot height
would be measured from the finished surface of the sidewalk in front of the
major tenant, not a wall at the rear. He explained that this wall is
necessary to screen the roof-mounted equipment. Regarding the site access
from Foothill, Mr. Diaz e pained that this would be handled through a
deceleration lane and also would be handled through a stacking area on the
site. Additionally, the trash bins would be enclosed with a masonry wall per
City standards
Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 26, 1983
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Diaz to address the buffering issue.
Mr. Diaz explained that fifteen feet of landscaping as well as the conceptual
setback will be used to create a buffer zone.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Regarding the Taco Bell project, Commissioner Rempel suggested that staff and
the applicant could work out problems with the trellis because problems do
arise with campers and motorhomes. Regarding the general site layout,
Commissioner Rempel, advised the property owners that the flooding problem
would most likely be totally climates by the construction of the project.
Furtherl that if the site had been developed with a two-story residential
project, the view would have been obstructed more than with this project. He
additionally advised that more noise and problems are created by having the
parking lot placed near residences than having the building placed near them.
Chairman Stout suggested that a compromise could be worked out with the
columns which would be agreeable with both the City and the applicant. He
explained that Foothill Boulevard is a special boulevard in the City and that
the trellis carries through the winery theme. Additionally, the trellis would
architecturally improve the building.
Motion: Ybved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 83-08 and the Resolution
approving Parcel Map 8063.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BAHKEH� JUAREZ, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
9:35 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed
9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened
L. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE—TRACT 11915 - MAYER_= Proposed architectural and
site plan changes Ears a portion of a previously approved project
consisting of 150 townhomes on 10.7 acres located at the southeast corner
of Arrow and Turner and 44 patio homes on 6.3 acres located at the
northeast corner of Turner and 26th Street - Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map
7280.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Cominission Minutes -13- October 26, 1983
Milo Mohler, representing the ppli rrt� addressed the i i n stating
their concurrence with the findings f the staff report and resolution.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was chased.
Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded b McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving the revisions to Tentative Tract 11915.
AYES- COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT
NOES: I I NER : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
M. ENVIRON14ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (TENTATIVE TRACT
1 33 T A change f zone Ergo A l t l rite A rloul dro R 3 P13
(Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) arid the development of
54 townhomes on 4.3 cr e of hand generally located went of Vineyard,
north of Arrow APN 207-211 1
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearingo
Try Christiansen, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission
concurring with the findings of the staff report and Resolution
There were no further d ont , therefore the public hearing was closed .
Motion: Moved by MaNielt seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to adopt
the` Resolution approving Tentative Tract 1238 .
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M NIR , JUAREZ, BARKER, R MPR , STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded lr McNiel, unanimously carried,d, to adopt
the Resolution on approving Planned Development 83 0
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL, BARKER, HEMPEL, STOUT
NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.- , NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes 14 October R , 1983
f . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EN ATIVE " A T 1 - LAf A custom lot
residential idential a adivislorr df 19 lots on 9.75 acresof lard in the f-1 , 00
one located on the southeast corner of Hillside Rod and Beryl Street
AN1 1 a1- 1
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending that
consideration be given to direct the applicant to vary lot widths and sizes,
per previous Commission policy.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Dori Hornbeck, 150 S. El Molino, Pasadena, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission concurring with the conditions of approval. fie
addressed the issue of the lot widths on Beryl and stated that tore are other
measures that could be taken to mitigate the "postage stamp" appearance, such
as tarps of fencing separating lots and building elevations, which would not
financially impact the applicant as much as eliminating a lot.
Joe; or°don, adjacent property owner, asked what typo of fencing would be used
along the equestrian trail.
Michael " airin, Senior Planner, replied that d split rail fence would b
required per Equestrian Trail Guidelines on the north interior ior property lines.
There r e no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that the design is not very creative and would like
to come up with some alternatives to having the driveways all coring out onto
Beryl in a straight lima
Commissioner per peel replied that this concern could be mitigated through
Design Review by alternating garage and placing driveways placed on different
aides
Commissioner fcNicl agreed that this could be mitigated igated through design.
Commissioner Juarez agreed with Commissioners Rempol and Mc i :l
Chairman Stout stated concerns with a large number of lots fronting on Beryl
and cited the problems on Sapphire as are example.. He additionally stated that
he realized that economics come into play, however the project looked as if .it
er* signed by a computer and that one more lot couldn't have been squeezed
d
out. Funther, he understood that size constraints were placed on the project;
however, the design could have been reevaluated luated to come up witha compromise
which met with approval of all concerned.
Mr. Gomez commented that if the d i s:ion desired to approve the project with
no changes, additional, conditions of approval might be proposed ed to address the
deviation from the tract look, such as location of driveways and garages.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 26, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that he was unhappy with the project; however, if it was
the Commission's desire to approve it, be would recommend circular driveways
only rather than hammerhead driveways.
Commissioner Rempel disagreed and stated that hammerheads could be an
innovative idea.
Commissioner McNiel agreed that hammerhead drives could be innovative when
mixed with others and stated that tracts with only circular driveways do look
cookie cutter and are without imagination.
Chairman Stout replied that the problem with hammerhead drives is circulation
and the fact that people don't use them but tend to back out instead.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MoNiel, carried, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 11997 with a
condition added to the Resolution which would state that variations in
building layouts would include such things as side and front entry garages,
variable setbackso and various architectural treatments.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RRMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman Stout voted No for previously stated reasons.
0. AMENDMENT TO TRACT 12092 - USA PRO.P.EIRTIES - An amendment to the various
caller condominium lots to the larger models and slight modifications
thereby to the open space. This is an approved project in process of
development on 9.2 acres at the northwest corner of Archibald and Feron
Boulevard - APN 209-051-01 .
Paul scar earn Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that the City may be seeing more amendments of this
type as developers are discovering that smaller units are not selling as well
as anticipated.
Planning Commiasion Minutes -16- October 26, 1983
Motion., Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving the proposed amendments to Tract 12090.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JU ARE Z, MCNIEL, HEMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
NEW BUSINESS
P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELORMENT REVIEW 8�3-19 - VILLA - The
development of eight (8) apartment units on 23,435 sq. ft. lot inthe R-3
zone lsoated at the northwest corner of Rancheria Drive and Tapia Via
Drive - APN 207-122-0'Tt 08, 09.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Richard Villa, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he concurred
with the findings of the staff report and Resolution.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated his opinion that this is going to be a very
attractive project.
Chairman Stout agreed with Commissioner Rempel and stated that a lot of
innovation was used in the project.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Development Review 83-19 and the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HEMPEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NO
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Andrew Bare makian addressed the Commission asking if there is a way that an
apartment project in constructed by his firm could be constructed under an
"adults only" concept until seating is available for children in the Central
School District.
Planning Comnission Minutes -17- October 26, 1983
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that Mr. Barmakian had made this request to
the City Council and was informed that an adults only project would not be
possible because it is considered unconstitutional by law. He further advised
that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the
provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance.
Pat Guerra inquired about the status of a aroject at the southwest 0orner of
Hellman and Footill.
Rick Gomez replied that this was an apartment project proposed by Sickels
Development and was approved approximately six weeks ago.
Mr. Guerra stated that he had concerns regarding the nature of apartments and
felt they belonged further east.
Commissioner Hempel advised that the General Plan shows high density for that
area.
There were no further comments.
* N * * *
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MaNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
10:30 P. - Planning Commission Adjourned
Resp4ctfully submittedt
9X
-Risk Game
Depu�y Secretary
it
Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 26, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CCACNA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 12 , 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to carders at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho, Cucamonga,
California. Following the call to order, Chairman Strut led in the pledge t '
the flag
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David darker, Addle Juarez, Larry M;Ni 1,
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dart Coleman, ;Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman,
Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse,
Administrative Secretary; Pahl Hougeau, Senior Civil
Engineer
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that there will be a City Council budget
meeting considering the final City budget on October 17, 1983 at 6 p.m. at the
Lions Park Community Center.
Mr. Gomez stated that ,the Environmental Review Boars of the County will lei
at the West Valley Foothills Community Plan Environmental Impact Report on
October 18, at 1 . D P.m.
;. Gomez also stated that the County Planning Commission will continue their,
public hearing can the Foothill Community Plan on October PC, at. 2*00 p.m.
Chairman Stout asked if City staff will be present for the FIR review of the
Foothill Community Plan 'to give their testimony.
Gomez replied that he will be present to comment on both the EIR and
Community Plan.
Chairman Stout felt that this i ; important for legal reasons.
Commissioner Hempel asked if the City/County City/County Planning missio per° Steering
Committee 'meeting; is oxen to the rest of the Commission.
Per. Gomez replied that staff __would, check into it and get back to all
Commissioners.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the, September 14 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Rempel stated that he had some concerns with Item A of the
Consent Calendar in that this tract was approved six monthsafter the Planning
Commission approval. He asked if' the time extension would be contingent upon
the Council approval or to the Planning Commission approval.
r. Hopson reviewed the actions that took place with Tentative Tract 11928 and
stated that while he has not researched this, his feeling is that the Plamiing
Commission approval would be used as a measuring stick
Commissioner Re pel stated that the applicant was- unable to do anything dud to
the Council action and wondered if the time extension caused time to run,
out. farther, the resolution dues not crake any statement to the change of
date by Council and wondered :if it should
Mr. Johnston replied that the title indicates that the Resolution has been
amended
i
wmmissioner Parker stated that this is very awkward because after the Council
appeal this did not come back to the Planning Commission but now the
Commission is being asked to:extend it
Mr. Hopson stated that, the City Council really sees every tract but it is a ,
ministerial act and therefore this tract dial not have to come back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the difference hard is that they put, the
condition n the map but not on the site plan
Following brief discussion, Chairman Stout indicated that this item had beers
dealt with de facto and recommended that .item B be moved First.
Motion: Moved by Marker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 81-38 , approving the time extension for DR 1 C a
P. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 81 C R CI The development of
a 15,600 square foot, 2-story professional office building on a 1 .39 acre
parcel in the C zone, ,located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard at
San Bernardino Road - APN RC" 1 1- C.
Motion: Moved by Rempol, seconded by MaRidl, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 81 11 ,; approving a time extension for 'Tentative 'bract 11928
with clarification of the actual time period
Planning Commission Minutes -2-
October 12, 1983
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11928 WESTLANDVENTURE - A total
planned development of 59 units on 5.85 acres of land in the R' lPD torte
located on the north side of Highland Avenue,e, east of Archibald Avenue
APN201-252-32.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND "PARG L MAP 8179 - MAYHEW - A division of 1 .01
acrpes of land into 2 parcels within Subarea 4 of the Industrial Specific
Plan area, located at the northwest corner of Acacia Street and Cottage
Avenue APN 209-192-13through 1 .
Senior Civil Engineer Paul Rout eaut, presented the staff report.
Mr. Hopson ;stated that there , is no specific reference in the proposed
resolution to gradate the alley to the north. He asked if staff would' ant
some specific Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council vacate
the alley.
Rout eauz replied that in the past staff has brought alley vacations to the
Commission for their recommendation but they now have found that this can be
dote by minute action. He stated that if the City Attorney thins it would be
covered by minute action it would be handled in that nner. Further, it was
intended that such a condition be incorporated,
Chairman Stott asked ;if this is the north-south allay to the crest of the
property.
Mr. Roux eaut replied that it is
Mr. John Nelson, 10165 Norwick,,' Rancho Cucamonga, represented the applicant.
He asked for clarification, stating the alley sought to to vacated is on the
north side of the parcel. He further stated that his understanding is that
they can enter a lien agreement for the property on the west side and defer
doing any alley improvements at this time
Chairman Stout stated that the only thing required is AG pavement.
r Rout eaui stated that this had been discussed with the applicant and after
looking at all possibilities for future de elo meat l if the Planning
Commission desired, it could postpone the improvements and ;put in a lien
agreement because there is likelihood that there twill be an assessment
district for the Belmont Street area and the improvements could be made at
that time.
Chairman Stout asked if putting, in a piece of asphalt will jeopardize the
alley.
Rein eau replied that it will not; but, if it is combined with the
assessment district it wound benefit the applicant and would remain in betters
condition longer.
Planning fission MinutesOctober 12, 1983
Commissioner, Re rpel asked if the alley is really usable with the poser poles
going down the middle.
Chairman Stout asked if the power poles are a residential size and whether
they should be rrnd r mounded at some point in time.
Mr. Rory eau replied they could be because they are 12
Chairman Stout asked if the recommendation is that the applicant be allowed to
lien for one-half of the alley.
Staff replied that is correct
Theme being no further comments , Chairman Stout closed the public hewing
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Ma Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 1 P approving Parcel Map 8179with provisions for a lien ;
agreement for future alley improvements conditional on approval of the street
acati.on, by the City Council and the issuance of a negative declaration
D. ENVIRONMBNTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINAL CONSIDERATION ;OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP This is the final public hearing before the
Planning Commission for review and comment- on the proposed Development
Code and Development District Map.' Resolution for __a final
recommendation to the City Council is being provided for action by the
Planning Commission*
Mr. Gomez stated that the Commission should review ghat has occurred with the
Development Code to date and make, a recommendation to the City Council on the
teat and district map. He indicated that the balance of the staff report
deals with the major' revisions of the code and a description of _ the
Environmental Assessment.
Mr. Gomez stated pursuant to the Mate law and the SIR findings, the
Development Cade Ards done under the General Plana and other related elements of
the land use map. He indicated that staff feels that the Development Code is
an extension of the General Plan and the single LiR findings would be
appropriate under Section 2116 of the Public Resources Code.
Mr ; Gomez explained that there has been a revision to the development
standards matrix format to allow better, reference. He indicated; that this has
been consolidated ted for easier reference.
. Gomez stated that A short memo had been included- on the revisions to the
District map which reflected the actions of the Planning Commission and also a
letter from the Raldy View Chapter of' the 13IA commending the Staff for their
goad work on the Development Code
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
There no comments, the beingr public hearing was closed I
Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1983
Commissioners NaNiel asked if City darned parks would be identified on the
Development Map.
Johnston replied that they will by shown as open space
Commissioner Barker stated that previously they had talked about the
maturation date of lase animals and shifting the time period for the keeping
of them He eked if staff had discussed this with the Equestrian Committee.
r. Gomez replied that this had been discussed with the Equestrian Committee,
which felt that 12 months would be the appropriate time.
Commissioner Barker asked that the Development Code donne back to the Planning
Commission for review to see whether it was working the way it was planned and
to see if there are areas where some asjust rents should be made.
Mr. Gomez replied that one year; mould be an appropriate time and proud gave
staff the necessary basis for evaluation after working with the Code
Commissioner Rempel stated ;he would like to see the part of 'the Development
Code Standards shown in a graphic. He indicated reading the charts is not
problem for developers who are familiars with such documents but it is
difficult for the lay person.
Gomez stated that up to this point staff has put all of their effort into
the teat of the Code and are now in the princess of following up on the
graphics. He indicated that this would be considered,
Cairman Stout added his compliments to those of the BIA for the excellent job
on the Development Code by staff. He stated it is difficult to start from
scratch and create something. Further, that there was comparatively little
fine tuning or changing done to what had been submitted.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously,s to adopt
Resolution No. 83 123 approving the Development Code' and Development district
p and recommending ,its approval to the City Council:.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez , carried unanimously, to bring
back the Development Cade for review by the Planning issison following a
one year period of its operation
R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ddRyl : � PCRRCA� �7R1' CR'
OR ORATION The development of a 20,0 C square fort office complex on
1 .79 acres of land in the P (Administrative Professional. zone located
on the, south aide of Base Lire, near Hellman venire AP d 2 d 3 -3 .
Associate Planner Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minute October 12 1983
Mr. dim Pre iti, 10313 Ranch, Rancho Cucamongao the, applicant, stated that
they were under the impression that this would be approved under the original
plan. Further, that this is a comprehensive plan but they were unsure if
Mobil would approve it He indicated that he is concerned about the ;easement
nd was unsure as to whether it could be realigned. He further indicated that
he doses not want problems with this piece of property downstream and was the
purpose of the letter which he transmitted to the Commission this evening.
Mr. Pre iti indicated that he is very happy to work out a compromise.
Commissioner kle rpea asked Mr. Pre iti to paraphrase the letter. He asked if
when the parcel map was done the easement was there. Further that the Mobil
organization has been asked to align their entrance with that of the City
Hall. Commissioner Rer pel. stated that he is the only one left of the original
Comission which approved this site and recalled that there is a condition on
the site approval to eliminate any l,eft-hand turns by means of an island. H
indicated that giving Mobil the option"of punting in the island or moving the
entrance would provide Mr. Previti with a strong argument.
ment.
Mr. Rougeau stated that Mr. Previtils concern is that if Mobil has a problem
with the relocation of the entrance driveway it will jeopardize their
property. He ranted at made clear that It is a City requirement and not
something that Mr. Pre iti would 'like to have done. Mr. Row epua stated that
the City has called Mobil and explained the circumstances to their but they are
a large organization and it would take some time for-them to get backs to the
City.
Chairman Stout asked if the Mobil station was approved under a CUP. He stated
that if it becomes evident that; they do not want to comply, this could be
flagged back to the Commission in the event there are traffic problems.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the City has the power to unilaterally require the
removal of the present driveway nd the acceptance of new easement given b
the applicant
Mr. Hopson stated that if Mobil has s ground lease and is not the owner in fee
f the parcel
u uxld b tunable tee sa an thin, about o in the
the
_
easement;. Further, the City has the direct peer to require that they
relocate the driveway.
Commissioner Barker stated that when this project was braked at in design
Review they were not aware that they should be looking at a particular
alignment. He asked if there are enough parking spaces to allow adjustment
into the service station if the easement is changed. He asked if they could
lose some spaces in order t ;round the turn into the station.
Mr. Coleman replied that they have 5 spaces ,in excess of what is needed.
kr. Previti stated that they dui not want to get to a point to where Mobil will
object in not having left hand access into the property , because this could be
a liability for his property.
Chairman Stout stated that the way the; condition is phrased there would not be,
a legal problem.
Planning Commission Minutes October 12 1983
Prue iti stated that the;City initiated the request and he does not want t
get In the cross ire
Coleman -stated that the applicant is concerned that his project will be
held up because of this issue.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, 'carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83 1 approving DR 3 , issuing a negative declaration with
language in the condition to provide for flexibility to design the driveway
and for the replacement of the existing easement with a new easement
" 1 ICA RARCR RtICR
City Planner, Rich Gomez , reviewed the Planning Division work program for
Commission comment, deletions and recommendations.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the Foothill Boulevard Study should be moved
forward because the City will be getting some pressure in this area as new
businesses occur on Foothill.
r. Gomez replied that staff feels that this is a high priority and is in the
process of readjusting its personal resources at this time in carder to start
this project
Chairman Stout asked if the chart places the Foothill Boulevard Study to be
done in January.
r Gomez replied that �t � scheduled in f�ecemr.
Chairman Stout asked ed relative to billboards if there is some bill pending that
proposes to take away the City °a power in the amortization of sigma.
Gomez replied that the League of California Cities and the American
Planning Association have removed their opposition to the proposed legislation
( R 1 LLI' ) and that the actual bill has been watered down considerably.
Mr. Gomez stated that as far as the City is concerned, there will e a more
aggressive program in 1984 which is when the City a sign program begins the
amortization process
Commissioner Barker stated that his new job duties will require the assignment
of the alternate to attend some of the upcoming Design Review meetings and he,
asked if Commissioner McNiel would to able to fill in for him some of the
time.
el stated that he would act as the -alternate in the event Commissioner
rker is unable to make the meetings.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 12, 1983
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, djourn.
7:57 p.m. The Planning Commid ioAdjourned
Respectfully submitted,
RICK G Z, Acting Secretary
i
Planning Commission a. t -8 October 12, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO C U CI A
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Regular tin
Development Code Workshop
October 4, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of
Reecho Cucamonga PlanningCommission to order *30 p .m. The meeting was
held at the Lions Peak Community Center, 9161 }base Lime Rued, Rancho
Cucamonga
COMMISSIONERS SIONERa PRESENT. Davey Barker, Addie Juarez , Larry MeNiel,
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout
COMMISSIONERSABSENT: Na ARnd
STAFF PRESENT: Tara Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman,
Assistant Planner; "Edgard Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner;
Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Michael Vairin,
Senior Planner
APPROVAL CAP MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Juarez , seconded by Barker, carried , to approve the Minutes
of the September 6, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning is ion greeting.
Commissioner R mp l abstained because he was not present.
Motion., Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to approve the minutes
of the Septembers 20, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Stout advised that the purpose of this meeting is to review the
Development District Map for conformance with the n real Plan and to complete
detailed review of the Residential lop ae nt Standards.
Senior Planner,r, Sich l Vairin, presented they staff report indicating that
they would concentrate, on the Development District Maps as well as the zoning"
maps with the intent to attain consistency with the General Plea.
. Vairin advised that Cart Johnston would review the Development District
Maps and Tarr Coleman would review and conclude with the charts contained
within Chapter 4 of the Development Code which are the Development Standards
Charts
Mr. Vairin explained that the Development de hearings would conclude on
October 12 at which ieh time a resolution would be prepared for the Planning
o iss ion and a preliminary ordinance prepared ' for the City Council
incorporating ;all the revised chapters". 'He stated there would also be minor
adjustments to the definition section prior to distribution of the final draft
to the City Council.
Curt Johnston , Assistant Planner, there reviewed the Development District
p e explained the medium density areas which were shows on the General
Plan Map and which should be shown as low medium in order to more readily
transition the residential areas
Mr. Vairin reiterated that the General Plea shows o" density range of 4 14,
however, the Planning in ion and the City Council has stated that this i
too- broad a range and preferred a low medium category with a density range of
4-8 in order to provide for transition
Mr. Johnston explained Exhibit A as a good site for a ..low-medium wrt density
range. He stated that currently there are two approved projects in the area
at nine units per acre.
Chairman Stout asked for comments on Exhibit A.
Commissioner Rempel asked if there are any tentative maps in the area at the
present time
Johnston replied that there are two, the Shafer Westland tland pro eet and the
RobertaGroup; however, the area in question does not have anything on it at
the present time
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing and stated he thought the area shown
in Exhibit A shouldbe designated as low-medium, 4 d dwelling units per acre.
r. Jeff Sceranka, representing the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce,
stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission when the General Plan
was set and indicated that there was d lot of debate and much discussion on
the residential area to the west of the proposed designation oh nge concerning
the maintenance and buffering. Mr. Sceranka indicated he would concur with
the residents that ' waking the density 4 d dwelling units per acre would make a
lot of sense.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to designate the area: shown in
Exhibit A to low-medium, with a density range of 4 d dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Johnston stated that the; second area in question is further to the South
and near the Stater Brothers sho,pping, center and is actuall.y two areas. He
further stated that to address Mr. Re apel's question the M.J. Brock site is
render construction at 6.4 dwelling units per acre and by designating it medium
they would really be making it non-conforming rr it to the ;General Elan. He
indicated that this site is ,a little bit different because there is a mobile
home park: single family tract homes by Lightner Construction Company and a
number of condominium projects ad aoent
Planning Commission Minutes - October 4 , 1983
Comissioner Rempel questioned 'whether there would be a size problem in
getting a single loaded street w,ithin this area.
Mr. Vairin stated that it would be possible to get private drives in that area
with a possible access way or even private streets. The size of the area was
discussed with the conclusion that it does match the street shown on the east
side.
Commissioner McNiel asked about the tree farm in that area.
Mr. Vairin replied that it would renviin in the 8-14 density range which would
be consistent with the area.
Comissioner Barker asked if it would be possible to transition that site to
4-8 dwelling units per acre.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he has no real problem with this if someone
came in with other parts and divided the tree farm and the area below, there
might be room. Further, there could always be modification at a later date.
Chairman Stout asked the Commission to indicate whether than should be a
change to the present density range. The consensus of the Commission was to
have a range;of 4-8 dwelling units per acre for the two areas in question.
Mr. Vairin interjected that with the General Plan there is the option of
changing this at a later time without a General Plan amendment.
W. Johnston showed the third area near the Cask In' Cleaver restaurant where
a duplex project is under consideration. He indicated that there is an
elementary school and a church as well as a mobile home park located nearby
with the Acacia project and a series of older homes. Be indicated that part
of the issue is that there is industrial mixed single family homes.
Mr. Vairin stated that currently the is a project under construction with a
density range of 7.7 dwelling 'units per acre. He asked if it should remain at
that range or be allowed to go higher. He indicated that it would be better
to zone to the lower end of the range and change this at some, time in the
future.
Commissioner Rempel stated he foresees this going into the Industrial Specific
Plan at some point in the future so it would be better to leave it where it
is. He indicated that his feeling is that it should be 4-8 dwelling units per
acre at the maximum.
The consensus of the Commission is that this area be designated 4-8 dwelling
units per acre.
W. Johnston discussed area D-2 and that the staff recommendation is that this
should be 4-8 dwelling units per acre in order to maintain the integrity of
the area.
Chairman Stout asked why the zoning isn't 2-4 dwelling units per acre.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 4, 1963
I
it"n replied because at the time it was felt that with its location and
access problems .it would not warrant` lower density. further, that the
property owner was requesting this designation.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not remember this being discussed.
rr. V irin stated that this could, be taken up in the future for General Plan
amendment discussion.
Mr. Rempel stated this would be the proper way of handling this and stated the
General Flan Amendment could change the density to 2-4 dwelling units per
acre; however, 4-d dwelling straits per acre is all right at this time.
. Sceranka statue he did not think there was any discussion on this area.
ea
The consensus of the Planning i ion was to designate this area at 4-8
dwelling units per acre and to direct staff to bring this area before the
Commission as a possible General playa Amendment t 'dwelling units per
acre.
[fir. Johnston reviewed another area and indicated that this originally was a
part of the p lann d communities. He explained the high density designation
and the medium density designation as shown currently on the zoning mapt with
a description of the nearest property. Mr. Johnston indicated further that
the property owner requesting the designation change is in the audience and
that the request is in conformance with the General prate
Chairatan Stout asked if this would require General Plan Amendment .
Mr. Vairin replied that it would not as it is a border Liras oaao and there is
some room to decide which category this piece should be in. Farther, given
the Victoria planned Community, it would make sense to peat it in the same'
category.
The property owners , . and Mrs. Diamond, 12559 Base Vireo, stated they were
in favor of this crhan
Commissioner Barker stated it would be consistent to continuo all high density
in this area
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to change this area to high
dority
r. Sceranka asked if the property owners it this area and all ethers affected
by the changed to the Development Design Map would be informed of the changes
do. He recommended that notification be made in the interest of good public
relations and to alleviate any Batters problems.
The o is ion concurred with Mr. Sceranka's statement that staff notify all
property owners to advise them of any mjor differences in the zoning other
than ghat they were led to believe when they purchased their property.
Planning Commission Hirsute 4 tobor 4 , 1983
;
M Johnston explained the Commercial/Office category which districts include
neighborhood commercial, general commercial and office professional. He
indicated that the most significant boundary changes from the current zoning
map would include the west side of Haven south of Foothill near the K rt
which is 1 and ,is proposed to change to Office/ rofessional. Relative to
the commercial area he indicated there is the old downtown Alta Loma which is
i i and residential so revisions are necessary for conformance with the
General Plan with a proposed change to general commercial.
Chariman Stout asked if the background information on this was gathered by
going to the assessor's parcels
Mr. Johnston replied that this is hoe it was done because there were so many
small properties
Chairman, Stout asked if any conflicts north noting were found.
Johnston replied there were none
Scer°an a asked for clarification of terminology on the General plan so
that people would know ghat the different 'types f commercial are.
Johnston deferred to W. yairin who stated that within the Victoria plan
these categories appear; however, convenience commercial is not on d map
except on an as ;needed- basis resulting from a market study in the neighborhood
commercial category. He indicated that they wanted to keep these three
categories for the General plan
r. Sceranka awed if these will be differentiated for the General Plan.
Mr. Vairin replied that the references to these categories is within the two
planned communities only.
Chairman Stout asked, if there was a reason to pot additional categories in:
the planned communitiest would there have to be a general plan amendment.
Mr. Vairin replied yes, but your would take care of the zoning at the same
time.
;. Johnston genet on to the Open :Space category which includes hillside
residential, open space, flood control and utility: corridor. lie indicated
that these areas are designated in the ;northern section of Alta Loma where the
natural terrain limits development potential. Further, the largest area of
hillside residential occurs at the northwest carrier of the City, north of
Almond, between; Sapphire and Turquoise and is currently zoned 1 1 , and an
application has been submitted for this area.
Johnston; explained the flood control areas stating that a; compatible use
world be a nursery or Christmas tree farm.
Chairman Stout stated that as the City channeli es a lot of the major channels
a " lot of land is being removed from the flood control problems. He asked if
any thought has been given to tatting some of this area , that had been
designated as flood control and changing it to something else
Planning Commission Minutes October 4 , 1983
r^ 1r in and Mr. Johnston stated that at;some point in time f areas flood
control areas are deemed to be developable th can be changed through h zone
change.
Pam Henry asked why the area in the northern corner 4iich is a utility
corridor rid r� can't be designated;that way.
.. lr in explained that they are owned by the Metropolitan Water District
and r^ shown line on the map.
Coleman indicated that trey corridor� is 600 feet wide
irlrr stated that this area should be given some n id r t on to zoning.
Chair rl Stoat asked that although they don't own the lead in fee don't they
have some easement on the property.
t
aa. �.rr stated that< r��per arr bl t area thetheland but they
r
rr $t 'h a heard
cannot part rap rapt structure as barn.
i
Chairman Stout stated that the paint he wished to make is that if they have an
easement or land in fee he doesn't sn't know ashy it would be any different than an
other utility corridor.
ire lrr stated that you could go either way and be safe. Indicated that
staff will check this particular piece of property before the next meeting,
but he was sate that It, had not been purchased.
Mrs. Henry asked about the piece of property owned by Sievers r lop nt
Company at the trap of Beryl and the reason for not continuing that particular
wash
r°. Vairin replied that this will be examined but It does not go that far. H
explained how It would donne t and crake ra different zone. Further, that they
wanted to encourage that this become part of a development and if it is zoned
flood control, the City might have to purchase e the property.
Henry stated ;that is why the open spade designation would be the proper
on ; for they area.
Chairman meat stated that as a practical matter the terrain would prevent an
development and If the designation were changed the City would have to bey' It.
Mr. Vair in recommended nded that as development comes forward n this `piece of
property' it be looked at
Chairman Stewart asked for consensus on the utility corridor.
The on nsu of the Commission was that this be explored further.
d hra t n reviewed ie wed Specific Plan and Planned,Communities.
Planning Cotma ssion Minot 6- October 4 , 1983
Chairman Stout asked if there would be conflict between the definitions in.iti ins and
general concepts relative to the designations proposed or are they fairly
consistent
Vaihin replied that they are fairly consistent and when you deal with
specific plans and planned communities they don't generally call out all
individual land verses. the planned community is a specific zoned area and it
is being zoned as a land mass and as a_ whole.
r.. Vairin pointed out the Data Design situation and suggested that it be
amended to the planned area shown as Industrial Park category zone*
r See ant a asked if the areas that the City owns would be designated as open
space in order to plan for park land
Mr. ya rin replied that they will not, although it can be shown as open,
space. He asked Mr. Johnston how they are currently shown.
Mrw Johnston replied _a number of things such as schools, fire stations,
¢hf~fey College, ' civic nnter, freeway right-of-way . are , designated as
residential
r. yai in stated that the City could showy the parks it owns as open space on
the map
The Commission felt that City owned parks should be shown in this manner.
Chairman Stout stated that the Commission would discuss the overlay district.
Mr. Johnston explained of the three districts previously discussed , mobile
hoe parks will be eliminated and included it the residential area and another
overlay area will be added which is an equestrian overlay in the north Alta
Loma area. above Banyan
Chairman Stout t stated he thought that the area just south of Banyan and west
of Sapphire sbould be added to this district.
Mr ., yair^in explained that it would not prevent the people living there from
having gorses.
Commissioner Remp l stated that the :properties that are now excluded should
be; the reason is because of deed restrictions,ns and they rust` be careful not
to include those areas with the restrictions in the overlay area.
. Hopson ,Mated that Mr. Rempel is right in concept but he dial not know how
the SU 's can be pulled in residential tracts and the acreage covered in the
overlay. He indicated it would be a gigantic task
Coleman read a section of the cede on animal regulations that deals with
this in the Development Code
Commissioner Re el stated that ;the Commission ;and the Council have passed a
resolution that allows horses in any future development. He felt that
something should be said so that there will net be hassles over this.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 4 , 1983
Mr V i in replied that the Development nt Code contains a statement .in the event
there is a conflict between the CC&Rls that the more restrictive covenant
would be applicable.
Commissioner Rempel stated that whit he is gettingt is that he draw not want
the reverse of that either.
Mr. V ir�in stated that the tide speaks to this u n pages 91 and 162 of
the revision.
Commissioner Rempel stated that his only concerti is that the i di n does
not face, future problems in dealing with this issue.
Commissioner Barker stated that the Code is all right as long as it covers the
issue in bath directions.
W. Johnston stated that relative to the master plan and the General Plan
statements staff will add the designation to the zoning p so that it will be
clear to developers that d master plan is required. Further, that the
original intent was that ttrayr would add the master platy designation stating it
will be required when the master Arlan Is dome but if it is done initially, it
would work bettar.
Johnston then wont into the Special Considerations section
Mr. Vairin stated that they would prefer, since these are permitted uses or
u ition l uses within the special zones that ttrdyr be shown as proposed
because they will be much clearer to understand. He also asked the Commission
to keep in mind the Foothill Freeway corridor. He explained the possibility
of inverse condemnatin should the i r tion an
Thera were no comments from the Commission on the Spacial Considerations
Section.
Chairman Stout asked that other properties held by ,the City such as Civic
Center also be shown.
Mr . Vairin explained i4hy they did not choose to do this and the ability to
include some of these designations into the Industrial Specific Plan. He felt
there might be a redundancy.
Mairman Stout stated that he only wants something shown on the so that
everyone will nova what is proposed to be there
Vairin replied that this could be done through the use* of an asterisk
marking. Further, that the Chamber of Commerce crap will show these areas,
Commissioner ompal stated that the only people looking for such designations
will be developers ,and people purchasing property.
Mr., car is spoke of the special language it the General Plan that deals with
Chaff yr College and its surrounding area and asked if this spacial designation
will also be shown on the development district- map. He also asked if this
sp c is l language could to shown it the text 'u f the zoning ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes October 4 , 1983_.
Mr . Vairin explained that this is a very precise policy for a specific area.
Chairman Stout stated that this was left out of the General Plan but he is
sure that the City complies with this.
Mr. Sceranka stated that most developers will not look at the General Plan but
at a zoning map or they will go to the Development Code. He felt it should be
called out in the zoning map.
Mr. Johnston replied that the pieces around Chaffey College would all have an
asterisk to designate it being a special area.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be a master planned area.
Mr. Johnston replied that is correct.
Following brief discussion, consensus of the Commission was that the only
matter to be brought back at the, next meeting is the utility corridor issue.
7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Commissioner Juarez left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Chairman Stout stated that the second major issue concerning basic and
optional development standards would be discussed.
W. Coleman explained the basic and optional standards to the Commission.
Commissioner Barker asked about cul-de-sacs and front setback lines.
Mr. Vairin explained how this is done and referred the Commission to numbers
4 and 7.
Mr. Coleman explained the reduction in open space in No. 16.
Commissioner Barker stated he wanted a guarantee that 75 feet of open space
would be used by private owners and that common areas will not be lost by
building density. He asked if this would give him that guarantee.
Mr. Coleman replied that it would because the City is now requiring 40
percent,. Further, that whatever, is required in private ends up in common as
it is just a breakdown of percentages.
Mr. Vairin stated that the 40 percent can be left but this affords the ability
to select where the open space is put. Further, it provides flexibility in
design.
Commissioner Hempel asked about the 100 foot setback on upper story units. He
felt it was too little.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 4 , 1983
i
' irin stated :that every when it is under 100 feet developers ask if they
must have a balcony.
Commissioner Remp l stated that if a minimum is t they would have a hard
time arguing the paint Commissioner Hempel stated that on the low medium it
should be at Last 200 and on the low at least 150.
Sceranka stated that he was curious about lowering the percentage from 40
to 35 on; p n apace
r Coleman explained the difference between the basics and` optional standards
and now it would affect this
Following brief discussion among the Commission the consenstis was to go to
35-
-40 percent.
Chairman tea t stated it was difficult to compare the two charts and suggested
that they be yet up on such a way within the Development Code acr that they
would invite easy comparison.
In conclusion, Mr. yairin reviewed the new requirements under the optional
development standards. They include increased setbaoks around the perimeter
f the project, recreation facilities, front yard landscaping, and energy
conservation measures. The energy requirement will, requirc, an alternative
energy system to provide domestic hot water to all duelling omits and heating
pools and spas
The Commission consensus was to approve these standards
9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned
daaatftllly brrittd '
JACK LAM Sec no to r
Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 4 , 1983
CITY OF RANCHO C1CANC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 28, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at ,
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Pace Line, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout 'then led in the pledge to the flag.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addle Juarez Larry McNiel,`
Dennistort, Herman Rempel
ABSENT:, COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City
Attorneys Coat Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lana,
Community DevelopmentDirector; Janice Reynolds, Secretary:;
Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael; Vairin, Senior
Planner ;
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Motion: Moved by Marker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to approve the Minutes
of the August 24, 1983 Planning o iss on meeting. Commissioners Hempel and
hcNiel abstained from vote as they were not In attendance at that meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11614 THE DEVELOPMENT CROUP - A,
change of zone from R-1 and R 1- to R /PTA for total-planned d velo-pment
of 80 single family att coed units on 10.1 acres of land generally located
on the went aide of Ramona at Monte Vista Avenue APN 202 181 0 , 06, and
16.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2 C NORTHKIRK The
developm nt of a church facility on 3'.3 acmes of land in the R 1 zone,
located on the east side of Haven south of Highland APN 202- 6 1 2
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the consent calendar. Commissioner Barker advised that he would like Staff to
relay to the applicant of item B that when this project comes before Design_
Review, alternative methods other than asphalt could be considered for the
parking area.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 2 , 1983
PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. ' CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7 0 OAP AD - This is a review of potential
operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended
to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. . The
business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest darner of
Carnelian and 1 th Street.
Pick Gomezr City Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Larry Arcina e, owner ,of the Boars Head, addressed the 'Commission advising
that his establishment began serving dinner as of Septembers 27, 1983. He
stated that he was not, sure ghat this would do to help with the noise problem'
as it would bring more people to the restaurant. He further stated that this
is the third, time he has been before the planning Commission and considered it
a foam of harassment. He advised that the shopping center owners have spent
in excess of $12,000 trying to comply with the Ci.ty's requirements to
alleviate neighbor complaints. He pointed out that some oaf, the complaints
registered with the sheriff Is department state problems with 17 and 18 year'
old kids in the parking lot. He advised that these are not patrons of the
Scars Head and could be Bob's Big Boy patrons, over which the Boars Head would
have no control.ol, He further stated that many noise problems associated with
the shopping center parking lot are net 'entirely originated by Boars Head'
customers and that many of the problems,`,such; as racing around the parking
lot, are caused by people driving in off of Carnelian. He additionally stated
that the complaint of bottles being thrown against fences and into back yards
cannot be attributed to the Boars Plead since they do not allow containers t
leave the premises. He stated that most of the complaints come from one
family, the Futrells, and suggested that possibly their religious beliefs- play
a large part in their complaints. Mr. Aroma.ge further stated that 60 to 7
percent of his business is generated between the hours of 11 p.m. is 1 :30 a.m.
and that if his hours are cut back, he could not economically keep his
establishment roper.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the Conditional Use Permit was granted
with the restaurant as the primary use and the bar an ancillary use.
Judy Adams o 6611 Topaz, addressed the Commission in support of the Boars
Head. She advised that she lives directly behind the Soars Head and has not
been bothered by the noise problems since Mr. Arc na, e took possession. She
stated that if 'occasionally noise becomes a problem, she calla and the
employees are quick to alleviate the disturbance. She pointed out thatBob's
Big Elroy remains open until 1 a.m. and agreed that not all of the noise can be
attributed to the Boars Head
Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 1983
Douglas Moore addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating
that the problem originates in that the Conditional Use Permit was granted for
a restaurant which has not materialized. He suggested that if, the use was to
be a restaurant, it should be a restaurant; however, if it is going to be a
bar, it should be in an area compatible with this type of use.
Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars
Head stating that while it may appear that he is the only one complaining, be
is actually the spokesman for many of his neighbors. He stated that the
problem with the Boars Head is the hours it is open and that being open until
1 :30 on 2 a.m. is too late for a residential area when people have to get up
and go to work in the <morning. He suggested 10 p.m. as a compatible closing
time. He commended reinagets attitude in trying to work out problems
with the neighborhood, but stated that the use is just not compatible.
Mr. Futrell submitted a letter from Bonnie Worrell, an adjacent neighborhor,
to the Commission which voiced her opposition to the Boars Head based on
neighborhood incompatibility.
Gene Collins addressed the Commission stating that he has been working with
the Boars Head on the sound problem. He advised that the back door is being
replaced and a sound proof door, is being installed and that he wanted the
Commission to know that they are aware of and are working on the noise
problem.
Laura Ford addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating
that this is not a compatible use in a residential neighborhood.
Gayle Dyke addressed the Commission in opposition stating that the hours of
the Boars Head are uncompatible with a residential area.
June Rise add,ressed the Commission stating that a bar should not be allowed in
this area, however, a restaurant would be compatible.
A resident at 6671 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he has had a
back yard full of beer bottles and has had people come to his door asking to
use his telephone of being in a fight in the parking lot. He suggested
that the Conditional Use Permit should be for a restaurant, not a bar with
rowdy patrons.
Larry Arcinage, Boars Head owner, addressed the Commission stating that
limiting the hours of operation to 10 p.m. is not good business practice. He
pointed out that Bob's Big Boy is open until 1 a.m. and that he should also be
allowed to remain open until that time. lie stated that his business
contributes to the City is tax base and that forcing the Boars Head to close
will leave a half empty shopping center, which could create even more problems
for adjacent residents.
Chairman Stout closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 28, '1983
Commissioner McNi l stated that when he knew this item was coming before the
Commission again, he visited the parking lot of the Boars Read around closing`
time. He stated that there was activity in the parking lot between 1 :20 a .m.
and 1 ,30 a.m and that by 1 : 5 a.m. the parking lot was empty. He pointed out
thatBob's was also closing at this time. He also stated that he observed one
car driving behind the Boars (lead and when he investigated, found that the
chain had been removed He further stated that he realized that limiting the
hours may be the guillotine for the establishment unless they change their_
method of operation, however, did not see any other way. He advised that he
would not like to be a neighbor of the Boars Head
Commissioner Barker stated that when this item cause before the Commission
several months ago it was a use which bordered on incompatibility, however the
Commission was satisfied that the owner of the property had: grade satisfactory.
efforts to mitigate problems. He further stated that there are certain
characteristics which are incompatible with residential areas and that this
use does not blend and is not working. He pointed out that the Conditional
Use Permit was issued for a restaurant and they; only began a dinner menu last
evening. He recommended that the Commission require the Boars Head to be a
functional restaurant with a dinner menu and require a more compatible classing
time or to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and require the establishment to
close and be removed from the area.
Commissioner Re tpel advised that ;he was the only Commissioner remaining of the
original Commission which approved the CUP for this project. He stated that
the approval of the permit was based on the Boars Head being a restaurant
similar to the one in Upland. He further stated that he realized that
Arcina e and Mr. Gorgen have done everying they can think of to mitigate the
problems and the noise disturbances can be mitigated inside the building,
however the outside noise is much more difficult to control and realized that
some of the parking lot noise is attributable to Bob's Big Boy. Further, he
was in favor of limiting the hours to`those more compatible with a residential
area
Commissioner Juarez stated that people are bothered by noise all over,
however, they do not all complain to the City. She further stated that this
business establishment is Mr. Aroina eas livelihood and she realized that
something has to be dome to mitigate disturbances, however felt the hours and
days of operation were fine
Chairman Stout stated ,that he agreed with Commissioner Barker* in that this use
is not compatible with a residential area and "realized the fir. Arcina e has
tried everything possible to , mitigate the 'disturbances. However, his
preference would be to limit the hours of operation to 11 p.m. He further
stated that he realizes this will mean a loss of capital to Mr. Arcina e,
however, could not see, any other way to wake this use compatible with nearby
residences'
Commissioner Darker asked if there was a way to insure that the dinner menu
would continue to be in force
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 28, 1983
Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the condition 4 could
be amended to read that the dinner menu and the serving of dinner was
effective on September 27, 1983 and would be required to continue for the life
of the approval
Commissioner Barker stated he would d litre to be assured that the establishment'
will not strap serving dinner after this hearing has ended and recommended that
this language be added
Commissioner Barker referred to condition 2 of the modifying resolution and
asked if the-sound analysis would be reviewed by a third party.
Mr. Gomez replied that staff would review the analysis and suggested that
language could be added for assurance
Commissiner Barked recommended that trivia language be added
Motion: Moved by Barker, .seconded by i eNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution
d 117 modifying , Conditional Use Permit 78-03 by limiting the hours of.
operation to 11 p.m. , requiring the installation of sound attenuating
materials to existing interior walls' and ;doors, the requirement of a sound
analysis to be done by a licensed sound engineer which is to be reviewed and
approved by staff, annual review by the Planning Commission, and language
added to assure that the dinner 'menu and serving of dinner will continue for
the life of the approval.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS- JUAREZ
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Juarez stated her reason for voting no was that she did not feel
it necessary to limit the hours or days of operation ,` as previously stated.
8.15Planning Commission Recessed
d w 5 Planning Commission Reconvened
D. CONDITIONAL AL USE PERMIT 82-1 HO ARD -- The revision to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of God Church for the
development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the
1-20,0 G zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson
Avenues APN 20 1 R 1-01
Michael Vaipin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
Planning.. Commission Minutes 5 September 28, 1983
Pastor Lawrence Howard, 9540 Ironwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the
Commission advising that the Commission had approved the Conditional Use
Permit for this project in November with manor revisions. He stated that the
church received Resolution -10 after that meeting and noted that one of the
Planning Division conditions required the temporary buildings to be upgraded
architecturally to match the permanent facilities or be removed, which he
claimed was not discussed at the November public hearing. He stated that
these buildings cost the church in excess of $225,000 and that kind of money
is not invested in buildings to be torn down. After receipt of the notice
that these buildings were not to be permanent and the desire of the Commission
at the November public hearing was that the proposed multi purpose building
should be pulled sway from the east side of the property, the church decided
that they would be better off to build a permanent rather than temporary
structure which would have to be torn down in a fear years. He stated that the
use of the proposed building would be the same as the one previously approved
y the Planning Commission, and members of the church staff: contacted the
Planning Division asking how this change, would affect the Conditional onal. Use
Permit and if the City would permit a metal frame building with stucco outside
and drywall inside. Pastor Howard stated that the Planning staff advised the
church that it would not affect the permit and would be better received than
the original plan The church then submitted new drawings and elevations and
were told by staff that a new permit would have to be applied for which would
also require a fee. Capon filing a new application and paying the fee : he
church was informed of a number of necessary revisions, which were made The
church submitted the revisions to the Planning "Division and were informed of
additional changes, which he stated were not previously mentioned. He further
stated that this was . the pattern four times until, the preparation of the
elevations before the Commission 'this ;evening
echoes of the staff report and the
rr to the analysis s p r referred Pastor Howard
y
Design Review Committee's recommendation for major revisions needed to bring
the building into conformance and stated that these revisions would cut up the
building, thus changing the design and the usage completely. He indicated,.
that the church had agreed to window, roof, and column changes, but feat the
structure that is being presented this evening is more compatible with the
existing single family residences compared to other churches it the area. He
presented the Commission with photographs of area churches which he felt were
not compatible with their adjacent residential areas. In regards to the
Grading Committee recommendations, he stated that little grading would be; done
on the north side of building and that the 2r1 slope which is used to give the
maximum use of the plane is compatible with the area. Regarding the
Development Review Committee comments, he stated that all of their
requirements had been addressed in the revised site plan. In conclusion,
Pastor Howard stated that the purpose of this application was to further the
church°d outreach to the Community and that no one wants the church to be
compatible with their neighbors more , than the church itself. He stated that
the church feels theirs request is just and reasonable and asked for the
Commission's approval of the project
Planning Commission Minutes, -6- September 28, 1983
Pat Guerra, 8218 Kirkwood, addressed the Commission ,stating that when the
Commission originally reviewed the CUP"there was some discussion regarding the
improvements to Archibald which in his opinion were not reflected in the
minutes of the meeting. He stated that he believed the consensus of the
Commission at that time was that the improvements could be warred until such
time as the Edison Company is ready to install their improvements. e furthers
stated that thechurch had received a letter from Curt Johnston of the
Planning Department which informed their that the equestrian trail easement was
`feet rather than the 25 feet shorn on their master plan and indicated that ,
25 feet was ghat they were originally told. Further, he stated in -a meeting
with Rick Gomez they were informed that they world not be required to file a
new CLAP application, however after returning to the Planning Division with
reprised drawings, were told; that a new application was ne esary. He stated
that this building proposed is a"multi-purpose building, not a sanctuary, and
among other things, would house a gymnasium. He pointed out that a building
that size is going to ;be massive and hard to hide and that a car parked on
Wilson would have its view of the building shadowed by 45 to 50';feet ;of trees,
and to the east by 40 feet of trees. Regarding the compatibility with .
surrounding residences, he stated that there aren't any existing residences
which will be looking directly on this building. In closing, he stated that
the church had complied with everything passible in the gay of revisions and
asked the Commission's approval to allow the building to proceed.
Edward Hopson, advised that the City's Attorney's office requires that if any
kind of land use designation rude by the Planning Commission is significantly
changed after approval., it must go back to the Commission and cannot be
approved at the staff level. He stated that this is in compliance with State
lair
Commissioner Rempel stated that the church should not be required to come back
for a new CUP each time a building is proposed to be built on the site, that
the original` CLIP should stand since the Commission knew when they approved it
that more buildings were going to be built. Further, that when a shopping
center is approved and it is not entirely built the CUP would run for the
entire shopping center.
Hopson replied if the CUP had been approved for a single level shopping
center and the applicant later decided to build a two story center, the City
Attorney's office would require the applicant to' come` back before the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Hempel agreed that they should have to come back for review,
however did not see the creed to pay additional fees
r. Hopson replied that there may be some discretion for modification in that
area., however he granted it clear why an item of this nature would be called
back for review.
Michael yairi..n, Senior Planner, pointed out that the main reason for bringing;
this item back before the Planning Commission was that there were significant
changes from the master plan which was originally approved.
Planning Commission MinutesSeptember 28, 1983
i
A _
oi�.ss _oner Barer stated that if a decision is made on information received
at a public hearing then it has to be heard publicly again before major
modifications are made. He pointed out that when people attend a public
hearing and view what they think is the 'final product and that product is
built with significant changes, they tend to get a little excited.
Gayle Dyke, 9777 Peach Tree Line, addressed the Commission stating that she is
nearby resident of the proposed church and was of the opinion that the church .
will be very compatible with the neighborhood.
Pill Ungelso 6375 Sapphire, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating
that If everyone else is required to: put in curb and gutter at the time of
development, the church should too and the curb and gutter requirements should
not be waived
John Vale, 2423 N. 5th Avenue, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission stating
that the church thought the street improvements had been waived at the
previous meeting until. Edison was ready to go on their project and did not
feel that this was granting a special privilege. He urged the Commission's
support of the project
Piker, 205 Santa Rosa, addressed the Commission stating that the building
has already been purchased and is on the site ready to be built. He
additionally stated that there is dust so much you can do with it and that the
future buildings would virtually hide the multipurpose building.
Pauline Martin, all East P th Street, Upland, addressed the Commission in
support of the project
Dick Nelson," 6320 Holly Oak, stated that he is in favor of the church at this
site and that it has been proposed as a church site for quite some time.,
Chairman Stout advised that, them seems to be some misconception of shy this
project is before the Commission this evening. He pointed out that it has
been brought back because it appears that a radical change has been made from
hat was originally approved, which is not to say it is a good or bad
change. Further, that the purpose of this hearing is; to notify adjacent
property owners that a change has been made and allows them the opportunity to
view those changes
Wylie Amyck, 6267 Jasper, ;addressed the Commission stating this is a .good'
project with a good design and is compatible with the surrounding area.
Pastor Howard again addressed the Commission stating that all of the changes
that have been made to the project were done at the direction of the Planning
Division staff and that the only thing the church wished to do was to move the
multi-purpose building to the wrest and increase the size
Planning Commission Minutes September 280 1983
Chairman Stoat replied that the issue came forward because the size of the,.
building had been increased considerably over ghat was originally approved.
He pointed out that this kind of change could cause concern ,among adjacent
residents
Mr.; Guerra addressed the Commission stating that; as a point of clarification,
the church desires to have the curb and gutter installation on Archibald
delayed which is not to say that they do not want to do them at all. He
advised that the church plans to begin on its second phase in the near future.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that when this particular* change care before the
Design Review Committee, he was concerned with the compatibility of ;that
change with the surrounding area He pointed out that the sanctuary is going
to reflect that same there and the question became one of whether this there
would be compatible when it is continued and brought to the front along the ;
maim thoroughfare. He stated that it was unfortunate that a purchase had
already been made before all...: the hurdles had been ,dumped. He advised that the
Design Review Committee makes its concerns and recommendations known to staff
and staff commits these in writing to the applicant. He explained that what
is happening here is that the Design Review Committee's recommendations are
being appealed. Further, in their written comments, staff had expressed his
concerns and the way he saw the problem.
Chairman Stout stated that one of the comments this evening was that it was
the Design Review Committee's 'recommendation to out up the mass of the
building which would limit its effective use of the basketball count, and
asked if this was indeed a recommendation.
Commissioner, Barker replied ,that 'he did not recall a discussion of this nature
in Design Review. ' Further, that he frankly gust looked at the building itself
and asked if that view of that particular elevation 'would be appropriate
located in that neighborhood.
rhood
Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that there was some discussion regarding the
reduction in volume of the two story structure in order that it would blend it
with the surrounding area, which may be what the applicant was referring, to.
Commissioner Pe rpol stated that one problem may have been that the applicant
dial not provide the Design Review Committee with colored renderings of the
elevations. He further stated his opinion that it was not necessaryto make a
gymnasium look like a permanent sanctuary however, one suggestion right have
been to; eliminate the tapered columns ;on the multi-purpose building because it,
was doubtful that they would be desirable on the permanent building.
Additionally, it would have been desirable to have angled some of the
buildings and also raised and lowered a fear of their to take full advantage of
the beautiful site. Further, that he had no problems with approving the CUP`
to allow construction of the multi-purpose building
Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1983
Commissioner i t stated that the project was d good one. He further stated
that one item not yet discussed was the improvements rr Archibald bal.d and seemed
to recall that the Commission allowed threes improvements to be deferred.
ed.
Chairman Stout stated that he recalled discussion regarding wai in the street
improvements until Edison was ready to go on the project, ` but that the:
Resolution was passed ad,, it, stood without reference to the street
improvements.
Michael Vairina Senior Planner, advised that the Commission could direct staff
in that area at this time for inclusion in the Resolution tion hen the item comes
back for finalization, however the change could not be made at this time.
Commissioner i t asked for clarification of they grading issue.
Mr.; Vairin explained that the grading plan technically r rkra however,ar°, the ,
Comittee felt that for aesthetic reasons, 'rather than creating a level pad a
stepped 'engineered slope would be preferrable.
Commissioner Rampal pointed out that the applicant could work with the Grading
Committee on alternate grading plena which would greatly improve the
project. He further suggested modifying 'the CUP to allow construction of the
multi-purpose building to proceed and require: theoff-site improvements ovement t
come back for review.
Michael Vairin advised that the applicant has not gone through h the plan
checking process, the preparation of landscaping plans, or submission of
detailed material necessary before the issuance of building permits
Motion: Moved by Rar pol, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to approve
they site playa as far as location of proposed multi-purpose building.
Alternative phases of the site plan including strut construction and design
and grading of remaining sites will core back to the Commission for final
approval on October 26, 1983.
Mr. Hopson advised that the applicant can start the building if and only if
the plan checking and all other requirements have been meet for the issuance of
building permits
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, JUAREZ, BARKED, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
: C P.M. Planning Commission Recessed
Planning Commission Minutes -loSeptember Pd, 1983
E. VARIANCE ROBERTS - A request to reduce the front, rear, and side
yard setbacks on a 3,280 square foot lot in the R-3 zone located at the
northeast corner of Amethyst and Monte Vista, 6969 Amethyst - APN
202-131-04.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Charles Roberts, 6969 Amethyst, addressed the Commission stating that he
agreed to the conditions of approval for his project.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the window on the north elevation should be
moved to the west side to protect the privacy of the adjacent homeowner.
Motion, Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Variance 83-04 with the above revision.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT
NO SS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-o4 A - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A request to
am—end the Co -ecal Plan Land Use Plan from for Residential (2-4 du/a to
Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the
R-1-8500 zone (R-3 pending) located on the south side of Highland, between
Jasper and Carnelian - APR 201-214-08.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A
change of zone from R-1- 500 to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) on
approximately 7 acres of land located on the south side of Highland,
between Jasper and Carnelian - AP N 201-214-0.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission advising that there is no
project proposed for this location at this time and the request is for a
change in the land use and zoning. He stated that this , location is a
designated Route 30 corridor, and Caltrans has begun buying property in this
area for the freeway. fie pointed out that in the future this property will
not be located in a quiet residential area, but on one of the heaviest
Planning Commission Minutes 11 eptember 28, 1983
i
traveled intersections in the City. He referred to the General Plan goals and
policies which recommends medium density as a buffer between low and high
density ; or areas f greaser traffic or noise levels and stated that this
request is in keeping with those goals. He stated that he did not know of any
major thoroughfare in the City which would have more ;need for a buffer than a
freeway corridor. In reference to the General Plan ,;which states that,.
development should be designed to allow at least eight dwelling snits per
gross acre within 1000 feet of the freeway corridor, and stated that this
project is within a fear hundred feet of the transit oorridor. Mr. Gorgen
stated that a study had been conducted on this property which reflected that
R i lots could be constructed at that 'location, however would be undesirable,
would be unsell.able and the only way to market the lots would be to place a
very lour price on then, which would bring, property values down in the area.
He further stated that he did not feel that in the Ci.ty's planning process, it
was their intention to litre the freeway corridor with backyards hanging over
the freeway. . Goen father stated that this project would require
screening and buffering with landscaping, however it would be difficult to
screen single family lots due to the grade of the freeway on ramp. He pointed
out that of the 29 bats almost half" :of them have back yards exposed to the
freeway and 90 percent of the lots are within one lot of the freeway. Mr.
Gor en presented a conceptual plan to the Commission which is proposed for
this location. 'He suggested that this might be preferrabl,e to the nearby
residents than single family hones.
The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the
project.
Dave deadly, 6474 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he checked the master
plan before purchasing his home and found that it was in an area of single
family residences. He expressed concern with what would happen if the
amendment and zone change were approved and this applicant decided to sell, his
property before development and also his concerts with the construction of Rii '
projects in the City. He referred to Mr. Go en's comments regarding the
freeway and stated that the freeway will be a long time to completion. lie
stated that he mould prefer loured priced since family hones to apartments or
condominiums. He pointed out that there would have to be at least one point
of access for the project which would probably be on highland which already
is experiencing traffic problems. He disagreed that this project-mould not
contribute to the noise or services to the area and stated that the City does
not need any more apartments.
Chris Day, 6429 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to Mr. Gor on's statement
regarding the .low quality single family homes that would have to be built at
this location and Mated that he doubted that the Planning Commission would
approve such a project. Ile suggested that Mr. Gor en's motives were
profit-oriented in that he would not make as much money from the sale of the
single family lots which are in keeping with the land use plan. Additionally,
this is not consistent with the neighborhood use and aright set a precedent for'
the community. He further stated that those who relied on the master plan
when they purchased their homes hope that they can continue to rely on the
raster plan to not be charmed to suit the profit motives of developers.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 28, 1983
Bill Cox, 6487 Cameo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed his opinion that the
only people who would move into apartments adjacent to the freeway would be
those interested in government subsidized apartments.
Donald Nicholson, 8575 Orange e Street," Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he didn't
put much credence in an applicant who first informs the Commission that there'
is not project for this location, then produces artist's renderings of what he
proposing. He disagreed that the only low priced homes could be
constructed along the freeway and citing the 57 Freeway as an example.
Estella Hedley, 6474 Jasper Street,Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with
impacts of condominiums and apartments on city streets and police and fire
protection
Cheryl Haro, 8353 Orange Street, ,Rancho Cucamonga stated concerns with impacts
on schools due tomulti-family units. She also expressed concern with
increased crime.
Jay Johnson, 6321 pia Serena, Rancho Cucamonga, disagreed that. "shabby"
housing is the only type that will be constructed along the freeway.
Frank lire, 6491 Jasper Street, and Tom Reingrover, 6487 Sard Street, Rancho
Cucamonga, both reaffirmed the comments of those who spoke before them and
requested the Commission to deny the request.
Dennis Martin, 8313 grange, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with the number
of apartment and condominium projects being approved in the City and their
impacts on increasing the crime 'rate. He , suggested that single family areas
be retained as single family areas.
Douglas Moore, 8339 Carden, Rancho Cucamonga, stated ;concerns that the purpose
of the .General plan is being undermined and expressed hope that this project
would not set the pattern for future growth in the City.
Bill Ungles, 6375 Sapphire, stated concerns with what is happening to the
adapted- General Plan. He r^eaff'irmend the comments that multi-family projects'
do' not mix with single family homes and did not want their in his neighborhood
Chris Sheradon, 6450 Cameo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, started that he checked
the master plan carefully before purchasing his home to rake sure it was in a
single family area and requested that the single family atmosphere be
maintained.
jor ie Day, attorney representing an adjacent property owner, urged the
Commission on his behalf to deny the request
Dick Nelson, 6320 Holly Oak Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with
traffic and safety of school children walking down Jasper. He stated his
opinion that the applicant did not show sufficient need to rezone the property
or to mend. the General Plan. He further stated that the ;proposed freeway was
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September; 28, 18
I,
I
i
shown on the General Plan and if at the time of adoption it was thought
multi-family units were appropriate at that location, they would have been
placed there.
e
Bruce Lutz, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that in his opinion only single
family dames should be placed with single family homes.
There wereno further co cants, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that Mr. Gorgenmay have painted a rather bleak
scenario, but those who addressed d the Commission in opposition were no less
guilty in their presentation of the other aide of the coin. He pointed out
that if only single family homes were placed next to single family homes, the
City would only have single family homes; there has to be some sort of a
buffer. . He advised that most freeways ay don't traverse back yards, they
traverse higher density or commercial areas. He, further stated that the
audience y not want to hoar this, but this proposal does work.
Commissioner Barker advised that the General al Plana is a living document which
rust be monitored by both the City and the public and is subject to change.
However, the previous Commission had been aware,e, f the freeway corridor before
e
the General Plana was adopted. He stated that there are enough provisions for
higher density housing in other areas of the City and considered the General
Plea Amendment and zone change inappropriate.
Commissioner amp l stated that the General Plan is not cast in concrete r and
was never intended to be; it's a plan that could be amended with what is
happening at the time. He advised that when the City adopted the General Plan
font yams ago, it thought than were the beat designations at that time
however* the City was not scrutinized lot by lot but on a general basis. He
pointed out that . as the City oranges, changed may be needed in the Plan.
Further, at the time of the General Plan the freeway issue' was very uncertain, ,
however the State has begun to move forward in its plans and the fr ay will
be a reality in some form in the near 'future. He stated that when the freeway
is developed it would be difficult to find a pacers who desires a lot on the
frwray
Commissioner Juarez stated; that she didn't know if the freeway would ever
become a reality,ity, therefore recommended that the General Plan amendment and
zone change be denied
Chairman Stout stated that apartments and condominiums are necessary to:
provide housing affordable to the average person. Regarding the number of
apartments and condominium units approved in the City, Chairman Stout advised`
that the City has been very careful in placing then in areas where they will,
have as little impart as possibl.e on existing residential . On the issue of
this project, he stated that it is can the southern edge of a residential area;
that netts all the way to Foothill and is imcompatible with anything it the
area
Planning Commission Minutes 1 - September 28, 1983
Commis8ioner Pempel addressed the issue of schoolsand addled that the City
had no authority over schools or the number of students, however the City has
established a policy that does not allow residential development to take place
until they have the approval of the sohool districts. He further stated his
concern with the stratification of the City by income levels and expressed his
opinion that low inure people also deserve n view and a nice plane to live.
Motion: Moved by Barter, seconded by Juarez, carried , to deny General Plan
Amendment 83-04 A Carnelian Investments.
AYES- COMMISSIONERS: BARKER$ JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHIC '
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, .carried, to deny Zone Change
83-03, Carnelian Investments.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARKER., JUAREZ, RE P L,, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MC 1I LL
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE
H. GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMEN 04SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - A request to amend
the General Plan Land Use Plan from Office to Neighborhood Commercial on
5.44 acres of load located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Base
Line - APN 0 181 27.
I ENVIRONMENTAL` ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANCE d C - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS
A change of zone from ALA (Administrative Pr9c e ion l) to C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) on 5.44 acres of:'load located at the northeast
corner of Archibald ld nd Base Line APN C 1 1 P .
Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Strout opened the public hearing.
Jack Tarr, representing Sycamore: Investments, addressed the. Commission stating
his request is not for elimination of a pull.oy but to focus in on a specific
request. He stated that the major difference between the present zone and
proposed zone is an increase in the allowable retail: uses, and:. dares not
intensify the area. He introduced Nelson Wheeler, of Caldwell Banker who has
doge a market study on the area.
Nelson Wheeler, 9820 Redding Gray, upland, addressed the Commission stating
that the property has been marketed for two years and very Pew users have :seer:
interested in this site, preferring to be Located along the Foothill Boulevard
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September pd, 1983
eorrido . lie adiised that this property is in competition with three other
market areas namely, the I-10 off ramp corridors of Vineyard, hibal � and
Haven, the area surrounding Ontarior° r , and the Mountain Avenue corridor
in Upland. He explained that this site could have viability in the future and
as an office and limited retail use
Jack Tarr again addressed the Commission stating that some office users, such
as insurance and retail offices, have expressed interest in this location. He
agreed with Mr. Wheeler in that there is more than enough administrative
professional office space to support Rancho Cucamonga. He advised that more
of; a convenience commercial cluster is envisioned for this property rather"
than a neighborhood commercial use which the General Plan defines as a center
which contains a major super market. He, further stated that his use was
proposed to be somewhere 'between the definition of neighborhood commercial and
convenience commercial in that the property contains more than 3 acres does
not have a major super market, and will have less than 100,000 square feet of
building.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this intersection is not convenient for
residential use, and agreed; that the demand for office professional:,is almost
nil due to sites being developed and then remaining vacant and that the best
use for this site is commercial. He . advised that when the Commission
established the policy regarding shopping centers, it was to prevent all four
corners of an intersection being developed with a major supermarket on each
corner
o- issioner McNiel stated that he agreed that this request is a good request
and didnr t see any problems with the proposal.
Commissioner Juarez stated that if this request is approved, it sets a
precedent for other intersections of the Cavity and felt it should be denied.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that if the Commission is
inclined to approve this request; it should be aware that there would have to
be a policy change made to the. General Plan in order to make it consistent.
Chairman Stout disagreed with Commissioner Rer pel 's statement regarding the
viability of this site being residential. He stated that this intersection is
saturated with commercial already. Further, that this request would violate
the General. Plan and approval would necessitate modification of the General
Plan, which would open up every intersection in the City. He recalled
discussion at the General Plan hearings regarding this site and stated that AP
was a compromise because a decision couldn't be made between residential or
commercial. Further, he woul.d prmefer, no change in designation; however, if it
was necessary to change it,; he would prefer residential
Mr. Tarr asked for clarification of the policy change from the City ;Attorney.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 28, 1983
r Hopson replied that it would be difficult to take a five plus acre parcel
and call it convenience commercial with the definition wording in the General
Plan. He advised; ,that a language charge would have to be made in the General
Plan.
Chairman Stout stated that if:are exception was madein the text to this
particular parcel, it would be unfair to every property owner who has ,
approached the City it similar request but their
request e de
nied.
Mr. Hopson stated that language could be added which could state that no more
than two centers containing j super markets shall be located at any one
intersection
Commissioner Rempel made a motion to change the definition in the General Plan
as suggested that no more than two shopping centers containing major super
markets could be located at one intersection but allowing father types of
commercial uses with a CUP. This motion was seconded by McNeil, however
failed 3
rN lam advised that wording would have to be added' which further defined a,,
major supermarket, such as size.
Commissioner Rempel replied that 50,000 to 100,000 square feet of leasable
area should be used.
Chairman Stoat stated that he felt it should be changed to residential if a
change was at all necessary, considered the request a violation of the General
Plan, and he doesn't want to charge the policy in the General Plan.
Commissioner Barker stated that while AP may not be the beat, use for ' this
site, he was not comfortable it making change to neighborhood commercial
without knowing the ramifications.
Gomez suggested that the item be continued to the October 26 meeting to
allow staff" to work up,language for the Commission's consideration.
Chairman Stout made a motion to deny the request. This motion died for lack
of second
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MaNael, carried , to continue General
Plan Amendment 83-04 B and Zone Change - 04 f to the Planning Commission
meeting of Octobers 26, 1983. Staff was directed to draft alternatives which
would allow small shops without major supermarkets to be located at an
intersection.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPE , MCNIEL, BARKER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JAURC , STOUT
ABSENT:: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1983
Commissioner Juarez and Chairman Stout voted no for previously stated reasons.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continua
past 11 p.m. adjournment time for consideration of next item.
J. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT d m� ACACIA A request to amend the General
Plan Land Use Flan from Office to Medium-High Residential ( 1 du/a on
3.58 acres of land located can the west side of Archibald north of Bags
Line - A N 202-151-83.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Alan Wierick, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that in light of the
previous item, he wondered if it might be passible to continuehis request, as
he faces the;same problem with this site in that it might be suitable for some
other commercial use.
Gomez advised that this would be an entirely different request, which would,
necessitate readv rtis meat
r°. Wierick withdrew his request to continue. He advised that this site is in
competition with nine office use designations located along use Line, which
is a more desirable location for office users. Of those nine designations, he
stated that half are undeveloped:, and the half which have been developed are
approximately 32 percent vacant e stated that this request is to allow the
proposal of medium high residential affordable rdable housing which is more in demand
and compatible with adjacent uses now being developed, such as the Calmar '
project. He pointed out that the stiff report stated this request would not
cause adverse impacts and urged approval..
Rick Snyder, representing Acacia, concurred that the best use of the site is
medium high residential. Mr. Snyder presented andartist's rendering to the
Commission which depicted what was envisioned for this site and stated_ that
construction would begin in approximately six months.
There were no further do oats, therefore the public hearing was closed.
h request would o against
as
this ra u a,nst what w
Commissioner Barker stated that q ,
envisioned for the Senior Housing Overlay District by surrounding it with
residential uses
Chairman Stoat stated that when the City made the decision to allow Cal mark to
locate at their site, the City counted on the surrounding area to provide
office and commercial services which would' meet the overlay district
requirements. He advised that there is litigation problems with protecting
Planning Commission Minutes _1 September 28, 1983
the senior citizen project from the market rate units within Cal mark and that
adding more market rate units on the other side might pose more of a problem.
Mr. Weirick replied that there would be a wall between this project and the
Calm ark project. He stated that an office site exists behind the Sizzler
which would provide office uses for the senior citizen project.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to deny General Plan
Amendment 83-04 C, Acacia.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, J GEAR EZ, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner MoNiel stated his reason for voting no is that the request is
reasonable and could work.
Commissioner Hempel agreed that the request oould work and that concerns could
be worked out in Design Review.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM'IT 81-02 - ANDERSON - The
development of a retail center on 1 .5 acres of land in the C-1 zone to be
located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Turner - APN
208-321-32. Continued from August 24, 1983 meeting.
Michael Vait in reviewed the staff report stating that this item had been
continued by the Commission at their August 24, 1983 meeting to allow the
applicant and staff time to work on landscaping issues. tie advised that it
was agreed that additional planters would be installed and the existing the
planter would be widened on Turner,, as well as widening the existing planter
and adding a double planter on Arrow.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, asked how the agreement is covered in
the conditions of approval.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that it would bed matter, of approving the
site plan.
Mr. Hopson advised that some kind of official action that adopts a modified
approved site plan should be included.
Mr. Vairin replied that this could be done through minute action.
Mr. Hopson advised this is not covered in the resolution which is currently
proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 28, 1983
Mr. Vairin replied that a statement could be added to the resolution
Motion: Moved by Rempelt seconded by Barker, to approve the time extension
for Conditional Use Permit 81-02 with reference to adoption of the modified
site plan to be included in the Resolution.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REM REMPEL, BARKER, JU REZ, MCNIELI STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS* NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Nation: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout unanimously carried, to adjourn.
1 a.m. Planning Commission Adjourned
Reyifully
4's',bni
dt
Ja Lam kSec
Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 28, 1983
CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
Development Code Workshop
September 20, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at ; 6:30 'p.m. The meeting was held in
the West Callers of ' Lions Park Community Center, ; 9161 Rase Line, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:: Larry';McNiel, Herman Rempel
STAFF PRESENT. Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Curt Johnston Assistant Planner, Janice Reynolds,
Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
CHAT ER - ,COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DISTRICTS
Section *I - ure and leneral Plan lonsit,,tpncv and Section 5.1
P11strIcts:
Michael Vairin reviewed the sections and suggested that the
Administrative-Professional District AP in Section . -A be changed to
Office Professional C ' to be consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan:.
Chairman Stout suggested that Commercial/Office be added to the title o
Section 5.2 Districts to regain consistent with other chapters.
It was the consensus of the Commission that thou changes be made.
Section 5.3 Use< Re relations
Michael Vairin reviewed the section and suggested the addition of Mini-Storage
for Public Use (No Outdoor Storage) be added to the use chart between numbers
3 and 44 which would be a conditionally permitted use in the GC District. He
further suggested that shopping centers be added between numbers 58 and 59 as
conditionally permitted uses in the NC and GC Districts, and the addition; of a
number 2 to 5.3 E allowing temporary office modules as condtionally permitted
uses subject to special use regulations in the OP, NC, and GC Districts.
Commission Juarez stated that she felt there were too irony items which will
require a conditional use permit on the chart
——---------- ..........
r Vairin stated that if the Commission wished to delete the requirement of a
CUP from any item they could, but explained that staff felt that a conditional
use permit process would ;allow the Commission more control in terms of
restrictions and regulations.
r Gomez pointed out that most of the 'items for which staff recommends
conditional use permits are uses of a more intense nature and that a Cap would
allow neighbor input to assure neighborhood compatibility"
Chairman Stout asked why" shopping centers would be added to the use chart?
r° Vairin replied that they could be included in the chart as a cross
reference only and an item "" " would be added to this section which could
discuss shopping centers.
Commissioner darker suggested that "public or" be struck from item d as the
-
City has no authority over public institutions.
Chairman Stout suggested that item 20 (b) be amended in the last column to
reflect a conditionally permitted use in the GC District due to the problems
the City is currently experiencing with cocktail lounges and bars.
It was the consensus of the Commission that these changes be made.
Chairman Stout asked for public comment.
Jeff Sceranka referred to hers g and suggested that the Commission might
consider allowing automobile leasing as a conditionally permitted use in the'
p District since auto leasing may be compatible with that district. He also
suggested that the Commission may want to consider allowing catering
establishments in the NC District.
Chairman Stout replied that he had no problems with ;conditionally permitting
sales in the OP District, however suggested distinguishing between outside
sales and leasing establishments. He asked for discussion on catering'
establishments in the NC District.
Tr°. Gomez stated that staff would suggest allowing a deli-type use in the N
District, however would discourage allowing heavy production catering. He
pointed out that most catering establishing with heavy production work require
large trucks, which mould pose a parking problem in the OP District.
r Vairin stated that this right be added as a conditionally" permitted use in
the NC District and in parentheses exclusively catering.
Chairman Stout suggested that this should be defined
r ceranka suggested that the Commission might consider coctail lounges
( C-a) to be; conditionally permitted in the Cp District.
Planning Commission Minutes - September 20 1983
It was the consensus of the- Co fission that this be a conditionally permitted
use
Mr. Ccoranka asked the difference between items 20 and 28 since fast food
restaurants normally are drive-in businesses
Mr. Vairin agreed that item 25 should state "other than fast food restaurants"
for clarification
It was the consensus of the Commission that this language be added to item 25..
Chairman Stout suggested that item 29 be amended to conditionally permit feed
and tank stores in the NC District, as previously discussed. He further
suggested that item 36 be amended to conditionally permit hotels and motels in
the OP District. He stated that this would ;be a compatible use in that
District.
It was the consensus of the Commission that those changes be made.
Regarding Section 6. Special Use Regulations, City Attorney Robert
Dougherty commented that using the word "may" presents legal ramifications in
that it gets into the area of discretion on the part of free speeach. He
advised that. "may" be replaced with "shall" in the areas of location
criteria. He further stated that if a business meets the location criteria,
they should be allowed to operate.
Chairman Stout stated that he did not feel that adult businesses should be
discriminated against, however should be required to meet the same
requirements as any other business applying; for a conditional use permit.
Mr. Dougherty replied that the City could not regulate the CUP solelyo the,
g y`_ p _ .y g
type of material preveyed and could not be regulated any;more than any other'
nook store. He further stated that dispersal could be required; however, the
dispersal could not be required and the Planning Commission given further
authority to deny the permit for any reason. The point is "shall" achieves
dispersal , "may" will permit an unconstitional scheme which' would not be
enforceable or defendable
Chairman Stout asked if staff could propose additional language which would
state that "or such conditions as are required in similar types of businesses,
so that all book stores, whether adult or not, would be required to meet the
sage conditions
Mr. yairein replied that staff could add language which would state that adult
busineeses are subject to standard development requirements.
Chairman Stout stated that if the counsel suggests the word change, he felt it
should be done
Planning Commission Minutes - - September 20, 1983
Commissioner Barker stated he preferred to retain the word "may" It was the
consensus to retain the word "may" and the have the language proposed by Mr.
Vairin added to the adult business section.
Mr. Dougherty stated that this was the Commission's perrogative, however would
recommend the word change to the City Council .
Jeff Sceranka referred to 5.3 F (5) and asked for clarification of the term
master plan.
Mr. Vairin replied that the intent was the submittal of a development plan
which would consider access, circulation, architectural design, etc.
Mr. Sceranka stated that the Commission might consider language to clarify how
detailed this plan should be.
Chairman Stout stated his concern that the term might be confused with the
Master Plan Overlay District section of the text.
Mr. Vairin suggested that conceptual development plan could be substituted for
master plan.
It was the Commission's consensus that this be done.
Chairman Stout recommended that the titles in Section 5.3 G be underlined to
be consistent with the other sections. The chairman invited for public
comments regarding Section 5.3 G.
Jeff Sceranka asked for clarification of number 3(b) .
Michael_ Vairin explained that the intent of the statement is that an
establishment could use the outside area of their shop for display of
merchandise as long as it does not exceed the space established in this
section .
Mr. Sceraka asked if the intent was based on the linear footage of the entire
building or the linear footage of the store front?
Mr. Vairin replied that it would be based on linear footage of the store
front.
Commissioner Barker asked what impact this would have on a store whose display
did not affect any other businesses, but would exceed the percentage.
Mr. Sceraka stated that was one of his concerns, as long as safety was not a
factor and there was clear circulation, what difference does it make how much
percentage is used?
Mr. Vairin replied that the percentage was established for a control base. He
also pointed out that this was not only a safety issue, but a policy issue as
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 20, 1983
well as to how much of a building can be used for outside display.
Chairman Stoat suggested that the wording of 3 (d) aright be changed to reflect
a clear 'width of the sidewalk.
r airin suggested that a clearance of ;6 feet up to a maximum of 4 feet
might be a better solution.
Chairman Stout replied that this would probably work better since ,you wouldn't
want anyone with a 3-foot sidewalk to use it as an outdoor display area.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the titles in Section C. ( ) be
underlined, language be proposed by staff to reword item (b) to include the
word "store front" rather than frontage of the building, and clarification of
the spade requirements ents .for outdoor display of merchandise.
Commissioner Juarez questioned Section 5.3 ( -1.) and the requirements for
removal of underground tanks. She asked what would happen if a service
station reopened
t this requirement established the Foothill Fire
�lr® a�r7n replied that s �sy'
p
District, therefore incorporated into this section. He suggested ;that
language could be added which would state that the pumps could be filled with
sand or any other method approved by the Foothill Fire District
It was the consensus of the ,'Commission that this language be added.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Jeff Sceranka stated his concern regarding service stations which are
converted to another use because the access policy was waived for service
stations in allowing there two drive approaches. He asked if language could be
inserted in -1. ( to assure that improvements were brought back into
conformance with access regulations
It was be the consensus of the Commission that this language be added.
: C planning Commission Recessed
S$CD Planning Commission Reconvened '
Section 5.4 - Site Develo runt e ulatio
Michael yair n reviewed this section' and stated that staff recommended foot
notes be added to the bottom of the page which would state that (d) parcels
created within shopping centers are exempt from these standards as long a
conceptual development plan for the entire center` has been developed and
Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1983
appropriate reciprocal; access, parking and maintenance is provided; and (b
that proposals for development exceeding this height shall require approval of
a conditional use permit. Footnote (a) would be placed on items 1 through
and footnote b on item 4 b in the AP and CC Districts.
Commissioner Juarez stated that the one tree for every three parking stalls
required in a4C( ) is be too many trees
Mr. Vairin replied that this is merely a ratio ;and is the standard set forth
in the general Plan and the Industrial Specific Pla
n too encourage the use of
plant material in parking lots for heat reduction and aesthetic purposes.
'I
Mr. Vairin advised that staff recommended the addition of a trails section
which would become item "G" in Section 5.4. He stated that this item would
discuss trails in new developments and the provision of trails consistent with
the General Plan
It was the consensus that this section be added:
Sections g. - P rform nce Standards and 5.6 Design Guidqlines
There were no comments on these sections
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING REGULATIONS
Sections 6.1 - Purpose and Intent and 6.1 Basic Regulations for Off-Street
Parkin
There were no comments concerning these two sections.
Section 6.3 - ges n standards
A member of the audience requested clarification of C P
q (
Michael Vairin explained that this item prohibits a property owner from
subleasing parking area to another property owner the parking spaces which are
required for' his establishment.
Commissioner Barker pointed out that this statement is not clear and suggested
that language be added.
Mr. Vairin replied that the statement could be amended to read make
available to residents of other properties . .
Section C. Parkin pe uir�s
Michael Vairin reviewed the section and suggested removing the last sentence
in Section .4A which pertained to the use of carports per City Council
action on the Resolution for this section
Planning Commission Minutes - September 20, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that he felt the 5 requirement for compact cars under
was too high$ He stated that there would be a problem if larger cars
crake a dome back
Mr. Vairin replied that this requirement was based on a study conducted and,
was a policy issue.
Mr. Gomez pointed out that the standard for a compact stall is g' I ° and
9119° for standard stalls.
Lowell Sores stated that these parking lots would be landscaped, and asked
what would you do with them then` If would then be very difficult if the
larger cars became popular and ;there was not enough parking to accommodate
their
Chairman Stout stated that he was ;uncomfortable with the 5 figure.: and .
recommended it be reduced to 5% parking for compact cars.
It was the consensus of the` Commission that this be done
CHAPTERS 1. OVERLAY DISTRICTS 11 MASTER PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT AHD
MOBILE HOME ARK OVERLAY DISTRI
Michael lair in reviewed these sections and; stated that they had recently been
adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to incorporation
into the Development Code. He reminded the Commission that. Chapter 12, Mobile
Hone Park Overlay: District, was being deleted
Chairman Stout recommended that the equestrian area be included in an Overlay
District
Mr. Vairin replied that this had been establishedby Resolution. He suggested
that that staff could take the Resolution and work it into the ;Code.
t, as the consensus of the Commission that this be done.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
:55 - Planning Commission Adjourned.
Res e tful � 'submitted
Ricrom
ctretary
Planning Commission Minutes - - September 20, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION M1 '
Regular Maeting
September 14 , 198-3
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Pancho
Cucamonga Planning nin Commission to carder at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road , Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Following the call to carder, Chairman Stout :led in the pledge to
the flag
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ' David Harker Addie Juarez, Larry McNi 1,
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: RCN
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: fare Coleman, Associate Planner; Rink Gomez, City
Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney,
Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary, Jack Lam,
Director of Community Development* Rauh. Rougeau,
Senior Civil ldr; tfra alrin Senior Rlarrrra
APPROVAL OFlfJJl°
Motion, d by Mc i 1, seconded by Ra rp 1, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutesof the Regulars Meeting of the Planning la ion, August 16,
1983.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve
the Consent Calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DR f 1 0 C L BUILDERS - The development of an 8,249
squire Bent restaurant on a 0.99 cre parcel in "The Exchange"
professional office canter in the C 1 zone, located can the southeast
corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN 207-031-29.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE `I"RAC 11 RARRA'1'" change of zone from
R 1 , 00 (Single Family Residential 8,500 square foot beta) . t 3/PD
Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) and the fatal
development of 72 condominiumsn .71 acres of land located on the north
aide of 1' tfr Street at Ramona Avenue - ;SRN 1 - R
C. TIM EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE "TRACT 10316 tCDA I L A total residential
development f� . era lrrto 33 lots in the R 1 zone, generally located
on the northeast corner of Ramona and Cur , APN 208-181-06.
D. TIME EXTS.NSION FOR PARCEL MAP Py Located on the north side of
Vicara and Jasper S r e t APN 1 C 1-1 r41- .
F. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 6976 - B.C.G. PROPERTIES Located on the
south aide of Arrow Karate, east of Haven Avenue P 24 -141 .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
f .
F. ENVIRONMENTAL SSFSS N A PARCEL SAP 8100 S I.�C A division
a read into P parcels within the C and P 3 zones located at the northwest
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue , - APN 1077 21 8, 31 .
(Continued from Planning Commission et n of August 24, 1983.)
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PFI IF -�1" S Pt The
development f 68 ap-artment traits on 4.86 acres in the P 3 zone located on
the east side of Ramona, north of Foothill APN 1077 1 31 (a
portion) . (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 24,
1983.)
Associate Planner, Dan Coleman , ..reviewed the staff, reports, discussing the
Development Review Committee nd staff concerns regarding the pro t'a roof
dairy.
Commissioner Rempel stated that in the report on the parcel map a soils report ,
and finished d nadir plea is called out. lie asked if it is necessary at this
time, or if it could be deferred to the time of development.
Rougeau replied that it Brad be deferred.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Andrew Pay kiss, 9375 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, the developer,
stated that he has worked closely with the Design Review Oommittee and
interested persons to bring this project to a legal of harmony and to the
criteria established by the City. However, he was concerned with a change to
the elevations requested at the Design Review meeting to lower the roof
parapet. He Indicated his strong feeling in leaving the elevations 'design a ,
originally proposed because it would hide the airy conditioning and other
equipment which would to on the roof.
Barmakian, asked that the condition requiring_ installation of a catch basin
at Ramona and Foothill be changed as no water from his project would b
running into it. Further, the y shaped channel meld adequately serve this
project.
Commissioner MaNiel asked what the revised height of the parapet ll is .
. Barmakian replied it is at the roof lime or possibly 3 4 inches above it.
Chairman Stout asked, if when this past was designed,,, consideration was
given to the compatibility of the residential area to the north and whether a
more conventional roof type d Bald have been designed.
planning Commission inut September 14 , 1983,
r Bar loans replied that when you pert in a -story building and you have
pitched roof and you put in all that landscaping you really dontt see the roof:;
if the "landscaping is done properly. He indicated he saw no benefit to a
pitched roof.
Chairman Stout asked if it was considered.
Barmakian replied that it had been because they consider every' roof type
but they thought this roof lime would work better for what they wanted to
accomplish.
h
Commissioner oner Juarez asked if in the two story apartments there will be widows
in the back that will enable people to see into the single family horses.
Barmakian explained the . lay of the land, berming and the wall which would
shield the single family homes from his project
Commissioner Barber asked if there will be any berms at the north pert of the,
property where it drops down.
Barmakian pointed out hoer the gall and bourns would; reduce towards the
northeast end of the property.
Chairman Stout stated that the staff report mentions drainage to the property
down to Foothill and acted if Mr. Barmakian would have any problem with that.
Barmakian stated; that a drainage study` has been provided to the
Engineering Department by Anacal Engineering and they have to deal with the
drainage structure at the southeast corner of their property.
Chairman Stout stated; that they are: also to lk i.n abort replacing an open
channel with underground pile.
Imo.. Coleman stated that it is condition no. 8.
Hou ea.0 stated that they refer to the standard conditions with on-site
drainage and they would like this open channel to be piped. He indicated that
it is condition f1 1 on the development review portion.
Barmakian stated that he did not understand why they must replace an open
channel because it would make a lot more sense to correct the channel rather
than put the pipe underground
Chairman Stout stated that apparently-'there is a problem with the open channel
filling up and that is why they want an underground pipe
w Par loan stated that greeds and dirt get into the channel and an
underground pipe will not correct the problem. Further, that anything that
gets into the pipe will clog it He felt' that keeping the channel clear and
open would be better because it would create further problems with no palace
for the water to go on parcel 2.
Commissioner MoNiel awed if there in any pipe to the north coming out of the
channel
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 1 , 1983
Chairman Smut replied that the pipe is almost all the way down to the end of
Barmakian's property.
Rower stated that from nuisance standpoint this is an ideal time to
deal with the water problems; however, it could also be done when parcel
develops
air n Stout asked if a hydrology study was drama and, what is said.
Rougeawr replied that what it said is that what is proposed is adequate but
that he did not know what size pipe is recommended.
w Coleman replied that the'recommendation is for a 24-32 inch concrete pipe.
Barmakian stated that the recommendation by Engineering is that the
applicant take responsibility for all win-site drainage e facilities. Further,
that if the channel is closed by d pipe it will be a mistake as far as parcel
is concerned
Commissioner ner iel stated that there is very little of parcel; not already
plumbed and that the problem occurs immediately at the end of the pipe.
Rougeau stated that most; of the problem is at the south aide of parcel
and right now it is a private facility. Further, that the City occasionally
goes in and cleans it out to assist in the drainage He indicated that the
County required the easement but this has never been taken care of.
Chairman Stout asked if a flooding problem exists that would affect property
owners to the east.
Rows eau replied that Equils restaurant frequently floods.
Barmakian stated that a possible solution would ld be to create an earth berm
along the west side of the channel so that the water would not get to the
restaurant, or to build an 8-15 inch course of blanks as a wall to keep the
water out. He said that closing the channel with pipe is not the solution.
W. Rou eau stated that engineering condition no. 8 in the resolution would
also take cane of the problem. He indicated that a combination of pipe and.
channel could be worked out and when parcel 2 comes in, the work can e
finished
Commissioner Re el stated that another thing that will enter in is grading
and the channel right not have the right elevation to accept the water .
There were no further comments any the public hearing was closed
Commissioner Juarez stated that in the resolution, engineering` condition no.
12 speaks of reimbursement of nnat to the developer by the City. She asked
for an explanation.
Roo eau explained the reimbursement t policy of the City, how it works and
what the yste s development fees do.
Planning, a i sien Minutes - September 14 , 1983
Chairman Stoat stated that it is more economical to install the improvements
when the development is taking place
C iss rrrr r° Hempel explained how Ramona is a_ storm drain being used as
street
Commissioner Barker asked about the staff 'recommendation relative -foot
and 1 -f of setbacks for residences and garages, respectively.
Co le n replied that as shown on the map, 20 feet would be required for
all ne story buildings
Commissioner Barker stated that it dues not appear that this requirement will
have a drastic impact on the general placement of the buildings nor constitute
major redesign.
Coleman stated that the Engineering Division; mould like to add a condition
that the applicant would have to join a landscaping and lighting district.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the lighting district is citywide.
Chairman Stoat stated that the requirement for a pipe would be resolved
between the applicant and the City Engineer. He asked if this is understood.
ougeau replied that it ,is; however, nlyr in new tracts.
Barmakian replied that he did, however, the; problem is that reimbursement
may not occur for a period of five years and in this economy it is a long time
to have this money tied up
Lam explained the concept of reimbursement and how projects are sometimes
bottlenecked. He further explained the systems development fern.
Chairman Stout stated that if we desire a catch basin as a; condition, the
applicant can appeal this to, the city council. He indicated that it would b '
a violation of theCommission's authority to handle this any other way.
W. LAm stated that the Commission would, have to decade if it wants to have
the catch basin there or not because the applicant could` them appeal this to
the City Council.
Chairman Stout stated that all City policies are set by the Council.
r`. Lam stated that the issue is whether the catch basin should be planed;
there or not.
Barmakian stated that When the Marlborough project was approved they came
out on 'Ramona and the requirement for a match basin should have been required
at that time because they were ntrib rtin to the water problem.
indicated that all site water for his project will go to the east eyed and it
seemed unfair when he is not contributing to the "quantity" of water running
into that culvert.
'I
Planning Commission Minute September 14, 1983
,I
f
Co=issioner Hempel stated that he thinks the parapet will be about a foot
high and the way this project is laid out you would see the air conditioning
units on the roof even with a 2-3 foot parapet. He felt that the two lines,
that of the roof and the parapet, should not blend In and the slides that were
shown by Mr. Barmakian of the La Verne project has parapets that are not very
high.
Mr. Barmakian replied that he would be happy to go with Mr. Hempel to the
Family Tree project in La Verne. Further, that he would draw a perspective to
show that if the parapet is 30 inches high the duct work will not be seen by
the houses to the north.
Commissioner Barker stated that he is not big on looking at equipment on a
roof. Further, that he would prefer something that the total Planning
Commission has seen rather than the recommendation from Design Review. He
indicated that he would prefer the original design with as guarantee of hiding
the roof";apparatus from the surrounding residential area.
Chairakin Stout stated that he, too, liked the original proposal with the air
conditioning units screened of.f and the dense landscaping. He indicated that
he would like to see landscaping between the northern units and the southern
units so that the project fits in better with the single family residences.
Chairman Stout did not think that the flat roofs fit in with the homes and the
property to the north.
(3aairman Stout, indicated that if the applicant provided the landscaping and
the change to the original design, this project would not have to come back to
the Design Review Committee. He indicated further, that the catch basin at
go in and be completed by this project. He stated that if the applicant felt
this issue to be unfair, he could appeal it to the City Council, explaining
the process to the applicant.
The consensus of the Commission was that the roof design be changed to the
original proposal, the requirement for the catch basin stand, landscaping be
provided as a screen on the north side for the single Emily homes, and that
the applicant work with the engineering division on the pipe extension.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-109 approving Parcel Map 8100 and issuing a negative
declaration.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-110 with the modifications set forth by the Commission and
issuing a Negative Declaration.
H. CONDITIONAL USE PER l d �I -�LOYA ORDER OF MOQSE - The establishment of
a Moose Lodge in a 1550 square foot unit of an industrial complex, in the
General Industrial area (Subarea 4) , located at 9375 Archibald Avenue
APN 210-071-48.
City Planner, is Gomez, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 14 , 1983
Mr . George she, representing esentin the Moose Lodge, advised that he would answer
any questions the Commission might have.
Chairman Start asked Mr. Rushe if the Lodge had a preference for any of the
four alternatives listed in the staff repast
Roane replied that they would hope for a permanent conditional use permit,
but barring that, they would hops for the best. He provided background
ound
information to the Commission on how leas " the Lodge has been established and
the agreement with the landlord, Andrew Sa mak ian, regarding parking spaces.
Chairman Stout asked ed if he felt the parking spaces to be adequate
and whether it is the intent of the Moose Lodge to use this as a permanent
facility.
udha replied that is their intent until or unless they outgrow this
facility.
Chairman Stout explained what the Commission has done in _ the past with
institutional uses such as a church and the provision for a time extension.
she replied that if that is all they can get they would accept it and
reapply in two years. He indicated that' they would l hope to be able is beer
their own facili.ty.
Chairman Stout asked if their organization intends to have provisions for an
alcoholic beverage license and whether� they would ld apply for one.
z Rushs replied that they intend to apply for one at a later{ time; however,
the sale of alcoholic beverages would be to members only.
Whiten Chestnut, a Moose representative, spoke in favor of the application
and indicated that if adequate parking spaces are unavailable, members are
lost
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Brmakian, what percentage of his complex is rented at;
this time.
Barmakian replied approximately 90 percent and that only the east half of
the front building on Sixth -Street is not leased.
Commissioner Ni. l asked how many of the renters have extended or weekend
hours.
Barmakian replied that the only tenant would be the Wose Lodge and no one
is open on Saturdays or Sundays.
There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed.
Planning ission Minutes 7 September 14, 1983
Commissioner Re npel stated that perhaps the General Plea should be looked into
because eventually others groups will went a facility _and there currently are
no provisions as to where they should be built. He indicated that they will
develop traffic when they get going but this use is quite similar to the
institutional uses. Commissioner Rep l suggested that this be:approved with
pro icon for automatic review in two eras
Commissioner Barker asked what the difference is between the automatic renewal
and the automatic review.
Commissioner Re rpel replied it is the cost factor because they would have to
reapply.
Chairman Stout stated that in the evening hours there is unlimited parking and
asked if the applicant ;would have some problem with; a condition that limits .
the parking to evening hours only.
Ru he stated that they do have Sunday breakfasts.
Commisioner Barker asked if the wording "group meeting" has a connotation that
they can, still have an officers meeting.
Chairman Stoat stated a group meeting would require morethan six parking
spaces*
Msot Moved by Rerpel,; seconded by Barkers, carried unanimously, that
Resolution No. 111 - be adapted approving Conditional Use Permit 1 ,
requiring automatic review of this application i two years and with a
limitation of 40 parking :pages.
.; Gomez asked if there e would have to be a condition so that this CUP could,
be recalled at some time.
Hopson replied that such a condition is not required uired because it exists
implicitly under condition no. 6 of the resolution.
8:25 p.m. The Planning mmi sio n recessed.
8:35 p.m. The Planning i aion reconvened.
I. CONDITIONAL USE P R IP 1 VT R The expansion of an existing pet
hospital into a contiguous unit located at 8681 1 th Street in the 1
zone LPN P -11
Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff r^eport
Commissioner ner Parker stated that the applicant's letter states that there will
be no animal holding structures at, the back wall or at any common wall in the
building to minimize e noise; however, the modified presentation proposes d dog
run area next to the common wall of another building.
Coleman replied that that is considered a cage.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 14 , 1983
Commissioner Barker stated that the holding area should be built to further
minimize noise and asked if it would be odor proofed
Mr replied that condition 1 of the resolution tapes care of this and
that the applicant can speak to this.
Chairman Stout stated that this veterinary hospital has been in operation
since 1979 and he asked if there have been any complaints against it
Coleman replied that there have not been any.
Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing.
Dr. Richard Harder, the applicant explained the expansion plats and
improvements proposed for the pet hospital. He indicated he did not foresee
any noise problems and Dry. Hauser described the nearest neighbors d their
distance from the hospital.
Chairman Stoat asked if on the vacant 'building with the storage wall, will the;
wall go all the way.
Hauser replied that it would.
Dry Hauser then asked the Commission for permission to board animals in order
to`compete more effectively with other veterinarians in the area.
Thane being no further comments ,, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mel asked Dr. Harrier how marry dog runs he has.
r°. Hauser replied that he has fora that are 4 X 4 feat and that the new runs
will b d feat long and 3 feet rids
Commissioner Parker asked whams the proposed boarding kennels would be planed.
r. leaser explained the kennels in the dog run which would allow them to be
kept clears and sanitary. indicated they would be cement and painted with
epoxy.
Commissioner Barker asked if chat Dr. Hauser described would be adequate for°
noise attenuation and would satisfy the condition.
Mr. Goes stated that staff has not set down the type but there is flexibility
t
and the ultimate rrstr�rrtir� f the wallertrld be t t.trarra. s ri r a a
stated that otherwise this conditional use permit would have to come back.
rther, this type of use as proposed by the applicant is permitted in the C 1
zone, but the Zoning Ordinance does not specify enn lin accessory uses to
the clinic. Mr. Gomez indicated the Comm sin would have to crake a
determination on whether this 'would be permitted in a C 1 zone with a
conditional use permit.
Crag isionerg McNiel asked what Dry Hauser sees as a boarding facility.
Planning Commission Minutes September 14 , 1983
Dry. Hauser replied just a place for hisclient's animals when they creed to use
Commissioner gi l stated that there will b ; 19 dog runs and asked what
portion will be used for everyday work and what portion for boarding.
Dr. Hauser replied that he envisions approximately one-half for each use,
,although the medical practice takes precedence over everything else. Dr.
Hauser stated that he would , also like to do low cost neutering as an extra
service to the community but he creeds d physical facility to house the
animals.
Gomez stated that carder Resolution No. 9 this could be interpreted to
mesa that there did be post-operative care.
Commissioner Rempel felt that it is accessary that the animal hospital have
the option of boarding ni is belonging to those people r are the doctors*
clients. He suggested that the conditions of the conditional use permi.t be
changed to allow this.
tiurrr Moved by Rempel, seconded by du ne r carried unanimously , to adopt
Resolution No. 79-44A, with an amendment to allow the use of dog runs for the
"keeping of animals for short periods of time and to allow temporary boarding.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL A SMEN AND CONDITIONAL USE R SIT d A IA SSA
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH The development of a 2800 square . foot
edqcation facility , for the Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church can, fa.
acres f land in the R 1-8500 _ caner located at 99' 19th Street
ARR €l1 1
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He stated; that the
Engineering Division has requested that the west driveway be constructed half
way`, and that the other half be used for street access
Further, that the conditions listed on the Resolution are from the standard
condition listing but have been incorporated into the one document for ease of
information.
Chairman Stout stated that the initial report stated that Design Review had ,
some concerns that were addressed by the applicant.
ai in stated that the operational problems were addressed and the
applicant outlined what the uses would_be on the site.
hair . n Stout waked if the Resolution addresses these adequately .
r airin replied that most of the concerns were with parking and it was felt
it is adequate.
Chairman Stoat asked if the driveways can be shared with the proposed
development adjacent to this property and whether what staff is saying is that
they should not go on there and complete the driveway.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 14 , 1983
ou o u explained that gust the right-of-way bould be completed in order
to , provide access which would not require the other property owner's
permission.
ion
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jack Fielding representing the Brethren in Christ Church, _stated that he
agreed with the ' staff report and also with providing the driveway. He
indicated that they would have to get the permission of the other property
owner to do it , but as far as they are concerned they will do it .
you eau stated that ` Mr. Fielding was unable to get permission then they
could build what they can.
Wilkins, a property owner to the north of this property, asked what the
requirementsare for notification of adjacent property owners.
r ' airin responded with the legal requirements governing notification.
Wilkins asked what, type of fence would be built and asked that a fence be
installed all along the back of his property for approximately 600 feet. He
then indicated that he was never notified of the; proposed Fredericks tract.
Mr: Fielding; explained the type of well that would be placed on the school
site and stated that the children will be supervised at all times.
Wilkins stated that some type of fence should be put up to protect them.
e; indicated that last year a two-year-old child was found unharmed in the
flood control channel after he had wandered away.
Commissioner Barker asked that he be shown where the play school yard, would be.
Staff printed this out, to Commissioner Barker.
Mr. Wilkins asked how no would be notified when the Barrat property develops.
r'. Coleman replied that he would receive legal notification just as he did
with this
There being no further' comments the public 'nearing was closed.
o mia ioner MoNiel asked about access to the playP c ool area
Mr. Fielding replied that it would be-compl tel enclosed with a block wall.
i
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by MoNiel, ` carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No . 83-112 approving conditional use permit no d 9 and issuing a
Negative Declaration
Planning o i, i n Minutes September 14 , 1983
K. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND DEV8LOPMENT REVIEWy . - 1 The
development of 384 apartment units on 19.14 acres of lewd in thezone ,
located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Heilman Avenue
APN 208-241-25 ,
Associate Pl nner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff raeport indicated that
staff recommended the addition of an amendment to condition no. 10 on page two
of the resolution to include the requirement ent of a wrought iron or tubular
fence to prevent children from getting caught in the storm drain.
Chairman Stout asked with respect to the 'V gutter, ,could a pipe to put in
rather than destroy the landscaping.
r°. Coleman stated that this could not be done because all the width they have
is :from feet
Commissioner e el stated that this could be designed a lot smaller.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Larry Wolff representing the applicant stated that he would be happy to
answer any questions of the Commission and also advised that Mr. Don King
would answer any of the engineering questions. Further, that they agreed with ,
the conditions the staff reports
Mr. Robert Tomelow.r, a resident adjacent to this project stated that they have
complied with theirs requests as far as grading and drain e is concerned, but
they would like to see a block wall d in as soon as possible after the rough
grading is complete in order to minimize dust and noise to the residents. He
indicated that this would also provide additional privacy. omelow asked
that the parkways be wider with landscaping and that the parking be placed
further back into the project. He further asked that Castro and East ood
Streets not be used during construction.
William Runyan, property owner south of this project, felt that more than
six feet; of landscaping is required on this property, He suggested 15 feet
and requested that drainage be urder round d and flown into a catch basin as
there would be no easorz except for the expense of not doing this.
Don Hadley, homeowner'er north of this project, asked what the size of the
apartments would be and expressed his concern of whether these would be lows
income apartments that would attract crime
Chairman Stout replied that this does not look life a low-income project.
.
Wolff stated that this is not a low-income project and to not federally
subsidized. He did not know;what the rents would cost only that they would be
compatible with others in the area. He explained that additional, setbacks
would not accomplish what the homeowners want.
King explained that the homeowners would be unable to benefit from any
additional landscapingt and as it is proposed, it will provide adequate
buffering from the single family homes
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 14 , 1983
Commissioner Barker asked Mr. King if he could address noise attenuation.
King replied that five feet would be meaningless as , fare as noise
attenuation on is concerned
Commissioner Ra pel. stated that landscaping d the wall would be a batten
buffer and that perhaps a vertical sided, gutters would be better suited here.
Chairman Stout asked if anything wail.l, be done with the wail on the south side
of the project.
King stated that they will throw it away .
Commissioner Barker stated that nobody addressed the use of Eastwood and
Castro during construction.
Mr. Wolff stated that request that the wall Sd up afters rough grading is a
reasonable request and 'would be complied with.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
CommissionerMr-Niel asked what is proposed for drainage on the southerly
portion of Eastwood over to Castro.
Rou eau replied that it will go directly out to Hellman.
a r°in stated that the drainage plats has been conditioned for a 1 -year
storm.
Commissioner MoNiel asked if these people 'would get flooded out ev r time
get a mist.
,. Wolff stated that one reason the gutters is soy wide is to addres the
flooding concerns. He indicated that the grading plays will flow all watery to
Hellman and it is their intent that no water will go dowry any of the three
streets adjacent to this property.
Commissioner rker° stated, that it would be appropriate to have the wrought
iron fence built, prior to " construction on the site and asked that this be
placed in the resolution
Motion: Moved by Rem el, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously,, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-113 with the amendments to add a wrought iron fence,
construction tion of a block wall following grading and prior to construction, and
no construction access to Eastwood, Castro or Montara during construction.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL AL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7000 JAMES pR ROSE - A d iv i s io n
of . -acres of land into 2 lots in the 1 zone, Located on the south
side of 1 th Street, east of Jaspter Avenue - APSE 0 1 .
Senior Civil: Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report
Planning Commission Minutes 1 September* 14 , 1983
Commissioner Barker asked the City Attorney if some of the property were
granted away, would the recipient end up paying more in tares.
Hopson replied that he did not know what affect the little adjustment
would have as fart as more assessment. However, if it would trigger more
assessment, the landowner on the west could decline to take it.
Commissioner Barkers stated that some sort of caveat should be provided.
r. Rougeau replied that the last "condition corers that.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. d 114, approving Parcel p 7000 arid issuing a Negative
Declaration.
Commissioner Barker stated that someone should provide warning to the
property owner to investigate
8:45 p.m. The Planning i si n recessed
d A 7 P.M. The Planning issi n,_reconvened .
M. REVISIONS TO 8NGINEERINGCONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
1 P LI RA A revision to a custom lot residential subdivision f 204
lots on 140.98 s of land in the R-1-20,000 zone located on the east
side of Haven <Avenue, north of Hillside Channel, changing public streets
to private streets - APES 1-1 1-1 .
Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff f report. He
recommended an additional condition of approval to include a requirement for
homeowner ss ci tion to ensure the future maintenance of streets
Chairman Stout asked with respect to the homeowner association, should the
condition also include that it be adjacent to Haven at the right-of-way.
Hougeau replied affirmatively as they would be a great expense to
maintain. He explained that way the maintenance would be credited and paid
for by the homeowner's sso i t ier
Commissioner 'MaNiel asked whether they would be credited by the amount they
pay for landscaping or the amount that the city pays
Rougeau explained the formul.a that credits the homeowner's association.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
Planning Commission Minutes ; -14 September 14, 1983
Mr. Paul Edwards of the Reynolds Environment Group, stated that what they hope
to accomplish is increased security for their residents and explained the
motorcycle patrols they would have.
Mr. Edwards stated that they have a commen't and question on conditions 6 and 7
relative to incorporation of the triangular piece and also providing access
and ownership to the Flood Control District. He asked if this could be done
on the final map or as a provision to the final. map.
Mr. Rougeau asked if Mr. Edwards intends to record in several phases for the
fir 1 map. He it that if that were the case it could be held off or
made an additional condition to the tentative tract map, and could be handled
at that time.
Chairman Stout asked if the City Attorney foresees any problem with this.
Mr. Hopson replied that he does not as long as the triangular piece is
preserved and it would depend on how the map is drawn.
Chairman Stout asked if the City Attorney would suggest some language that
would not preclude that.
Mr. Hopson stated that that could act as a reminder to staff and would be
acceptable.
Mr. Rona geau stated that he was not sure of the dotted line on the map. He
indicated that the design could be approved but be was not sure of the number
of lots.
Mr. Edwards stated that the Flood Control District is not interested in
relinquishing tht piece of property at this time.
Mr. Edwards stated that relative to standard condition 3 on Page 5, they will
be making a substantial investment in a gate system and if they make an offer
of dedication, their investment will be gone. He asked if 'there is some way
to give the land owner some protection and asked about inserting some wording
to indicate reasonable cause.
Mr. Hopson stated that this is no different a requirement than that of any
common interest subdivision built within the city with private streets and he
did not see a whole lot of reason for such wording. He indicated that even
though it is private, the City could still remove the gate by condemning the
whole system. Further, from the City's standpoint he did not see why there
should be any additional wording,
Chairman Stout stated that when this came before, the Commission the Last time
the applicant was dead set against a homeowner association.
Mr. Hopson stated that the reasons that there has to be a homeowner
association as this will not be acceptable without one.
Planning Commission Minutes September 14 , 1983
Mrs. Edwards cited the applicant's strop feelings about homeowner associations
because of the problems they have encountered in this valley. He indicated
that the applicant understands what the homeowner association entails and that
there is substantially r cost dnthe
the association.
Lair° n Stout stated that 'the other thing is the landscaping Outsid the City '
right-of-way. H ;indicated that this would be under the jurisdiction of the
homeowner association.
Edwards indicated that he wished to speak to staff about that.
Chairman Stout stated that the two 'trails to the north and south are a
community trail and a regional trail and he was concerned because of the
security problem. tie indicated that there should be access.
Commissioner Barker stated that they could indicate that it would be escarp t
vehicularaccess only.
Hopson stated that the best way to maintain that this would remin
open a.s,
for the developer's attorney to insert language into the CC&Rls relative to ;
lots A & B so that the community trail is public and that thane would be
vehicular access to it because it cannot be restricted. He indicated that he
would look for this in the CCU P r s
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by MIaNielt carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. providing recisions to engineering conditions of
approval for Tentative Tract 12232, with the addition of a requirement for a
homeowner association and modification to the f1's.DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
N. TIME KXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 - R. H,. ' ASSOCIATES - A
residential` l subdivision of 15.7 sores es f° lard into 38 custom lots in the
R 1 zone located south and east of llad Hill Country Club Drive, south of
Calls, Cor az n P 7 1 1 7 and 0 - 10. (Continued from Planning
Commission meeting of August 10, 1983.E
Senior Planner iichael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stoat stated that when this came before the Commission the last time
there was concern about access
tr a ire in replied that this is correct and additionally, there was concern
regarding the pro ject r , design
Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing.
Mr. William Beverly, a partner, stated that he had received the staff report
rgt
d found it ;to be clear and lucid In its presentation.
Planning issio Minutes 16 September 14 , 1983
Chairman Stout asked the applicant whit his concept was of this;subdivision.
Beverly replied that they writ to keep this area in as natural a state
possible with very Little cutting. He indicated that they wish to build
custom homes that would be split level and designed for the lot.
Chairman Stout asked if the lot size would be about 12,000 square Feet.
. Beverly replied that they propose to build homes that are between 1800
C C square feet and they Ararat to leave as much open space as, possible.
Chairman Stout asked if architectural control of the project would be through
CC&RIs .
lr. Beverly replied that ultimate control, would be through the City 's Design
Review Committee. He indicated that they would have 3-4 standard styles.
Chairman Stout asked if theme would be some guidelines so that Design Review
would know what to expeat.
Beverly stated that currently they are not attempting to sell the bats
individually but they are trying to build as a joint venture..
Chairman Stout stated that he considers this area to be very sensitive and;
open to vier to everyone driving down Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner lip el stated that when discussing the grading to the area north
of the City in the Foothill Community Plan lot size requirements were very
high. He indicated that size is important here as well since slope grades
could be as high as 15 percent. He indicated that accessi to the parcels dawn
n Foothill are also important because if this project goes in gathers will be
landlocked. Commissioner Rempel stated that some provision should be made for
canes by commercial developments.
Beverly stated that from a practical sense, they are the same property
owner.
Commissioner Rempol stated that they are not all the same owner.
irin stated that any change in terms of access to other properties would
require revision to the Tentative ract Yap and geld have to go through
hearing process. He explained that non action can extending this would negate
the present tentative tract and would require filing of d new one.
Hopson stated that no one has a vested right in a tentative tract until it
can be f'i.n l d. Further, that if the majority of property owners feel they;
would like to see something done on access, it would be all right to extend
this tract for a period of time in order for something to b worked out. Mr.
Hopson indicated that this would save a. filing ,
. VairiWn stated that an extension of 90 days could be granted to work out
the problems or the Commission could grant an extension as is;
Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 14 , 1983
Commissioner l stated that there is a problem here that meads to be
solved regarding access and he felt that a certain condition for review should
be built in relative to the size of the homes.
Commissioner parker stated that the property having the difficulty is
commercial, but he was unabl.e to determine what would go them and stated
ilea it is a problem,, firer did not known what to do about it
Commissioner Niel asked what can be dunes about the commercial designation in
the area.
Hopson replied that if a majority of the; property owners feed that a
General Plan Amendment is in order and there are some City slats available,
they could ask the City to sponsor the amendment : for lots 13 and 31 or
whatever is appropriate. fie indicated that the City does have they power to deg
this
r Vai. in stated that this property is general planned for general
commercial, , and there are a lot of alternatives for conditional type
uses*
There was discussion as to what types of access could be found ,with the
onsensus of, the Commission that this entire area be looked at as a whole
rather than parcel by parcel.
Beverly stated that there is something he does not understand in that this
holey thing had been looked at previously red approved. He asked what facts
in the;: area have changed
Chairman Stem replied that the Planning Commission has changed.
Mr. Hopson asked if it Is important for Mr Beverly to know because it is not
legally important.
Chairman Stout stated that this property is but one pieces in a puzzle, and if
it goes through as it is presently proposed, it could destroy something else.
Commissioner Niel stated that he has no qualms with the project but is
concerned with the gray next door. He indicated that if they roles were
reversed and Mr. Beverly was being landlocked, he would let the Commission ,
know.
Beverly stated: that it appears that there is no reasonable access; d that
his project should`not be held rap because of this
Commissioner McNiel stated that the: Commission can then lorry the extension.
.: Vairin stated that if the applicant agrees to work with the other property
owners a short time extension can be granted in order to see if the access
problem m can be worked d out as well as looking at the land use.
Chairman Stout asked the applicant if he understood what was happening.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 14, 1983
Beverly . replied that he is being asked to work out a master plan. He
asked what happens if the property owners don't want to work with him.
Chairman Stout replied that he does not have a problem their.
Cary Johnson stated that he was not involved in the original conceptual
party and going over the minutes this was thoroughly discussed by the previous_
Commission., He indicated that this property was general planned R-i and
changed to commercial afters the general plan adopted . Further?, that at
that time the Commission felt nothing could be done regarding access. He
indicated that the coat of a master plasm for this could be considerable and
s not surd that they 'would be able to proceed
Chair n Stout stated that the applicant can request a continuance or can
accept denial of the time extension.
i in stated that it is important to get theapplicant's agreement for
time extension rid that it be conditioned so that the other property owners
meet to make a decision relative to access.,
Commissioner Parker stated that he is concerned with having the whole burden
of the access issue fall on this property owner.
Commissioner Remp 1. stated that they would not have to fund the whole l thing.
Laub asked if the eondilion is that the applicant perform a study relative
to access or will he take the initiative in getting a study for the area. He
indicated that the implication is that if there is no participation, this will
be dropped.
Commissioner Barker stated, that if the other property owners are not
interested in getting involved in the study, it will be dropped.
Motion: Moved by Re el,, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 81-34A to grant a: time extension of 120 days in order for the
applicant to work with other property owners in determining access for
adjacent properties.
ADJOURNMENT
Lion: moved by Re el, seconded by: Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
to September PC, 1983 for a Development Code Workshop at the Lions Park
Community Center to be held at :30 p.m.
1 r5a p.m. The Planning Commission i.aaion adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
JI
5
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 14 , 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMC CA
Alm PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
Development Code Workshop
September C, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout , called the Special Adjourned Mooting of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at . 5 p.m. The meeting was
hold in the West Gallery of Lions Pare. Community Center, 9161 Base. Lino,
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS- David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry McNiel ,
Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Herman Pomp l
STAFF PRESENT. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Robert Dougherty, City
Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jack Lam,
Community; Development Director;; Manioc Reynolds, Secretary;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
Michael Vair n, Senior Planner, announced that the Development District Maps
are now available for purchase at City Nall . M . Varin advised that the crap
will be the subject of discussion at the workshop of October 4, ' 1983.
CHAPTER ;4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Michael Vair n, Seniors Planner, and Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed
the various sections of Chapter 4.
Section 4.1 General Plan Puy os2 and Donors; Plan C nsistdno
Chairman Stout stated that the wording of the introductory sentence was
awkward and suggested that it be reworded. Further, that the rewording should
include the addition of the word "goals" to the General Plan objectives.
There were no public comments on this section.
There was a_,consensus of approval from the Commission on this section with
Chairman Stout's amendments
Section 4. Ueoloprnent Districts
Chairman Stoat suggested that "Residential" be added to the title of Section
4.2. He asked if the word ;density shouldn't appear somewhere in the
description.
Mr. yairin replied that a statement could be added to the introductory
paragraph to include wrerbage on density
question was raised from the audience regarding the descriptions of each
district and what would happen if you had acreage less than what was stated.
Mr. Vairin replied that staff bad already noted a problem with that and
intends to include a maximum number of acres in the , description of the
districts
Section 4. Use Regulations
Michael yairin, Senior Planner, stated that staff suggested changing -the title
of "B" from Secondary Uses to Other 'Uses e further stated that the City
Attorney advised that ;number 1.4 under Secondary Uses be amended by reproving`
the conditionally permitted symbol , in the yL and t columns to remain
consistent with State requirements. He further advised that dormitory uses
had been placed in the Secondary ,Use classification, however, should be placed
as an Accessory Use
Chairman Stout stated that the accessory use with which dormitories are,
permitted should be specified.
Mr. Vairin replied that staff is proposing to list there as accessory uses on
the chart and language will be added under: Special Use Regulations on page 70
which would discuss dormitories with conditional use permits. He stated that
at the Commission's direction staff would draft language for their review at
the next meeting
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff propose language regarding
types of accessory uses with which dormitories would be permitted.
Chairman Stout suggested placing the definitions for "PIF and "C" at the top of
the table so that they would be easier to see
It was the consensus of the Commission that this be done
Commissioner Barker asked why 2.5 acres was; used as the lot size.
Mr ai °in replied that this was the acreage used - n the Dti anda Specific
Plan and was the size lot which could easily accommodate these uses.
Jeff Sceraka asked if the °term total ground area in 4 D.1 c) shouldn 't be
defined
Planning Co rission Minutes - September 6, 1983
r. Vairin replied that there might be a problem with this term and suggested
that the "net" or "gross" area right be a better tern.
Par Henry asked if a situation where animals were raised and: sold would be
considered an agricultural use
Chairman Stout explained that the intent of this section was that less
restrictive use would be allowed prior to residential development in certain
areas
r Vairin pointed out that this is an accessory use to a residential use.
However, if a person was selling animals from their residence the Horne
Occupation Permit regulations would come into effect
Table 4.3 P
Carl Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the gable stating that one of the
rain issues of this chart was the requirement of a CUP if the number of birds
in a avairy exceeds g per 5,000 square feet.
Commissioner Barker referred to Table 4.3E and stated that it looked lime you
could have two mules and a pony,; but not two ponies and a mule and suggested
that the chart needs clarification.
Commissioner ioner i cHiol stated that avairies create: both an actual problem and a
zoning problem since they generate many neighbor complaints.
Lyndon Harp, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed this issue stating that he
felt that noise levels should be a- considering factor because twenty-five
peafowl would raise the noise levels higher that twenty-five parakeets.
Commissioner Barker left the meeting at : C p.m .
Chairman Stout explained that twenty-five peafowl might be permitted under the
amount allowed but would not be allowed "under the noise requirements. He
pointed out that a lot of people are not as knowledgeable as Mr. Harp and the
City needs some way to regulate the problems when someone exceeds the amount
permitted
r. Vairin stated that staff used some of Mr. Harp's ideas on noise in the
preparation of this section of the Code and advised that his birds could be
permitted; however if the Commission adopted staffs guidelines, a conditional ,
use permit would be necessary.
It was the consensus of the Commission that any number which exceeded the
limit of 5 birds, foal, or rodents, per 5,000 square feet of lot area requires
a conditional use, permit.
Planning Commission Minutes - September 6, 198
Pam Henry referred to Section 1.15 Definitions and stated that pigs had been
placed in the definition of small animals. She suggested that the Commission
might consider placing it under large animals.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this be done.
Chairman Stout expressed concerns with number 5, Recreational Vehicle Storage
Yards, and stated that he did not want to see wholesale or retail activities
in conj'unction with storage yards in residential districts.
Mr. Vairin replied that language could be added to the text to clarify this
point.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this be done.
Section 4.4 Site Develo ment Criteria
Can Coleman reviewed section 4.4 and stated that staff is in the processing of
refining the numbers. He advised that staff desired Commission discussion and
input on the concept within each section to reach a consensus on possible
regulations.
Chairman Stout recommended that the word "Standard" be replaced with
"Criteria" in the opening sentence of Section 4.4. He also suggested that the
word "Fence" on Table 4.4-D be replaced with the word "Wall".
A comment was raised from the audience regarding the inconsistencies of the
tree planting species in the City. He suggested that an effort to maintain
consistency be a goal of the Code.
Chairman Stout explained that the City now has a designated street tree list
which outlines the various trees to be planted throughout the City and that
future development will reflect consistency. He also suggested that language
be added which would state that the city tree planting criteria would be
consistent with the General Plan.
Jeff Sceranka stated that one of the problems with the trees being planted in
the City is improper irrigation and suggested that guidelines for planting and
irrigation be established. He suggested that the sizes of the required trees
be reduced and smaller trees planted which could acclimatize themselves to the
environment.
Michael Vairin explained that a tree planting and irrigation guideline has
been developed by staff which outlines this criteria. He stated that staff
has been paying more attention to landscaping and has had an equal amount of
problems with smaller trees
Chairman Stout recommended that language be added to the text to reflect
proper planting and irrigation methods.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 6, 1983
Mr. Coleman advised the Commission that staff recommended a new item t _
Section 4.4 which would be subsection "I - Mobile Hoare Parks" which would
delete the overlay district in Chapter 12 of the Code.
r Vair^in stated that this subsection would be in keeping with new State
leistature which deletes city standards for lot sizes, landscaping, access,
etc., for mobile home parks
There were no further comments on this section. Chairman Stout stated there
was a consensus of the Commission that they liked the concept of this section
and directed staff to further refine the section and return to the Commission.
d: planning Commission Recessed
d: - Planning Commission Reconvened
Section 4.5 Absolute Policies
Dan Coleman advised that the Absolute Policies which were distributed in the
Planning Commission agendas would be added as Section 4.5.
There were no comments can this section. It was the consensus of the
Commission that this section be added
Section 1.6 edial eveld ment Jriteria
Chairman Stout suggested that the standard drawings reference in subsection "°
- Equestrian Trails' of Section 4.5 be replaced , with "Equestrian Trail
Guidelines".
Chairman Stout asked for discussion on the antenna subsection "I". He stated
that there may be problems with this section. Further that ;50 feet seemed
high, even for conventional radio and television antenna
r Coleman explained that a study had been conducted which revealed that if
the height of an antenna was below 50 feet, it created a reception
disturbance; howe er, at 50 feet, the disturbance was by-passed.
Chairman Stott asked staff to research and cute up with an arbitrary number
and suggested that language might be added which would reflect that the
extended antenna height could be no more than 50 feet when in use, and no
higher than whatever a-reasonable height would be une tended.
Jeff Sceranka stated that the setback section was unclear.
Chairman Stout agreed and suggested that language be added to subsection "Hil
item 3 which would refer to the setback table (Table 4.4 and .
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 5 1983
Mr cer°aka referred to subsection "J.5.11 and stated that the intent of that
statement was unclear.
Michael yairn replied that language could be added to clarify the intent.
There were no further r" mm nt . It was the consensus of the Commission that
language be added to Section 4.6 as proposed by Chairman Stout.
Section , .7 General Provisions
There were no comments on this section
Section 4.8 Performance Standards
Chairman Stout referred to subsection 3 (c) and suggested that a referenda be
made to Table .7,- . He also referred to H) and suggested that "which i
be substitute for "readily" and "with or" be , added to "without the aid of
instruments at or beyond the lot line".
member of the audience asked hove dBA levels are measured for compliance in .
the noise section
Chairman Stoat replied that the Code'Enforcement Officer -would have a device
which measures sound levels and would place the device at the property lino to
Treasure the level of sound
Thera were no further comments. It
was the consensus o the Commission that
the language proposed by Chairman Stout be added.
Section 4.9 Design Guidelines
Chairman Stout recommended that the word "General" be added to the title.
Jeff Sceranka stated that this section does not contain the sidewalk criteria
established by the Planning Commission and asked if there was a reason why.
Additionally, he asked if there was another set of policies which were not
being included in the Code
Michael yairn replied' that;specific standards such are these are not included
rns Standard Drawings.
� s o
in the Cody but are a art of the Engineering C
p g
Chairman Stout stated that what Mr. Sceranka was proposing was language added
to this section which would refer to this general policy of the Planning
Commission and suggested that a general statement be added to subsection Nd --
cdess/Circulation".
Planning Commission Minutes' -6- September 5 1983
edge of a fault for construction of a residence, and suggested that the
maximum space should be taken.
Chairman. Stout agreed that language should be added to Section 9.4 which
would state that a; statement will be included on every deed for each lot which
informs the owner of the potential seismic activity and hazards.
Michael Vair n stated the maximum footage for construction would require a
General plan Amendment since it is a policy of the General Plan.
Chairman Stout asked what was the normal procedure in fault areas.
Mr. Vairin replied that a study is required to be conducted by a ;certified
geologist. He pointed out that these standards are the minimum, however a
special study could require those' standards ''to be expanded.
There were no further comments. It was the consensus of the Commission that
language be added as proposed by Chairman Stout to require duds to reflect
fault activity and hazards
A9 [.JPT
Motion: Moved by-'Barker, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
9b - Planning Commission Adjourned
�.a
Pep t ull, bbmi t °T
F
Jack Lam, Secretaryv ,
R ro
Planning Commission Minutes -9 September 6, 1983
CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 30, 15
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the adjourned regular meeting of the Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at . C p.m. The meeting was, held at
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Ruse ;Line 'Rod, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Shut then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addle Juarez (arrived
M C p.m.) , Larry *. Niel,
DennisStout,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT; Tim J. Boodle, Senior Planner;; Jean Kruse ,
Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community
Development Director; Paul Rouge au, Senior Civil
Engineer
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Coe, Senior Planner; Doug Payne; John r~ ik;
Tummy Stevens
Tina Beadle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that it would be
presented in two segments: the County presentation,tion, followed by City staff
review of the major issues on the questions that were raised at; previous
meetings. He indicated that following the presentation there would be time
for comments.
. Seed e explained the process in the review of the draft plan indicating
that the County Planning Commission would begin their hearings within the next
four to six weeks He indicated that following review of the plan by the
Planning Commission, a recommendation- would ld e made to the City Council.
Further, a copy of the Draft NIR will be furnished to the Planning Commission.
Chuck Coe, Senior Planner, made a presentation of the Comrminity Plan on
behalf of the County of San Bernardino. He indicated that this is the public
hearing phase following the; presentation last April of gals, policies and the
land use p b
'. Coe indicated that the Draft Plan- will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission in October and to the Board of Supervisors rs by November.
Coe stated that the prupose of this meeting is threefold :
1 To bring the City Planning Commission up to 'date on the Community Plan as
it developed since last April;
2. to speak to the issue raised in the City's staff report relative to
densities, land use districts, transfer of land use densities, service,
and equestrian trails; and
3. it is hoped that a finding could be made with a recommendation to the City
Council to support the Community Plan that the Commission will feel is
appropriate.
Mr. Coe stated that while the EIR is not yet complete , no new concerns have
been raised. He added that the impact on services, such as water, sewer,
roads, drainage, schools and fire services have been addressed, and he stated
that the County has been working with the various agencies relative to
services and would have a better idea when official comments on the Draft EIR
have been received.
Mr. Payne described the Community Plan stating that it is divided into seven
sections, including land use categories and building types, along with their
requirements.
Mr. Payne stated that the general plan map and the circulation map are adopted
by policy and the land use district map is adopted by ordinance.
Mr. Payne discussed three major issues: Compatibility with the City's General
Plan and Specific Plans stating that the areas most directly affected are
Etiwanda and Alta Loma. He stated that the goal of the community Plan is to
be compatible with the west end of the community.
Mr. Payne stated it is a goal of the Plan to discourage development on steep
hillsides by allowing a 100 percent density transfer to more buildable
sites. He indicated special studies will be required where slope conditions
are such that they would benefit by the study 'with preliminary grading
proposals and on planned residential developments.
Mr. Payne stated that future building must conform to existing slope
conditions.
Mr. Payne advised that the County does not have the ability to provide a
financing planning program for public facilities. Further, that the Plan
identifies specific land use categories that recognizes public services for
the area. The water district, he stated, is proposing an on site water
management district as set up by the state and he spoke of the infrastructure
needed to support development. He indicated interim school fees are proposed
for those schools which would be impacted in the Alta Loma and Chaffey school
districts, and that this could be implemented once the districts approach the
Board of Supervisors. Equestrian trails and hiking trails are identified in
the plan and the standards for them could be readily available to developers
in that they could be a part of the conditions of approval and could be made a
part of the equestrian area.
Mr. Tim Beedle reviewed the staff report,.
Chairman Stout asked about the issues contained in the report and asked for
comments f r ani the Commission. There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 30, 1983
7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
Chairman Stout asked if any Commissioner had any issue that was not in the
Plan that could or should be in it.
Chairman Stout stated that the issues contained in the Plan should be broken
into two different categories: those which are related to the Plan itself and
those that relater to financing.
Commissioner Mel asked if what Mr Payne had stated is that a review
committee is, used to determine the need for services.
Payne replied that any submittals like a subdivision would go before an
environmentalL review board through the review process. Further, that services
are an issue and would have to be examined. Mr. Payne explained that they
also have a subdivision review committee which includes water agencies, school
districts, fire and police departments.
Commissioner MoNiel asked what effect a project will have five years from now
if there is nothing that actually pinpoints what services will be required
five years from now.
Mr. Payne replied that in general, the services that will be impacted are
those services available to the community. If the ntimber of homes are
multiplied out they can see by the factors what services will be needed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that these are not incorporated into the Plan at
this time.
Mr. Payne replied that the County can do this by factoring for each specific
purpose.
Commissioner Barker stated that if the County has something like this that
works for schools, he would like to see it because his has not worked for
years.
Mr. Goe replied that they did not mean to imply in their presentation that
service needs would not be addressed but they don't know what they would need
to fully implement this Plan. Further, because of the scope of the Community
Plan, financing can't be predicted and they did not know how facilities would
be provided.
Commissioner Barker asked about parks, which have always been a problem to
provide for. He asked specifically about the Rancho Cucamonga are'a and what
provisions there would be for Parks there.
Mr. Coe replied that those topics would be addressed individually as projects
are filed . Further, that when formulating housing plans parks would have to
be addressed by the developer who would have to provide public parks or to
reserve land for parks.
Planning Commission Meeting -3- August 30, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that he is not familiar with 'the County process of Amok
providing these serviced and was not sure where the Plan should 'stop and where
the City' planning would begirt
Stevensreplied that when they say they cannot provide ;services beyond
certain level dues not men that these services will not be provided.
Further, that when, the Plan is adopted, they can come back and provide
planning in much more detail that what theyare drain today. Mr. Stevens
indicated that their charge at this time is to do this level of planning and
with the Cityts recommendation, it will tell the County that they need to go a
step further in services. He Nr her indicated that they have dune this in
the past and they can do it again but they treed direction and authority from
the Board of Supervisors in order° to do it
Chairman Stout stated that through this Plan they are looking at a possible
additional 10-15,000 people In the area which is almost as much as a new
city. He further stated that the Planning nosier does not want to wait
until the foothills are developed` the way that the Alta Loma area was before
they begirt planning for this development. He indicated that he could see the
same thing happening in the foothills that caused the incorporation ration of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga to occur.
Chairman taut felt it critical to have some kind of financial plan for the
area and further pelt that possibly a moratorium on development of the area i ,
needed. Chairman Stout stated that this is not d criticism of the plan
because County planning staff has done exactly what they were asked to do.
Stevensreplied that they will receive the Commission's comments on all
the areas and be able instead of stopping all projects, to keep certain areas
raper f°car' development. In tutu, they would like to at least have the ability
to move ahead if they greet the City' concurrence or standards
Chairman Stout replied that it is not necessarily the standards--that his
concerti is that are opportunity exists to design d financing plan to carry
through 20 years for now with infrastructure that will be there.
W. Coe stated that the Countyas plate acts as a catalyst for input on
infrastructure and schools.
Chairman Stout stated along with the several issues being discussed he noticed
there did. net` seen to be any difficulty with having equestrian trail
standards; howevrer, he saw the issue of dedication as a possible snatch pry.
Stevens replied that when a project comes through ;and if a trail is needed;
in certain areas, it will be provided.
Commissioner darken asked hew this would be accomplished.
Mr. Stevens replied that if it is needed they will reserve the land to protect
the continuity to ling up with the equestrian trails from project to ,
project. Development of the trail system will came tense a form of maintenance
can be established Parks would be taken care of in much the sage manner and
he did not feel that providing for this would be insurmountable
Planning Commission Minutes - - august 30 1983
Chairman Stout asked what the policy of the Gounty has been in the past for
maintenance of parks and trails.
Mr . Stevens replied that in certain areas they have districts that Provide for
parks, roads and drainage systems. He indicated that the parks are a high
maintenance type service and is the one that needs the closest attention
because of the amount of money needed from the mintenance aspect.
Mr. Stevens stated that when a developer has placed the Improvements , it is
also determined who will maintain.
Go=issioner Barker stated that a standard in the Plan states nothing will be
done on trails until the Board of Supervisors take action on a maintenance
plan.
Mr . Stevens stated they will make a change in the wording so that whatever is
necessary for the trails will be reserved.
Chairman Stout stated that there are actually three different things going
on: the reservation of the land itself; the trail standards of the City; and
the maintenance. Of these three areas, Commissioner Stout asked just how far
the Plan goes.
Mr. Payne replied that in current County policy they cannot maintain the
trails. at Mr. Stevens said is wnen the project comes through they will
hold the right-of-way and will pick up by designing structures and the offer
of dedication in enough detail so that the trail system is clear.
There was general discussion on how landscaping will be ensured along with the
trails standards.
Chairman Stout stated that what the Commission should transmit to the County
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is that they have strong
ooncerns about the lack of a financing plan for the services in the Community
Plan. Ile felt that this should be done before any development occurs.
Mr. Coe replied that it is important for this Planning Commission and the City
Council to make their points no because there are many others who feel the
same way and that this would be competing for limited county funds. He,
indicated that the County is not designed to handle service areas and
everytime a new district comes up, they have a problem. He indicated that in
Chino Hills service was established as a part of the project and it is not
something that they have an answer for. He indicated further that the City
needs to personally become involved in the =revenue process.
Chairman Stout stated that if the City Council decides to ratify the Planning
Commission's concerns there will be some sort of formal policy statement which
goes to the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors expressing
their concerns.
Mr. Coe stated with regard to schools, the school disricts have a vehicle with
the County to establish fees for impaction and when this is done the County
collects the fees.
Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1983
The consensus of the Cotmmission was that the Board of Supervisors be made
aware of the need for a financing plan for services to be established .
Commissioner Barker stated that in the proposal two things are talked about.
density bonuses and density transfers and of from 4 units to the acre to 8
units to the acre and his nightmare is that now you will have higher density
impacting low density areas.
There was discussion relative to density bonuses, transfers and the population
that could be supported in much of the area which is environmentally
sensitive.
Mr. Coe stated that County staff feels the Plan adequately addresses services,
capacity and the environment and it is a subjective issue of what is
compatible with the surrounding area. He indicated that there is no doubt in
his mind that there will be some issues that they now the City will support
rind they think the Plan can be made more compatible,. He indicated that if
what the Commission wants is single family detached homes, it should say so.
Commissioner Niel expressed concern that as the Plan is presented with the
density transfers, it may be too close to giving the farm away.
Chairman Stout stated that they would hate to see someone who had moved his
density transfer to a lower area off the slope put in a his density
project. He further stated that the concern would be alleviated if there was
some maximum capacity for density transfer because it appears to be wide open
with the way the Plan is now written.
Yr. Payne explained the subareas and their designation.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he was concerned with the area north of
Etiwanda as it develops.
Mr. Beedle explained what the General Plan guidelines are for development in
the variovs slope areas. Further, that the overall issue is density; and
further explained the recommendation of 1 unit per 40 area Instead of 1 unit
per 10 gross acres as shown in the County Plan.
Chairman Stout asked for consensus on this issue.
Commissioner Barker asked if they could address the issue of density transfers
from one area to another; and limiting a holding capacity on a particular
piece of property.
Chairman Stout stated that this should be addressed by some finite rule. He
indicated he felt it unfair that they do not have something> re specific in
that it will not say what the Plan means.
Mr. Barker stated that the recommendation from staff was 1DU per 40AC and that
there was no compromise with 1 DU/AC.
Chairman Stout stated that he would rather say 1DU per 40AC to be consistent
with the General Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 30, 1983
Mr. Beedle stated that the other issue is affordable housing and the question
on the table Is the City 's concern of applications on a countywide policy in
that area. He indicated that there Is no reason that the City cannot
recommend to the County that this policy be examined to meet the character of
this Planning area.
Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission has already met consensus on item
six relative to Chairman Stout 's service district or financial plan.
Chairman Stout replied that there should be some type of language because of
the 'terrain and its sensitivity which also affects affordable housing.
Commissioner Barker asked what effect the transfer of residential density will
have in special easements.
Mr. Payne stated the Plan says that densities can be transferred when they are
combined with an open space program and it is not automatically made, it is
only made when there are findings.
Chairman Stout stated that there was consensus from the Commission that on the
issue of affordable housing, it should be limited based upon the terrain.
Mr. Lowell Gores, landowner and a committee participant, stated that if' the
Commission was to say it was excluding the hillside area from affordable
housing, they would not be offending any property owner in that area because
they do not feel that this type of housing is marketable in the area.
Commissioner Barker asked if it would be appropriate to address trails on
either side of the road and other small concerns such as that.
Mr. Beedle replied that staff would be glad to take comments from the
Commission back to the County and it would be helpful to go through the issues
and give staff guidance in this area.
Commissioner Mc-Niel stated that most of the densities in the Plan are relative
to the City's range but are at the top end, for example, where the City shows
2-4 the Plan shows 4. He asked in light of the bonus and density transfer,
would it not be wise that the range be reduced to the bottom of the range
since the possibility exists that at they will be doing is giving away
density.
Mr. Joe DiIorio, land owner, spoke of the issue of affordable housing and
indicated that there are specific design standards for the subarea in the
Etiwanda Specific Plan that must be applied and focused in that area.
Further, that it appears the difference between the County 's Community Plan
and the Etiwanda Specific Plan is the design standards and type of housing.
He indicated that the landowners would support doing a specific plan. He also
spoke of the special mechanism for review to meet questions that have been
raised.
Commissioner cNiel asked if this Plan goes through and subareas are created
fair future specific plan, how, would this fit with the Comrmamity Plan?
Planning Commission Meeting -7- August 30, 1983
Mr. Beedle replied that-certain topics can to addressed by specific parrs on a
subarea basis: However, there are some other areas that are general,, such as
public facilities or a financing plan which should be handled through h a
ar^e wide plan
Commissioner Niel asked how this will affect density.
Mr. Beedle stated that the Commission can state whether it is not satisfied
with the density bonus proposal and affordable housing policy because of the
potential impaction of services. He indicated that a specifies plan can set
more closely the holding capacities of subareas within the planning area.,
Chairman Stout stated that one thing they did in the general Plan is require
star plan for certain areas. He asked if a master plan would 'be consistent
with a specific plan's subareas. ,
.. Beadle explained that a master plan is a generic name of a plan for
certain topics before any development occurs.
Chairman tout asked if the County can require certain areas to have a master
plan for some: subareas.
Stevens replied that It can.
Mrs. Care stated what typically occurs is that a pap is ;required by the County
prier to any development plan.
Mr. beadle asked if ghat W. Coe said is that you can use a PUD where there is
multiple ownership.
.. Coe replied affirmatively.
. Beedle stated that you could use the PUD process like a mster plan.
There was further discussion of whether a master plats, specific plan or the
Community Plan would be the best vehicle to address this area and the use of
density bonuses within it.
Commissioner reap stated that perhaps a specific plats would bust address
this for the area above Etiwanda. He indicated it would give clarification
for the whole density issue and he would feel more comfortable knowing what
the numbers are
r° Stevens replied that a specific plats can address the issue of density area
bonuses.
Mr. Beadle suggested that there be a tenth recommendation which 'would state
that overall plawns be done that examines development issues and holding
capacity for the area which is shown as residential in the blare
There was consensus among the Commission that this be done.
Planning Commission Minutes d August 30, 1983
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried" na i u ly, to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Draft Community Plea, subject to
the 10 recommendations as modified by the Planning Commission.
Beedle stated:that this will now be moved to the City Council with the
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Beedle thanked the County staff for the work, they have done in the
development of the Foothill Community Plan.
Motion* Moved by, Juarez, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adjourn.
9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully u b i t d,
JACK LAM, Sed re t �. „M �...
Planning Commission Meeting - - August 30, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 24, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Pine, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout 'the led in the pledge to the flag.
ROLL CALF
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addle Juarez, Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Larry McNiel , Herman Rempe
STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Ease, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, ;City
Planner; Rill Holley, Community Services Director; Edward'
Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; dick Pam, Community
Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adopt the Minutes of
August 10, 1983 with are amendment to page one. The amendments were to reflect
the attendance of Assistant City Attorney, Edward Hopson, at that greeting and
that Item B was removed from the Consent Calendar rather than Item A
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Comet, City Planner, announced that there would be a Foothills Community
Plan meeting on August CC, 1983 at :OO in the Pions Park Community Center
Forum. Mr. Gomez; advised that this would be a meeting between the Planning
Commission and the County staff to discuss recommendations which would be
forwarded from the Commission to the City Council .
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3-23 MILLER The
two
ut�on ungs an fte
13� acres of land ire the ; Industrial; Park and General Ind�rstrial
areas (Subareas G & 1 located on the north side of Acacia Street at
Mica Avenue - APN 209 401-2, & 3.
B. TRACT 951 LEIS DOMES Reapplication for design review of 42 single
far i ores n acres of lard in the R-1-1. , , R- 1 , and
R-1-20,000 fines locate south
h of Banyan Street west of Sapphire Street.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3-20 - EWLC - The
eeloprrient df a S, gore feet d ustrial bui ding oar acres of
land in the General Industrial/Rail Served category '(Suba`rea S� located
at 8977 Center Street APN 209-242-09 & 20 -25109. '
O. TIME EXTENSION FOR COP 81-02 - ANDER ON - The development of a retail
centers adres of in the -1 zone to be located at the
northwest corner of Arrow Route and Turner APN 203- 21 32.
Commissioner Barker requested that Item C be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adopt the Consent
Calendar with the removal of Item O.
G. TIME EXTENSION FOR CHIP 1-02 - A DERS N
Commissioner Barker asked if previously approved projects in this area had
been allowed less than the required landscaping.
Mr. Gomez replied that ore project on Archibald and Arrow Route was granted
p p 3
approval prior to the City's adoption of the General Plan. The General Plan
requires 45 feet of landscaping along Arrow Route
Richard Avent, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating
that the 18-month extension would allow the applicant time to submit a project
which would be viable
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Avent if he had considered bringing the landscaping
requirements into conformance with the General Plan
Mr. Avent replied that if the 4 -foot landscaping requirement of the General
Phan was worked into the project, it would result in the loss of 24 parking;
spaces ;
Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Avent if he would be open to the suggestion that
staff work with him to resolve the landscaping issue and try to come up with a
proposal which would be agreeable to all concerned.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 24 1983
Mr Avent replied that he would
Motion: Moved by Barker, ';seconded by Juarez, carried to approve the 'time
extension for Conditional Use Permit 81-02 for thirty 30) days, at which time
the item would return to the Planning Commission at their September 33, 1983
meeting for consideration of further; extension. Staff was directed to work"
with the applicant in an effort to resolve the issues;
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Stout advised that the applicant for items C and H on the agenda
requested a continuance to the September 14, 183 Planning Commission
meeting. He requested that the items be heard at this time.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 810E C A division of 9.82
aces Into par�ce s 1t i C,° ari R zones located at the
northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue APN
1077- 228,31.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REIVE 3-1.7 iARMAIAN The;
eve opren apartment un on 4 acres n t on --located
on the east side of Ramona, north of Foothill APN 1077- 1-31 a
portion) .
Chairman Stet opined the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to continue Parcel Map
E100 and Development Review 83-1.7 to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 14, 1983.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8106 OAON CORPRTION A
ivrsion o"` acres into pares s it n a area o t e In ustrial
Specific Plan area located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of
Utica Avenue-® APN 10 OS -1: through 70.
Shintu Rose reviewed the staff report.
Jack Corrigan, Dann Corporation, addressed the Commission stating that he
agreed with the findings of the staff report and the Resolution of approval ,
and advised that he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 34 13
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by Barker,_ carried, to adopt Resolution
3107 approving Parcel Map 8106 'and the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUARE , BARKER, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, MCNI , RMPPL
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP SOO - BARNES - A division of 1.4
acres of lad Tt in Subarea 3 of the In ustrial Specific Plan area
located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Helms Avenue APN
1077-621-28, 31.
Shinto Rose reviewed the staff report. Mr. Rose advised that the' applicant
has concerns with condition number 7 of the City Engineer's Report, which is a
standard condition for all parcel maps. He further advised that staff had
suggested to; the applicant that a lien agreement be used for the improvements
rather than installing them at this time.
Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing
Lewis Barnes, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he would prefer
to; go ahead and split the parcel as proposed and install the required 12 KW
underground cable at the time of construction on those 'lots. He suggested
that an assessment district be ;established to pay for underground cable in ;
this area.
Chairman Stout stated that a lien agreement is normally used by the City for
future improvements and asked if staff had explained this to hire
Mr. Barnes replied that he preferred not to have a lien attached to his
property and would not sign a lien agreement unless it was approved by his
attorney.
Chairman Stout explained that the underground installation of 12 KV cable is a,
normal City policy which is ;required of every developer. He further explained
that the City requires lien agreements as an assurance to the residents of the
City that these requirements will be met, and suggested that M . Barnes could
have this agreement reviewed by has attorney.
Motion: Moved by Darker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adopt Resolution
83-108 approving Parcel Map 810 with no modifications.
Planning Commission
on Minutes
ut e ffi August 24, 1983
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: PARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS.; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEE REMPE
Chairman Stout advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning
Commission is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date ,
should his attorney advise 'hire not to enter into a lien agreement' with the
City.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. USE DETERMINATION NCO INVESTMENTS request to determine if a
rrrrr �st rage ; aoi ity du oonsi7ered similar to other uses permitted
in the P zone. Proposed project to be located on the southeast corner
of Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street.
Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report explaining that this .review by the
Commission was not for approval of the project, but to gain a consensus of the
Planning Commission if this type of use could be considered in the C-2 zone.
Chairman Stout stated that this could be a permitted use, however, would
prefer to see it under the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit.
There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that a mini-storage facility
could be considered a `permitted use in the C zone with a Conditional Use
Permit.
; 0 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened
J. HERITAGE PARK SITE PLAN REVIEW
Bill Holley, Community Services Director, presented the Heritage ;Park site
plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley stated that the Parks Advisory
Commission provided extensive input into the site plan.
Peter Patassi addressed the Commission on behalf of the Pare Advisory
Commission expressing their support of the nark plan.
Chairman Stout stated that the plan seemed to :meet the needs of the community
very well .
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 24, 198
Commissioner Barker* agreed that the plea considered all facets of the
community.
There was a consensus of the Commission that approval of the site plan be
forwarded to the City Council .
PUBLIC COMMENTS
c
Chairman Stout requested that. the Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head
Bari and Restaurant facility in the Rancho Plaza be placed on -suspension and
brought before the Plaurrlrrg Commission in thirty days for consideration of
modification or revocation. t was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that this item be heard at a public hearing on September 28, 19
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adjournto the
Foothills Community Plan meeting to be held on August 30, 1983.,
d: C p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Jack La
Secretary
f
Planning Commission Minutes - August 24, 1983
- ------- --------- -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 16, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Ranoho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was held in
the West Gallery of the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road,
Rancho Cucamonga.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry *Niel
(Arrived at 6-45 p.m.) � Herman Rempel,
Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, None
STAFF PRESENT.* Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Robert Dougherty,
City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary;
Rick Marks, Associate Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
MEETING OBJECTIVE
Chairman Stout opened the meeting stating that the Commission would complete
an overview of the Draft Development Code to gain an understanding of its
basic content and how it was formulated; and, to complete detailed review of
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 to reach a consensus on any changes to the proposed
draft.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that it was the hope of staff that
input would be received from the Commission and from the public on the areas
reviewed at this meeting. W. Vairin provided copies of the Development Code
to the audience for their use at this meeting and explained how the
Development Code was formulated.
Mr. Vairin stated that the basic goal of the Development Code, as staff saw
it, was to create a document which would combine various land use policies and
development goals which would be the Development Code. He indicated that over
the past five years the City has adopted various land use policies which would
be combined into this Code. Further, that this document would coordinate the
general goals and objectives of the General Plan making them clearer and more
easily understood .
Mr. Vairin stated that the City has already adopted an Industrial Specific
Plan, Planned Community documents for Terra Vista and Victoria and the
Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Development Code would regulate the area of the
City not covered by the the sPenific plan documents, that is, the area west
of Haven.
. Vairin stated that the Shaft development Code contains 13 chapters made Grp
f administrative procedures re and general land use controls and guidelines.
Further, that the Commission would be examining; chapters 1, 2 and 3 at this
meet ing.
dr. Vairin stated that the City Attorney would be working with the Commission
and staff on any substantive changes that would be made. He explained that
the procedure for review would be 'to have each subsection discussed by the
Commission with input from the audience and then have the Commission arrive at
consensus for each subsection.
Rick Gomez, - City Planner, followed the outline format for discussion,
beginning with Section 1.1. Following its review', there were no changes.
Section 1.2 - Rick Gomez explained the Development Districts.
Chairman Start directed a question to the City Attorney following ng . Gomez'
presentation asking if- the Code is being adopted as .an ordinance item would
the crap be separate or should it be incorporated by reference so that it would
be one document
Dougherty replied that you normally have! the map separated from the
changes with the text because it is more convenient to "t are" .it rap as two
separate documents. He indicated that the Development Code is aone time shot
and they are, in effect, reprising the map but he would have a more definitive
.answer for dr. Stout.
Commissioner -Barker questioned B4 under Applicability when there is a small
lot with a lot lira boundary and the developer per* does not know what to do.
Mr. Gomez stated that ;staff would then do an analysis based on the General
Plan designation and the applicability and that they will try to eliminate
such a problem. . Gomez stated further than on smaller lots staff will core
back to the Commission and ads for a clean rap
W. Vairin stated that they will try to avoid smaller lots as much as possible
and there are only a few pieces where. larger parcels are divided that way. He
explained the reason for statement B4 in that thane are larger lots which must
be governed in this way.
Commissioner ;Juarez asked who makes the determination of the district in which
a land division will be placed.
Mr.- airier explained that it gill be determined by staff.
. Gomez stated that although staff will make the determination it is under
the confines of the General. Plays map.
Commissioner Stout asked if the Commission would feel more comfortable if
there were an additional definition that stated if d let is too small it
would not be split.
Planning Commission Minutes August 16 , 1983
Commissioner Banker stated that, it is his understanding that this will noire
before the Planning Commission for determination and asked if it would be
appropriate to put policy in at this point.
Chairman Stout asked if there were some rules on drawing boundaries.
Dougherty stated that men you deal with small scale gaps you sometimes ,
have difficulty with the size of the lot.
Mr. Gomez stilted that this is adequately addressed said it rnrrld be the policy;
of staff to bring determination on small lots to the Commission.
Commissioner Hempel stated that items 2 and 3 under Applicability should
become the last items in the section since they deal only with adoption e.
felt these would drop out of the Code within the next years
Dougherty stated that from the standpoint of, organization they are not the
same thing because they deal, with development rather than interpretation and
it will apply in the future because of the potential l f zone changes with
previously approved subdivisions. He stated, however, that they could be
placed at the ends
Commissioner Juarez asked what happens if s developer comes to you with s
project and the Development _'Code is not yet adopted
Gomez replied that they will be governed by the existing ordinance.
a,r°ther, that if they are planning to develop and have sufficient time they
meld examine the Draft Development Code to see what the new refinements are.
Commissioner Juarez asked if when the Development Cede becomes effective will
submitted developments ents have to meet the new code .
Gomez replied that is correct.
Commissioner Juarez asked if: extensions would be governed by the new code
r. Vsirin replied that they will have the dame requirements they now have.
r Gomez stated that the Commission has the discretion to look at that if
they feel there should be s change, and, of working with the applicant on such
s situation. Further, that staff or the Commission will not mandatorily make
s chase but under certain circumstances there may be an issue that the
Commission feels is important enough and an exception could be made.
Commissioner Banker asked for clarification of B7 in Applicability
Chairman Stout asked if there were any questions from the audience.
Kay Matlock of Lewis Homes asked' if B3 means if a subdivision has been
approved and then extended it gust meet the new ode
V irin replied that it dries not affect the subdivision ordinance nce which
sets rip the time limits from initial approval. He explained the existing time
limitations inns of the subdivision gasp
Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1983
Gomez stated that the key sentence is that it must be in conformance at
the time of approval.
There were no ;further comments on Section 1.2.
Chairman Stout went on to Section 1.3 - Conflicts and Clarifications
Rick Gomez explained what the intent of this section is
Commissioner Parker asked under of this section:, if once the Commission sets
forth an;interpretation is it a living document, can they keep changing their
mind or is that it
Dougherty replied that normally the interpretation is that it is a
document that sets a precedent; however, even the Supreme Court can change it
mind and overrule itself so different Planning Commissions can take a
different approach.
Va ire in sated that there c d l always n ordinance amendment which
would be done by the City Council.
r. Dougherty stated that once resolution of a problem is made,, the next time
the text is amended any changes would be incorporated.
There were no further comments on Section 1.3.
Section 1.4 Use Determination
Gomez exp a ined this section to the Commission.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Doughertyabout the necessity of making findings.
Dougherty replied that generally you should have findings on rases that are
similar to and not;more objectionable than rather* uuses
Chairman Strum stated that perhaps such language should be added.
Commissioner McNiel stated that under Item D, Determination, , it reads that it
shall be effective in 14 calendar days'. He asked if this becomes effective in
14 calendar days or is effective in 14 business days. He, felt there should be
some clarification.
Chairman Stout asked about the consistency of calendar days versus business
days
Vair°in replied that the Code would be consistent in its language.
Section 1. City Planner
Rick Gomez explained the responsibilities for this title.
Chairman Stout. asked Mr. Gomez if one of the responsibilities not mentioned in
the title is bringing certain items or: issues to the attention of the Planning
Commission for determination as they relate to the 'Development Code
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 16 , 1983
Gomez replied that those responsibilities would be under 3 and also winder
the amendment to initiate action or to . bring items to the Corrissionrs
attention
Chairman Stoat stated that he was looping for some specific language that
would deal with this
Commissioner Barkers stated that he thought he knew what Chairman Stout is
talking 'about but was unable to think of are example
Commissioner Pe rpel stated that as City Planner he can bring any item to the
Planning Commission through the Development Code because it gives him all the
authority necessary.
Chairman Stout rt stated that in sections such as the reapplication process, it
appears to deal with thins rather than people and it is an important part of
what the City Planner does.. He indicated that he would like tosee it more
people oriented.
Section 1. Amendments
Gomez explained this section to the Commission.
Mr. Vairin stated: that the City Attorney has indicated it is unnecessary to
have a finding as the Government Code does not require one. Further, the City
Attorney suggested eliminating the word finding as long as a reason is stated.
Dougherty explained that the adoption of text of the zoning ordinance or
amendment to the zoning asap is a legislative act. Further, variances and use
permits are also adminstrative acts where findings are required. He advised
the Commission not to get trapped in their own ordinance.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the only area that he would have problems with
is item L,, pre-districting, which may take some rewriting. He indicated that
the wording 'should state pre-districting will be done only upon application
and not arbitrarily by the City. Panther, that it should be initiated on an
annexation application rather than by the City.
Gomez stated that staff intends to work with FCO's annexation procedures
which only allows pre-districting prior to 'annexation.
Commissioner* Hempel stated that this should be spelled out in the Code so that
on the annexation application it does not appear that the City, is arbitrarily
changing the zoning
Vai:rin explained for clarification that pre-districting is commiting a'
zone whereby when an area is annexed it will become the designated zone but
will not take effect until the annexation occurs.
Gomez stated that this is a policy decision. He further stated that staff
was trying to provide a procedure for pre-districting upon annexation as
provided by laws
Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1983
Commissioner Rempel stated that somewhere it should say that this takes affect
upon application.
Commissioner Juarez asked if the action of the City Council is calendar days
r working days
. Gomez replied that; it is calendar days
Flay Matlock of Lewis Homessated on Item J under 1.6 stating that it would
appear that there could be some cases where circumstances carr change and
produce hardship She felt that a waiver, of some kind is needed for those
instances.
Dougherty replied lid that this tt mrrt i traditionally sho in ordinances
f this sort and it is certainly a reasonable requirement meat which would not
preclude a city council or planning i sion initiated change should they
determine that waiting one year is not appropriate. Mr. Dougherty indicated
that this statement is in the code to prevent an applicant from initiating the
change
Commissioner Rempel stated that if conditions des change it gives the applicant
theright to come in earlier,.
. Vairin stated that the wording is to prevent an applicant from again
submitting the same project after having just gone through an appeal. R
indicated that this has actually occurred.
Commissioner Barker asked who determines the substantiality.
Vairin replied that staff does
Commissioner iel stated that it is backwards. Further, that what this says
is that a person cannot reapply within a year.
Vairin replied that if he asks for the same thing he cannot reapply.
The consensus f the Commission was to leave the language in Section 1.6 as it
is with the exception of Item d.
_
Section 1. Revisions/Modifications
Gomez stated that upon the advice of the City Attorney,, this -.action would
be modified and would contain only modifications or revisions of site planet
landscape plans or grading plans. He indicated that those revisions each a
are found under R 1 world go; raider$ the Conditional Use Permit section.
Chairman Stout asked ed when the revised language would be rea;dy.
Gomez stated that this would be brought back to the Commission at their
next meeting on the Development Code
Commissioner Rempel stated that he had a lot of problems with section R.
Planning i. ion Minutes -6- August 16 1983
alrin stated that we can define these and work with them so that they are
clear and so that the groundrules are known.
Section 1. Appeals
An alternative to the Appeals a - set forth in the draft development code was
de whereby a Board of Appeals would be established. This was brought up b
the City Attorney for discussion purposes to the Planning Commission.
Dougherty stated that the City Planner world be called the Zoning
Administrator and; the Planning o i sion the Board of Zoning Appeal.
Dougherty stated further that this is the interpretation in the Government
Code but it is subject to approval b the City Council. In addition .
Dougherty stated that his recommendation is to have only the City Planner
appeal to the Planning Commission and all initial decisions by the Planning
Commission would be appealable to the City Council.
Gomez stated that this is a policy decision of the City Council to set up
the Board of Appel or if one is sat, the appeal; to the City Council
Dougherty stated that the words "aggrieved party" would be used throughout
the text where it applied to the appeal process
Steve Wheatley asked if what was being said is that an appeal of a Planner
decision could not be appealed to the City ,Council.
Gomez replied; that the current proposal is that it is appealed to the
Planning Commission and there to the City Council. He indicated that the City
Attorney is discussing the option under state law that a decision could be
appealed to the Board of Appeals and that decision would be final and: not
appealable to the City Council and those would be only the decisions of the
City Planner as administrative decisions.
Wheatley stated that anyone should be able to ` appeal to their elected
representatives.
Chairman Stout stated, that the City Council should be ' made aware of this
option and that it is a decision they should make
Gomez stated that this section will be left ,as it is with the exception of
the minor word changes
Section; 1. - Approval to Run with the Land or Applicant
airi.n stated that the City ;Attorney recommended that approvals should be
granted to run with the land only and not the individual.
Chairman Stout awed if CUPrs ,should only run with the lased.
Dougherty replied that it should run with the land and based on past court
decisions it might be struck down if it does not. He indicated that the
conditions should be written in such a way that if you get an operator who
does not comply you would have the power to jerk the CUP" and revoke it.
Further, the CUP should be transferable.
Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1983
Chairman Storm stated that he has a slightlydifferent feel about that in that
CUP is like putting som n on probation. He Indicated that the person
obtaining CUP has been told what the conditions of ;approval are and as fir
as alienating that use they knows exactly the way things are. Further, it i
lei.ke a co ntr to l thing between the applicant and the City. He stated that
he agreed with the analogy but that there are certain things that should not
run with the ldrnd
Dougherty stated that the CUP sets such things as hours f operation and
the use is not dependent upon the identity of the owner, and here, arguably,
you are making the conditional use permit dependent upon the identity of the
owrrner.
Commissioner Barker stated that this is what the Planning Commission did
specifically on arcades when it set forth conditions about who was operating
.tirn
and what the hours of operation would be.
Dougherty replied that they have had a difficult time defending specific
ordinances, especially some from the County, which were bad
Chairman Stout stated the language should be changed so that everything rn
with the land:with the exception of conditional use permits.
t
Commissioner Rempel stated that this also applies to the Alpha Bets
After brief discussion the consensus of the Commission was to work n the
language for review of this section at the next Development Code meeting.
Comission Rempel stated that t they my be looking at is licensing rather
than a conditional use permit
Chairman Stout stated he feels strongly about people 'who promise to d
something and there sell: the business to someone who doesn't comply with the
regulations.
w. Dougherty stated that one way to mail down this problem is t list the
uses that are sensitive and have then run n with the operator.
Chief Feuer stein of the Foothill Fire Protection District stated that if
person buys d business in a center that is under a CUP and them changes the
use totally, without being aware of it he is automatically under violation of
the code. He asked if there is some process that would make the person aware
f the CUP such as at the time he buys his license.
. Vairin explained the cheeks and balances in the system of business
licenses.
Dougherty stated that the purpose of the business license is solely t
raise revenue and they are under no bligatio n to specify any land use
provisions to the person who is purchasing the license.
Planning Comi3sion Minutes August 16, 1983
Audience response on this was that what conditions are unposed on ; one
individual running; a business should be the same for another in the same 'kind
of sitnationo: should be based on case and not personality," and ,should also run
with the lard
8.*55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
Section 1.10 Lapse of Approval and Extensions
Chairman Stout stated it appears here is no maximum limitation in this
section
Gomez explained that it is shown in Section B as a maximum of 4 years.
Kay Matlock of Lewis Hones felt that Item B, requirement of notification 60
days prior to an expiration date could be a time for the applicant to grip on
It that
there should e an opport
unity for a waiver of that
a deadl�ne� She e p J
condition if cause is shown. Ms. Matlock stated that under funding
requirements to grant an extension, there could be other good reasons than
only those listed
Dougherty stated that finding requirements one and two could be
eliminated; however, 3; is mandatory in any ;case
Chairman Stout asked if there are other kinds of findings that could be made.
Dr. Vaihin replied that you really don't have to have finding one that two
and three are all you weed if you want an extension
Commissioner Barker stated you can gust say they can have four years.
Commissioner Diemel stated that if here is a new Planning Commission, they
can change the hied use all around a ;parcel so that it would be nonconforming
and no matter what happens they can use their entitlement.
airin stated that the Commission has been dealing with time extensions
and that is why this was suggested
Chairman Stout stated that there is no way to insulate against something like
this because sometimes people want change
The consensus of the Commission was to strike finding number one.
Section 1.11 Business License
. Gomez informed the Commission they may_;wish to strike this section..
Planning Commission Minutes - August 16, 1983
Mr. Dougherty stated that this section flies in the face of the v rrrbm rrt
Cade. Further, that the Finance Department has some concern it getting
involved in this and that some appropriate statement is needed regarding the
business license procedure.
Mr. ,Gomez stated that they are leaning moretowards administrative control
rather than regulatory control.
Chairman Stout stated he did not feel are applicant for a business license
should be told that there is a Planning Department and a Finance Department
and never the twain shall meet. He understands; he saido that the business
license purpose is for revenue gathering but felt that the City Dawes .the
applicant some responsibility to tell him what the limitations are to any
business application. He indicated t t they ought to know that a business
license dace not give their permission to always do what they want to do.
Dougherty replied that the City owes them a responsibility but not
applicability. oil peril, he said , is if they do not look into the law. He
felt that a handout that describes the business license or lack of effect
could be given to the applicant at the time of application.
Gomez stated that he does not want to leave the imnpression; that the
departments are not working in together. This was an attempt to provide ,
information to people upfront
Chairman Stearn stated that when he made that comment 'fie did not mean to imply
tha either. Before he got involved in government he did not know what a
Planning i.ssion was or what the functions of the various departments
were. His only concern he said, ; is that people be informed.
r° Vairin stated that this ,section Is being reprised more in keeping with the
discussion that has taken place.
Section 1.12 - Public Hearings and Notification
Mr. Vairin asked the Commission to strike the word invite in Item G5 of ;this
section and insert the word encourage.
Commissioner Barker stated that he would again say that he felt 300 feet a
the area of notification is inadequate
airin replied that the notification process is taken on a case-by-case
basis and that sometimes notices are even handed out.
Commissioner Rempel did not feel that the distance limitation of 300 feet was ,
a problem based on the number of people who find out about projects.
Cha it n Stout felt that section 1.12 should contain a policy statement 'that
the purpose of notification is to encourage as much citizen participation as
possible. He indicated that the Commission's ssion' ,fob is to make sure the maximum
number of people come forward and participate
Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt what is being said ,is adequate.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 16, 1983
Commissioner Barker stated he would support Chairman Stout
Commissioner, MoNiel did not feel a policy statement is necessary.
Commissioner Juarez felt that what the; present statement says is adequate.
The consensus of the Commission was not to change the policy statement.
Section 1.1 - Code Enforcement
Gomez stated that Section 1.1 A ,should be reproved from the Development
Code and placed in the Municipal Code. Section 1.13B would then be kept
regarding the Noise Abatement procedures.
Chairman Stout awed if code enforcement would be mentioned in the Development
Code.
Gomez replied than it mould not as it would be contained in the Municipal
Code.
A person in the audience asked how the interior noise reading would be taken.
GomezW. replied that it mould be taken with a.' decibel meter from the
interior area if there is a problem with are adjacent land use .
Kai Matlock asked for clarification on where commercial would to in zone 2 if
it; is in the planned community.
. Gomez replied that it would have to adhere to the standards as Listed in
the commercial property.
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission; to change the
starting time, in paragraph Gil to : 30 a.m.
Section 1.14 - Non-Conforming uses and Structures
Dougherty stated that this is one of the most touchy areas of land use
regulations. Further, that once a use has been established the counts have
determined that there is a vested right even trough regulations change.
Dougherty recommended that Items F, C and H might well be considered for
elimination and that the Code stick with what has traditionally been done'.
Commissioner e el stated that without going into the City Attorneyw's
comments , comet costs, etc., from the standpoint of saying you can't have that
carport beside you hone anymore because it is non-conforming, these areas are
bond the bounds of where the City should go.
Commissioner file el stated that in the area of restoration of damaged
structures the Commission would have to be extremely careful because some
insurance policies require; that unless the structure is rebuilt you would be
unable to collect on your policy;.
Commissioner Juarez asked if you can say substantial damage.
Planning Co fission Minutes 11, August 16, 1983
Dougherty stated that it is something you carrot regulate or determine.
Gomez stated that you could not intensify the use only bring it back to
its former use.
Daugherty stated that he was able to sad Commissioner Rempelts point
regarding insurance; however, you could compare this to attrition. He
indicated that you don't eliminate people you just, don't replace them when
they quit. He indicated that you would get rid of most non-conforming land
uada solely by attrition.
Chairman Stout stated that he dtaua not see any purpose in the amortization
section and suggested that it be deleted
lt. as the consensus of the ,Commissoin to delete thin section.
Chairman Shut felt there ahuld be an escape clones when you give an ordinance
waiver and make it a nonconforming use as suggested by Commissioner Rempel in
the restoration of damaged structures section.
r. yair in explained that the exact example of what Chairman Stout was talking
abort will be found in Chapter 4 of the Code
Mr. Dougherty stated that there is smother ray to handle this and it is
through the variance process.
Chairman Stout felt that a hardship provision should be inserted and load the
section as it is
Commissioner Rempel felt that an arbitrary point ;of percent is not good and
as
felt t � �
that the morning should a �.f structure i, destroyed", instead. He
indicated further that a dollar figure would not be workable either.
Dougherty replied that rarely do you fired something totally destroyed
Barker stated that a percentage would be all right if it can be evaluated.
Commissioner Juarez stated she would feel comfortable with a percentage figure
but dial not mama one
Commissioner PtNiel stated he has no way of determining at destroyed means
until the attorneys get ahold of it. He stated he is comfortable iat
percent ;
Section 1.1Definitions
Lyndon Harp felt that the section under animals dealing with birds should
be rewritten.
Gomez replied that the letter he had written will be used to incorporate
some of the changes Hr. Harp suggested and will be brought back to the
Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes August 16 , 1983
Ms. Matlock stated that she would review her suggested changes with staff.
9:10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
9:20 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
Sections 2.1 and 2 .2 - Purpose and Intent and Permit Applications
Mr. Gomez indicated that there will be some adjustments in language as
recommended by the City Attorney in order to conform to State mandates.
Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 - Conditional Tice Permits, Variances and Minor
Variances
Mr. Gomez stated that these are all procedures in the new code that have been
in existing ordinances and the interim ordinance. He stated that what the
sections say is that the City would conform with state law and that this is
what the City has administratively adopted for itself and incorporated in the
Development Code. Mr. Gomez further stated that sections 2.3 , P. and 2.5 are
similar in structure outlining the application and authority , purpose and
intent , etc.
There was discussion on the definition of minor variance.
Mr. Dougherty explained that there is no such thing as a minor variance.
Chairman Stout asked if the enforcement section is coming out of all sections.
Mr. Gomez replied affirmatively.
There were no further comments on these sections.
Section 2.6 - Home Occupations
There were no comments on this section.
Section 2.7 - Temporary Uses
Commissioner ate el asked if the Commission was going to get into fees on
trailers for construction purposes.
Mr. Vairin indicated that none are intended and that this section is Just for
the administration of construction or contractor trailers. He indicated,
however, that there are fees for model homes.
Commissioner Rempel indicated he felt the construction offices should not be
in the same category.
Mr. Vairin replied that he tends to agree with Commissioner Rempel.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 16, 1983
Commissioner Prl stated that with regard to the Temporary Use Permit, a
sales office may be located ;in a garage, trailer or dwelling, and he felt it
care tt be a continued use as a sales office once the traits are built
Chairman Stout stated that with regard to the name on temporary uses there
recently had been a long discussion on that with the recreational vehicle
parking lot in the Industrial, Specific Plan. He indicated he wanted to b
sure that the same term is being used.
Chapters Section 3.1Development/Design Review
. Va.ir in explained the provisions of Sections .1, 3.2 and 3.3.
Commissioner Rempel asked if there will be provisionsfor anything less than
units
Mr. Vairin stated that this is covered in Section 3.2 ,, subsection 2.
Commissioner Barker asked about page 56, item Bib and page 62, item Clf,
relative to a developer ibg he wants to make just d little change.
Gomez replied - that this is covered in Section 1.7 where the Commission
will be dealing with use and definition as to what is `norchange and what ;
comes before the Design Review Committee ear°-the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Barker ,Mated that on page 58 the responsibilities of the Design
Review Committee are not entirely clear.
Coleman suggested a flow chart showing authority relative to type of
projects.
There no further comments on this section.
Section 3.3 Residential land Development Deign Review System
Chairman Stout suggested that the title of this section also include Growth
Management since it is being nsolidat d into this section.
Commissioner MoNiel asked if it could be ,put in as a dub heading.
Gomez replied that it can be placed in the title.
There being no further comments, it was moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez,
carried unanimously, to adjourn.
9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.
Re t fd lsubmitted,
Pig ez
Act' ng garar
E
Planning Commission Minutes -1 August 16 , 1983
CITY OF HANCHO C CAMC CA
PLANNING CC 1C 1 MINUTES
Regular r Meeting
August 0, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular tin of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to girder at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lions Rack C r tunity Center, 9161 `Base tine, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Chairman Stoat theta led in the pledge to the flag.
.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Brier, Addie Juarez, Larry MaNiel,
Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout
ARRR ": COMMISSIONERS: Rom
STAR PRESENT: Shintu Rase, Associate Engineer Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, A sit nt City Attorney; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner;; Michael, Vairin, Senior Planner; Joan
Kruse, Administrative Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS,
Senior Plannert Michael Vairin, stated that a saris of workshops will begins
on August 16, 1983 and continue through October 12, 1983 to review the Draft
Development Code for the Cite. He indicated that these workshops will b
public hearings and would Mart at 6:30 p.m. rather than: the regular meeting
time f 7 p.m;. Mr. Vairin indicated that this meeting will adjourn to the
first public hearing scheduled on August 16.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to approve
the Planning ;Commission minutes of July 27, 1983.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Rampal asked that item R be removed ad from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Commissioner 'Barker asked that Item C also be removed.
Motion: Moved by Ran p 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adapt
Item A of the Consent Calendar.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REYIE1 1 - The
development of a 22t square foot industrial building on 1 .12 acres of
land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) , located at the
southwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Utica Avenue
AR N 208-622-02 & 03.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 - R.H. ASSOCIATES - A
residential subdivision of 15.7 acres of land into 38 custom lots in the
R-1 zone, located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of
Calla aria on - APN 207-101-37 & 207-092-10.
Commissioner Rempel stated his concern with this property is that there is
anotber piece of property to the west which is landlocked with a long railroad
strip without access. Further, there is already a developed tract north of
this property and Commissioner Rempel stated he felt that some provision
should be made to have another access into this property.
Chairman Stout asked if anything had been filed on the parcel west of this
property.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the area to the west has been developed into
condominiums and 'totally blocks this property. Further, that unless the owner
wants to give up a lot for street access, the extension requested should be
denied.
Mr. Vairin stated that the current expiration data on this property is
September 25. Further, that the applicant could be contaoted in order to be
made aware of the Commission's concern. Mr. Vairin stated that no action at
this meeting would mean that the applicant would still have time to make
adjustment to the map before its expiration.
Chairman Stout asked if a representative from R.H. Associates, the applicant,
was present at this meeting.
No one spoke.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, earried unanimously, that this
item be brought back to the Planning Commission at their first regular meeting
in September.
Mr. Jeff King, 9375 Archibald, addressed the Commission stating 'that when
Tentative Tract No. 10035 came before the Commission there was a great deal of
discussion because it was landlocked and also because of existing slope,
grading, drainage and aesthetics. Further, that after the Commission had
approved this tentative tract, the feeling of the Commission was that it was a
mistake.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August '10, 1983
King; stated that as the tract is presently formulated, it should not b
allowed and should be totally reworked for single family residences or
multiple family use with significant open space. He indicated, that in
present form, the development is totally inappropriate for that location
Chairman Stout asked that more material on this discussion including the
minutes, be provided to the Commission. Chairman "tout also asked that the
Commission's ssion' concern be conveyed to the applicant ac that this concern may', be
addressed.
Gomez stated that a letter would be directed to the applicant the
following day'
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT" 10210 FORECAST MORTGAGE A custom
lot residential subdivision of 33 acres into 37 bats in the R-1-20,000
and R®1 acre zone, generally located on the north aide of Almond ,
between Sapphire and Turquoise.
Commissioner Barker stated that Item E5 of the conditions of approval has been
rewritten and asked that the new condition be substituted for the original
inal
condition of approval.
Gomez stated that on ,duly 6, 1983, this tentative tract was approved by
the Equestrian Committee.
Commissioner Rempel stated that at the time original approval of this tract
was given there was a lot of concern that the equestrian trail be taken care
f -
Motion: Marred by Baker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution 1-10 A approving the time extension for Tentative Tract 10210,
Forecast Mortgage, with the new condition
PUBLIC REARING
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12 - PI R ON - The establishment of a dance
school its the Industrial Park zone Subarea; ) to be located at 10722
Arrow Route, Suites 604 and 606, in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
ter° Teti Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, asked if the 'hours of operation will
be considered in the Resolution.
Nor. Gomez replied that because of the fours selected for use by the applicant
staff did not place a condition in the Resolution; however, if the Commission
has concern, it could be added as a condition of approval
Planning Commission Minutes - - august 10, 1983
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Carol Pierson, 6969 Layton, Rancho Cucamonga, the applicant stated that the
staff report adequately expressed theirs request.
Chairman Stout asked the applicant if the Resolution Bret their expectations.
The applicant replied that it does
Commissioner Barker asked how young the students will be
Pierson replied that they will began with 7 year olds for regulars ballet
clads. However, there may be a class for creative dance for younger students
who will be closely supervised by their parents.
Commissioner darker asked Ma. Pierson about the statement that students will
be dropped off at Arrow.
Ms. Pierson replied that this would not be the case in actuality as there will
e a policy tatement issued to parents at the time of enrollment ent that
students Faust be escorted into the dance studio.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Commissioner MoNiel stated that the two buildings are at different elevations
and asked if the florins are at the same bevel.
. Jim Barton, developer of the industrial site replied that they are.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-102 approving UP +33 1,
Chairman to ut stated that the operating horses should be part of the
Commissioner :Rea pel stated he did not feel it would have any effect to be
part of the Resolution.
Commissioner Barkers stated that since this is a CUP, it can be brought back
for review by the Commission.
Chairman Stout asked what will occur if they operate until midnight. lie
indicated he would be more comfortable if the hears of operation were' set down
in writing.
Commissioner Rempel stated that it dried not bother him and indicated the
Resolution is all right as written.
.Planning Commission Minute -4 August 10, 1983
E. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONSAPPROVAL TRACT L2 TT Located on
the east side of Hermosa at the north eity limits. Modification of a
storm drain oondition by bonding.
Shinto Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if there will be a new Resolution replacing Condition
10 with a new edition No. 10 and adding a new Condition No. 15.
Bose replied that this is correct. Further, that Conditions13 and 14 on
Resolution No. dwould be deleted
Hose stated that Condition No. 15 was added because if the City dues not
require the improvement at the southerly tryst boundary they will not be able
to install the street at this time because there is a natural drainage course
down there. He, indicated that they can build the street at the same there.
Chairman Stout asked if a storm drain will be pert in at that time.
Bose replied that it will not because the street will handle it.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Richard So Ott, 1111 W. 9th Street, Upland, the developer, stated that he
is in agreement ent with the resolution conditions as amended and had pasted the
necessary bond per the revisions
There being no further do exits, :the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by MoNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. ,, changing Condition No. 10, deleting conditions 13 and
14 and add-Ing Condition 15.
F. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS f1R APPROVAL TRACT 1 305 - R Located on the
north side of 1 th Street on the east side of Hellman Avenue.
Modification of a storm drain condition by street widening.
hintu Base, Associate 'Civil Rngiheer, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Barker asked how deep the water will get on 1 th Street
Bose replied that it will flaw over the street to the south side
r Bose stated that this will only increase the runoff b ; a very small
amount Further, that even if' a bigger pipe was provided, it will not carry
more water
Chairman Stout stated that there is an existing problem with the pipe in that
it silts ups He asked here it begins
Planning Commission Minutes -5August 10, 1983
Mr. Bose replied that it goes along 19th Street to the culvert past Amethyst.
Chairman Stout asked if It would sheet flow to Amethyst and how it will get
across Amethyst. Further, will it eliminate the puddle on 19th.
Mr. Bose answered it will sheet flow across and that puddling will be
eliminated.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gary Andreasen, engineer for this project, stated that they have made a
study whioh was provided to staff indicating 'that by widening 19th Street it
will accomplisb more than installing a bigger pipe.
Chairman Stout stated that it doesn't look like a solution is close.
Mr. Andrea son replied that this is a better solution. Further, that Cal Trans
did not want a storm drain as they thought widening the street would be
better.
There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seeand by Juarez, oarried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82-112A, amending the conditions of approval for Tract 12304 .
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE_ fiAN F A change of zone
ir—om A (Limited Agriculture) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) for 1 .93
acres of' land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow
Route and Foothill Boulevard - AR N 207-211-24.
NEW BUSINESS
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REYIEW 83-18 - LEE - The
d_evelopment of 24 apartment units on 1 .93 acres of land in the A zone
(R-3 pending) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow
Route and Foothill Boulevard - APN 207-211-24.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed Items G and H concurrently.
Mr. Vairin stated that there would be additional conditions to those contained
in the staff report placed on this project as distributed to the Commission at
this meeting.
Mr. Vairin read into the record a letter received from Ms. Connie Reece,
opposing the requested change of zone from R-1 to R-3.
Commissioner Rempel asked, regarding the last condition, if staff is really
going to have a left turn with an assigned speed of 45 mph.
Mr. Vairin explained that the lane itself will 'be designed to accept vehicles
entering at that speed.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1983
Chairman Stout asked if these conditions would be placed under the Planning
Division in the Resolution.
Mr. Vairin replied that with the exception of Condition No. 6, they would all
be Planning Division conditions.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Mr. William Lee, 830 W. 6th Street, Ontario, stated he has worked closely with
staff since the conception of this project and concurs with the conditions of
approval. Further, that his concern is much the same as that of the City and
Planning Commission in wanting the project to be the 'best it can be. Mr. Lee
stated that they will build the project and retain ownership in it.
Ms. Connie Reece, Alta Loma resident and writer of the letter opposing the
zone change, addressed the Commission. She indicated she has been a resident
of this area for the past eight years and did not like the change in her area
from the rural atmosphere that once existed here.
Commissioner Rempel replied that he too would like things to be the way they
were but it is impossible. He asked K5. Reece why she did not come forward at
the time of the General Plan hearings. He explained the way the General Plan
was formed which allows higher density at ,for thoroughfares and the
philosophy of providing affordable housing by increasing density which could
not otherwise be provided.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the General Plan was adopted after much public
input and that the City Council and Planning Commission decision was based on
this public input.
Ms. Reece stated that she wished to get a different designation for her
property so that she can sell it for a higher price.
Commissioner Rex pel advised her to bring her, request to staff so that it could
be placed before the Commission.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was olosed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-103, issuing a Negative Declaration and requesting approval
of one change 83-02 by the City Council.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-104 approving Development Review 83-18 with the
modifications as presented by staff and issuing a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Vairin stated to Ks. Reece that she will receive another notification when
this can change comes before the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 10, 1983
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimoulsy, to adjourn
to August 16, 1 .m. to a worksession on the Development Code
7:53 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respe fullyu d
9
w Acting Sectretary
Planning Commission Mims August 10, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 27, 1983
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: C"ISS ICJ NERS: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel,
Herman Per pel, Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack, Lamy, Community
Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul
Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
It was a consensus of the Commission that Commissioners Barker and Juarez be
appointed to serve an the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Juarez would
serve a 12-month term and Commissioner Barker would serve 6-months on the
Committee, at which time Commissioner MoNiel would begin at 12-month
appointment. Commissioner McNiel will serve as an alternate in the interim,
with Chairman Stout serving as second alternate.
It was a consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Stout be appointed to
serve on the Trails Committee, with Commissioner Juarez serving as alternate.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Rexpel, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adopt the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 1983. Commissioner Stout
abstained as he did not attend this meeting.
Motion: Moved by Rexpel, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adopt the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1983 with a correction to page 5
to clarify Commissioner Rempel's statement regarding some trees do better in
smaller containers rather than in smaller sizes. Commissioner MoNiel
abstained as he did not attend this meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 5696 - WESTMONT PROPERTIES Located north
f 4th Street at Santa Amite
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR_PARCEL MAPS 70 1 P AND 7C 1 ACCR Located on the
south side of 6th Street between Cleveland and Milliken Avenues.
C. TRACT 11 1 - LEWISReapplication for design review of 30 single family
dames on 10 acres of lead in the R 1 1 ,CC0 zone located on the southeast
corner* of Banyan and Amethyst - APN 1 62-401 1 C
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" FOR 'DEVELOPMENT REV 1 ;- dA A - 'the
development of a 21 ,010 square fraadt industrial building on 1 .45 .cr° f
land within the Schur Industrial Park in the General. Industrial/Rail
Served category (Subarea 5) , located on the ;east side of Archibald ld Avenue,
north of 6th Street - APN PB 11 P1
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE EXPANSION DP THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER •- A .7 acre parcel of land south of
and`adjacent to the existing Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood hood Center faceted
at 9791 Arrow Highway.
P. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE RACT 11 dL A custom lot subdivision
f .7 acres of brad into 10 lots in the P 1 urns, located on the north
side of Finch Avenue, crest of Haven Avenue APN202-191-15.
Motion.* Moored by Commissioner Re apel to adapt the Consent Calendar with the
removal of Item E from the Consent Calendar. tem B is to be resubmitted with
development ent plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Juarez, carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. DRAFT ENVIRONEMENTAL IMPACTS REPORT FOR 'TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 -« SIEVERS
Review and consideration of d focused nvir n enta.l Impact Report BIR)
prepared for A custom lot residential subdivision of 82 lots can 86.53
acres of land located on the north side cif Almond Street at Beryl y Street
APN 10110 ; 101101 101®17101
Darn C leman o Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report ;advising that the
Minutes of this meeting as well as any changes desired by the Commission would
become part of an addendum to the printing f the final Environmental Impact
Report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed
Commissioner Juarez asked why an BIR had been dome for this project.
Planning Commission Minute -2- drab 27, 1983
Pick Gomez " City Planner, replied that during the initial review f the
prdposalt staff determined that several areas needed Further study and
recommended that the Planning Commission require a focused Environmental
onmental.
Impact Report for the project to research mitigation measures. The project
was then brought before the C ission$ at which time the Commission 'agreed
that certain areas needed further study.
Chairman Stout stated that traffic circulation north of this project was the
subject of a great deal of discussion during the; Commission's initial review
and asked if this issued had been addressed
Gomez replied that the cul-de-sac-sa at the northern n part of the tract will
allow as opportunity for extension of circulation creeds to the foothills area
above the tract
Chairman Stout asked if the additional traffic from the north was considered
at the time the statement was made that Beryl could handle the additional
traffic;
r Coleman replied that this was not specifically discussed in the EIR,
however based upon the acreage available for development in that area, traffic
would not exceed eryl's capacity.
Motion: Moved by Eempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
Resolution d certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Tentative
Tract 11626 as complete.
AYES: C OMM ISSIC EPS 11EI' PEL, MCNIELI ;BARKER, SAE , STOUT
ICES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ICIE
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 SIEVE S - A custom
lot residential subdivision of 2 bats on 6.53 acres of land in the
P-1 2C,C00 zone located on the south side of Bella Vista, west of
Carnelian API 1012221
Darr Coleman ; Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner Barber referred to the Engineering conditions the Resolution,
and asked ghat "slope stabilizing devices" meant in condition 14.
Paul Edd ea,t, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that there are a wide selection
f stabelizing devices which could be used in the canyon and the City would
greet with the project"a engineers to come up with the best stabilizers for
that area. further, that it would not be a completely eurrer°ete chancel which
would cause visual impacts but something that would fit into the natural:
Planning Commission Minutes - ® July 2 " 1983
environment.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the runoff at that part of the canyon is not
that great and he world suggest not doing much in the way of stabilizing,
since it 'was'already protected by natural vegetation
Rou, eau stated that further sturdy world be conducted before anything was
donee and suggested that this could be brought back to the Commission for their
review.
Chairman Stout asked if there was a reason why the runoff `was not being
channeled straight down Beryl and dumping it into Berens Channel, instead of
turning' at Almond
r'. Rou eau replied that going straight down Beryl, is a shorten route,
requires leas storm drain and does not require digging up the existing
streets
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Robert Curtis, 9171 Ca ael.ia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission
asking if a trail would be provided so that area residents could still get to
the mountain areas
Darr Coleman replied that there is a community trail that cages from the custom
lot subdivision to the went which will be continued along the north side of
the existing homed and go through the project to the existing dirt, read, which
will provide access to the mountain areas. Further that this project had been
reviewed by the Equestrian ' rails Committee.
Curti.s stated; his concern with runoff coming down Beryl and asked if this
would be minimized
Rou eau replied that the street will convey most of the drainage to the
storm drain facility, however a minimal amount of runoff would still surface
drain onto Beryl
There were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel expressed his appreciation to the applicant for ghat they
have donne to make this project, in his opinion, one of the nicest in the City.
Commissioner Barker stated that the developers had been agreeable to ;the
suggestions of the Design Review Committee and staff to mitigate impacts.
Further, that he considered this a sensitive area and would like to see the
lot sizes larger to provide a transition
Chairman Stout agreed with Commissioners Rempel and Barker and stated the area
is extremely sensitive;due to the erosion and seismicity. Further, that if
the area has to be developed, which is the right of the property owner, this
Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1983
project is one of the nicest to be found.
Motion: Moved by MoNlel, seconded by Rempel, carried> unanimously, to adopt
Resolution 83-95 approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 11626
with the amendment to oondition 14 to require that the slope stabilizing
devices be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
8:00 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed
8:10 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the following items would be reviewed
concurrently.
1. VARIANCE 63-03 - RR MAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to reduce the
re uired minimum to width and square footage in order to subdivide a 1 .02
acre parcel in the R-1-20,000 zone located on the south side of Bella
Vista, west of Carnelian - APN 1061-221-21 .
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8011 - BPI DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION - A division of 1 .02 acres into 2 parcels within the
R-1-20,000 zone located on the south side of Bella Vista, west of
Carnelian - APN 1061-221-21 .
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. He referred
to Planning Commission Resolution 79-07, adopting the City's Access
Improvement Policy, which requires the dedication and improvements of a
private road to the nearest public street. He advised that Bella Vista is a
very well maintained private street, therefore staff did not feel that the
requirement for full dedication to Carnelian Street would be necessary,
however would require an offer of dedication. He advised that the street
would remain private and maintained totally by the property owners involved.
He pointed out that the offer of dedication provides assurance that should all
the surrounding property owners decide they want the City to take over the
street, the provisions for dedication for these parcels would exist. He
further stated the City has no intention in the foreseeable future to take
over the street as it is adequate the way it is. Mr. Rougeau also stated that
the map has been reviewed by the;Equestrian Committee which recommended that
if' a utility easement exists along the east or west property line, equestrian
easements should be Provided.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 27, 1983
Commissioner Barker asked if he was correct in that the 5-feet on Bella Vista'
would not be'maintained by the City, but by the property owner.
Chairman Stout replied that the difference between the dedication and offer of
dedication would be that the landowner of these lots would be responsible for
the maintenance of Bella "diet and also woul.d be liable for maintenance
problems and also any accidents in that area which would be an incentive to
keep the street maintained in front of the ;parcels.
Mr. Rou ea€r replied that this is correct
Chairman Stout opened the public,hearing.
Cary Sanderson, Linville/Sanderson & Associates, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission stating that the applicant was in full; agreement with
the findings of the stiff reports , resolutions and conditions of approval. He
advised that the builder was also present this evening and had brought along
an exhibit of a house proposing to be built on one of the lots.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Sanderson if he was aware of a utility easement on
the back of these parcels
r. Sanderson replied that a utility easement exists at the southeast and
southwest corners of the parcels and applicant would be agreeable to an
equestrian trail running along the south property line.
Chairman Stoat asked if the,exhibits could be viewed by the Commission.
John Gilson, the builder for the proposal., presented an exhibit of a 3100
square foot house` he is planning to build on one of the parcels.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Olson if he understood that it would be the property
owner, not the City of Rancho Cucamonga, who would be responsible for the
maintenance of the private road
. Gilson replied that he understood this and had no problems.
Doug Hone, general partner in Hillside Vista associates, contiguous property
owner to this parcel, addressed the Commission stating that he would like the
insertion of a condition for agreement of drainage thus giving Hillside "vista
an opportunity to view the drainage plans for this proposal.
Commissioner Remppl replied that such a condition already exists in the
conditions of approval for the project
. Hone asked Commissioner e pel if he would recite this condition so it
would be understood by all parties
I
Planning Commission Minutes - - July 27, 1983
Commissioner =Rempel replied that the item was covered in condition number 2 of
the City Engineer's Report, under Drainage and Flood Control, and stated that
"Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance anddisposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas".
Paul Rougeau, Senior ivil Engineer, stated that condition 11 also requires
easements for drainage from adjacent property spier to issuance of building
permits.
Gary Sanderson stated that he felt there would be no significant increase to
the natural drainage as it exists today as a result of this project. However,
the engineer-and applicant would be more than happy to work with the property
owners to the south of the proposal.
Paul R u eau stated that the, current equestrian trail standards requires the
ability to handle drainage as well which would necessitate a gutter to handle
the runoff from these parcels.
There were no farther public comments, thereforeChairman :Stout closed the
public hearing,
Commissioner Barker asked if the equestrian trail requirements had been takers
care of in the conditions of approval.
Chairman Stout replied:that these would have to be added.
Rougeau stated that staff would ld suggest that condition 8 under General
Requirements and Approvals be added to the 'City Engineer's Report and that it
be ended after the first sentence. The condition would merely read "Local and
Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan".
Motion* Moved by Rearapol., seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously, carried, to adopt
Resolution to approving Variance d
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RS PB , MCNIEL, BARKER, J AREZ, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.* NONE carried
Motion axed by Barker, seconded by; e wpel, unanimously carried, to adapt
Resolution 5 approving Parcel Mp 8011 with ;the inclusion of condition
under General Requirements and Approval in the City Engineer's Report,
striking out all but the first sentence.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMP L , JUAREZ, MCNIEL, STOUP
NOES: ISSI I RS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N5NE -carried-
Planning Commission Minutes 7 duly 27, 1983
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 80OZ - BIANE A division of 17.8
acres into 4 parcels within the R-1-20,000 zone located on the west aide
f Hermosa Avenue between Wilson and Hillside APN 201-083-04.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed ed the staff report, advising that
staff recommended that the first sentence of condition d of the City-
Engineer's Report t trader General Requirements and Approvals be ridded,.
Chairman Stout opened the public. hearing.
Gary Sanderson, Linville-Sanderson, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission stating that the applicant is in agreement with most of the items
listed in the Resolution with the exception of the requirement for street
improvements on Hillside and the requirement for construction of a sidewalk on
Hermosa. r Sanderson advised that the applicant is requesting that the curb
and gutter requirements for Hillside and Hermosa be waived until parcel 1 is
sold. Further, the applicant did not wart to have to reuse additional
vineyards due to the dedication on Hermosa.
Oommissioner McNiel asked what the rock house is now being used for
Janine Tibbits, daughter of the applicant, addressed the Commission and
replied that the rock house is now are occupied rental unit. She stated that
there are no sidewalks in the area and did not understand need for
sidewalks on Hermosa and Wilson.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the sidewalk is required on Wilson because it is a
secondary highway aye and will be a route for school children in the area.
owevert the sidewalk equine rent for Hermosa is in error ;and should be
removed from the conditions.
Commissioner Rempel, if the resolution could contain d condition that the
sidewalks be waived until such time as development occurs.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the sidewalks could be included in a lien agreement.
"fibbita stated that two rows of vineyards would have to be reproved in
order to do the required improvements and didrat see the reasoning ehind
requiring sidewalks on Wilson and Hermosa. Further, the applicant would be
agreeable to installing these improvements when the adjacent tract begins
development, or the property is sold, as it is not his intention to develop
any of the parcels
Commissioner Rempel advised that: these are requirements which cannot be waived
by the Planning Commissiont but must be appealed by the applicant to the City
Council, with the Commission's recommendation that they be waived.
Planning o ieai n Nitrates - July 27, 1983
There were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing closed.
ra ionA Moved by Re el, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried to adopt
Resolution approving Parcel Yap 8007 with the deletion of the sidewalk
requirement on Hermosa and the addition of the first sentence of eondition S,
City Engineer's Report parader General Requirements and Approvals. Further, the
Commission recommended that the City Council issue lien agreements to waive
street improvements until development of the adjacent tract or if parcels
and 4 are built prier to the development of the tract, parcel 3 would then
have to install the improvements.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MP L, JUARR F BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS8SSMENT AND PARCEL MAR 7966 HAHN/FOOTHILL ASSOCIATION
division of 97.5 aeries into 1 parcel located on the south side of
Miller Avenue between future, pay Creek Boulevard and Victoria Leap within
the Victoria Planned Community zoned for Regional Commercial P t
7-161-27, 29, 30, 32; P 7 171-0 , 17 7 PP1- , 21
Paul Roo eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
. Rawchuck, joint owner of a section of the parcel, expressed a concern
regarding the 11 .9 acres to be dedicated for streets and and asked about his
rights as a potential property owner.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that signatures of all property
owners would be required prior to recordation n f the final: maps. At that time
if Mr. Rawanuck objected to any aspect, he could refuse to sign the map.;
R u eau stated that the property is in litigation and suggested that
possibly staff could meet with Mr. Rawchuck and discuss his concerns.
'there were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. ,
Motion: Moved b , Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously;carried, to adopt
the Resolution 83-99 approving Parcel Map 7966.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MC IRL, JUAREZ, ,HE P L, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCR
Planning Commission Minute July 27, 1983
M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d 10 PRESSLE A change of ownership for are
r de (formerly JJ's Arcade) in time 1 zone to be located at 6642 and
6646 Carnelian.
rm Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Steve Pressley, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that his agreement
with the Resolution n and conditions of approval.
Commissioner° McNiel advised; that this item had been advertised in the
newspaper and the area property owners notified," however no opposition was
expressed to City staff. He reminded ;the applicant of the opposition voiced
when Mr. Mannella. first applied for the Conditional Use Permit for dd's Arcade
and advised that he should run his operation in a similar manner.
Motion.* d by Rem p 1, seconded by MaNiel, unanimously carriedt to adapt
Resolution 83-100 approving and tional Use Permit 83-10.
AYES- COMMISSIONERS: REMPELt MCNI L, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT"
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:NERS R
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried-
R I°� d "1 � +Al'A IIf�SIt1 d temporary placement of
�s�t�sl`fIC� AL USE P
too ) 1440 sq. ft. office trailers on 1 .6 acres of land in conjunction
with an existing manufacturingfacility in the --R T (Restricted
Manufacturing) zone located t 7915 Center Avenue - APB 77-0 f1 .
Rik Gomez, City Planner, reviewed d the staff report
Paul R u as r Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff suggested an additional
condition be added to the Resolution under Engineering Conditions to require
the application for an Improvement Agreement extension prior to occupancy of
the trailers. Ho explained that street improvements ents had been previously
bonded for which required their installati
on within
1 m ths; however, time
r t activity in the area has
err this agreement had lapsed arms development
increased, therefore staff recommends that the extension be applied for and
the applicant begin to make arrangements to install the street improvements.
Chairman Stout asked what a reasonabl.e amount of time would be to install the
improvements.
mments
Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 27, 1983
--
Mr. Rougeau replied that 6 months is d qu t , however they could possibly b
done In three to fur months.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Dominic rl ti, representing Data Design, addressed the Commission stating
after approval of the parcel map' City staff had advised the applicant that
there was no urgency to install the street improvements until construetion of
additional buildings. fie further stated that the trailers world allow Data
Design to bring additional employees and revenue to the City, and urged the
approval of the Conditional Use permit
Commissioner Barker asked if the bond repaired installation of improvements
,prior to additional construction.
Rougeau replied that there are lien agreements which require installation
prior to construction, however it was his pirridrr that this applicant had a
1 month bond
Commissioner Rempel stated that, the improvements vements on Haven were the only cares
he recalled being deferred by the Commission in its previous review. Further,
.
normally these improvements would have been required ;prior to recordation of
the final maps
'. Salvata advised the Commission of the Importance of the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation f the trailers so that
employees could begin work on August 2. He .farther advised that he would b
in the City offices the next day to sign the Barr agreement extension.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Salvati to explain his position on the improvements
and if he felt that the improvements on Center Avenue were necessary after the
installation of the trailers.
. Sal ad replied he, did not feel thus necessary at this time.
Chairman Stout advised that the staff is recommending a rnrrth extension to
install the improvements and not 6 months to come back to the Commission for
discussion.
al ati replied that the improvements would be put in upon ;construction of
additional buildings. Further, he was not in a position to mead a decision
regarding the improvements, but did not see y the CUP could not be granted
and theca have the Commission call in the bonds if the improvements were not
installed in d months
n earr ;Mated that the agreement would be for a -month extension at
which time the applicant could apply for an additional extension. flcowe er, at
that time, the extension could be decreed and the City could call in the bonds
There 'were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
lannin o issionMinutes -11- July 27, 1983
Chairman Stout stated that he was not in favor f approving the Resolution for
the CUP unless it contained a requirement that the street improvements be
installed prior to occupancy of the trailers. Fur then t that the improvements
should have been done a long time ago and did not see why the City should be
subjected to the expense of callingin bonds.
Commissioner Rempol stated that staff's proposal is a fair compromise omi e for both
the applicant and; the City that the street 'improvements gd in; however, did
not feel an additional extension h ul:d be granted.
Commissioner MaNiel, stated that approval of the Conditional Use Permit could
be for 6 monthsand if the improvements are not installed in that time, the
CUP could be revoked.
Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, to adopt Resolution
1 1 approving ConditionalUse Permit 11 with an amendment to Planning
Division condition one to read that the temporary trailers are approved for
months, and the inclusion of an Engineering condition to read: ' ,rPri r* to
occupancy, application for an Improvement Agreement extension shall be
submitted".
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, U RRS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT
ABSENTCOMMISSIONERS: 5NE -carried-
Chairman Stout voted no for previously stated reasons.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the decision of the
Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
O DEVELOPMENT COOS
Rick Gomez, City Planner, presented the report and greeting schedule to the
Commission.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the following meeting dates be
established for the review of the Draft Development pment Coder; August 16,
September 6, September 20, October r k, and October 12 All meetings will. be
Planning n is ion Minute 1 - July 27, 1983
held at Lions Park Community Canter, 9161 Rasa Line, Rancho Cucamonga, at 6,30
p.m. , with the exception of the October r 12 meetingwhich will take place at
. 0 P.M.
The Planning Commission also established the date of August 30, 1983t 6 p.m. ,
as the review date for the Foothills Community Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to sae the crosswalk al in the
middle of of the street at Alta Loa High School- on Base Line removed as scorn
as possible
Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation to staff for their good faith
effort to mitigate condemns expressed by area residents who are upset with the
construction of a local project. He also commended Chairman Stout on his
first meeting as Planning Commission Chairman.
Chairman Stout asked staff to find out who the property owner is who has
fenced gaff the equestrian trail on Demens Channel rear the equestrian bridge
between Sapphire and Carnelian and request that it be removed
ADJOURNMENT
Motion. Moored by Barker, seconded by Remp 1, unanimously carried to adjourn.
1 :1 U Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfullya ' fitted,
f
x
Jack tarp, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 27, 1983
CITE` OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING L SSI MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 13, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rep l 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 Park
Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
Re el then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL GALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Eddie Juarez, Dennis Stout,
Herman Rem el
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Larry' McRi l
STAFF PRESENT: Darr Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edgard Hopson, Assistant CityAttorney; Lloyd Hubb
City Engineer; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary
Baal Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer
ELECTION-OF OFFICERS
Chairman Remp l stated that it has, been a pleasure to serve as chairman for
this Commission and by acclamation nominated DennisStet as chairman for the
1983-84 term.
Motion: gyred by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to elect
Dennis Stout as chairman.
Dennis Stout nominated Dave Barker for the position of vice-chairman.
Nation: Moved by Re el, seconded, by Juarez, carried unanimously, that Dare
Barker would serve as vice-chairman for the next year.
Chairman Rep l asked that he chair this final meeting of his term.
There was unanimous agreement that he do so.
CONSENT CALDENDAR
Commissioner Barker requested that item A be removed from the Consent' Calendar
for :discussion.
I Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve
Items R and S of the Consent Calendar.,
i
I,
TIME EXTENSIONFOR-DR 1 - VISA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
C. TENTATIVE TRACT 11 0 VANGUARD VENTURES - Singl dential
development of six ll . on six previously recorded parcels, located
on Garden Court, near Sapphire
Commissioner Barker stated that on page two of Resolution No. 1 d there is a
provision requiring the installation of a portion of the Deer Creek regional
trail. Be indicated that he was not concerned about the project but, of the
regional trail system and asked if future developers will be required to pay
support of some kind for a regional trail system', or if they are not, how that
cost would be incurred.
Gomez replied that the Carps of Engineers, along with the County and the
City, will be making the improvements along that regional trail, and along
this channel it will not be something that this developer will have to do
Commissioner Stout asked when this tract was approved was it the City's
intention not to extend Victoria across the Deer" Creek area.
Mr. Rou eau, Benicia Civil Engineer, replied that no crossing was proposed-,.
Chairman Rem el stated that by gray of further explanation Victoria was not
carried to the channel on the Victoria side and there is no way it can be
continued.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to adopt
Item A of the Consent Calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - WESTEND INVESTMENTS - Located
on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way,-gray between
Haven Avenue and Been Creek.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE "BRACT 12402 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY A total. residential development of 152 condominium units on
lots-comprising 7.9 acres of 'land generally located at the northeast
corner of Spruce Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway ARR 1 C1 C 1 01 and 02.
Associate Planner, Dan Coleman reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Rem el opened the public hearing.
Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Development. Company, stated that they are
familiar with the conditions of approval and they are acceptable. There being
no further comment the_public hearing was nosed.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- duly 13, 1983
Commissioner tout stated that at the Design Review level it had been asked
that the developer change the windows on the elevations.
Mr.-Coleman replied that this request has been taken care of under condition
one of section two of the resolution in that it requires es horizontal a rite
siding to be used on the windows
Mr. Coleman stated that as a ,result of the Grading Committee meeting, the
applicant must provide a minimum one percent slope for the graded area instead
of two percent
There being no further comments, the public hearing was eluded.
Motion: Moved by Stoat, seconded by Barker,, ar°ried ucanimously, to adopt
Resolution approving 'Tentative Tract 12402 and issuing a negative
declaration.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW "IAA -- The
devel pre at of two manufacturing warehouse buildings of 32,400 square feet
and 35,530 square feet on 3.02 acres of 'land in the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial zone (Subarea , located at the southeast corner of dth Street,,
and Rochester Avenue Ap 0 and 28.
Tarr Coleman, Associate planner, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner ar ker° asked Mr. Coleman how the screen inside the door would
work.
Mr. Coleman replied that it is a decorative metal screen which would be
painted black. Prather, that a person passing the door would be curable two see
anything from any angle behind its
Commissioner Barker asked if you would still be able to set it up for security
reasons
Mr. Coleman replied than you can.
Chairman Re rpel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
add anything to this.
Mr.. Jay Viana, the applicant questioned the creed for a median island for this
project
Rou eau replied that a requirement ement ;for an island was inadvertently checked
but that Rochester Avenue does not call for a median island.
There being no further comments the public hearing was; closed.
Planning o ission Minutes - July 13, 1983
Chairman Rempel thanked the applicant :for working king with the Design Review
Committee in providing for screening of the doors.
Commissioner Barker aahnad Chairman Fe r a l'a comments.
Motion: Moved by, empa 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 3 approving velopment Review 3 and issuing a negative
declaration. "
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83-13 J.E. BUTLER
Planned Development of 230 apartment units on 9.6 acres in the P-3 (Multi-
Family Residential) mere located on the south aide of Foothill, east of
Vineyard.
City Planner', Pink Gomez, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that there
world be some frame da to the standard conditions and stated that Item 11
under landscaping should be filled in to indicate Foothill Boulevard.
Paul Rougeau stated that on page a of Engineering Conditions, condition C ,
C , M3, and 02 would be changed. Be* also suggested a- change to Condition 4 of
the Resolution to read treat a drainage easement or acceptance shall be
obtained by the applicant for the purpose of surface drainage or the
installation of a; storm drain as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Chairman Rempel opened the public tram
b Skinner, representing the applicant, stated that the only request he
would make is for the secondary ingress and egress on the corner of the
property. Mr. Skinners indicated that the Firs District has determined that
there should be no ingress and egress from that driveway. He did not
understand the reason and felt that they should be allowed right turns only
allows smoother use of that drivewaa
from that driveway. Further, it would y
during peak tread
Commissioner Barker asked if that stipulation had been put in by the Fire
District.
Mr. 11 a eau replied that he is not familiar with the requirement. Further,
art err t would require a secondary access for emergency use only.
the fora a
He indicated; that with many projects they will use a"driveway for emergency
use only and that has been acceptable
Ry w eau_at tad that the applicant manta taws the seconda
ry driveway
farad to all traits
Gomez stated that has been a part of the dire review an
d the fir
e
district is closing it for only emergency use.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 13, 1983
Chairman ;Rempel stated that if this project were not in the area it is in, h
would be in favor of allowing use of the secondary driveway. e indicated
that the problem is that it is across from the Gemoo secondary access
Further, if the Commission looked at Gemeo again they would have eliminated
the.secondary access. Chairman Rempel stated that the applicant might say ;it
will be used for right turns ns only but there is no ray to stop left turns and
until that particular intersection is signalized, there is going to be a big
problem.
r^. Rou eau stated that before long there will be a left, turn phase on the
signal
W. Skinner asked if they would be able to reapply for use of the driveway at
the time the median strip .is put in the road.
Mr. Pou eau replied that that possibility would exist.
Commissioner Stout stated that he ;a reed with Chairman fle rpel"a comments
relative to the driveway being so close. to the, traffic light. He indicated
that there would be a tendency to have a major intersection at that point and
that people watch the light and not the driveway close by. He further stated
that he would see that as a major problem.
Mr. Gomez stated that under landscaping condition four, this was discussed
'with Mr. Butler and it should be checked for a 50 tree minimum per gross acre.
Chairman Per pel stated that he does not have a problem with 50 trees but with
the requirement for::: box size trees or specimen size trees. He felt that this
should be left to the discretion of staff because some trees do better in
smaller containers
There being no furthers comments the public hearing was closed and it was moved
by Stout seconded by Barker,; carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No.
83-88 approving Development Review d 13 and issuing a negative declaration
with tyre amendments rats to the Resolution and standard conditions as noted.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
G. REVIEW 1dD APPROVAL OF 1 d3-84
� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO - Community
i afro emen to and long-range major street and drainage program priorities.
City Engineer, Mod Tubbs, reviewed the staff report. He Mated that a lot
will be done with the federal program to allocate $700,000 targeted for
Archibald.. e indicated that it put a big dent in the -year program and
offers an opportunity to evaluate the long--range plan. Further, that the City
will be able to do some reconstruction of residential streets this year, a
many tracts are getting to be P years old and are in need of care,.
Planning Commission Minutes - duly 13, 1983
.................
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-89 approving the 1983-84 Capital Improvement Program for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. Dave Fto ker asked if there will be any traffic control at East and
Victoria in the vicinity of the Etiwanda High School and also East Avenue
north of' Highland.
Mr. Hubbs replied that there will be a project this year east on Highland.
Further that they will study the need for a signal and will be monitoring
traffic near the high school.
Commissioner Stout felt there may be a need for a four-way stop.
Mr. Rougeau stated that there are so many warning devices that they might
employ that they should not need a four-way stop.
Chairman Rempel stated that with so many students driving to school they
should start before the school is occupied.
H. REVIEW OF PROP USED FLOOD HAZARD MAPS In conjunction with National Flood
Insurance Program
City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout asked if the Day Creek channel is constructed will large
blue areas shown on the map go away.
W,. Hubbs replied yes, that it will, and that the City will be going through a
lot of expense to protect from Day Creek.
Commissioner Stout asked if the City pays some type of insurance premium to
the federal government for this program.
Mr. Hubbs explained that the City does not pay a premium but property owners
have available to them flood insurance through their regular insurance agent
wMotu is subsidized by the federal government.
I. SET REVIEW DATE FOR SA N BERNARDINO COUNTY'S 'WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS
COMMUNITY PLAN - Oral presentation - information packets will be available
at the meeting.
Rick Gomez, City Planner reviewed the report given to the Commissioners at the
meeting. He stated that the County planners intend to go before their
Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Re el suggested that the City's Planning Commission meet on the 16th
of August to review this plan; however, if the regular Planning Commission
meeting of August 24 is light, that it be looked at at that time.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 13, 1983
Mr. Comet replied that the determination f greeting dates will be grade at the
first meeting in August at which time they could adjourn to that meeting.
Commissioner Stout ;stated that with respect to the tentative schedule there
will be a meeting between the staff and the County and asked if the
recommendations made at the previous greetings will be addressed at this time.
Gomez stated that he will take the Commission's concerns and input and let
their know ghat action the County has taken, whether positive or negative.
Chairman Re el asked that something be prepared for review prior to the
greeting on the: issue
Chairman Rempel stated that before he adjourns the meeting he wished to think
the Planning Commission and staff for all the help they provided to him during
the past six months. He then turned the gavel over to Chairman Stout.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moored by Barker, seconded by R rpel, carried unanimously, tag`adjourn.
7:59 p.m. The Planning ommis ion adjourned..
Respectfully llbmitis d BACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission mutes -7- July 13, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 22, 1983
Chairman Herman Rempel calked the Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to ;order° at 7 tC . Chairman Hempel there led in the pledge
of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS.* David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry
cNiel, Herman Rempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dennis Stout
STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hopson Assistant City Attorney, Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul.
Rou eau, ;Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior
Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Michael Vairin, Senior,Planrer, presented a memorandum to the Commissioners
which discussed a preliminary project ;proposed by K & P Development Company.
Vairin suggested that it might be helpful for the Commission to tour the
project ect in Pomona prior to their review of the proposal.
Mr. Vairin also announced that election of Planning Commission ssion officers rs would
take place at the Commission's June 8 meeting
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES
Commissioner Barker requested an amendment to page 4 of the May 5, 1983
Minutes to read 11. . . there had been a Large number of concerns by staff
regarding these projects" rather than 11& . . there were a large number of
concerns * .i!
Motion:
Moved by Barker, seconded by McNicl, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the May` 5, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as amended.
Commissioner Barker requested that a statement be added to the Minutes of
June 8, 1983 to clarify the discussion regarding the trail system on the
southwest corner of the project and the width requirement of 10-feet of
asphalt and 1i0-feet of trail
Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that Robert Dougherty is the
City Attorney, not, the Assistant City Attorney as indicated under the staff
present section of the ,June 8, 1983 Minutes
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the June 8, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as amended.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SB ZONING ORDINANCE A Nib f 4
R 1 EN IAL PARKING STANDARD - An ordinance amending Section
1 . 1 (b)(i) , Residential Parking Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga
Interim Zoning Ordinance
Michael Vai.rin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner Barker suggested that future changes in ordinances be presented
in a strike through and underline method which would facilitate the
Commission's
n's review.
Michael Vairin clarified that the present ordinance is divided into single
family and multiple family. The single family requires two covered spaces and
the multiple family requirement is one spade within a garage or carport and
one uncovered spade plus one visitor space for every five units. This
proposal differs in the number of spaces is determined on the number of
bedrooms and;increases the visitor parking to one per four units.
Chairman Rem el opened the public hearing.
Kay Matlock, Lewis domes, addressed the Commission expressing her appreciation
for the: opportunity to work 'with staff on the drafting of this ordinance and
felt that staff had core up'with a reasonable approach.
"There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Hempel stated that the sentence in Section V under apartments,
regarding the uncovered parking spaces was ;rather awkward and should; be
worded
Mr. Vair°in advised that the sentence would be reworded
Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1983
Motion: Moved by' Juarez, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt
Resolution 3 -32 recommending approval. of Environmental Assessment and Zoning
ordinance Amendment 3 04 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the. City
Council.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUARE , BARKER, MC IEL, RRMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ACNE
ASSENT; COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried-
i
Chairman Rempel advised that the following items would be heard concurrently
by the Commission.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACTS 12318 & 12318 1 LEWIS
90MRS - A total residential development of 70 single family-attached
dr�el.lin s on 74 Lots ranging from 3100 sq. ft. to 6750 sq. ft. on 9.5
acres of land-, generally located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north
of Deer Creek Channel - APN 1077-091-10.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL`ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACTS 12364 & 123 1 - LEWIS
DOMES - A total residential development of 71 single family detached
homes on 71 Lots ranging from ABCC sq. ;ft. to 11 ,590 sq. ft. on 14.4 acres
of land, generally located on the;south side of Base Line, east of Deer
Creek Channel - APSE 1 C77-01C2.;
Michael vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff reports.
Chairman Rernpel referred to Church Street on Tentative Tracts 12318 and
12318-1 and asked if the street can the west side of the channel shouldn't show
full. development.
Paul Roau eau Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it 'could be required to; show
full development since it was not going to 'be developed as a street
Chairman Rem el stated that it should be completed to protect the homeowners
in that area. He further stated:that it would be helpful if the Commission
were gable to see what is being proposed in adjacent areas
Mr. Rou eau stated that putting improvements at ,that location could encourage
ni httite parking, therefore it aright be better to not require the
installation of the half street, and suggested that the Commissioners could
discuss the pros and cons of each issue
Chairman Remgela agreed that the issue should be discussed and also suggested
that the cross gutter and the radius curb should be installed to facilitate
drainage from Haven
Manning Commission Minutes -3 June 2 , 193
Mr. Vairin advised that dedication for :Church Street should be added to the
Standard Condition
Chairman Remp l opened the public hearing.
Kay Matlock, representing the applicant, Lewis Homes, addressed the Commission
stating that they accepted the findings in the Resolution and Conditions of
Approval. She asked for clarification on the discussion regarding Church
Street as Lewis Noes did not see the purpose in building the south half of
the street since there was nothing for it to lead to at this point.
Chairman Rempel replied that,the necessity of the radius curb would be to
facilitate drainage from the north to tie it into a cross gutter to dispose of
the cater through the bridge area rather than have the drainage simply dump
into an open area
Ms. Matlock advised that when development begins in the area to the east and
west of this project, Lewis homes could be doming in with an entire area plan
for the Commission's review.
There were no further comments therefore the public hearing was closed.
Lion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to adopt
Resolution 83-83 approving Tentative Tracts 12318 and 1 C 18 1 , with the
issuance p
on of Chu roh Street and the f a Negative e
o the dedication r
inclusion f`
Declaration
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JUAREZ, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
-
Motion: Moved by I cNiel, seconded by Barber°, unanimously carried, to adopt
Resolution approving Tentative Tracts 12364 and 1 1 and the issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNI L, BARKERO JUAREZt REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT* COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried-
Planning Commission Minutes - dune 22, 1
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7944 - WESTLAND VENTURE
Ti—vision of 5.06 acres of laud into 3 parcels within the C-2 zone located
on the north side of Base Line, west of 'Cast Avenue PN 7-1 1- 5, 47,
48.
Paul R u eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report ;
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments,
therefore the public hearing was closed.
r �* unanimousl
y l carried, to adopt
t
°d b �CCe
Moved area seconded p
Resolution 5 approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7944 and
the issuance of a' Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, BARKER, MCNIPL, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried-
E. REVISIONS OF CONDITIONS FOR PARCEL MAP 734 -- LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Lc-sated on the north side f 4th Street;, east side of 1-15 Free;ay APN
229-283-49.
Paul R u eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report explaining that
the Lewis Development Company had recently purchased this parcel and desired
to have the detention basin and landscaping for the project placed in are
assessment district to be administered by the City.
Chairman Rem el opened the public hearing.
Kai Matlock, LewisHomes, addressed the Commission stating that administration
of the temporary drainage facility through CC R"s actually places the
maintenance burden on one of the property owners within the development and
felt that a public assessment district would be the preferred method of
assuring for maintenance
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Juarez, unanimously ca.rrfed, to adapt
Resolution d -53 A amending the City Engineer's 'Report Condition 4 f
Planning Commission Resolution 5 -53 by forming a Landscape Maintenance
District for future maintenance of the detention basin, storm drain and
landscaping prier to recordation of Parcel :Pap 7349.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS, MCNIEL, JUAREZ, BARKER, REP L
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried-
Planning Commission Minutes 5 dune 22, 1983
DIRECTOWS REPORT
F. STATUS UPDATETHE FOLLOWING: ONDITI AL USE PERMIT 15 - MANNELLA
XN—D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7 - LE LIE & INFANTE
Michael Vairin, Senior ;Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated; that .the
surrounding businesses and the Sheriff's Department had been contacted
regarding the subject business operations. There were no comments from the
business tenants or property owners regarding JJ'a Arcade. He advised that
the Planning Division had initially received reports from surrounding
businesses regarding the Galaxy Arcade; however most of the concerns and
disturbances had been mitigated. Na further advised that the Planning
Division would continue monitoring these uses and if problems arise, the
Commission would be advised ;and at that time they cold take appropriate
action.
Joseph Mannella, JJ's Arcade, addressed the Commission advising; that he was
contemplating selling his arcade and asked if the new owner would be required
to file an application for a new Conditional Use Permit.
Vairin replied that the approval of this nditional Use Permit would
expire with the change of ownership, therefore a new owners would be required
to file a new application which would necessitate a hearing before the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner 'McNeil commended the owners of the arcades for the job they have
done.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez: unanimously carried, to adjourn
. 1. Planning Commission Adjourned
'� J
Reap efully Ubmi;tted t
,
Pick Tme�,11,
{
n Se
cretary
a r Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 8, 1983
CALIF TO CRIER
Chairman, Herman R mp l called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting a bald at the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Pane Line Road`, Rancho Cucamonga,
I
California. Chairman Rempel then lad in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CAS
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ]avid Barker, Addle Juarez , Larry McNiel,
Dennis Stout, Herman Hempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nona
STAFF PRESENT: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development; Paul R u eau, Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jack Lam, Director of unity Development, stated that the first budget
hearing for the upcoming fiscal year will be bald in this room on
Jura 14, 1983 at 6 p.m. He. invited the Commissioners to attend,.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: gyred by IbNI I, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve
the meta of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 11 , 1983.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner ar° r asked that Item P be removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
` ionMoved by Stout, seconded by Juarez , carried unanimously, to adopt
Items A, C and D of the Consent Calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-18 - JASKA
B. TRACT 1o491 - LIGHTNER - The redesign of 20 single family homes on 4 .78
acres of land in the R-1 zone, located a the southwest corner of Victoria
Street and Ramona - APN 202-181-04.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEH. �1
�E-NUFACTURING - The development of a 32,000 square foot warehouse/office
addition to an existing industrial complex located on 4.7 acres of land
in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial on (Subarea 9) located on the
southeast corner of Jersey Boulevard and Utica Avenue - AWN 209-143-Ca.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, apprised the Commission of a memorandum given to
them at this meeting which recommended that Tentative Tract No. 's 10046 , 10047
and 10349, have a condition added for consistency that the CC&Rls for the
tracts shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals, where zoning
requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. A copy of the
CC&R1s shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to
recordation of the Final Map. Further, the owners of these tracts have been
notified and have submitted letters agreeing to the addition of this
condition.
Commissioner Barker stated that he was concerned with the standard stipulation
within the resolution and whether they will protect those pieces of property
with direct trail access. He wondered if these tract maps should be continued
in order that trail access for these particular areas have consistency. He
indicated that a stable near Hillside and Archibald does not comply and asked
about the design and how access to the stable could be provided.
Mr. Gomez replied that under Standard Condition No. 3 the required compliance
for trails and a master plan for trails would be necessary prior to
recordation of the final map. Further, that the conditions would have to be
met in order for the tract map to final. He indicated that these conditions
would be reviewed by the Equestrian Committee to be sure that there is
compliance.
Commissioner Barker stated that there is no provision for Planning commission
review.
Mr. Gomez replied that the City Attorney would have something to say about a
tentative tract map going back to the Commission after it has been approved.
Commissioner Barker asked if the Planning Commission would be approving
something blindly without having recourse of another review. Also, that in
taking this action of granting a time extension to these tentative tracts , the
Commission is approving something to which they will not have direct access.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 8, 1983
Gomez explained that with the CC&R requirements the easements will have to
be included in the tract which would ive every lot access without the
Planning Commission having to check on this aspect. Further, staff will make
certain that every piece of property will have access under the condition.
Chairman Re el stated that the Park and Trails Committee -would have the
authority to punt these stipulations in and the tracts would be Burnable to final
without compliance.
Chairman Rempel stated; that the only condition that could be imposed is that
this would come back if the owner is not satisfied, and if they were not, they
could take it to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Hopson stated that for all practical purposes , once the Plarnrnirn ,
Commission impasses conditions on a tentative tract and the time for appeal
expires, the process for the developer in order to get final approval for the
tract is to prepare whatever paperwork r is required and submit it to staff who
will decide if the conditions have been met. if everything has been met, it
is put in a package and submitted to the City Council.. Mr. Hopson indicated
that the Council cannot add; conditions and neither can the Planning
Commission. Further, that the only reason that the City can get extra
conditions now is because the developer ran out of time. When the developer
asks for something the City can ask for something in return and if the
developer consents, the conditions can be added if the developer does not
consent, the Commission could ask for the additional conditions; but they
could also lot the tentative tract expire without extending it The developer
would then have to start over, at which time the new co ndtio ns could be
imposed`.
Mr. Hopson stated that the standards which are being ;applied are current
standards which he would have to comply with in order to final his map.
Commissioner Barker asked for clarification can the refusal to extend the time
on a tentative map and whether the applicant wound have to come back.
. Hopson replied that allowing the tentative tract map to expire is a
discretionary matter.
Commissioner Barker stated that he does not want to give the developer the
snort end of the stick' but he wants to see to it that these tracts fulfill the
obligations and concerns of the community .
Mr. Hopson stated that as a matter of°'practical concern, two maps expire on
Wednesday, the 22nd of June, while another expires a week later. Further, he
is not sure what the developer could provide in the interim that would satisfy,
r. Barker's concern without making him start again.
Planning Commission Minutes June d, 198
Mr. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, representing Tentative Tract No.
10349, stated that they concur with the addition of the condition with the
CC&R's. Further, that this is an infill tract and completes the block. Mr.
Williams stated that they, agree to all local feeder trails required by the
City and would see that this condition is adhered to.
Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to Sapphire, there should be a
trail on the west side.
Mr. Williams replied that at the time they did the tract they did not now if
there was one there but he indicated that there is adequate room to
provide it.
Commissioner Stout stated that sidewalks would be necessary because there is
only a horse trail now.
Mr. Williams replied that Mr. Rougeau can comment on sidewalks but there is
enough area to provide both a trail and sidewalks. He indicated that they do
not have any strong feelings one way or the other and they are sure they oan
comply.
Mrs. Pam Henry, representing the Park and Trails Committee, stated that the
Kelber Development has conformed to the standards but that it is important
that the trails on Sapphire be shown. She indicated that they have finalized
the trail plan and that side of Sapphire is where it would be.
Mrs. Henry stated that with regard to the Auden" Tract No . 10046, the gentlemen
who owns the boarding stable is concerned that no horses will be allowed next
door to him. He indicated that he does not want to be boxed in and felt that
this tract should conform to the higher standards of the Council.
Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to Tract 10349, the condition
should be clarified in that there is no sidewalk on Sapphire. He indicated
that sidewalks are unnecessary because it is a horse trail all the way and it
should stay that way.
Commissioner Barker asked if there will be access on the north and if there is
a need for access to the stable area.
Commissioner Stout replied that he does not know.
Mrs. Henry stated that the original plan called for a trail along the Alta
Loma channel and over to Hermosa.
Chairman Rempel stated that the trails will be looked at to be sure that there
is compliance with the provisions of the Council Resolution.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 8, 1983
Motion, Mbved by <Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to;adopt
Item B of the Consent Calendar.
S., TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE TRACTS
Tentative Tract 1 olbar
Tentative Tract 11 Red Hill Partners
Tentative Tract 1 - Auden
Tentative Trot 17 Arrddn
"Tentative Tract 11 Roberta Group.
Tentative Tract 11 Marlborough
lborough
PUBLIC HEARINGS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS SS E T AND ZONE CHANGE 1 RISTESO A change of
zone. from A-1 (Limited Agricultural) t (General Business Commercial)
for 13.1 acres of land in the A 1 zone (S pending) located at the
northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue
APN 10 i°-401 1 , 03.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7 SHRIST SON
Tb development of the Virginia Dare Center, a business park consisting
of office, banking, and restaurant uses comprising of 10 buildings on
13.1 acres of land in the A l zone (S pending) located at the northwest
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue APN 1 77-4 1 01 , 03.
Senior Planner, Michael airin, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Rempel opened the public bearing.
M. Donald Christeson, 1'7522 Fitch, Irvine, the developer, stated that he and
Glean Glatny of the Bissell Company, the architectural firm, were
available to answer any questions. Mr. Chri tenon indicated that he had
slides s available if the Commission wished to view theta and, indicated that they
could ask for several modifications in the requirements.
riataann indicated in the May 5,, 1983 letter from the City, Item 1A
requires an equestrian easement of 30 foot along the flood control channel and
asked that a portion of that trail in the lower southwest corner of the
property be allowed to deviate from the required width by 5 feet. He
indicated that this would allow for parking and the driveway as shown on the
Further, they have triad to work with General Telephone to shrink the
depth of the planters carrier and to allow parking in the bank along with
additional landscaping, but General Telephone has refused.
Planning Commission Minutes - Joao 8, 1983
'1
Mr. Christeson asked that the 15-foot equestrian right-of-way be reduced to 10
feet. He also shed for clarification on Item 5, page 2, requiring tree
planters every seven car spaces. He indicated that they could rearrange this
to get compact cars rather than full size cars and not lose the parking count.
Mr Chr,isteson also asked about Item 5B, the construction of the Haven Avenue
landscape median, indicating that they do not oppose this but asked for relief
in the bonds for construction until Lewis Homes and the City are sure of the
design.
Mr. Vairin to he would be able to provide aoi=ents on the three items
Mr. Christeson mentioned.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Vairin stated that the tree planter wells are still conceptual and must
come back for a final plan. He indicated that what Mr. Christeson has in mind
would meet the parking requirement.,
With regard to the regional trail issue, Mr. Vairin indicated that the strip
is 20 feet wide and with the addition of landscaping that will be put in even
if it were reduced by the requested five feet, it will appear as 20 feet.
Further, with regard to the Haven Avenue median, this has been discussed with
engineering staff and coordination as described by Mr. Christeson would be
appropriate.
Chairman Rempel stated that one thing that must be looked at regarding the
trail is that no one seems to know where it will go one it gets to
Foothill. He indicated that a trail should be looked at that 'would really
be used.
Commissioner Barker indicated that Mr. Vairin made a good point and stated
that there will be adequate room for the minimum 10 foot trail. Of the 30-
foot regional trail, 10 feet is devoted to asphalt witb the remaining 20
devoted to landscaping and trail. Since they are only asking for a 51
deviation, 15 feet of trail will still r in.
Commissioner Stout stated that there is already 10 feet of asphalt along than
creek.
Chairman Rempel stated that it would be all right to deviate but felt that it
should be for the entire length of the property rather than just the section
indicated by Mr. Cbristeson. He indicated further that this is especially
true if the County will give him the additional easement.
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Rougeau if there is a need for a deceleration
lane.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 8, 1983
r. Rougeau replied that this is d goad feature o add and is not in the
conditions but would be good for all the driveways along Foothill because they
will be used in the future. indicated that the only additional width
needed is 6 feet.
Commissioner Stout asked it there is anytbingneeded on Haven.
Mr. nugeau replied that it world not change the right-of-way line.
Commissioner Stout stated that it is hard to conceptualize but be does not
knew what this area will be like in 20 years and this should be considered .
He felt "that 'there should be a deceleration lane north can Foothill and went on
Haven as determined by the traffic engineer.
r Hopson advised the Commission to act on the zone change first and then the
site plan.
Motion: . �bved by Stout, seconded; by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 7 , approving zone change;8 1, , issuing Negative
Declaration.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to 'adopt
Resolution No. d , approving Conditional Use Permit d 7 and issuing d
Negative Declaration, with an amendment to add deceleration lands, 5-foot`
encroachment requested on Deer Creek channel, and a lien agreement for the
median inland.
7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to make an additional request
with regard to the previous project. He asked that a letter be seat over the
Mayor's signature :requesting Gene l Telephone to cooperate with the developer
of the Virginia Dare Center.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by WNiel, carried unanimously, to request
that the Mayor send such a letter.
Joe Dilorio, care Forward and indicated that Mr. Ralph Lewis is a member
of the board of General Telephone and indicated that he may be able to
personally speak with the chairman of the board
Chairman ire el stated that perhaps the Mayor could write a letter to Mr...
Lewis to get it to General Telephone.
I
Planning Commission ion iinute 7 June B, 1983
I
i
----------
Commissioner Stout stated that whenever you write a letter, it commits the
person receiving it to a response. fie indicated he would rather take this
approach than the more informl one.
Commissioner Barker asked if Commissioner Stout would like a polite letter set
with a copy,to Mr. Lewis.
* a * * *
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12414 - ALMAR - A total
development and subdivision of 12.3 acres into 93 lots comprising of 92
detached single family units in the R-2 zone , generally located south of
Mignonette Street between Beryl and Opal Streets - APN 202-032-71 .
Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Re el opened the public hearing.
Mr. Terry Lane, engineer representing the developer and Mr. Curt Beckmeier,
the architect, stated they are in agreement with the requirements for
approval.
Mr. Robert Brown, owner of the property to the south and east of this, proposed
development stated that his property is zoned A-1 and asked what future effect
this development will have on his property.
Mr. Hopson replied that the A zone currently is not in conformance with the
General Plan; however, it has not as yet been changed . W. Hopson stated
,further that regardless of what zoning change occurs, Mr. Brown will be able
to keep his property and use it the way he has been without anyone
stopping him.
Chairman Rey el stated that if Mr. Brown has one-half acre of property or
more, he will be able to continue the keeping of animals on it.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Oomnissioner Stout stated it was his understanding that during the Design
Review process there was some recommendation regarding the recreational
vehicle parking and he is unable to tell if it is there or not.
Mr. Dreakman replied that there is a condition 'that moves the <recreeationrl
vehicle storage area which is buffered and hidden from view of the street and
the single family dwellings.
Commissioner Stout asked if the compact car spaces would require redesign of
the house.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 8, 1983
r Dreckman replied that it does but there is no problem with the applicant.
Commissioner, Beaker asked if there will be some gray of providing water.
r. Dreckman replied that this can be added.;
Chairman Rempel ;asked what the distance is between the paved area
in
the
recreational vehicle parking yard and how wide a buffer there is.
Mr. Gomez replied th t the Design Review Committee recommended a minimum 2
foot setback.
Chairman Rempel asked how wide the landscape island is mince this problem i
practically in his front yard. He asked if there will be adequate screening.
Brockman replied that there will be a concrete block wall around, the
existing parcel which will pull It down.
Chairman Rempel stated that the wall will only be 4 feet high.
Chairman Rempel t to that one condition he would like to see imposed would
be that some of the specimen treed they are to put in the front yard be placed
where the vehicles are parked so that the recreational vehicles,gill not be
sticking up.
Commissioner Stout stated that the police want to be able to see in because
they will be array from :the houses.
Commissioner Ranker recommended that a lot of care be taken in the location of;
the parking area because of the overhang. He indicated that you could end up
wearing the tree rather than parking under it.
'airin stated that his understanding of condition E-5 is that it requires
a minimum percentage of" trees. He indicated that this can be added to or it
can be consolidated in the parking area.
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Rou eau what a bubbler structure is
Rou eau replied that it is a catch, basin that works in reverse. He
indicated that during a storm it comes bubbling out and goes into the street.
Lion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker;, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 8 -80 , approving Tentative Tract No. 12414 and issuing
Negative Declaration with an amendment` to provide water facilities within the
recreational vehicle storage area and ;specimen trees
Planning Commission Minutes - dune 8, 1983
H. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL AID U A LIC , INC. A
INi on of:8.5 acmes into 2 lots within Subarea of the Industrial
Specific Plan located at the southeast cornea of Arrow Route and Helms
Avenue APN 209-021-25.
Senior Cavil, Engineer, Raul R u eau, reviewed the staff" report.
Chairman Re el stated that his ;agenda packet does not contain a reap being
son on the screen and suggested that this be coordinated in the future
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing
Mr., Gary Sanderson, Linville and Associates, representing the applicant,
agreed with all conditions of approval.
Mr. Hopson stated that the applicant cant ou ld split the parcel and would have to
encumbers this in any event with a deed of trust.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. - 1 , approving Parcel Kap 7972, issuing a Negative
Declination
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
1 amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan regarding
development standards for interim use.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff reportindicated that there
would be a language change to Section I of the Resolution to allow the
permitted interim uses with the provision that no permanent buildings are
constructed F'urther° that as a condition of approval, an agreement between
the City and applicant shall be completed stipulating timing, installation of
permanent improvements and buildings and/or restoration of the site to its
original condition.
Commissioner Stout stated his agreement with the changes and asked that the
paragraph in Section l be broken down for easier understanding.
Chairman n Re pel opened the public hearing.
There being no furthers comments, the public hearing was closed,.
Motion* ed by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 01 A, recommending that the City Council approve these
amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan regarding development
standards for interim usesam
Planning Commission Minutes 1 dune 8, 1983
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
J. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL GUIDELINES - Amending Resolution 1 establishing
trail design standards
City Planner, Rick Gomez , reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout stated that a. few things should be kept in mind with regard
to; the proposed guideline arranged which would require some fine tuning as they
go on. He .indicated that the changes are feasible and could be modified to
conform with the intent of the guidelines. He indicated that this i
especially true where the slopes and landscaping are to be retrofitted.
Commissioner Stout stated that this should not be thought of as being a
complete plan but should put people on notice that the City means business
when it talks about horse trails
Commissioner Juarez asked how much implementation of this pan will cost.
Cbairman Re el replied that what Commissioner Juarez is asking is who will
bear the cost of this plan and he stated that the trails will be put in by
developers. He indicated that in the retrofit area it would be difficult to
cone up with a cost figure.
Commissioner Juarez asked if this is gust for new subdivisions or if it will
be for those who already have horses and stalls
Hopson stated that the proposal before the Commission from staff would
impose conditions on new development.
Gomez stated that these guidelines are defined through the ,General Plan.
Chairman Rempel indicated that rather than calling the standards proposed,
maximum standards, they should be called optimum standards especially as they
relate to the degrees of grading. Further, in some areas the percentage of
grade is inadequate for run off and would create puddling during ra.in® He
felt that there should be a minimum of a four percent grade and that
engineering staff" should be consulted regarding this
Commissioner Stout questioned Chairman Re el's statement and asked of there
would have to be a retaining orall to ensure adequate grading.
Chairman Rertpel stated that a slope is what is required where the dirt is
very loose. Further, it is ridiculous to take in that much land in orders to
cut the slope
Planning Commission Minutes -11_ June d, 1983
Commissioner Stout asked if the travail will, be wide enough if this were done.
Chairman Rempel replied that it would be
Gomez stated that in the grading ordinance, -1 is the maximum without the
retaining wall and that the Commission is not saying anything more than an
assurance of consistency with the grading ordinance
Commissioner ar erg asked if the possibility exists of rewriting the
guidelines to cover this
Chairman Rempel stated that these should really be corrected and rather than ;
saying they are ma c i ms, they should say optimums.
Gomerstated that this can be worked out with the Equestrian Committee and
also be discussed with the 'Building Official.
Commissioner Stout did not feel this should go back to the Equestrian
Committee but was something that: could be worked out with engineering staff.
Gomez stated that this would be discussed with both Engineering and ,
Building and Safety.
Chairman Rempel pointed out needed changed in ,standard drawing No' . 1007,
1008, 1009 and 1010.
Pair Henry, Trails member of the Park andCommittee, stated that the figures
used in the standard drawings were based on research and came from other° areas
where they have been used and tested Further, that the trail manual which
was used for these standards , recommends that these be optimum standards.
Mrs. Henry spoke of the drainage easements.
Chairman Rempel replied that the trails would be better designed with a six
percent cross.
Mrs. Henry stated that she is concerned that if the guidelines; go to, the
engineering department the Park and Trail.s Committee will. not have the benefit
of input. She indicated that her :fear* in that they aright overlook certain
problems and asked that the Park and Trails Committee look over any changes a
d safeguard
airin stated that with regard to cross grades in rural areas and the
steeper parts of town; there is<normally a cross slope of percent. He
indicated that this is used mostly for cads lot drainage and that this
particular standard could be rewritten.
Chairman Rempel suggested that the extruded concrete fence called out in
standard No. 1010 be made of white concrete, a 'High Early.
Planning Commission Minute -1 Jane 8, 1983
Commissioner Stoat asked about High-Early and whether it is s special brand
name or a. type of concrete.
Chairman flerapel stated that it is a type of"' white cement and rather than
saying that the members e painted white, for maintenance they should be made
of a white cement.
Commissioner Stout asked if there is some provision for trails that go around
driveways.
Rou eau replied that this is covered for street crossing on note number
nine.
Commissioner Stout stated that there is only one; condition that has not been
clarified and that is the side slope
Chairman Re pel felt that the standards should be written as optimums rather
than maximums.
Gomez replied that the proper language will be inserted.
Motion: , ed by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to;adopt
Resolution No. 81 3 to establish design standards with the amendments as
prdpsed by the Commission.
K. PROPOSED PARKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT STUDY SESSION
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He indicated ted that
the parking ordinance amendment ent is a proposed item and will come back to the
Commission at their June 22 meeting
Commissioner ,Stout asked with respect to single family dwellings, are carports
allowed.
Vair in replied that the standards will allows garages or oarports, if
approved by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner, Stout asked if this is how the definitions are interpreted and
how the proposed ordinance will be written.
ai *in replied that if Commissioner Stout does not like the idea of a.
carport at all it can be changed however, staff was trying to create some
design 'flexibility.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 dune 8, 1983
Commissioner tout stated that philosophically he does not believe that
language permitting mittin carports should be introduced because human mature tends
to make people take the less stringent route. He felt that if you day carport
instead a garage,e, you would be startingm thin . He indicated he was not
completely against carports as they may be appropriate in some areas.
ya rin indicated that d hardship clause allowing; carports could be written
into the ordinance.
Commissioner tout replied that ;he would like to see it structured.
Chairman Rar p l stated that most ordinances state that you must have two
covered spaces
. Vairin stated that most single family units designate garages.
Chairman Rempal stated that carports encourage the dismantling of cars.
Va rin stated that staff has not had anyone come in with d single family
tract who has wanted to install carports.
Chairman Rampal stated that the cording can be changed to encourage garages.
Tram was discussion on whether the issue of carports on a single Family
dwelling could be allowed through a variance or minor deviation procedure with
the conclusion that this would be a costly way of allowing the carports under
some circumstances.
ADJOURNMENT
Motions Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
7 p.m. The Planning iaaion adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
,
dA LAM, Secretary
Planning iaaion Minuted -1 dune d, 1983
CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MI UT
Regular Meeting
y P , 1983
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissionheld ;at the
Liens Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Rosa, Rancho Cucamonga, was celled
to order t 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Herman Rempel. He then led in the pledge of
allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barkert Addle Juarez, Larry Niel,
Dennia Stout, Herman Rempel
ABSENT: C OMM I I R R ;: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Robert Dougherty,
City Attorney Rick Gomez, City Planner; Joan Kruse,
Administrative Secretary; Peal Roo e rr Berrien Civil
Engineer; Michael ydir°irr, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Rempel announced that students from the Upland High School Government
classwere in attendance and he welcomed them.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Stout requested that the Minutes of Aprh.il. 27, 1983, page 10,
paragraph 4 be corrected to read ; . . .any thought to running Summit.. . rather
than . . any thought to closing Summitt. . .
Chairman Rempel requested ted that a correction be made to page 9, paragraph 6,
. ..by moving,the driveway submitted. . . rather than ., . .by moving the building
submitted.
Motion: Moved by Stoat, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of April , 1 6 -
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Stout requested that Item R be removed from the Consent Calendar
for further discussion.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve
Item A
A THE EXTENSION - ,TENTATIVE 'TRACE" 11610 - RL
B. REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO RESOLUTION 81-110 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11 -» TAC
DEVELOPMENT
Commissioner Stout stated that because of the negative recommendation by
staff", he wanted to know ghat type of agreement would have to be provided by
the developer in order* to get around the problem.
Robert Dougherty, ;City Attorney, explained the kind of agreement that
would be needed and advised the Commission that the sample agreement which had
been provided to 'there would eliminate the problem. He further explained the
escrow procedure indicating that the Department of Rest Estate could approve
the set of CUR's and recommended that the planning Commission consider
adoption of- the resolution contingent upon an agreement with the developer.
Dougherty stated that the resolution refers to the articled of
incorporation but recommended that the wording be changed to read that a
replacement agreement would be entered into
Mr. Terry Christensen, 7333 Hellman, the developer, explained the difficulty
of timing it getting the loan approved contingent upon approved CC R's. He
stated that the R's world be completed before the certificate of occupancy
is issued
Commissioner Stout stated that this project had been approved on
September 23 , 1982 and asked whys it took so long to come before the
Commission.
Mr. Christensen istensen replied that because of the economy and the cost of financing ,
they, had postponed the project. Further, the CCoR's were not completed
because they are a front end east of approximately $6,000 which they deal not
wish to incur without the project moving forward
Commissioner Stout asked ghat the current City policy is regarding C R's and
why, they are required at the time of recording the ,reap
d Dougherty replied that the timing is not arbitrary, and they should be
recorded at ; he time the rasp is aria for final conside °tionFurther, that it
is not absolutely necessary at that time except that the City must retain
control. He indicated that it would be all right if they have C R's recorded
before occupancy takes place and should be recorded at the same time as the
final map in order to retain control..
Chairman Re' el explained the process for the edification of the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1983
tion s Moved by McNiel, seconded by Juarez , carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 81w-110A with are amendment to the resolution to require a
replacement agreement rather than Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners
Association
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 0 4 m- VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - A
request to e; -and existing lodularx bank building by adding an additional
936 square feet and related parking; plus requesting an extension of time
for the time limits on the modular building. This facility is located at
8158 Vineyard Avenue
Senior Planner, Michael. Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He stated that the
current City ordinance governing the issuance of Conditional Use Permits
requires consent of the legal property owner, or in the event that the
applicant is not the legal property owners, a statement from the legal owner
that the applicant is the authorized agent for the property. Mr. Vairin
stated that such consent or authorization has not yet been received and
therefore the applicant cannot proceed.
Dougherty stated that the applicant's attorney has just furnished a letter
to him for
his review in which the first paragraph refers to a letter dated
January 20 , 1981 mould give authorization to the applicant. He asked for time
to review the letter and asked that this item be deferred to later in the;
agenda
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRAgTS 1231 1 31 a 1 LEWIS
HOMES - A total residential development of 73 single family detached
d-tellin s on 73 lots ranging from 14841 squaw feet on 13.74 acres of
land , generally located on the south side of Base Line, on the west side
of Deer Creek Channel.
E. IRO ENT L ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRA 1 1 �
1lll A total residential development of 100 single family detached
dwelrl_in s on 100 lots ranging from 3960 square feet to 7500 square feet
on 14.29 acres of land generally ;located on the east side of Hagen, contra
of Base Line
Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff reports.
Chairman Rempel opened_ the public hearing
. Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Homes, ;stated that they are familiar with
the conditions and have no problem with them.
Planning Commission Minutes y 25, 1983
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Commissioner McNiel stated that in Item E, existing property banes onto Haven
and asked what is goingto separate the rear of that property.
Coleman replied that in the planned community text there are standards
along Base Line that call for a block wall and landscaping and supplemental to
the text, this will contain berming and landscaped treatment in the parkway.
Further, this wound be a meandering sidewalk.
Commissioner t urt asked if the recommendations of the Design Review Committee
have been accepted and incorporated into the text
Baez replied that they have been and there is no further problem.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adapt,
Resolution o. 83-69, approving "Tentative "'Tracts 12316 and 1 3 6 1 , issuing
Negative Declaration.
Commissioner ar° erg stated that there had been a large number of concerns by
staff and the Planning Commission regarding these projects. Commissioner
Barker further stated that the Lewis Company did a sincere job of meeting
those concerns.
Chairman Rempel stated that this proves that the existing Design Review
process really works.
C. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 81-14 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK
A request to expand existing modular bank building by adding an
additional 936 square feet and related parking; plus requesting are
extension of time for the time limits on the modular building. This
facility is located at 8158 Vineyard Avenue.
Dougherty stated that the firm of Buxbaum and Chakmakhas provided a letter
which he read; however, the question remains whether Mr. Rodriquez,_the owner
f the property has any say in this. Further, the letter states that the bank
is responsible for all temporary improvements and the lessor is responsible
only and will reimburse se for those improvements which will become part of the
permanent improvements. He indicated that it is the interpretation of
. Buxbaum that the landlord dos not have anything to say. Yr. Dougherty
questioned whether the improvements ovements that the bank wants to make are temporary
or whether they are considered permanent.
Mr. Vairin replied that the improvements will be temporary.
Mr. Dougherty stated that under the circumstances,s, it would appear that this
is correct and that Mr. Rodriquez' approval is not required on those
improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes .y 25, 1983
airin stated that in that case, i the Planning Commission ,chooses to
goys forward, there are two blanks for a new expiration date and asked the
Co mission if they wished to continue this extension on an annual basis or
crake an extension that would be consistent with the lease
Commissioner Parker asked how long an extension date would the Commission be
allowed to give
Chairman Pe pel replied that it could be extended indefinitely but the
Commission has not granted any beyond two years.
r ai in stated that there is no limitation on an interim use and from a
policy standpoint this project has been granted the longest extension.
Chairman Redrpel stated that there should be a longer terra than one year but
there should be another condition placed on the project which states that if
another modification or building is dune it would bring the conditional use
permit tack to the Planning; Commission, and if any development should occur it
would spar the permanent facility.
r~. Vairin replied that the Commission can modify any condition of approval on
the original resolution and if they wished to key in under section 3, the date
could also be modified.
Chairman Rerrlpel stated that it is not ;a good procedure to mix temporary with
permanent modifications.
Commissioner Stout asked what would be used to trigger it
Chairman Rempel replied that it could be done if the permit were pulled, any
part of the center began to develop, or if the plans were given to the
Building and Safety Division.
ai« in stated that he could provide the language for this.
Commissioner Stoat asked if the expiration cute of the ground lease is known.
Chairman Pempel opened the public hearing
. Stave Sensenbach, the applicant, Mated that they have been in negotiation
with the property~ owner for about a year. He indicated that they will
continue negotiation but were unable to do so at this time.
'. Sensenbach stated that the existing ground lease is indefinite but they
have been given 5 years by the board of directors of the bank and they desire
to develop the property. Further, that it is necessary that they expand the
building now.
Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1
Commissioner Stout stated that the bank has a ground lease that can go longer
than 5 years and asked if it includes the right to develop that particular
corner, of the shopping center. Additionally, what was the expiration date of
that five year period
. «ensenb ch replied that it will expire in September 1986.
There being no further comments the public hearing was closed
Commissioner Stout stated that he sees no ;reason to bring.this back on an
annual basis inasmuch as the expiration date of the ground lease could be the
triggering mechanism.
Motions Moved by Stoat, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 8 7 A, approving the modification of Conditional Use Permit
No. 81 04 , with d modification to the resolution language to allow expiration
of the CUP to coincide with the ground lease in September 1986.
F. i IR ENTAL ASSESSMENT All CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. °-0 ,
E—NDERCARE e 'development of a 8400 square foot child care center for
in er are Child Learning Centers, Inc. , on 1 .1 acres of land in the C 2
zone, located at 10100 E. Foothill Boulevard APR 2 8- 1-21
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7891 - KINDERCARE LEARNING,
CENTERS, INC. A division of 2.9 acres into 2 parcels within the C-2
zone located at 10100 E. Foothill Boulevard APN 208- 81- 21 . (Related
File: CUP 88 0
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. 8e recommended that two
additional conditions be incorporated in the conditions of approval the
earth tonne fiberglass roofing material proposed on the main building shall be.
used on the entrance cupola; and brick veneer detailing shall be provided on
all exterior elevations. The use of T1-1 1 cedar plywood shall not be
allowed. Relative to the parcel map , he indicated that the subdivision of
parcel No. 1 would create an approximate 1 .2 acre parcel.
Commissioner Stout asked if the block wall belongs to the property owner of
parcel 9337.
Mr. Gomez replied that he believed it was built :in conjunction with the
adjacent property.
Commissioner Parker stated that he has some concern with access from Foothill,
getting card into the parking lot and dropping children off at the school. He
asked if any adjustments had been made.
r. Gomez replied that they have been made and they will have s shared
driveway.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 y 25, 1983
Chairman Hempel opened the public hearing.
r u Slaughter, construction supervisor for this project, stated that he
realized that the minimum required parking spaces for this project is 40, but
he felt that for the size of this school only 25 spaces are needed. He raked
for s reduction in the space requirement to 30 with the freed spaced to be
rased as additional playground space.
Gomez stated that his only recommendation would be that the Commission
consider theapplicant 's concern in conjunction with a variance He indicated
that this item could be continued pending this said brought back to the
Commission.
:daughters expressed some concern with the recommendation that the red bell
tower color be changed He indicated that this is a trademark of Kinderc re
and would create identity problems
r Garnet stated that the roof material color would be incorporated into the
tower per the recommendation of the Design Review Committee.
r Slaughters stated that the little red school house' effect is what they,;
strive for and this would create some problems for them. He indicated that h ,
had a film of ghat they have used; before but it would have to be shown at
another timeFurther, that he does not wish to hold up the conditional use
permit because of the tower being red or brown.
Chairman Rempel stated that Mr. Slaughter should accept the conditions as
proposed and then came back with some renderings to show the Commission as
there might be something that the Commission can do.
Gomez stated that the Commission might suggest that this be reviewed b
the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Stout asked about the existing ?gall and how this would be tied
into the project
r Slaughter replied that this is not, their property and if approval is not
received from the property owners the wall would be placed on the applicant 's
property Brae or inside the line
Commissioner Stout asked what Yr. Slaughter would do if he is unable to get
the property owner's concurrence.
He indicated that they would build a wall right next to the present wall that
would have the required -inch separation.
Commissioner Stout asked why they will use a good wall.
air°in replied that it is being used to be consistent with the theme of
the Michael J's restaurant
Planning Commission Minutes 7 1983
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Re el stated that the'resolution should be written and amended in
such a way to give are opportunity to amend the parking spaces which seers like
d high requirement for a day care center.
°. Gomez replied that a minor deviation would only reduce the requirement by
10 percent
Chairman Re pel stated he felt that this could be worked out and that this
should be brought back to the Planning Commission.
m Gomez stated that the minimum number of spaces would be 40 until that
time.
Commissioner Barker stated that from a practical standpoint, a playground is
better use than parking spaces.
Chairman Re rpel stated that relative ,to the cupola, color, if he can ere up
with a distinct color, he did not feel. it would be too difficult to work this
out as well He felt that there could be a nice blend.
Mr. Gomez stated that ;a minor deviation would sage back to the Commission and
further, that he;would recommend that Condition No. 11 require Design Review
approval along with the ether two conditions he mentioned.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barger, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution ` . -71 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 83-0 , and issuing d
Negative Declaration with the amendments regarding rkin space adjustment,
cupola color and Design Review Committee review.
Motion; Moved by Stout, seconded by McN el, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. 83 7 , approving Parcel Map 7891 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
7.50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
d;:CP p.m. 'The Planning Commission reconvened
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7945 - jUNIPER PROPERTY - A
division of 3.1 ; acres into one lot for condominium purposes within the
1 zone located on the east side of Crave Average between San -Bernardino
Road and Rancheria Drive APN 07 1 3 1 (Related File: DR 11
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 1 RARA CH The
deveI pment of two office buildings totaling 43 ,580 square feet on 3.01
acres ' f land in the -1 zone located at the southeast corner of Crave
Avenue and Sari Bernardino Road - A N 07- 1 07.
Planning Commission Minutes -8 y 25, 1983
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner tarot asked where the deceleration .an is.
Coleman replied that it is shown on the map as a curvilinear line.
Commissioner ,Stout asked how wide it will be.
Rougeau replied that it dues not have to be a full width but will be about
10 1 fact which will help with turning traffic and that it will not interfere
with traffic on Grave
Commissioner Stout commented that it does not appear that the landscaping will
be adversely affected
Chairman R mpcl opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner 10 icl asked what will be dohs about parking at Deane Ma across
the street
Chairman Rempcl stated;that will not be able to :park there anymore.
.
Chairman Rempel asked that when you are talking about the landscaped area on
the east gall are they speaking about the fell length of the property line.
. Gomez replied that,they_are talking about the fall length of the property
lire
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried znan ousl , to adopt
Resolution o. 7 , approving Parcel Map 7945 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
Motion: Moved by- taut, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously , to adapt.
Resolution No. 83-74 , approving Development Review o. d 11 and issuing a
Negative Declaration.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT R 1K C the
do alcp rent of a 193 ,588 square are foot warehouse on 9,.49 acres of land in
the Grrneral. Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea 5) , located at the
southwest corner of kith Street and Lucas Ranch Road - APN 210-032-01 .
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and advised that
Mr. Gabric has distributed a letter dated May 24, 1983 he in he has provided
another landscape island. He indicated that he would refer this design
solution to ;Raul Rougeau for a recommendation with regard to the City 'a access
policy.
Planning Commission Minutes y" 25, 1983
Mr. Rori eau stated that what has been proposed in the letter goes a long gray
it alleviating the problem. Further, that as the letter points out tth
Street ''is envisioned to carry a lot of traffic and will not be as wide as they
would want it to be
. Rou eau stated that there are some constraints on the north side of oth
Street and as it is only getting a secondary street status it will reduce to
less than the secondary. He indicated that the additional driveway requested
would be detrimental to traffic and for the overall good of the area, it
should be deleted
Commissioner Stout stated that Item 2 of the resolution indicates it to be
Lucas Ranch Road and asked if that should be 6th Street
Chairman Rempel stated that you are restricting access on Lucas Rauch Road.
Rou eau; stated that they are restricting traffic on kith Street
Chairman Re pel opened the public hearings'
applicant, stated that the driveway
� Cabr��c� the _pp , should not be deleted
from that particular parcel because it has frontage and by providing
landscaping it will definitely coat truck traffic. He further stated that
traffic generated by passenger vehicles will not be substantial and he felt
would not be adding to the hazard. He indicated that his marketing people
have asked that the driveway remain.
Commissioner Stout asked about what appeared to be an accent stripe on the
building
. Caoric replied that it 'will be a blue colored building which will be sand-
blasted and will have a blue accent stripe. He" indicated that they will
submit a panel_ to show staff.
Commissioner Stout asked about the low doors which will be used by trucks.
Mr. Cabric replied that the doors will be painted a different color.
Commissioner Barker stated that not much of the doors will be seen because of
the landscaping.
Commissioner Barker farther stated that the access into 6th Street is designed
specifically for automobiles and he did not know why the driveway could. not be
placed where the applicant wants it
Rougeau replied that there is a physical problem in getting the best
circulation they can. Further, 'that staff* is trying to draw the Commission's
attention to the policy wherein'if a side street is available, it should be
restricted our a major° arterial street# fie indicated that this is a big, long
parcels on the corner.
Planning Commission Minutes _10- May 25, 1983
Chairman Rem el stated that he would have a problem with that statement in
that this parcel is long enough that according to policy there will not be a
driveway closer than 300 feet He indicated that if there: was no other way to
get access you could still get two driveways. Further, that if you keep
visitor4 parking away from the truck entrance it would be all right.
Commissioner .Stout stated that if you allow the driveway to remain, you should
not have left-hand turns there because it will be a traffic conflict.
r. Rou eau stated that there could be; a driveway off of Lucas Ranch Road
"urther, that it would to better to have a turning lane and better than a
median island on d narrow street.
Chairman Re r el stated that he agreed , but if there is a left turn lane, there
will not be a problem with are island past the driveway because it can be done
practically.
Commissioner Stout stated that he appreciated the applicant's concern with
visibility but has some concern with an extra 100 4l feet. He also ;felt that
the Commission should be careful about changing its policy and felt that d.
precedent would be set that they had bettera'be aware of.
Chairman Rem el stated that the Commission is not setting a precedent; as it is
already what 'exists; Further, there is plenty of room to turns..
Commissioner Barker stated that another consideration would be the 26 truck
loading doors. Further, if there are only two entrances and parking alongside
for the offices and the aorta side, there would be problems with the trucks
coming in and out and asked if they would be compatible.
Rou eau stated that this is another good point. He explained the Cit 's
experience with claims and how they are better to be settled out of court
rather than go into a lawsuit. He indicated that his concern is that turning
into driveways would create problems. He also indicated that deceleration
lanes could vitiate this.
Commissioner Stout asked if the center driveway could ,be striped.
Rou eau replied that it could be.
Commissioner Stout asked if there could be d deceleration lane marked to
disallows trucks
Commissioner darker asked if a -foot lane is necessary if you do not allow
trucks to go in.
ou eau replied that it is a good width even if there are no trucks
allowed
Planning Commission Minutes 11 , 1983
Motion: Moved by tout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously , to have one
driveway access ante kith Street with a deceleration lane for east bound
traffic with the seater island striped for no left tarns. Further, that a
sign n ' some type be posted: for no truck access and the island modified as
submitted in the letter from the applicant.
K. ZONING ORDINANCE R R I l '� � A request to
develop' a church training school and dormitory in the R 1 zone.
Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout asked for the location of the site
Coleman replied that it is located on the southeast corner of 19th Street
and Beryl.
Commissioner Stout asked if there are singe family residents to the south,
north and west of the proposed site.
t
Coleman replied that here are
Chairman Rempel stated that Mr. Coleman had said that the ordinance ;covens
churches and schools but excludes colleges and universities as far as saying
they are permitted in a residential zone.
Coleman replied that it states that they are excluded in a_ R-1 zone
Mr. Vairin read the section of the code relating to this
Chairman Hempel Mated that he did not think it was direr the intent of the
former Planning Commission to have such an exclusion although he is the only
member of the forcer Commission '.still serving
Coleman stated that this is :not the sane as a zone determination and ,asked
that the Commission interpret the church use to include a dormitory or
training school facility.
Chairman Rempel Mated that he would have a problem with that
. Steve Cinti, representing En Agape Fellowship explained their training
program and what the dormitories would be used for. He indicated that it is
not their goal at the present time to become an accredited college or
university but to offer a unique program to overcome' drug and alcohol abuse,
child abuse and unemployment.
Commissioner McNiel asked where they ;are presently housing people.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 25, 1983
Cinti replied they are housed in a number of homes in the community as the
people participating it the program become part of the congregation while they
are here
Commissioner MoNiel stated that what they are seeking is a dormitory to house
G people with an additional 19 people who are staff .
Commissioner Stout stated that W. Ginti has indicated that eventually they
would plan to become a college or university and; asked what they planned to do
with the dormitory at that time.
;
4 Ginti, replied that they wound still use the dorm
Commissioner Niel awed: if Mr. Ginti has any idea of what this will look
litre
r Ginti replied that a sketch has been done but he did not have it with him.
. Vai *i_n skated that theCommission's decision is not on the building o
approval but on the concept in this zone and the Commission would have an
opportunity to review the building and design at a later time.
Commissioner Stout stated that when he thinks of a dormitory, it is no
different than an apartment building and rather than make some exception for
this housing in an P-1 ;,zone where there are single family homes, the
Commission should consider making the site R-3 because he did not feel it to
be compatible with -1 s
Commissioner Barter asked if he is talking about the general area.
Coleman replied that this would take a General Pion amendment.
Commissioner Barker stated that he is more comfortable with that approach than
saying it is or is not a dormitory because either it is an apartment house or
a dormitory or it is not and he would be uncomfortable with that type of
language.
t n e. stated" his agreement n but opened discussion on whether Grra a.r_ el ear a
p
college or university should be in a -3 zone. He felt that the criteria
should not be whether a college or university should be in; a -3 zone or
commercial area but the size of the piece of property. fie stated further that
a private school or church school should build in a residential:, type area
because that is where they belong. He felt that a General Plan amendment
would be the way to go.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 y 25, 1983
. Vairin stated that staff is presently working on the development code an
have found that in looking t dormitory uses other ordinances permit them in
conjunction with larger verses such as colleges or universities. He asked the
Commission if they feel comfortable with having churches added to the
definition and indicated that staff will come to the Commission with a
complete code that would contain this definition in d few months.
" airin stated that, a General Plan amendment or a, zone change is not gored
for this purpose and if the Commission dial not think that this request should
not be handled reader the conditional use permit process, that is the statement
that the Commission should make
Chairman Re el ,Mated that with a Catholic church you have a situation with
housing; for priests and sisters that is close but not the same as this but in
a sense is getting into a dovetailing. He stated further that it bothers him
to say you can build a 50 unit dormitory next to a church
Commissioner MoNiel ;stated that ,it will not be 50 units.
Commissioner Barker stated that it appears to be circuitous rather than
direct approach
Commissioner McNiel stated that ,he liked the concept but has problems.
Gomez stated that staff could develop standards and design compatibility
and with further analysis could core bank to shown how this would fit into a
residential neighborhood.
Chairman Rempel staters that he would go along with that
. Gomez stated that this might also be an issue that is deferred to the
development code ;and that they could combine instead of separate the
analysis. He indicated that this could be deferred for the net few months.
Chairman Re spel stated that he would like to see it sooners than that.
Gomez stated that staff could provide the Commission with information.
Commissioner eel asked what kind of a hindrance it would create for these
people
. Cinti stated that they have money in the bank and would like to get going
as son as possible.
Chairman Hempel Mated that eventually this would have to come before a public
hearing, and following analysis, the Commission will known whether a change
should be made through the development code or smother vehicle. He indicated
that one the Commission sets the standard here it will follow through for the
rest of the City.
Manning Commission Minutes -1 y 25, 1983
The consensus of the Commission is that they will develop criteria and if they
can get something sooner, they will come back.
Commissioner Barker stated that he is still willing to see what staff baits
back but does not want to circumvent the process because they would really be
building an apartment house in a 1 zone.
Commissioner Barker stated he would like to see what the concerns are but'does
not want to circumvent the zoning.
Commissioner Stout stated that he still feels there should be a General Plan
amendment change and perhaps a zoning change.
Gomez stated that it may not be appropriate n this area
L. PROPOSED PARKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report and asked that staff
e given authori tin to move ahead with a passible amendment on parking
standards
Commissioner Stout stated he thought it to be a splendid idea and was for it
1
Mr. Clyde Large, representing Kaufman and Brad agreed with staff and also
asked that they move ahead.
Ms. Kay representing Lewis Homes stated that the are a similar
tl.cael�, epr�ese , P
situation .in ;Terra Vista and if the Commission could act quickly, they would
appreciate it.
Commissioner Stout asked Ms . Matlock if they are thinking of trading parking
spaces for park land
The consensus of the Commission was to proceed on an amendment to the parking
standards
ADJOURNMENT
Lotion: Moved by Stout, seconded by MIcNiel, carried unanimously, to adjourn.
i
'II
Planning Commission Minutes 1 May 25, 1983
9.'05 p.m. The Planning fission ad journed .
Respectfully sub Itted ,
;z
e
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 1 , 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 11 , 1983
CALL ICE ORDER
Chairman, Herman Rempel, called time Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting held at
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Rempel trmar led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry Ni 1, Dennis Stout,
Herman Hempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Addie Juarez
STAFF PRESENT: Ricky Gomez , City" Planner; dwar Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Jan Kruse,
Administrative Secretary ; Jack Lam, Director of Community
Development; Paul Rrmmr eau Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael Vair°irm, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rimy Gomez, City Planner, advised that the City Council will conduct a public
hearing on the Etiwanda Specific Plan on May 17, 1983, p.m. at time Lions
Parr Community Center.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNi l., to approve the Minutes o 'the
Regular Planning i sion meeting of April 1 , 1983.
Commissioners Barker and Hempel abstained because they were not present at
that meeting. Commissioner Juarez was absent
CONSENT AL AR
Commissioner Barker asked that items R and R be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion purposes.
............. -----------
Chairman Rempel asked that item D be removed for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout , carried, to approve items A and C
of the Consent Calendar.
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL IN PRODUCT TYPE FOR 175 CONDOMINIUM UNITS -
TENTATIVE TRACTS 11625 AND 11781 - ROBERTS - A redesign in product type
of two previously approved condominium tracts.
B. EXTENSION OF PARCEL MAP 6114 - VISTA INVESTMENT - Located at the
so-uthwest corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard .
Commissioner Barker requested that each tentative tract listed in Item B be
viewed individually . Further, he indicated that he wished to address three of
the four which were listed.
Commissioner Barker asked whether Tentative Tract No. 9659 bears the
responsibility of a sound attenuation wall around the tract or wuetber
Caltrans assumes this responsibility. He asked how previous Commissions
responded and what protection there is.
Chairman Rempel explained that 'the Caltrans policy is now to install sound
attenuation walls if a development is completed prior to a freeway . He
further explained that it is difficult to impose that kind of requirement on a
developer when it is unknown if a freeway is to be built above or below ground
level.;, Chairman Re el stated that when this particular tract previously came
before the Commission, staff had proposed that the developer construct a sound
attenuation wall.
Mr. Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, the developer, addressed the Commission and
reiterated, that it will be the responsibility of Caltrans to install a sound
attenuation wall if the freeway does not develop before the tract. He further
indicated that a 5-6 foot wall will be installed for each lot for the purpose
of selling the houses.
Commissioner Barker asked if Caltrans is slow in putting in the walls.
Chairman Rempel replied that during the past few years Caltrans has built many
walls for homes adjacent to freeways. Further, that the walls are now
required because of the EIR process and he did not feel that this requirement
will change.
Commissioner Barker went on to discuss Tentative Tract No. 10363. He
indicated that at the time this tract was approved there was no requirement
for a community trail because a Community Trail Element did not exist.
Mr. Gomez replied that a Community Trail Element did exist at that time.
Commissioner Barker indicated that he did not see provisions for it.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 11 , 1963
Gomez stated that there was a condition for implementation of a trail
Commissioner Barker replied that if it is there, there is no probl
Commissioner Barker stated that on "Tract No. 11013, there is a problem with
eucalyptus trees and their location. He stated that the map did not ;actually
identify where these trees are.
Mr. Gomez replied that with the storms last year, the vast majority were
knocked ed down or so severely damaged that they required removal.
Motion: wr d by Barker, seconded by MnNiel, carried unanimously , to adopt
Item B, approving time extensions for Tentative Tract; No. 's 11459, 11013,
10363 and 9659.
Chairman Rempel stated ,that ,there is a problem with drainage going down
Vincent relative to Parcel tip 6114 . He indicated that before approval is
jgiven to change the map, the drainage problem should be taken care of.
ou eau asked ;if the Commission would like an additional condition on how
the drainage would be handled if Vincent is not built.
Chairman Rempel stated that some cities have provisions meet the approval of
the city so that the parcel can be adequately drained without going into the
parcel below it. He further stated that we should have a similar condition.
ltou eau replied that the project engineer would be asked to do this as a
one-half width exists on Vincent and if it could not be built it could be
drained by some temporary means. W, . Rougeau stated that there is also access
to Arrow.
Mr. Tim Mim Mack, <the engineer of this parcel map stated that they have
designed Vincent with a full width; however, one property owner has refused to
sell a portion that is needed. He indicated that they wil.l be able to drain
through a dedication. Mr. Mim Mack stated that they have a grading plan on
file which shows lots 9 through 13 goinginto Vincent Avenue with noire of them
draining directly "south.
Hopson asked what will happen to the little piece of parcel: one that is
west of where the proposed Vincent meets Arrow. Further, does it remain as
part of ;parcel one and it a :little piece was separated on the west by a street
44-feet wide, would it create maintenance problems.
ou eau replied that It will be shown as pant of parcel one and will
require "irrigation with landscaping to be installed as pant of parcel one or
that it be made part of the property with an option f"errs the adjacent property
owner to buy it
r° Hopson stated that this is the ideal thing but this cannot be required.
Planning Commission Minutes - y 11 1983
Mr. Rougeau replied that the condition on the resolution was to take care of
that problem.
Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Rim Mack if he had any dialogue with the
property owner of that little sliver of land about this.
Mr. Miry Mack replied that drainage problems were not discussed but that the,
builder has made adeuqate provisions that drought resistant material is to be
put in.
Chairman Rempel asked if this could be conditioned so that the little piece
will be maintained as a park or something similar.
Mr. Rougeau replied that a homeowners association would have to be established
and the thought was that this be oonditioned so that the owner of parcel one
is responsible for its maintenance.
Chairman Rempel stated that since the parcel is approximtely 6,000-7,000
square feet, it should be conditioned.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the Landscape Assessment District is currently set up
for residential areas only, but felt it could be extended to include this area
as well. Mr. poi eau also suggested that a portion could be used as a park.
Chairman Re el felt that this should be placed within the condition.
Mr. Mim Kack stated that a problem exists with the people who live along the
railroad line. Further, that they have been offered two times what the
property is worth but they refuse to sell their portion of land . He. asked if
the City could implement condemnation proceedings to acquire this property.
Mr. Hopson replied that while the City does have the power of condemnation, he
would not like to second guess the City Council because it is only they who
can do it.
Mr. sou eau replied that the staff is still trying to work something out.
Further, the drainage can be handled , and access is not critical.
Mr. Hopson, stated that with any condemnation action, the public need must be
served and it must be demonstrated that condemnation is the only alternative
before it is exercised.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, that there
be adequate drainage design and that an assessment be added to our Landscape
Assessment District or some, other method to ensure that landscaping is
maintained.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 11 , 1983
Commissioner Barker stated that he was concerned with the lack of amenities
shown on Phase I of the conceptual landscaping plan for Tentative e Tract
12305. Further, that the plan as now shown is not the same tract as had
previously been approved .
r. Gomez replied that the map given to the Planning o ission was incorrect
and that the correct map shows the comments as in Phase I
Commissioner Barker stated he had no other concerns.
Lion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve
this revision per ;discussion using the rre t tract map.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AR PARCEL, MAP 7902 - LING divi i n of 2.37
eras into A parcels within the R-1 zone, lotted on the smith aide of
Wilson Avenue at lberr Avenue - APN 201-181-60. (Continued from
Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 1983.)
Paul R u enrr Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner Stout asked if' anything has occurred on the mirror image parcel
mail across from this.
r R rr eau replied that nothing has happened; however, the upper lot on the
crest aide has a building permit palled, although nothing has final d .
Chairman Hempel asked if the drainage on the north aide of Wilson has been
adequately taken care of
R u e u replied that he has not observed whether it has been taken teas of
but the engineer for the project who is present , could speak to this.
r. Rou e u further replied that some street improvements ire been made Knuth
of this, aunh as the installation of curb and gutter which;has helped.
Chairman Re rpel opened the public hearing.
C. Wilson, civil engineer, stated he has a question regarding the property
to the east. _ He indicated that they do not fret have an approved street plan
but are 'very :close. Further, that they must get,a 10-foot easement from the
property e to complete and finalize the plea. WWilson stated that
3 in the condition of approval should be a -foot easement rather than a
P inch easement
Commissioner Stout asked where the P inch storm drain would go as shown on
the grading plan.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 11 , 1983
r. Wilson replied it will match cap and flow into the planned development to
they south.
There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed.
Motion Moved by W i 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution -64 approving Parcel Map 7902 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
Chairman Rempel asked that"Item , Environmental Assessment and Sign Ordinance
Revisions, be placed at they end of this agenda for further discussion.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1L332 D - A custom
lot residential subdivision of 204 lots on 140.98 aeres of brad in the
R-1-20,000 zone, located on the east cider of Haven Avenue, north of
Hillside Dra irr d Channel APN201-121-12.
Senior Planner, Michael V inrirr, reviewed the staff report He stated that the
Trails Committee had imposed an ,additional condition for a 1 `oot easement at
they north side of lest 74 which is at they very northeast orneir° of the
project. In addition to that there is a requirement for easement where the
edit-west connector trail occurs for a, 5 share of easement.
Chairman l opened the public hearing.
. Paul Edwards, representing the developer, stated: that their in concern
is to create a development with a goad character and they have tried to show
this through the generous use of land apin
. Edwards stated that they have no objections to the conditions, with the
expection of one, which would be addressedby Mr. Frank Williams . Associated
Engineers.
® Williams asked d, about they requirement for sidewalks it this area.
Rou e a replied that to be consistent with Planning i sion policy on
through roads, sidewalks are appropriate on one sides. He indicated that they
are unnecessary on most ul-du- aeaa; however,, on loops or major streets where:'
there is heavy traffic , they are necessary.
. Williams stated theme is no objection to sidewalks on one side of the
trert<
Commissioner stout ached why people could not walk on they equestrian trails .
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Mir 11 , 1983
Chairman a l replied that the _r on for the requirement r sidewalks i
because in the rainy y season the trails are rendered itVassible. H indicated
that school children need somewhere to walk where they will not het covered
with gaud
Commissioner a r r stated has agreement with Chairman Rempel.
Chairman stated that he did not see anything that shows where" the
drainage will occur on the cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Williams stated that drains are shown on the map
Commissioner Stout questioned lot 144.
. Williams replied that this particular lot is s large one and was given s
number because they don't know what its disposition will be. Further, that
the Flood Control District has not yet made up its mired and if it becomes s
usable property it will remain tears until they know whether they can use it
and will be withheld until the Brad of the ro c"t.
MWilliams stated that it would be in the developer's interest to hold this
lot as long s possible in order to allow a decision from the Flood Control
District.
aiairman Rempal stated that these bats will; have to come back to Design Reviews
to be sure there is draina
Commissioner r rA asked if it will be necessary to put that condition in.
r^. Hopson replied that it is already there unless it cures in for further
subdivision
Commissioner Mc ti l asked if the developer intends to develop approximately
lots in each phase and whether phase one will start at Hawse
Williams replied yes, that it is essential.
I'
Commissioner Mc Niel asked what the development time will be on this project.
Mr. La Band, the developer , replied that it is very difficult to state and h
intends to go slow He had no time plan. it
. Williams explained that this is an eight-phase concept and that the numberis an I
in size ducrtny one in order to divide the thccrrurcccrraditicrrrr att�ai sdect ta. oir�tc Brae that is workable I
Commissioner Barker asked about landscaping requirements.
Vaarin replied that they will be required to be installed with the street ,
improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 11 , 1983
Mr. Hopson stated that two conditions would indicate that there is to be a
homeowners association and asked how it would be net up; if it would be
immediate; and how the interior lots would be maintained.
Mr. Williams replied that a homeowners association is necessary for the
equestrian easements and landscape area and that it may be necessary to annex
into a maintenance assessment district.
Mr. Vairin stated that the condition is worded in such a way that the City
would be covered no matter which way thsY go.
Mr. Roy Schauben, representing the Deer Creek Homeowners Assooiation, stated
that the applicant, through Mr. Williams, had met the homeowners association
on this project. Further, that a number of issues had been mitigated through
this meeting; however, the association has concerns about the architecture
that will result from this project. He indicated that this project will have
to be architecturally correct since they will be in the Deer Creek community.
Mr. Shanben also voiced strong concern over the bridle trails that would be in
the rear of the homes. He indicated that the trails are in the front of homes
in Deer Creek and this requires neatness. Mr. Shauben also voiced concern
with landscaping and how much would be put in initially. Further, that in
order to feel secure with the project to the north, they were willing to
accept the trails if it meets the Deer Creek homeowner association specs and
guidelines. He then asked that they be required to be placed through their
CC&R's under the Deer Creek Homeowners Association.
Chairman Rempel stated that one problem with this is that the trails in front
of the property are private and those proposed in this project are public.
Mr. Shauben stated that the trails on Haven and Wilson are community trails.
Chairman Rempel stated that this is not true.
Mr. Vairin stated that a regional trail is shown on the north side of the
channel but actually will be on the south side, and with regard to the slope
which Mr. Shauben felt was excessive, it was within the Flood Control District
and that the City does not allow more than a two percent crossfall.
Mr. Edwards stated that he has never heard of a preexisting homeowners
association absorbing another one.
Mr. Hopson stated that if Mr. Edwards was asking if this is legally possible,
it is; however, it cannot be compelled. He indicated that the mechanism for
this would be for the existing homeowners association to vote on accepting the
new project and while it is legally possible to do so, it may not be forced.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 11 , 1983
Commissioner 'Barker asked if what Mr. Vairin is sayingis that the regional
trail will be on the south side of the Flood Control channel.
airirr replied that it will be and that the local trail will occur on
individual Late. He indicated that it will be elevated above the Flood
Control 'channel and will be on these lots.
Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Hopgon if there is any authorityon the part of
the City to enforce or require are agreement as discussed by the Deer, Creek
Homeowners Asex i ti er
Hopson replied that the City can r¢ep it his developer to come rip with are
agreement on trails and, landscaping but may not require them to become a part
of the Deer Creek Homeowners Association.
Commissioner Stearn stated that the Regency tract has rear lest trails and that
they are well maintained. He then asked if it is intended to keep this
private
Mr. Edwards replied that it is intended that the interior be kept private.
Commissioner Stout asked if there is some reason this is preferable.
ai in explained the difference between a community and individual trail.
Commissioner Stout stated that while Deer Creek is one of the finest tracts in
the City, he dries not see anything ron with the way; this project is
deemed
Commissioner tout asked what the mechanics are to give special notice to the
Peer Creek Homeowners Association when this project is reviewed.
Mr. ai in replied that the City has a good system for notification purposes
and that the; Deer Creek Homeowners are contacted; on these items.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded nded by McNiel, carded unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. d : approving Tentative Tract 12332, and issuing a Negative
Declaration with are amendment for are additional trail condition
8:20 p.m. 'The Planning Commission recessed
8:37 p.m. the Planning Commission n reconvened
d
Planning ommis i n Minutes s May 11 1983
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL tjAP 7 - BARTON - A division of
13.22 acres into parcels 'within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner ner of Havers Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard - AP - -1 .;
Commissioner i el stepped der from discussion on this item due to a
possible confliet of interest.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
James Barton, the applicant, stated that he has threeconcerns: the
35-foot dais standard on ravers and 0 fo t drive on Foothill. He stated that
he discussed both of these with :Paul and they are both acceptable with him.
Mr. Barton stated that under the street improvement tion, the median .island
for Ravers which was discussed at the March 9 meetingwould have a bored posted
for it and would -be dares at the name time that the County doss theirs.
There teeing no further comments, the bli hearing was closed.
Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 7, approving Parcel map 7963 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
I
NEW BUSINESS
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND E LOP ENT R VI --0 D AR S - "The
development of a 3,858square foot auto service building n .37 acres of
land in the -2 zone, located on the north side of Foothill. Boulevard ,
7501 east of Grove APN 207 112-7
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner tut asked to sae a location map and ghat alley the applicant
was requesting to be vacated. Mirther, he asked if that allay vacation has
been cleaned with the single family property owners to find out if they would
no longer~ have access
R ugeau replied that the west Brad would hrarra to be looked at, however,
they would have to look at the access.
Commissioner, ?tNiel asked if the alley is currently being used by the
homeowners.
Rougeau replied that the alley is not paved, however, it is being used.
Planning Commission Minutes May 11 , 1983
Commissioner Stow: stated that he would hate to see someone with a
recreational vehicle left with no place to park it .
lr. Rou eau replied that the notification process ould provide an opportunity
for these homeowners to come forward. , Further, that no one has beers, notified
at this point because this is preliminary to the process.
Mr. Rou eau replied that the first step is to go to the City Council with a
report and a recommendation. There a date is set for a public hearing one
oath later. The public hearing is held and that is wherry the City Council
would approve the alley vacation.
Mr. Ruu eau stated that they would have to report on the problem lot with no
front access and that those people could not be forced to put in a front
driveway.
Gerald Edwards, the applicant, indicated that lots one and two are zoned
commercial and are owned by the same person He indicated;that they would be
developed on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Edwards further stated that the alley is
not being used at the present time with the exception of the office building
and that he has not been in touch with any of the property owners regarding
the vacation.
r.° Edwards stated that as far as the staff report is concerned all conditions
are acceptable with the exception of the requirement for bronze glass. He
stated that he is considering a lease to an auto parts supply company and they
will require clear glass. Further, that he is considering within the lease
the provision for good housekeeping.
Chairman Rempel replied that as far as housekeeping is concerned, the shop
keeper will be covered by the Sin Ordinance in ghat he can display and that
would ensure that the area be kept Treat
Edwards reiterated the necessity of having clear glass in the store front
in order to attract customers. He .indicated that it is impossible to tell~
whether a business is rapers or closed due to the inability to see light through
the bronze glass.
yainin replied that the requirement for bronze glass was not staff
directed. lie indicated that the requirement was more; designs related:.
Commissioner Barber stated that this had come up in Design Review and was
based upon the design element.
Commissioner Strut stated that this particular use does not require a
conditional use permit He further stated that he dill not thinly that people
meld like to see parts of an automobile lying around in state of disrepair.
He arcked if there is some condition that would rewire that he not leave the
parts in front of the store.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 1 May 11 , 1983
Mr. Vairin replied that under the zoning ordinance there is a section called
design review which states that if the provisions of the C rdirrace are not
upheld , the shop keeper faces possible revocation of the use. This holds true
for violations of the Ordinance as well.
Commissioner Stout ass if the gate that separates the area will b op
aque.
e
Johnston stated that it will be something that cannot be seen through.
Mr. Edwards, explained the wood slat gate that they used in one of his Pomona
stores
Commissioner Stout asked if the ,lease could contain a clause that there be no
parking in front of the driveway.
Chairman Rer pel stated that the Commission does not have the right to review
the lease
Mr. Hopson ,Mated that a condition of the lease could be that the tenant has
to comply with all conditions of the law. Further, that if the City tells the
landlord that It will shut- the tenant down, he will comply.
Commissioner Navel stated that he has had some experience fence in the retail
situat ,on and the applicant is correct in that you can't tell when a store is
open or closed with the bronze glass.
Chairman Re pel stated that the bottom panel is where the unkempt look will
appear.
Cbmmissioner McNiel requested that the bronze windows be dropped out of the
condition.
Chairman ertpel stated that the 'bottom panel should also be dropped out and
that landscaping: and mounding be placed in front with some type of masonry
like an 1 d-inch bulk head at the bottom.
Cam¢ Edwards stated that if you can't see people: in the store or its
merchandise, you will not know if the store is open
"There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded b Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution , approving Development Review d C1d and issuing a
Negative Declaration, with the deletion for the requirement of a bronze window
and a condition for a, bulk head , and in lieu of item a, the wording suggested
by Mr. Vairin that is contained 'within the Ordinance regarding storage o
automobiles.es as a condition of this project.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 11 , 1983
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS - An amendment to
the Sign Ordinance contained within Title 14 of the llanone Cucamonga
Manicipal Code. This is a comprehensive amendment intended to improve
the administration and to provide for more effective signing. The basic
regulations are not being changed.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that with respect to banners and the use of flags,
the proposed Ordinance says that in a string of flags , a maximum of six may be
used. He asked if that was six flags on a string or six strings of flags.
Mr. Vairin replied that he had been referring to flags on a pole. Strings of
flags is a different category and is permitted for grand opening sales or
special events. Further, they are not listed in this new category.
Commis.sioner Barker asked how many hardships are anticipated .
Mr. Vairin replied a large number; however, they looked at many situations and
found that the vast majority have been removed because of wind damage or
property owner participation. Further, that they are looking at a couple that
are legitimate , and when people ask for a variance, staff sits down and shows
what findings they must comply with in order to establish a hardship.
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
W. Bob Glasscock, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that this
proposed Sign Ordinance is a great improvement and was needed. Further, that
the Chamber of Commerce is very happy with it and it is something that can be
lived with.
Mr. Dave Kiedrowski, hardware store owner, stated that the City will probably
not be able to satisfy everyone but that this Ordinance is a big step
forward. Further, that if it is found that more problems develop perhaps the
Ordinance can be reviewed in a few years.
Chairman Rempel stated that there should probably be some mechanism that would
automatically cause the Ordinance to come up for review in about 18-24 months.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Cotmnissioner Stout stated that Section 26, the rule relative to roof signs
should be stated first and then the exception listed. He indicated that the
first sentence should be revised.
Commissioner Stout stated that he has no problem with the hardship findings
but would suggest that the wording be modified to a better statement of what
the Commission's feeling is with regard to the amortization of signs.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- MY 11 , 1983
Commissioner Stoat stated that anyone who has to replace a sign will feel it
hardship and it should be understood so the wording should be strong.
Further, there should be emphasis on the process and burden. Commissioner
Stout felt that the Sign Ordinance is a good attempt' at balancing the process
Commissioner Barker stated that the proposed Ordinance is a goad piece of work
and that the City can be proud of it. He indicated that many people have
worked hard to pull it together.
Chairman Rempel stated that the size of the directory signs aright be a
problem. Further, that the lettering must be visible to alleviate the problem
with being able to see the sign. He felt that instead of saying it is a
maximum of 16 square feet or 3 X 5, there must he clearance as well. He felt
that the dimensions could he increased to 25 square feet or 5 X t
Commissioner Stout asked why the size is not made dependent report its use in
the shopping center
airin replied that there world be a problem based on the number of
tenants. Furthers that they have as many as 22 in some of the centers and 1
in the others. He indicated that this was done to accommodate 12 tenants.
Commissioner Stoat asked what happens in the event there are 22 tenants
Mr. Vairin replied that they would have to double the sign. Further, in the
larger centers you would want to have the signs on different ends of the area,
and vitae versa
Chairman Re el stated that there has to be some type of system to ensure that
the lettering is not tort small and architecturally appealing. He felt that
limiting the sign to 16 square feet was rather small.
Mr. Ki drowsici stated that the Chairman's point; is well taken and that in the
discussion they did not really think of how fast you must read, in order to be
able to see the sign. _ He indicated that in the Sunrize Center there is a
problem with a 3 X 5 foot sign because of the way the center is laid out He
felt that Mr. "airin 's suggestion of wording on one side and not on the rather
is good and that there should be more leeway.
°. Vairin stated that they could do some sketches to see hoer it would work
and that they did not set in the proposal a maximum number of signs. He
indicated that side-by-side sigma might at have an architectural break within the
design. He further indicated that the kiosk type could be used and that they
will take a look at, the suggestions and o a design
. Lary stated that there mould be no problem with size and wondered if that
could be achievers within the constraints of the proposal. He indicated that
the one point that Mr. 11a,ir in hit upon is that if you want to part more signs
on one location, it is probably better to past two on two.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 y 11 , 1983
Mr. Lam stated that it does not matter what size the sign is if it is
architecturally treated, even if it is two sides because you will still have
the ability to pick out what you, are looking for. Further, if you want two
30-squarye foot signs you might want to have one at one end of the center and
the other at the other end because when you have 40 tenants in the center it
is hard to pick out the one you are looking for.
Chairman Rempel stated that the ordinance should have some indication of that
intent rather than state a maximum square foot amount.
Mr. Lam stated that when the review is done this can be incorporated through
the language.
Mr. Vairin stated that this language could be put in so that the placement and
number could be indicated and also the reasoning behind doing this. Mr.
Vairin stated that this would be appropriate and a very good point.
Mr. Lam stated that they will insert language that will allow more
flexibility.
Mr. Niel stated that the same problem exists with the next statement down
and that Section 3 on the same page with the directory signs at the main
entrances.
The consensus of the Commission was that the word Itmain" be left out.
Chairman Rempel reopened the public hearing.
Councilman, Jim Frost stated that the City <has three professionals available
in, reading skills and they would be able to tell what kind of signs would have
the most readability under any given time and circumstance. He felt in light
of the prior discussion, this could be turned into an objective exercise and
be brought back for further discussion. Councilman Frost felt that Section 40
just before Section 41 regarding hardships is a somewhat ambiguous definition
and needed to be changed.
,Mr. Vairin replied that the ability to read signs was one of the points
examined by members of the Sign Ordinance Committee. He indicated that a text
book, Street Graphic , that deals with sign readability was used and it would
be made available if Councilman Frost wished to see it.
W. Lam stated that this is one of the challenges of dealing with the a sign
program because no matter what size is allowed, the sign must be readable. He
indicated that a good sign would be a combination of design and graphics.
After brief discussion, the concenaus of the Commission was to vote on whether
to recommend the Sign Ordinance to the Council with the changes discussed.
Planning Commission Minutes My 11 , 1983
Motion ad by Stout, seconded b Niel, carried unanimously, to recommend
adoption of the Sign Ordinance to the City Council with the revisions and
additions discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: d by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn.
9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 11 , 1983
CITY CE RANCHO CUCA ONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 27, 1983
1
Chairman Herman Hempel called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to carder at 7>0 -. . Chairman
Rempel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT* COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry
Ni 1, DennisStout, Herman Rempel
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman,an, Associate Planner,
Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City
Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam,
Community Development Director; Janine Reynolds, Secretary;
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior
Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
Motion- Moved by Stout, seconded by MoNiel, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the March 27, 1983 Planning om i n meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT RE IEW 7 THO PSON The
d lnpm nt of a 150,000 square feat warehouse on 8.19 acres of land in
the General Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea 10) , located on the
crest side of Toronto Avenue, 'north of 7tb Street.
E. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S 1-1 C - LAMB OF COD LUTHERAN
H-URCH
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4 - ALTA LOMA
CRRI TIA CHURCH development of a church facility including 4,054
square foot t building and a rearrest to operate a preschool on 4.75 acres of
t d on the west side of Sapphire Street
land. �. the R 1 ,CCC zone, « s
between Orange Street and Lemon Avenue APN 1 t o 1
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and distributed d
letter to the Commissioners from Roy t il ore, opposing the project.
Chairmen R mp l opened the public hearing
Jack Welling addressed the Commission stating that the applicant concurred
with the findings of the staff report and resolution. He added that a meeting
had taken place on April. 21 , 1983 between representatives of the church, City
staff, and surrounding residents in an effort to resolve concerns.
r presented petition signed ad °anent property
h� p p
Bill rr 75 p py
owners opposing the project dun to parking, noise, and drainage concerns.
Ungels also questioned the churn h's financial ability to completea project of
this size.
Chairman Hempel advised Mr. ;L1nls that the Planning Commission oral only
bade its review on a pro a is compatability with the surrounding area., and
could not question an applicant's financial situation.
Pastor David M Clary of the Lamb of God Church read letters of support from
area churches.
Dry, ,d d rrt resident, stated that he learned of the project a short time
ago and requested that the Commission consider a continuanceto allow area
residents more time to ;r view the project. ,
Gene herall 'stated that the pro t' grading and drainage plans would be
reviewed by the City and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
therefore, felt that the adjacent residents should not be concerned with this
ratter since` the project would help the situation
David Lakeman stated his concern with traffic and requested a reduction in
speed for Sapphire.
Sara Lopez, member of the church building committee, stated that the church
has a sign posted on the property which states the hur h's intention to build
on the site. She urged the Commissio0s approval based on community need:.
Mile Sherrar advised that the church mailed letters surrounding property
rty
owners and informed their that a meeting old take plane on April 21 , 1983 t
discuss concerns the residents had and to provide information on the project
however, only four residents attended the meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1983
Jack Fielding stated all items discussed at the meeting had been included in
the st f°f's Resolution and urged the Commission's ppr val of the project.
Tony Lopez, 9443 Mignonette, stated that the church members are willing to
make offerings to finance the project.
Wade Zwifle was concerned with traffic and stated that the problem goes beyond
Sapphire. Additionally, he ;suggested that the preschool be constructed at s
later date when the project is self supporting.
Mike Kennedy addressed the Commission stating that the letter mailed to the
property owners did not include the location of the meeting or who to
contact He was concerned that the property owners did not have enough
information on the project or on the grading and drainage and asked that the
Commission continue its decision on this item to another meeting.
Robert Burns: addressed the Commission in support of the project and stated
that the preschool would be of service to the community by providing
supervision for children of working parents.
Dixie Graham stated that the preschool is located at the back of the church
property, which would, not present: s traffic: problem with the picking up and
dropping off of children.
There were no further comments and the public hearing; was closed.
Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Rougeau if the grading and drainage for this
project Bret the intent of the Grading Committee.
r ougeau replied that the Grading Committee worked with the applicant on
the grading piano which now ,addresses the concerns expressed this evening by
the residents
Commissioner McNiel asked if the problem of the 'water coming across the vacant:
lot would be taken care of by this project
. Rougeau replied that the water would be taken from the northern corner of
the site ender the sidewalk to Sapphire. Additionally, this is a major
problem since the street tends to fli.p the water from one side to the other
rather than keeping it in the gutter so that the water does not adequately get
into the Demons Channel.
Commissioner Stoat asked if the area in front of this property would slope to
the east or crest
Mr. Rougeau replied that it would slope to the west as much as possible
i
Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1983
Commissioner tut asked if the speed survey was conducted prior to the
installation of the four-way stop at Banyan and Sapphire.
flou eau replied that the speed survey was conducted prior to the
installation of the four-way stop; however, s speed cheek had recently been
conducted which shoved, that the speeds have remained approximately 45 miles
per hour.
Commissioner Stout asked Michael Vai,r rr to briefly describe the changes in the
project since its submission.
V i irr replied that the major changes included increased landscaping along
Sapphire, the reduction of the two-story building to one-story and its
relocation farther from the crest property line, the alteration of the building
design, and the preschool play area had been limited to s fenced in area.
Commissioner Stout added that this project was required to pay for temporary
improvements ovement in t the adjacent property for flood control purposes.
Commissioner Juarez asked if children would be dropped off: on Sapphire or if
parents,would be required to drive into the parking lota
i in replied that state law requires s person to sign a preschool child
it when they arrive
Commissioner Barker responded t :the conc
erns expressed p saes by adjacent property
owners and sated that most of these concerns have been addressed in the
conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Rempel pointed out that the concerns regarding noise had been
addressed in the Resolution ;by limiting the hours of outdoor activities t
10 acre to 10.* 5 a.m. and from :d ' p.m. to 5:00 pry. He added that the
Planning Commission can regulate such things as site plan, architecture and
landscaping, but cannot make a determination on the financial capability of an
applicant to complete a project: ether than these improvements " r which the
City obtains bands to ensure completion.
Commissioner McNiel stated he is a member of a church with a preschool and the
two are compatible entities He added that a preschool helps support the;
organization and dial not see why it could not be built before the main
sanctuary.
Motion: Moved by" cNiel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 83-04 and the issuance of
Negative Declaration.
Planning a ission Minutes April 27, 1983
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MaNiel, Stout, Barber;, Juarez, Rempel
NOES* COMMISSIONERS® None
AB ENT: CO ISSIONBRS: None -carried
d r 1 Planning Commission Recessed
ds Planning Commission Reconvened
D. . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE A NB N'I C
a rer dmen to the residential use standards to allow for elder cottages and
second units on single family zoned residential lots.
Barr Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and Ordinance which
reflected the changes made by the Planning Commission at their April 13, 1983
meeting.
Commissioner Stout referred, to item 'Oet' of the Ordinance and asked about the
assurance for removing a structure at the end of the 'temporary period.
Coleman replied that the Planning Commission normally conditions the
permit to require removal of the structure :at the end of a certain time
period. Be suggested that the structure could be required to be removed
thirty days after vacancy, any thing else would probably require bonding r a
cash deposit.
Commissioner Stout stated that item "ell of the Ordinance is worded in a manner
that suggests rent must be charged for the unit
Gomez replied that the intent is that the unit cannot be sold to further
subdivide a lot
Commissioner Stout requested that the wording be changed to state that the
unit is not for sale, but for rent or use by a member of the immediate family.
Mr. Coleman replied that this would be in conformance with state law,
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
s. Bridge, 6565 Madrone, Cucamonga, asked questions of the Commission
regarding subdividing her property and repair of her home.
Chairman Rempel advised Mrs Bridge to contact Mr. Gomez at the City offices
and he could advise her on this problem
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 1983
There rya no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by MoNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance to the City Council.
The motion included amending the Ordinance item 'loll to include language
that the unit not be for sale but for rental purposes only or by use of a
member* of the immediate family.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Juarez, MoNiel, Barker,r, Stout, R mp l
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nora
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, Non -carried-
E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7902 LING - A division of 2.37
3e'rea into 4 parcels within the R 1 zone located on the south aide of
Wilson Avenue at Mulberry Avenue APN 201-1 d1- G.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, asked for a continuance on this item t
allow review by the Equestrian Committee.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue
Parcel p 7902 to the Planning ommis ion treating of May 11 , 1983.
PARCEL F� 1 G R AND JIG _ R A
A L y TA ASSESSMENT Af�f� G_
F. ENVIRONMENTAL L, 7
Ti'vision of 23.8 acres into one parcel in the Heavy Industrial zone
Subarea 1 ) located on the southside of °nth Street, approximately ately 1045
feat great of Etiwanda Avenue, APN 22 2 .
Paul Roo au Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed ed the staff report.
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
William Ella, representing esentin the applicant, stated that they concurred with the
staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval.
Thera were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion., Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the;
Resolution approving Parcel Map 7951 and the issuance of d Negative
Declaration.
Planning Commission iambn Minutes - April 27, 1983
AYES: O l SI N RS: Barker, Stout, Juarez Niel, Rempel
NOES: COMMISSIONERS, None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
G.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP; 7926 GAR IA A division of
2� 7 acres into4 parcels within the General Industrial zone (Subarea 1)
located on the northside of dth Street, east side of Baker avenue - APN
27-271-1
Paul Rou e u reviewed the ,staff report
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Dave Chiang, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission stating that he
understood that item 2 on the City Engineer's Report was to require 7 feet of
dedication on dth Street, not the 14 feet listed.
Rou eau replied that the required dedication would be 5 feet behind the
curb line, which Mould be 32 feet from the center line. if the developer
requires a reduction in right-of-way width, he did not see why this could not
be done
Chung asked if the utility company, approval was needed prior to
recordation of the map; or prior to development
. Rou eau replied that utility company problems are normally addressed
during the plan checks process
Susie, representing Mik e's Welding Shop, addressed the Commission requesting
reduction in street width at the west end of dth Street. She suggested a
-foot street dedication with the exclusion of the pedestrian sidewalk and a
"No Parkcin 1t zone
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Rempel asked what would happen with the island in the center if the
owner of the welding sloop decided to do nothing with his property.
Roueau replied if it is deemed necessary by, the Council because of a
traffic hazard, the owner can be'required to widen the street to conform with
the street on either aide under the Improvement Act of 1911 . Additionally,
the City can also obtain right-of-way through this Act. He further stated
that the request for a -foot reduction would be a problem since the street
requirement is four lanes with a turning lane
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 27, 1983
i
Commissioner Stout pointed out that 8th Street was heavily traveled prior to
its closure for the bridge construction.
Commissioner r stated that the curb to curb width is important since
trucks will util.i.ze this street
.odor: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barger, unanimously carried, to ;adopt the
Resolution n approving Marcel. Map 7926 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration, with an amendment to the City Engineer's eer's Report to provide
right-of-way for a total half-width of 37 feat and the dedication of 7 feet on
8th Street.
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Barker, Juarez, Niel, Rempel
NOES: IO R t None
ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
NEW BUSINESS
H. ENVIRONMENTAL;ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT R I � The
d v lopment of a 23,000square foot industrial manufacturing building on
5.2 acres of land in the Industrial Park zone (Subarea located on the
southwest corner of Haven Avenue and 26th Street AP - 31 1 .
Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff, report. Additionally,
Dreckman presented the Commission with four alternatives for the alignment
of 26th Street and Haven Avenue.
Commissioner Stout asked for the justification of a signal at Jersey'
Boulevard.
r Rou eau replied that Jersey will to a major traffic carrier� and will
eventually carry traffic across the industrial area to Rochester.
Commissioner Stout asked if the difficulty of placing a signal nal t off-setting
'IT" intersections had been discussed
Mr. Rnu eau replied that this is one of the reasons staff gave the applicant
for not accepting his alternative
Chairman Rempel asked the applicant if he wished to address the Commission.
Don Halstead addressed the Commission advising that the land was purchased to
consolidate his business in one location.
Planning Com iamb n Minutes - April 27, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that one of the worst traffic fie situations is one with ;
two 'a it intersections with a grouping of lights He suggested leaving Raven
as it exists and eliminate the policy of having direct access to the west by
requiring traffic to go mother route.
Chairman Hempel agreed and suggested leaving 26th Street as proposed coming
onto Haven, but with no left turn access from Raven to 26th Street.
Rou eau suggested that the Commission decide whether or not to give direct
access to Haven Avenue;for the 10 acre parcel to; the south of this property,
which would require the use of either alternative 2 or 3.
Chairman Rer pel asked where the lowest point that a driveway on Mr. Halstead'
property could be placed to share access.
Roueau replied that it could not go lower than the north end of the
property. He added that there would be a problem with a driveway that close
to Jersey, and suggested that it be aligned with Jersey Boulevard.
Chairman Rempel asked Mr. Halstead if he would be willing o give reciprocal
parking entry to the property to the south, by proving the driveway submitted
on the site plan approximately 150 feet north.
Mr. Halstead :replied that he would be agreeable to giving a reciprocal parking
entry to the 'southern property. He further stated that his original intention
was to submit a lot split, construct the back building, and construct the
curbs and gutters on Marine as part of phase one. Phase two would finish loth ;
Street and Raven Avenue.
Rou eau replied that this could be done as part of a lot split.
Motion:: Loved by; Stout, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Resolution approving Development Reviews 8 0 , incorporating the conditions a
outlined in :Alternative 2 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stouts MoNiel, Barker;, Juarez,, Rempe
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None arried ,
Planning Commission Recessed
Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes April. 27, 1983
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
I. REVIEW OF FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAN
Tim Seedle, Senior Planner, introduced Doug; Payne, Chuck Cue, and Tommy
Stevens of the County Planning staff. Mr. Beedle informed, the Commission that
the County staff was seeking the Commission's comments regarding the ,Foothill
Community Plea. Mr. Payne reviewed the background of the Community Plan and
the proposals for the plan to date
Commissioner Stout asked there would be n circulation plan for the rural
conservation area ;around Deer* Creek
Mr Stevens replied that one rod would traverse the area and that presently
there is a -foot opening in Deer Creek Channel which will provide d second
access upon completion of Day Creek.
Commissioner Stout pointed out that the Etiwanda Plan curves Summit down and
to the south where it then runs into the Day Creek lop. He asked if the
County staff had given any thought to running Summit all the way senses the
rural conservation area
Stevensreplied that our City Engineer is currently reviewing the
circulation plan for appropriateness. He indicated that this is a concept for
consideration since Deer Creek is ehanneli ed now d soon Days Creek' will also.
be channelized.
Commissioner Stout suggested that this concept should be explored before the
retention basins are constructed.
Stevens replied that if the City feels there should be a connection, one
could be provided
Commissioner Stout asked if trail systems would be addressed in the
Circulation Element.
r Stevens replied that the County staff would like to greet with the
Equestrian Committee and any other interested individuals to discuss
provisions of a trail system
r Reedle stated that City staff would be meeting with the Trails Committee
to obtain their input
Commissioner Barker asked for clarification of the plan's density transfer.
r,. Stevens replied that section IV' reefers to the utility easements and
explained that the private lands in this area shows one dwelling per 40 acres,
therefore, for every mile running east and west there is 20 acre accumulation ,
or two units its section provides that two units from the utility easements,;
Planning Commission Minutes. -10- April 27, 1983
which could not be built on could be transferred to adjoining lands owned by
the same owner. Further, this rust be a contiguous piece of property and
cannot be transferred from one area to another.
Commissioner Stout asked for clarification of the County's overall density
bonus program.
Stevens replied that the County's position is that 100-1 0 of the median
is allowed to goup to 50% density bonus. He explained that low or moderate
is a or policy of
could d u to 1 C density bonus. This
income housing_ c
the County and a major issue of many cities. He pointed out that the most
likely area for affordable housing would be the area south of the power lines,
to 26th Street. Further, he was not suggesting affordable housing; however,
was not an issue that could be eliminated in the Plan
Chairman Remel invited public comment on this item.
Pam Henry, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed ;the Commission stating that
she was concerned with the lack of a trails policy in. the Plan. She suggested
that the Commission recommend direction to the County establishing a trails
plan consistent with the City's General Plan
Chris Benoit Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated her concern that the clustered_
housing proposed by the Community Plan would not be compatible with the
existing and proposed housing in Eti abda. She .suggested that the Commission
look at'development in this area and discourage any development that would be
incompatible with the City's General Plan
Chairman Rempel thanked the County staff for giving the Commission the
opportunity to provide input on the Community Plan.
J. PLANNING G COMMISSION DIRECTION FOR DEVELOPMENT CE A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE BARD TO BE LOCATED AT 8737 HELMS AVENUE - A.W. DAMES,,
INCORPORATED
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and asked that the
Planning Commission provide direction to either require development of the
site in conformance with the Industrial Specific Plan standards, or direct
staff to prepare an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan.
Chairman Rem el invited Mr. Davies to comment on his request
Mr. Davies stated that this may not be the potential use for this piece of
property and felt that the expense of a screening gall, would be too great if
the business did not survive ve and the fence had to be torn down.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 27, 1983
Commissioner Stout asked what Mr. Davies intends to do if the use i
successful.
Davies replied that if the use was successful, he would possibly expand
the entire six acres to the railroad tracks.
Commissioner Stoat asked if Mr. Davieswound then be willing to complete all
of the improvements required by other parcels within the Industrial Specific
Plan area
Davies replied that he world expand according to what is being used. He
referred to a letter received from Rick Comet which contained a statement
requiring -feet of landscaping and questioned the need for that amount of
landscaping.
Commissioner "Barker asked if the applicant would be willing to prat in the
improvements at the end of the five year period
r. Davies replied that he had made a verbal commitment that if the business
in successful, he would improve the property earlier.
Commissioner Barker asked how the City would be assured that important
improvements would be completed under a temporary r%y use.
r. Comet replied that ';staff would develop a program, for the Commission's
review outlining the minimum improvements for a temporary or interim,use.
Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant is now using the property for
tyre
r. Gomez replied that the property is now vacant, therefore if the applicant
desires to utilize the site he would have to comply with the requirement
Industrial Specific Plan.
Chairman Rempel pointed out that the prior use was a construction yard,
therefore under the City Code this purpose world be " r nd. thered" in.
Mrs Gomez responded that once a non conforming use in terminated it would have
to conform after a certain period of time to the standards as adopted.
r Lam stated that the issue is that Mr. Davies has a creed to find out if the
Commission would or would not be ;sympathetic to the issue of allowing
provisions in the ISP to allow for temporary or interim uses. if the
Commission sees a need for temporary uses, the staff needs the direction on
which to base the ;amendment such as what constitutes d temporary use, length
of time the use can remain temporary, ghat types of screening alternatives
would be eoodpti,bl.e, etc. He further stated that if the Planning Commission
is not sympathetic to the issue, Mr. Davies does not creed to pursue his
request any farther.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 April 27, 1983
Chairman Rempel stated that the ISM' does not contain a storage type of use
other than a contractor's yard. Further RV storage yards, or any type of
public storage, are not addressed in the General' Plan or the Industrial
Specific plan
r Cornet stated that Table III-1 contains rases for auto fleet storage, which
staff interprYetes as consistent with RV storage with a Conditional Use Permit
with minimum landscape standards. Further, the issue' is not the use, but the
amendment regarding the application under temporary or interim uses
Chairman Rempel stated that that the 1 interior landscaping which is
required under fleet storage should be examined because it may not be
necessary in'a use where vehicles are parked.
Commissioner Stout stated that there is no gray to make a decision unless the
Commission decides to consider the possibility of temporary uses and suggested
that staff conduct a study showing mitigating factors and alternatives. The
Commission could then discuss these and decide whether or not to proceed. He
also suggested that street improvements, drainage, and bonding for these
improvements'should be`examined.
Lary pointed out that other uses in the City have provisions for interim or
temporary uses. in these temporary uses, all street and drainage improvements
are installed. He further stated that the Commission needs to provide
direction as to the type of +aooeptible screening for a temporary use.
Commissioner Stow stated that another issue would be if the temporary use is
of such a. nature that its size or nature would be in conflict with the
permanent use.
r. Lam responded that this could be mitigated by determining hors long the
temporary use would be allowed before reaching d permanent status.
Chairman Re apel stated that the Commission needs to also decide what types of
temporary rases would be allowed
The consensus of the Planning Commission was for staff to conduct a study
regarding temporary and interim uses within the Industrial Specific Plan area
for presentation to the Commission at a later date
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to continue past the 11400 p.m.
adjournment time.
Planning Commission Minuted April 27, 1983
K. KEEPING OF ANIMALS IN EQUESTRIAN/RURAL AREA The establishment of a City
o—until policy that subdivision CC&Rfs shall not prohibit the keeping of
animals in the equestrian/rural areas.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Rempol opened the item to public comment
Papa Henry, Rancho Cucamonga resident, supported the establishment of this
policy by requiring the review of Rrs so;that the keeping of animals could
not be prohibited in areas zoned for that use.
commissioner Stout suggested that something should be;written into the
Ordinance so that the City Attorney would review the CC&R's on dingle family
residential projects
Gomez advised that this would be an amendment to the Standard Conditions
and that staff could provide the Commission with suggested wording.
Chris Benoit addressed the Commission stating that in passing this Resolution
the City would be ensuring the preservation of the equestrian lifestyle.
Alan Kopperud, president of the Alta Loma Riding Club, addressed the
Commission and expressed his desire that the rural atmosphere be protected.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout; unanimously carried to recommend
approval of the Ordinance to the City Council with the inclusion of the
provision that staff monitor the CUR's CUR' through modification of the Standard
Conditions
YCC• COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, Juarez, McNiel, Rempel
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
11 1 - Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted
Jac n , e retarN
Planning Commission Minutes 1 April 27, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April '1 , 1983
Vice-chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho ucamo ga to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting
r� it Center, 11 Lira Read rah
was held Lions P r
Cucamonga, California. Vice-chairman Stoat - then led in the pledge of`
i
allegiance.
ROLL CALF
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Addie Juarez, Larry MoNiel, Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Herman Rempel
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant nt City Attorney;ney; Jack Lam, Community`
Development Director; Rich Marks, Associate Planner;; Janice
Reynolds, Secretary, Paul R d earn Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael V ir'in, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Minutes of
the March 9, 1983 Planning i ion meeting. Commissioner Juarez abstained
from, vote as she was not present ' :t this greeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Gomez, City, Planner announced that there would be an informational
meeting April 19, 1983, 7:00 p. . , at the Liana Park Forum Room to discuss
Foothill Freeway/Route 30. He adivaed that this meeting would; be attended by
members f the Planning Commission, City Council, and Citizens Advisory
Committee and egged all to attend
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 06 - MESSENGER - The
d—evelopment of a 125,000 square foot indust7lai building on 6.25 acres of
land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) located on the south side
of Eucalyptus Street, east of Elm Avenue - ON 208-351-38.
B. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE TRACTS: Tentative Tract 9616,
ill, idInvestments; Tentative Tract 11549, Lewis Development
Corporation; Tentative Tract 11577, Landmark; Tentative Tract 11781 ,
Roberts Group; Tentative Tract 11793, Mullins/Bliss; Tentative Tract
11797, Diversified.
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEK �� de l
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAPS: Parcel Map 6076, Parcel Map
N73-3-
Motion: Moved by McNiel, Seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7264 - WATT COMMERCIAL - A
E�vision of approximatelY 37 acres into 2 parcels within the C-1 zone
located on the east side of Haven between Highland and Lemon Avenue - APR
201-271-53.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report and
additionally recommended that language should be added to the City Engineer's
Report that parcel one should have vehicular access restriction on Lemon
Avenue and Haven Avenue access would be restricted except for driveway
locations as designated on an approved site plan.
Vice-chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jack Sylvester, owner of the property, addressed the Commission stating his
objection to the formation of a third parcel since it is unknown what the
CALTRANS plan for the freeway will be. He also stated that an agreement had
been reached with Lloyd Hobbs that the map would show a line of demarkation
for the location of the freeway. Further, that the project is proposed in
phases with the first phase being at the northerly end of the property on
Lemon and will stop half way down. The second phase would be postponed until
the freeway develops.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 13, 1983
Vito Devito Francesco addressed the Commission stating that, the alignm,ent of
the freeway at Highland and Haven is very much in question at this time.
Also, it is unknown how many lanes this freeway will have. By making a third
parcel it freezes in the property owner. It would give more flexibility to
place a dot,ted line on the map designating this as a possible location for the
freeway.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner, McNiel asked which of these methods was acceptable from both a
legal and City point of view.
Paul Rod geau replied that freeway acquisition could be facilitated with or
without the third parcel.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that he also felt that the
third parcel is not necessary.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if a project were to come in
that covers the area designated as the Foothill Freeway right-of-way, the City
has the right to require the project to do an environmental impact report on
the effects of the elimination of the freeway right-of-gray in that area on the
City. He agreed that parcel three is not necessary to facilitate the freeway
right-of-way. He stated his concern that if the freeway does not go in, the
City has restricted the size of Highland by not requiring additional
dedication on the south part of parcels one and two since site approvals are
not conditioned for additional right-of-way.
Paul du eat replied that even if the site approval would not require
dedication, the building permit application would allow for the dedication and
construction of an arterial if one were to go in that location.
Jack Lam stated that dedication of improvements is required by ordinance upon
the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7264 with the
requirement that the map show a line of demarkation depicting the proposed
location of the Foothill Freeway, access restrictions on on Lemon and Haven
Avenues for parcel one, and the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES.- COMMISSIONERS: Mc Niel, Stout, Juarez
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Rempel -carried-
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 13, 1983
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT d
KWES N The development of a 411 ,000qu re foot warehouse
distribution facility on 23.8 aors of land in the Heavy Industrial zone
(Subarea 1 located on the south side of 7thStreet, approximately 1045
feet west of Etiwanda Avenue Parcel l of Parcel Map 6658.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner reviewed the staff report.
William Ells, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating
.ti
that the applicant concurred with the findings in the staff f report and the
Resolution and offered to answer the is ion 'a questions
There were no comments, therefore efor the public fearing was closed.
Motion: Moored by McNiel, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Parcel Mp 6658 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Juarez, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nona
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Rempel
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTAre
amendment to the residential use standards to alloys for older cottages and.,
second unite on single family zoned residential al lots
Darr Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff Report.
Vice hairr an Stout aal ad if staff's staff' intention was to require e onditional Use
Permits for second unite and a Temporary Use Permits for elder cottages.
r° Coleman replied that an older cottage would be a removable able structure and
therefore temporary in nature with leas impact on the immediate neighborhood;
however, a second unit would be a permanent structure.
Michael Vairin, Seniors Planner, added that the intention was to help with the
senior citizen housing situation by simplifying the procedures.
to
n � t r° ` at a
Vice-chairman tort stated that o f this type in order
neighborhood hood to accept it, they should have some input. Temporary used are
more objectionable and upsetting to a neighborhood than what is proposed for
the second unit regulations.
Planning Commission Minutes April. 13, 1983
Coleman stated that the notification of contiguous property owners could
be a requirement of a temporary ary use similar to a minor deviation, or make it a
CUP. He pointed out that a CUP is a costly and timely process, and d
temporary use permit would make it sim lier to provide housing for the
elderly.
Rick Comet, City Planner, advised that it was not necessary for the Commission
to make a decision on this item this evening. The purpose at this time was to
take public comment and for the Commissioners to provide staff with direction
in preparing an Ordinance for the Commission's review at the second meeting in
April.
Vice-chairman Stout opened the public hearing
Art Bridge, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commision voicing support
for item, however, felt it should be restricted to 10,000 square foot or
larger lots
r Coleman stated that regulations for designated areas had not been included
in the ordinance because it was felt that the Income of the owners of smaller
lots have the same need to provide horsing, for the elderly and would possibly
benefit more from the income for a second unit.. Also, that there is no income
limit on the regulations for elder cottages.
'fide-chairman Stoat asked if site development criteria would have to be met
which might preclude a smaller lot from qualifying.
Gomez replied that each Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed on a
case-by-case" basis so that the smaller lots would onform to the requirements. .
There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Vice-chairman Stout asked if the Senior Citizen's VIP Club had been contacted
for their input
Gomez replied that they had not, however, staff could arrange for their
input prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner McNiol stated that he was concerned with a temporary structure
and felt that it ;should have more restrictions on it so that it could not be
placed in the front yard area
airin suggested that a structure that; was to be placed in the Front;yard
could be restricted to a permanent , structure that 'would blend in with the
present structure
Vice-chairman Stout stated that he felt that a Conditional Use Permit should
be required to give the surrounding property owners a chance to voice their,
Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1983
opinions. Further, that the requirements for a second unit structure would
make it blend in with the present structure, but this is impossible with
temporary unit.
Commissioner McNibl stated that the temporary ray structure is more applicable t
the need than the second unit
Vice-chairman Stout stated that he had no problem with that, however, _ felt
that the neighborhood would accept it more if they had a chance to come before
the Commission in <a public forum.
Commissioner 'Mc i .l asked if the temporary use permits could be brought before,
the Commission for a public hearing until the Commission can see if there will
be ;problems with this type of use.
Ted Hopson advised that the Commission could require a public hearing for a
temporary use by Ordinance
_ s coul
d
Gomez, advised public ublo notification of contiguous property
wrier_
also be a. requirement of a Temporary Use Permit. This would require a lower
fee than a Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-chairman Stout stated that he would like to ,,at least have the uses
monitored for a while and once the Commission sees what problems arise ;from
them and ghat conditions to impose, there may no longer be; a need for a public
hearing
r Gomez stated that staff could list some captions for the Commission's
consideration at the next meeting before recommending them to the City
Council.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to continue
this item to April 27, 1983.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Juarez, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENTS COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Rempel
- Planning Commission Recessed
ds Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes ; April 13, 1983
H. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CR SENIOR ROUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT
Rick Marks, Associate planner, reviewed the; staff report. ;
Vice-chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. There were no comments,
therefore the public hearing was closed.
Vice-chairman Stout stated that he could suggest that paragraph 12 a under
"Target Population" on page :4 have the words oathe head of household" stricken
so that it would read that either spouse would have to be, fifty-five years or
older.
Jack Lam asked if the problem was with the term "head of household"
Commissioner Stout replied that the term "head of householdre has both
traditional and legal meanings s and that if the husband was 53 and the wife 55,
they should also be eligible.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the target population wording
is from HUD Section 8 language; however, he did not see a problem with
rewording this section so that either spouse could be 55 or older.
Vice-chairman Stout referred to the second paragraph on page 5 dealing with
rent increases and asked if the notification requirement included the City.
Rick Marks replied that it dial not
Vice-chairman Stoat suggested that this be required' because the City would
more than likely receive complaints from tenants when rents are increased and
Mould at least be well informed
Nor. Hopson stated that there is an annual review process and the question is
how intrusive the City should be in the operation conducted by the property
owner. The argument was presented that as the County median income level as
determined by the federal government is increased, it would be appropriate at
that time to increase :rents;. Staff felt that it would be justifiable fable for the
City to rely on the good faith 'effort of the property owner to adjust their
rents accordingly, and that during the annual review the City� would learn o
all rent increases.
Vice-chairman Stout Mated that he was not a rent control advocate however,
would prefer to be notified by the landlord that rents were being increased
than to hear" it from the residents. Further, that language should be included
in;; paragraph 13 of page 4 to _ require that the City be notified of rent
increases for the units for which a project was given some type of density
bonus or fee waiver because the City has given their something and should see
what it is getting it return. Further, that he was not interested in the
market rate apartments, only those units occupied by senior citizens whether°
they are target population or not.
Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1983
Commissioner Niel stated that, he agreed with Vice-chairman Stout and felt
that it would be of benefit to the landlord if he notified the City of his
intention to increase manta
Thera was further discussion ion rr this topic with the decision being; that this
recommendation would be rude to the City Council.
Vice-chairman Stout referred to the termination and ' eviction requirements on
page 7 and asked if they complied with Californialaw.
Hopson replied that "all f1b" and 'loll comply with California lair, however,
I'd" ties in with the target population income restrictions. a further
explained that the final paragraph of section 18 is less restrictive than HUD
Section 8 and more restrictive than California state law.,
Motion: Moved by McNiell, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried to adopt the
Resolution recommending approval of the General Development Agreement with the
.
ommission of the "head of household" reference in Section 1 ( and insertion
of "either spouse", and the requirement under paragraph 13 that the City as
well as the tenants be formally notifed of rant increases
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Juarez, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nora
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bar er, R r p l -carried-
*
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. REPORT CAI DESIGN REVIEWCOMMITTEE
Michael Vairin presented d an informational report to the Commission which
reviewed the new tribe a month meeting schedule for the Design Review
Committee.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
J. CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES FOR HAVEN AVENUE
Paul Rougear , Senior or` Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report which
recommended that the Commission either reconfirm the access policies as set
forth and recommend that the City Council no changes, or that the
Commission r elate any changes, such as deletions or additions to the street.
Planning Commission Minutes - Apri.l. 13, 1983
system, and direct staff to prepare changes to, the Industrial Specific Plan
for City Council consideration.
I
Bruce Strickland, representing Vanguard Companies, addressed the Commission,
regarding the street between Utica and Haven and oth and 4th Streets.
Strickland stated that this sheet creates two parcels which it be very hard
to work, for the developer to work with and did not think it would meet the
goals of the Industrial Specific Plan for the area to the south. Mr.
Strickland suggested that parcel lines and ownership lines be looked at when
establishing the location of streets. He also distributed maps to the
Commissioners.
Paul, Rou eau pointed out that parcel on 6th Street) has an offer of
dedication for a street on the crest side and along Utica on its eastern'
boundary.
. Strickland stated that this offer f dedication is notbinding at this
time
Mr. Lam replied that the statement by Mr. Rougeau was not meant to imply ;that
the is a binding dedication, but to point out that the access policy has been
followed in the past
Russ Bluette, representing the Church; of Jesus Christ of Latter pay Saints,
owner of the three parcel at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th;
Street,- addressed the Commission stating that the church intends to develop d
titer plan for this area. Further, that the church is opposed to the street
location as proposed because it would destroy this master plan concept. also,
that Utica and Cleveland are natural barriers and that the purpose would not
be served by placing a street through the middle of the; property and Mould`
also deter the development of this property.
Jaen Lam stated that based upon testimony heard this evening there seers to be
some property owner interest in looking at options in the future for their own
specific properties and asked if any of the; property owners had Bret to look at
the circulation alternatives from a master plan basis.
luette stated that he was in agreement t with the concept of Hagen Avenue
being a heavily traveled street however, did not feel that the needs of the
City would be Bret by having the street down the center of the subject
property. He agreed that there has to be an east/west street, but did not
feel that this is the appropriate location.
r. Lam replied that when the Industrial Specific Plan gent through public
hearings there was a;, greet deal of discussion regarding the location of
streets. During these hearings there was discussion regarding the abandonment
of both 7th and 8th Streets, and soon no one wanted streets in front of their
property because they; felt the fuser streets there were, the less it could
Planning Commission Minutes - April 1 , 1983
affect the properties. This resulted in traffic studies to determine the.
feasibility of widening th Street to accommodate these requests. Mr. La.
pointed out that the City had always been willing to look at alternative weans
of access and suggested that the property owners get together* to come up with
an alternative to be presented to the City.
rM. Bluette ` stated that Mr. Lam's proposal was well taken, however,, the
proposed street location places a considerable burden on this property owner,
namely the LDS Church,ch, in that they would d e asked to dedicate for Utica, the
entire amount for street sear# plus dedication for Trademark and that this is a
lot to ask of one property owner. Further, that he did not see the real need
since the traffic issue would have to be resolved when the Church comes in
with a proposal for this piece of property, and ask that the Commission
considers the deletion of street "All.
Commissioner McNiel asked for clarification of the purpose of this item.
Jack Lam replied that the item was referred to the Planning Commission by the
City Council to determine whether or not street IaAaa should be deleted from the
Industrial Specific Plan.
Paul you eau stated that the reason the other alternative native issues were raised;
was to shown how this street fits into the overall pattern and to emphasize
that it is part of the circulation issue on Haver, from 4th Street to dth
Street
Vice-chairman Stout replied the deletion of this ; street must be done in
context of all the issues, and was glad staff raised the other solutions.
'urther, that if the property owners feel; the street should be deleted, the
property owners should bear the burden of coming up with an alternative
solution to the problem since the City has put the time, effort, and money
.into the formation of the Specific flan. He further stated that his decision
would be to not make any changes in the plan unless the property owners come
up with some type of alternative to; the issue. ice Chairman Stout ;also
suggested that the City should be thinking of ways to get traffic off Haver
Avenue that would be generated from the airport.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he agreed that the property owners should try
to come up with a solution and was inclined to not undermine the Specific flan
process
Strickland stated that he does not want a solution that will cause more
problems and that the idea that because the City has a Specific Plan for ;that
area it is set in; perpetuity is not true since the City changes things all of
the time through h its or°dinaoes. Further, that the point he was trying to make
is that the secondary ` parallel road ;exists in Utica Street because of the
layout of the parcels. He further stated that it is not feasible to meet 'with
the church since they presently tly do not have a plan for their property and that
Planning Commission Minutes 10- April 13, 1983
the two uses may not necessarily be compatible. Also, that the traffic
problem can be solved without the street running between Utica Haven.
Mr. Bluette stated that this is basically the view of the Church. He pointed
out that between Haven and Utica and Cleveland is approximately the same
distance and that it is an undue burden to place a street in the middle of
this property since the same dedication could be made on Utica as on
Cleveland. With future planning with the City, he stated that a lot of
traffic could be guided onto Utica which would service the needs of' the City.
Vice-chairman Stout called for the motion.
Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Juarez, carried, to recommend to the
City Council that no changes be made in the Industrial Specific Plan at this
time.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McViol-, Juarez, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS.* None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS* Barker, Ram of -carried-
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by McN'iel, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
9:50 - Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully an ittedIs
Jack Lam, Sec ra arty
Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 23, 1983
Vice-Chairman Herman Rempel called the Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7-00 p.m. The meeting
was held at Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Vice-Chairman Rempel than led in the pled g,e of allegiance.
Lauren Wasserman, acting in his capacity as City Clerk, administered the oath
of office to Addle Juarez. Mrs. Juarez was appointed by the City Council at
their meeting of March 16, 1983 to fill the vacancy created by Jeff King.
Mayor Jon Mikels was also present and welcomed Mrs. Juarez to the Commission.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Addis Juarez, Larry MeNiel,
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT* Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, City
Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt
Johnston, Assistant Planner; Rick Marks, Associate Planner;
Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds,
Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by cNiel, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1983.
ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to appoint
Herman Rempel Planning Commission Chairman.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by cNiel, unanimously carried , to appoint
Dennis Stout Planning Commission Vice-Chairman.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARC SAP ��R
B. TIME TEN ION FOR 'VARIANCE 1 C CHRI TIAN
Motion: Moved by Stunt, seconded; by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Consent 'Calendar granting one year time extensions for the above projects.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ND PARCEL, P 1 A
ion of 1 .839 acres into parcels in the R 1 `zone located at the
northwest corner of Hillside Road and Moonstone Avenue - AP f 10 1 a1 17.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL P d dR SRN A division of 1
acre into P parcels within the R 1 urns located at the northwest corner of
Via El Dorado and Sunstone Avenue P 1061-251-16.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that these two items would be heard
concurrently.
hirntu Bose, Associate Civil' Engineer, reviewed the staff reports.
Chairman R mpol opened the public- hearing.
Gary Sanderson, 9587 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, California, addressed the
Commission stating that he represented the applicant and agreed with the
conditions of approval. Mr. Sanderson stated that he had one question
regarding the requirement for an equestrian trail plan to be submitted prior
to recordation of the Parcel Map and asked what this plan would entail.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied; that the trail plan would be shown on the
final map depicting the location of the trails in conformance with the City°
adopted equestrian` trail system.
Paul Rona eau, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that this question was in response
to number d on the CityEngineer's report which refers' to the Cit ' Master
Plan of "Trails and is required prior to recordation of the 'final map.
Commissioner Storm pointed out that parcel 2 of Parcel Map 7832 does not have
trail access and asked if that would be a problem.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 23, 1983
Sanderson replied that he did not see a problem with this and suggested
that the street could possibly be used for access.
Commissioner Stout suggested that the 1 -foot local feeder trail dedication
running north and south be realigned to go west between parcels one and tease
requiring seven and one-half feet of dedication from ch of those parcels and
also some dedication from parcel 2, then go south and receive noat r seven
and one-half foot of dedication from parcels three and four. He asked Mr.
Sanderson if he world be agreeable to this.
Mrs Sanderson replied that he would be agreeable to this realignment.
John Skinner, n adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission asking if
something mould be done to assume that the night view would not be disrupted
by street lights.
Rougeau replied that the street lights could possibly be placed on the
north side of the street in lieu of being placed in front of houses. Also,
that the type of lights used would be thelour intensity lights which are
nearly Invisible isible from a side eagle.
There were no further comments, therefore r the public hearing was closed.
Lion: ford by McNiel, seconded by Stout unanimously carried, to adopt; the
Resolution approving Parcel Map 7832 with floe realignment of the local feeder
trail, as suggested by Commissioner Stout and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Also approval of the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7834 and
the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNidl, Stout, Barker, Juarez, Ro pol
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ions
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -
carried-E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7853 - NESBITA division of 8.76
acmes into 3 parcels within the R zone located at the west side of
Nell: rr, north side of Church ® APN 1061 2 1 16.
Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff reports
Commissioner Stout stated that if the map for the Parcel Map was superimposed
over Tentative Tract 12238, the lira extending to the west from the existing
residences seemed to out one of the lots on the tentative tract in half and
ask if that was intentional
Planning Commission Minutes - rich 23, 1983
Mr. Hopson stated,that there were more problems than this in that it appears
that a number of lots are out and that the numbering is not consecutive if for
instance parcel one only is developed and asked if the tentative had been
conditioned.
Rou eau replied that the parcel map is for the purpose of land acquisition
and the tract map will superee e all the parreli atio .
Hopson arcked if the tract map could only be f'irra.led if the person trying
to finalize the tract owned all of the laid on which the tract p sets.
Mr. Rou eau replied that this is correct
Chairman Rer pel opened the public hearing.
Ronald Martin, the authorized agent and purchaser of the property, addressed
the Commission stating that he was in agreement with the staff report and
conditions of approval.
There were no public comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner tetiel asked for interpretation of the "and/or earth berms" which
was a part of the drainage and flood control portion of the City Engineer's
Report
Mr. Rou eau replied that earth berms can't carry much raters and that if a berm
was used on Hellman Avenue it could be,,a har•dsoaped berg# Further, that the
City would have control over the design of this berm. He also painted out
that the proposal on the tract map displayed the use of a wall alternate
instead of the landscaped berm
Chairman Re rp l stated that as pant of the original tract map there is a
design approved for the widening of Hellman Avenue at that 'point which
includes a regular curb, the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, and a twelve inch
high wall in back of the sidewalk.
Motion: Moved by Stout,, seconded by tfdtiel, unanimously approved, to adopt
the Resolution approving parcel Map 7853 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, McNiel, Barger, Juarez, Re rpol
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nome
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried
-
Planning, Commission Minutes -4 rorr 23, 1983
I
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7912_- HAHN TENANT INTERIORS,
A division of 1 .57 acres into 3 parcels for condominium purposes
-�-ithin Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side
of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207-271-53, 54, & 55.
G. VARIANCE d3-02 - BWLC - A request to reduce the required front yard
setback and streetscape in conjunction with the development of six
industrial buildings on 1 .57 acres located on the north side of 8th
Street, 'west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207-271-53, 54, & 55.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REV �- The
I pment of six industrial buildings totaling 25,032 square feet on
1 .57 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1) located
on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - LPN 207-271-53,
54 ,
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that these it would be heard
concurrently.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports.
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Larry Wolff, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he agreed with
the findings and the staff reports and conditions of approval.
Commissioner Stout asked if anything would be done in the way of sound
attenuation for the units near the railroad tracks.
Mr. Wolff replied that this issue has not been addressed; however, if a
problem arises it would be dealt with by adding insulation. He added that
since the types of uses to be included in this center would be of a light
industrial nature, sound attenuation is not normally a problem.
Commissioner Stout stated that this is a very innovative idea and would help
residents in that area to buffer them from the railroad tracks.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that this is a very creative use for this piece of
property.
Commissioner, Stout referred to the bridge at the tracks and asked where the
water goes once it goes into the pipe system in Vineyard Avenue.
Mr. Roo au replied that presently at the southeast corner of this property
there is a pipe that picks up the water from this property and takes it under
8th Street to a storm drain in Ontario which then takes it to Cucamonga
Planning Commission Minutes --5- March 23, 1983
Creek. Further, that in the future Rancho Cucamonga mould have a
master-planned drain on the north aide of the tracks to intercept the water
and take it straight into the creek.
jComnissioner Stout asked if this would be i a o that it would be
adaptable to the new storm drain system.
ou eau replied that this project Mould: have to be designed to carry much
more water than they would have to in the future; however, the master-planned
storm drain may be fifteen years to completion unless p_ u 1 lot of development
occurs to help with the installation
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to adopt the
Resolution approving parcel Map 791,2 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration
Motion: Moved by McNiel seconded by Stout, unanimously carried to adopt the
Resolution approving Variance .
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried to adopt the
Resolution approving Development Review d and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Director!a Pe orta
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVLEW P ALES e
construction of a 420 square foot addition to an existing building and
parking lot improvements on a 9,500 square foot lot in the zone
located at the, southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and San Bernardino
Road AP208-152-12.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There were no comments either for
or against the project, therefore, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout asked if the mansard roof would be wrapped completely
around the building
. Gomez replied that the proposal included all elevations except for the
rear of the building.
Commissioner Stout awed if there was a reason for this exclusion.
Planning o laaion Minutes - March 23, 1983
Gomez replied that the exposures to San Bernardino Road and Archibald
would be taken care of by wrappingthe; roof around the three aides.
that the existing building is on the property line and the roof would hang
over the property* line
Commissioner Stout stated that if he was the adjacent property owner he would
prefer to have a roof over his property line as opposed to looking false
roof and was not comfortable; with this concept.
Commissioner Barker stated that this is a difficult piece of property to work
with and that it is a tremendous improvement t the area.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 82-09 and
the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, Juarez, McNiel, Rer pel
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
J. SENIOR OVERLAY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
Rick Marks, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there wars-a reason why lighting d not mentioned
in item 4 under Development Plans f the. Administrative Guidelines.
Gomez replied that lighting was covered under landscape requirements and
part of the landscape plans;; however, .if the Commission desired ;lighting
requirements to be made more explicit, they couldalso include it grader the
architectural criteria
Commissioner Stout pointed out that lighting was :covered carder the Site
Development Criteria section f the Guidelines.
in
Commissioner over Barker stated that item 5 on page 7 under Site Location Criteria
should be amended to read 01. . . at lust one of each of the following types
f commercial establishments and services"
Commissioner Stoat suggested, that future projects ect be required to delineate the
number of dwelling l:in units per acre. Further, that a break down should also be
submitted which would show the project with and without the density
bonuses/incentives. This would enable the Commission, to see exactly ghat kind
f break the senior citizens are actually getting in regards to rental rates.
Mrs Marks replied that ;staff is requiring that this be done under a project
pro forma which would dhow the project with: and without incentives.
Commissioner Stout replied that he did not see where this was done.
Marksreplied that it had not been spelled out, however, under project pro
forma this was the intention. He asked if the Commission wished to have this
spelled.. out.
Commissioner Stout replied that he would like the language modified so that
this point is made clear . He further stated that it should be noted on the
plans where the nearest transportation services are located and if they are
not within areasonable distance, ho the senior citizen will get to those
facilities.
Commissioner Stout suggested that item I a under Site Development Criteria
provide some type of objective criteria for the amount of rent reduction.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the objectivity comes in the
definition of target population. He explained that target population is
defined as persons over a certain age who fall within income guidelines which
are shifting guidelines set by HUD under their Section 8 program.
Commissioner Stout stated that his point was that if the rents cannot be
reduced enough to fit then to the target population, the City is wasting its
time. Therefore, there should be some`type'of comparison as to what the
target population is, the rent being proposed, and whether the project is
meeting it or not.
Ridgy Marks replied that; one of the requirements of the City Council was that
staff define the target population in greater detail and also the rents. He
explained that the rents as now written must be affordable to persons earning
less than C of the county mediate and.the people would not have to pay more
than C of their income.
Commissioner Stout asked if this mediae was determined by the Bureau of
Census=
Marksreplied that the figure was determined periodically by the
Department of dousing and Urban Development (HUD) .
Commissioner Stout asked if a reference could then be made to some specific
fin re.
Riot Gomez replied that we do have a reference paint through the county and
through HUD.
Planning; Commission Minutes -8- March 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout replied d that he just wanted to make sure that there is s
reference to consult to determine the current median figures. He asked if
there was a definition in the guidelines as to the age of the target
population.
r . Marks explained that in the Overlay istrict the target population is
defined as persons 55 or older who meet the income r t id.
Commissioner Barker supported Commissioner Stout's request that a comparison
be provided so that, it would' be clearer to the Commission that their
objectives were being net. He asked if something ould be done so that the
curb carts would not become drainage funnels for water.
Mr. Gomez replied that drainage would be handled through h nether types of
facilities and that this could be looked into further� in senior citizen
projects.
Commissioner
' xaa� er re asked if the waiving
vrn of building heights would have to
creme before the Commission.
Gomez replied that it would
Commissioner Stout asked if our ordinance requires elevators in projects of
three or more stories.
Gomez replied that while our ordinances do not contain elevator
requirements, it could possibly be part of the Building Code requirements.
Commissioner Stout stated that this should nuld be required that a senior project
f 'three or more stories contain an elevator.
.
Jack Lin stated that there is a BuildingCode requirement that once occupancy
exceeds a certain height, elevators are required. He suggested that `staff
could examine the Building Code to determine if this requirement already
exists. if it does, there is no need to make it part of this ordinance;
however, if it doesn't the Commission could direct staff to include that
language.
Chairman Hempel suggested that the requirement for a performance bond for
long-term irnternarnce plan be replaced with a cash deposit for the Cit 's use
should the project not be properly maintained since a-performarnce burin had to
be renewed emery year and is not d grand application for a long-term
maintenance plan.
Gomez asked the City Attorney if this would be similar to a landscaping
district in that the developer Would be required, to put up sometype f caste
bond to cover maintenance crest during the first year.'
Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 23, 1983
Mr. Hopson replied that this would probably be done through the development
agreement which would require the posting of a certificate of deposit or some
other type of medium satisfactory to the city that would guarantee
performance.
Chairman Hempel referred to item I section A-1 , Pre-Application Procedures,
and suggested that the requirement for expected profit margin be omitted.
Mr. Gomez explained that this was included because it was considered a
standard aspect of the pro forma. Further, that because of the incentives
being worked into the project, it wa,s determined important to include this
requirement to determine that the incentives were being put back into the
project and not used to increase the developer's profit.
Chairman Rempel replied that a false reading would be obtained because the
cost would be hidden elsewhere. He suggested that it would be better to now
the total cost, put that into the project, divide it up among the units, and
then now the total price per unit.
Commissioner Barker asked if Commissioner Stout's previous suggestion for a
cost analysis would fulfill the need for determining this.
Mr. Gomez replied Commissioner Stout's concern with the rental rates and the
target population would overlap this objective because what is trying to be
accomplished is the assurance that the incentives are equitably divided in the
project and not going back into the developer's pocket.
Mr. Marks explained that this type of requirement is not unique to this city
and has been used in many cities and redevelopment agencies. Further, that it
was agreed that the profit figures would not be 100% precise, but from staff's
point of view was a means to target what could be hundreds of thousands of
dollars worth of incentives and determining what is a reasonable level of
profit given that you want certain types of improvements or incentives at the
site. Also, that it is difficult when the profit margin is not known to now
whether the developer really needs all the incentives they are requesting.
Chairman Rempel replied that the developer would not give an accurate profit
margin and would say that he would not be making much profit, therefore,
needed all the incentives.
Commissioner Stout suggested that a detailed cost analysis be provided showing
the project with and without incentives. He also suggested the possibility of
requiring the use of an independent person to provide this information.
Commissioner Barker asked why the 100 foot figure was used in Item C 3.
Chairman Rempel stated that he thought it should just read adjacent land and
the reference "within 100 feet" should be eliminated.
Planning Commission Minutes _10- March 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that a possibility would be to require a site
utilization map of sufficient size to show what is going on with adjacent lead
and to also show the requirements, added before regarding the location of
service establishments.
Chairman Hempel stated that item 1, Site Development Criteria, section 2 "ill,
should include elevators. He their asked for discussion on the Project
Submittal Review Process.
Chairman Re pel stated he would like to see a time line establishing hoer long
it would take to get through each phase.
Commissioner =Stout asked how much time would be saved in fast tracking a
senior project as opposed to the usual process
Ridgy Marks replied that staff was informed by the City Council at their last
meeting that the terry "fast tracking" should not be included in the ordinance
at this time
Mr. Hopson stated there are some built in statutory time saving devices which
could be used
Jaek Lam, Community Development Director, explained that special attention
could be given to a project if necessary to expedite it through` the various
phases ;
Commissioner Stout stated that since the Commission is an advisory body, he
still felt that some language should be included regarding priority
processing. He suggested that the term "fast tracking" cored be eliminated
and replaced with language concerning the use of short outs provided by law.
Chairman Remp;el agreed and stated that was one of the reasons he was
requesting a proposed time line
Rick Comet replied that it would roughly be a sixty day time frame. Further,
that this time limo had been part of the project;submittal'review process but
the reference' had been reproved. However, this could be put back in at the
Commission's direction.
Commissioner Stout asked if a project of this nature would require a' school
impaction .letter.
Jack Lam reviewed ewed section of the Municipal l Code which stated that government
subsidized senior citizen projects are exempt under the Growth Management Plan
and that the question would be what would constitute a government subsidized
project. Further, the City has letters authorizing the waiver of school fees
for senior projects provided that the controls exist that ensure the project
stay a senior project
Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1983
r. Hopson replied that: he did not see -why the term government subsidized was
used since senior citizen projects should categorically be exempt and not just
those built under redevelopment or Section d.
Commissioner McNiel asked ghat course of action could be taken if one of the
senior citizens had a child left permanently in their care.
Ted Hopson replied that this situation would be controlled through the
development agreement. He further explained that the legality of a project
for senior citizens could be defended on the basis of the reduction of the
size of the units the reduction in the amount of parking spaces, the addition
of wasps and elevators, and structured recreational amenities around senior
citizens.
. Lam stated that if subsidized could be interpreted to also include
development agreements, the projects would then be deemed exempt.
r Hopson replied that the City Council would probably have intended that
interpretation had the development agreement concept been available when that
section of the coda was written
Chairman Remp l stated that he would like to see substantiation for the large
reduction in parking.
Lam stated that the general standards for parking in most cities is .5
which is a fairly common standard„ Also, furthers information could be
provided from the American Planning Association supporting this figure.
Gomez replied that staffs analysis shored that the parking ;requirements
of .5 per unit were adequate ether, theme was also a study done by a
traffic engineer for the Calmark Corporation which would be available for the
Commissionts review.
Felton Bond, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked permission to address the
Commission and suggested that some means to provide fester care for children
left in the care of senior citizens should be explored before having their,
evicted from their apar~trent
Chairman empel advised that; the senior citizen would know, that children are
not permitted when they rent an apartment. ; Also, they would have a while to
find other means of housing for a child before the owner would evict them.
. Gomez explained that the concern was that the senor citizen apartments
wound be converted into family apartments and that a reasonable amount of time;
would be; givers should this situation arise.
Planning Commission Minutes _ -1 - March 23, 1983
Mrs. Gomez stated that staff was requesting a recommendation or consensus of
approval to modify these guidelines per the concerns expressed this denial
and forward r°d them to the City Council for their; consideration on on April 6, 1983.
Commissioner He i l stated that he felt the amendments made this evening were
substantial enough that the Commission should review them at their next
meeting before forwarding then to the Connell.
Ted Hopson explained that the reason the Council requested ,the guidelinesat
the April 6 meeting was because the Senior Overlay Ordinance must be adapted
which specifically authorizes the acceptance of senior projects and
development agreements.
Chairman Ren el stated that these; recommendations could be forwarded to the
Council, however would still like to see the guidelines come back to the
Commission ssion at the next meeting.
Gomezreplied that staff could bring the guidelines back at the next
meeting along with the ordinance and ghat action the Council had takers.
Chairman Repel asked Councilman Jim Frost if he had gotten any direction from
what the Commission had said this evening.
Councilman Frost stated that he heard general brainstorming this evening ut
not a consensus from the Commission. oweverx, did not see a problem with a
list of the Commissioner's concerns,
Commissioner McNiel stated that if the Commission forwards this: item on to the
Council, it is a recommendation.
Rick Marks stated that the Commission could forward the guidelines to the;
Council with a recommendation that their concerns be incorporated into the
final version.
Rick Gomez stated that from the views exchanged this evening it did not seem
that the Planning Commission had any grave concerns with the guidelines and
that with corrective language the concerns could' e corrected. He suggested
that Rick Markse through h item-by-item, to try to help the;Commissioners reach
a consensus.
Marks reiterated the concerns expressed by Commissioner McNiel in that
lighting be covered somewhere in the submittal.
Chairman Re e r�rn l Merl that this it
em ens covered on page 8. It was the
consensus of the Commission that this concern had already been addressed and
needed no further attention
Planning Commission Minutes 1 rich 23, 1983
Mr. Marks reiterated the concern of Commissioner Stout that the density per
acre be spelled out in advance. There was a consensus that this item be
included in the guidelines.
Mr. Marks stated that the Commission desired a project pro forma which would
include information with and without development incentives.
Commissioner Stout stated that the details should be spelled out more in that
it should be a cost analysis prepared by an independent person who is an
expert in that area.
Commissioner McNiel advised ;that there are estimators who do that type of work
within every major company,
Mr. Marks stated that this this added procedure could also raise the rents on
a project as staff had been iinformed that each time a step is added, it
increases the rent.
Mr. Hopson advised that this also extends the time period.
Commissioner Stout stated that this is the one item that would show how the
senior citizen would be saving money and felt very strongly that this should
be a requirement.
Chairman Rempel stated that it would not be that difficult for a cost analysis
to be done on the units.
Mr. Gomez stated that the numbers could be verified but the difficulty would
be in the area of profit margins and overhead costs. However, staff would be
able to review the pro formas.
Commissioner Stout suggested that a standard format be established to compare
the projects.
Mr. Lam stated that it would not be difficult to prepare a cost model and that
City staff would now what to to for to make certain that the benefits are
going to the renters and not into the pocket of the developer.
Commissioner Stout asked if a for could be developed for the developer to
fill out so that projects would be similarly figured.
,Mr. Gomez replied that a standardized form could be developed.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would be satisfied with that.
Mr. Marks stated that the next point of discussion was the location of transit
stops and how a senior citizen would get to them.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 23, 1983
w Gomez replied that this could be covered under the site utilization
criteria to include such things as major trdrz por� tion location
Commissioner Stout asked if the locations would be reviewed by staff at the
time of initial submittal and if the locations were not close, how the
developer would mitigate the problem of getting senior citizens to these
serviced
Gomez replied that it would be reviewed at that time
. Hopson advised, that under the criteria being established, a ,project must
be within walking distance to tra rspordtion services do a developer could not
mitigate the location problem by providing transportation to the major
transportation locations.
Marks reiterated the concern that dumb cuts on-site be designed to not add
to or cause flooding problems. There was a: consensus of the Commission that
this item be 'included.
The next item of concern was that performance bonds not be used and
substituted with a long-term maintenance deposit.
"fed Hopson stated that this requirement tight be broadened to include
maintenance deposits, certificates of deposit, or possibly a deed of trust.
Gomerstated that the objective was to get away from the requirement of
the performance bored and possibly the details could be worked out in the
development agreement with the help of the City Attorney.
Commissioner Stout suggested that the wording cold be changed to read
"legally acceptable securities"
Marks stated that the next item of concern was that some discussion o
priority processing be included and also the inclusion of time lures' in the
project submittal process.
Gomez replied that this information is available and if the Commission
desired, could be ,put back in.
Chairman Rempel stated that he was not asking for feat tracking however,
would like to see d time frame established so that it would be known
approximately how long it would take a project to go through each of the
phases
Commissioner Stout- stated that he thought there should be some type of
priority processing.
Planning Commission issic n Minutes , _1 - March 23, 1983
Chairman Rempel stated that item 5 on page needed to be amended to read,
#°each of one of the following".
Gomez stated if there was a problem regarding priority processing, the
language Haight be included that would outline the statutory provisions
available in order to process through the General Plana process to explain this
more clearly.
Commissioner Stoat stated that he would prefer to see, this language added
Commissioner Stout stated that there was also the issue in the site
utilization criteria, item 3 C, and that the specific amount of feet referred
to be eliminated and replaced with the wording "adjacent properties" along
with the inclusion of the location of the amenities
Also discussed was the problem of children being placed in the dare of a
senior citizen and how this issue would be handled. it was the consensus of
the Commission that this be added.
Marks stated that the next item of discussion regarded the parkin
standards and the desire to have this furtherresearched
Commissioner Stoat staged 'that he was personally in concurrence with the
parking requirements
Lam stated that possibly the question was not one meant to change the
requirement, but rather one requesting more supportive material be supplied to
the Commission to substantiate the parking figures.
Comet replied that the parking requirement would never; o Leas than the .
figure established in the ordinance and that staff would review each project
on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate number.
Motion: Moved by Stout seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to forward
the: Guidelines to the City Council with the above Mated amendments.
cents.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, McNiel, Barker, Juarez, Rempel
NOES: Cfl IIt R : None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
K. VICTORIA AVENUE
Jack Lana, Community Development Director, reviewed the staff report stating
that the William Lyon Company submitted a map for the first village
Planning Commission Minutes 16- Maroh 23, 1983
subdivision incorporating the decisions of the City Council and Planning
Commission. Further, that this p incorporates the non-continuity of
Victoria Avenge yet provides for d trail l connection from the Victoria Windrows
Village ' o Victoria Avenue. Staff recommended that it is not feasible to make
modifications to the Circulation Element in view of the significant
implications as a result of this subdivision map approval and that this report
b 'received and filed
Commissioner Stoat asked if there were provisions to got the equestrian trail
from Victoria to Victoria Parkway.
Lam replied that thane were provisions.
Commissioner Stout asked if there was something proposed with respect to the
cul-de-sac 3 ich would have to happen on Victoria Avenue where e it meets the
equestrian trail.
Liam replied that it would have to either be d cul-de-sac or a street with
an elbows and this would depend on what type of development comes in theme.
Commissioner Stout asked if the loop street which abuts Etiwanda Specific Plan
area was designed so that it could not be linked op to any other streets going
over the Etiwanda Avenue.
Lam replied that this would again depend on how the development submitted
is designed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this report be received and filed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Juarez, to adjourn.
9® C P.m.. - Planning Commission Adjourned
Res ctfully ubmitted,
Jack Lam, Secretary _..,. .....
Planning Commission Minutes 1March 23, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUC MO G
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 9, 1983
CALL TO ORDER,
Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting f° the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The 'm ti was held at the Lions Park
Community Center, 1 1 Base Lime Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King them
led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL, CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Beaker*, Larry i 1, Herman R mp 1,
Dennis Stout, Jeff Kind
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nand
STAFF PRESENT: S irntu Bose Associate Civil Engineer; Frank Dreckman,
Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward A. Hopson, Cite. Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative
Secretary; Jack Tarn, Director of Community Co unity v opme nt;
Paul Rougeau, Senior ivil. 'Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior
Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of February 17`, 1983.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner R mp I stated that the Planning Commissioners Institute which h
and Commissioners McNiel and Stout attended on March 2-4, 1983, was the best
in the six years he has served as a Commissioner.
Commisioner Barker stat d. he would like to discuss the Design Review i. t
procedure it the `Planning Commission under the Director's Reports at the end
of rni hts meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-02 --CALMARK - A
request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium-High
Residential ( 14-24 dwelling units/acre) to High Residential (24-30
dwelling units/acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior citizen
apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald,
and north of Base Line - APN 202-151-34 (continued from Planning
Commission meeting of February 23, 1983) .
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83-01 (PARCEL MAP 7827 -
CALF ARK - A change of zone from R-3/PD (Multiple Family
Residential./Planned Development) to R-3/SO (Multiple Family
Re,sidential/Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of
which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres of land
generally located west of Archibald and north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of
Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202-151-34 (Continued from Planning Commission
meeting of February 23, 1983) .
Chairman in indicated that items A and B would be considered together.
Chairman Stout asked that item C also be added to the consideration.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report outlining the concerns
raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Further, that Larry
Persons of Cal mark was present with their consultants and were available to
discuss the modified site plan. He indicated to the Commission that if they
felt that Cal mark was able to address the concerns raised at their last
meeting, affirmative action on this could be taken at this meeting. However,
if the Commission was uncomfortable with Calmark's modifications, this could
be continued to the Commission's March 23 meeting.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Husky, President of Calmark, stated that they would answer any
questions put to they by the Commission, and that he would provide a
historical perspective to the development of this project.
Mr. Larry Persons, 2121 Cloverfiled, Santa Monica, representing Cal mark showed
the modifications made to the pro ject based on the suggestions made. He
indicated that circulation was modified so that neither the market rate units
or the senior citizen units would conflict. Further, that parking will be
provided adjacent to the senior units but away from the general occupancy
units so as not to deprive the senior citizens. Mr. Persons addressed the
pitch of the stairs and the width of the sidewalks which would now accommodate
a person and a wheelchair.
Chairman King stated that in terms of ingress and egress, it appeared that
there is entrance on the far west and also in the middle of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 9, 1983
'I
. Persians explained how entrance would be gained into the project and the
emergency access for fire tracks, police, etc.
Chairman Fling, asked in terms of the middle entrance which is a ramp, is that
intended to be a pedestrian path. Chairman King stated that it might be
necessary to remove an extra parking space or two because he would hate to see
someone on the ramp while carrying groceries coming in contact with a car. He
indicated that there should be a clear delineation between the pedestrian
access to the west and the middle and living areas, and that they should be
free and clear.
Persons replied that the pedestrian paths would be utilized within the
green area and the problem described by Chairman Fling would not occur.
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Persians if he saw a need for pedestrian access
from the market rate units to the;shoppig center.
. Persons replied that it is not needed and that for the most part they will
drive
Commissioner Stout;asked how theirs children would gain access to the shopping
center.
r. Persons replied that they are trying to prevent children from going
through the senior project. ;;He stated farther that access is not intended for
the general occupancy
Commissioner Stout asked if it would be possible to provide a pathway along a
portion of the driveway for people to get to the ;shopping center from the
market rate apartments
. Persians replied that this would not be a problem.
Chairman King asked if that would destroy lmark's concept of a keyed access.
Persons replied that it would not
Chairman King stated that a fence could be placed between the access and the
buildings
Commissioner Pempel stated that on the point of keyed access, it means that
anyone using the Sizzler or the bank would have to go all the way around in
order to get into the complex. He indicated he did not feel this to be either
feasible or good. ' Further, that access other than keyed must be provided. Fie
suggested a special type of walkway in this area; be delineated and that the
people in the market rate apartments should not be kept out.
m Persons asked if the crest side access would be sufficient and explained
how access could be provided for everyone and yet restrict acce s through the
senior project.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March '' , 1983
Commissioner` Re npel stated that this would create a maintenance problem.
Commissioner Beaker stated that he was confused ed by what he had heard
Commissioner tout and Mr. Personssay relative to access at the west side and
to the market rate apartments. He indicated that if it were a controlled
access it would work.
Commissioner Re el stated that one lives on lase Marne and to his east is a
vacant lent with a 6-foot high chain link fence. He indicated that the
children will scale the fence in orders to drat across.
Mrs. Wilma Brenner, representing the Rancho Cucamonga VIP Club indicated that
15 percent of the; people in the area are senior citizens in rued of 'housing.
She asked the Commission to act quickly on this project because they could not
afford to wait
Commissioner Re np l asked Mrs. Brenner how many cars are owned by the senior
citizens in her estimation?
Mrs. Brenner replied that she does not have the figures but was fairly sure
that if they are close to public transportation, they will get ;rid of their
ears and use the brans$ She dad not think that providing parking space was an
important issue.
Commissioner Rempel asked Mrs. Brenner if she has visitors, and if so, where
they would park
Mrs. Brenner replied that many elderly do not get visitors and when ;she toured
anther senior projects observed that there were ample parking irn spaces.
Mrs. Brenner questioned if Commissioner Re pel was against the senior housing
project.
Commissioner Re pel stated that he was not against the senior housing rnd
indeed was for it, but wanted to ensure that there would be adequate parking
space
There being no further comments, the public hearing closed
Chairman Ding stated that the street deign is far superior to the design
presented the last time by Calmark. He felt that they had addressed the
pedestrian walkways along the west side of the project and further, ,that the _
keyed access concept for the elderly units was proper and appropriate. He
indicated that if the keyed access was vandalized, it could be dealt with in
the future and could be changed.
Chairman King stated that as he looked at the staff report and the
modifications which had been made, he 'was comfortable with the project.
Commissioner B iel raked if the Commission is talking about keyed access at
bath.. locations.
Planning Commission linute 4- March 9, 1983
I
Chairman King replied that they had talked about two and Commissioner Stout
talked about another for the senior units and that those would not be eyei .
e stated that he thought it was a good idea to have keyed access in the
beginning because it may cut down on the likelihood of vandalism in terms of
cars being parked in the southern area
Commissioner Stout stated that his general thoughts are that if only keyed,
access points are provided and there are no others, there may be a problem
However, if a choice is given of that and another access which is only
slightly farther, they will select the unke ed access and leave the locked
access alone
Commissioner Barker asked as a point of clarification if Mr. Persons had said
there was a reduction in density.
Persons replied that there is a reduction in the general occupancy units
in the lower area and this was replaced by elderly units. Further, that
compared' to what is saved, the elderly'units are not any greater but d Little
less while the general occupancy units are the same.
Commissioner Barker asked if he is talking about ;number of units versus number
of occupants.
Persons replied that this is true
Commissioner Stout asked how much :the rents will be in that area.
r. Persons replied that preliminary casts have not yet been finally
determined because they hinge on interest rates and if they are unable to get
the financing they are trying for it would affect the rental costs. Further,
that based can previous assumptions with are interest rate of 10 1 percent, i
would be in the range of o for a two bedroom apartment and the high 3 0's
for a three bedroom. Mr. Persons stated that there will, be a mechanism to
hewer the rents and it was hoped that they will be able to lower the rates.
Commissioner Stout asked what the rents will be for the market rate
apartments
Persons replied that they will be is the low CC's and go up to CSC
Persons indicated that they will be working to receive bloat grant
money from the County and development agreements to reduce the fees. He
indicated further that d List is being prepared to explain this and it was` his
trope that the rents would end up in the low; CC range
Chairman King asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable in voting on
this project this everting. He also advisedthe Commission that staff had
indicated that this could be continued to the next regular meeting.
Persons asked the Commission if they could taste action on this tonight-*
Planning Commission Minutes - March 9, 1983
Chairman King road the title of Resolution No. 3 and stated that
Commissioner Stout had asked for encase to the market rate units through the
elderly units and asked if It is more appropriate to 'add this to this
resolution or the next one.
. Gomez replied it would be appropriate in the Planned Development
Resolution.
Commissioner R mp l asked that another condition be added to the Resolution
that wherever in the Heritage Park project the walkway waste the curb, they
will be ramped
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rompel, to adopt the resolution and
conditions as presented.
Commissioner Stout stated that in thearea where it talks about number throe,
some sort of maximum density should be set carp. He indicated that it was 35.4
on the old project and he was not sure what it is presently but that it should
be changed. Commissioner Stout asked if, an it is presently sat up, is it
under 3
Commissioner Rev el asked how many acres are in therevised portion
Pardons ;replaced that it is around six acres.
Commissioner Rempel stated that it should be kited to the number as shownon
the plan
r. Gomez stated that it was what was shown on the concept of the General. Plan
Amendment and the Ro percent density bonu :and in no case should it 'exceed
that
Commissioner Barker stated that this action will not exceed what is ,shown.
discussed t this time.
Commissioner stout aid f roh�.tot�:zro will b
Rath Commissioners Barber and Ra pal withdrew their motion to allow further
discussion„
Gomez stated that the number-of units represented can be adopted.
Commissioner Stout stated that he did not like the open stairway and asked i
the areas could be plastered in. Further, that he would like to coo the
fascia 'enlarged
Persons stated that Mr. Stout may: have Gotten the idea from a project they
had done elsewhere; however, this would appear much bloulior on site than it
does in the picture. He indicated that doing this would create puddling and
the water would be hard to drain.
Planning Commission Minutes; -6- March 9, 1983
Commissioner King stated that he would be opposed to closing that in
Commissioner Barker stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Stout
Commissioner McNiel stated that this may create a hazard if there is puddling
water. He also felt that the fascia could be increased a little.
Persons stated that they ould prat in more material, preferably wood, to
coordinate with several other areas in the project.
Commissioner Stout stated that what he wants is stucco to tie in the 'three
areas and he understands the concern about the railing and he withdraws that.
Commissioner Rernpel stated that the density ;as shown on the original plan
submitted was 37 and that figure should not be exceeded. Further, if. the six
acres is a correct figure than this far exceeds the original density.
Chairman King stated that in ;addition to those conditions stated, additional
access will be provided on the west boundary from the market rate
apartments. He stated further that the ramp area should be dealt with and the
number of units should be limited to that originally proposed. Additionally,
a condition should` e added to have a stucco fascia as described by
Commissioner Stout.
Commissioner Stout asked if the last condition could be per the approval o
staff.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-29 approving the environmental assessment and ;General Plan
Amendment „
Chairman, King stated that the Commission would dove on to Item P, "tentative
Parcel Map No. 7827.
Rica Gomez stated that there would be one correction to the parcel map so that
it conforms with the action taken,'on the first item.
Hopson asked if that will be three parcels or two because you could not
have parcels one and two on the south ,tide dividing the project , n half.
Commissioner Rempelr stated that if the ;project conforms s to the new map it will
not divide the project in half
r Gomez stated that the parcel line will be aligned to corn o nd t
.
} m a .°� �s tr
pp
to the applicant
Persons stated< that this is not a critical item and it will be adopted
provided that parcel three take in the lower portion. Further, this would be
for financing purposes only and the senior project will be separated from the
market rate units
Planning Commission Minutes ate 7March ` , 1983
Commissioner Barker asked which parcel will be the first phase.
Mr. Persons replied that it; will be the southeast with the rep eat
building.
. Hopson stated that the development agreement would control the senior
citizens portion of this project.
Motion: Moved by Remp l seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. , approving Planned Development d 1 , Parcel, Map 7827,
and issuing d Negative Declaration.
Mrs. Hopson asked if there would be an; amendment to parcels one and two in
section one.
Chairman King stated that with the amendment that Mr. Hopson had provided
relative to parcels one and two, the Commission was ready to take action
Commissioner pempel questioned the amendment to parcels one and two stating
that parcel three: was lower and should be changed to;parcels one and three.
Hopson stated that this could be done now or when the parcel map is
submitted, the map could be renumbered with the southerly parcel being
numbered first
Chairman King asked if the Commission should put in the wording "senior
citizen parcel" and add it to this section-. Further, the amendment to the
General Plan land use plan describes this site as senior citizen parcel.
Mr. Hopson replied that staff can pot that in.
Commissioner
oner tout stated that
at assuming that this a perfunctory ory and since the
Planning Commission is recommending the General Plan amendment to the City
Council should this not be contingent on the passage of that ordinance,
otherwise the Commission would be granting an increase in density for no
reason'
Mrs. Hopson stated i that they will refuse this regardless of the ,recommendation.
Commissioner Stout stated that perhaps that should be said.
Mr. Lary stated that there is a way of doing this by so stating in the minutes
and further, that this does not have to be in the resolution
Mrs. Hopson stated that the wording it the resolution being prevented tonight
refers specifically to Section 65361 of the Government Code and further, ;that
any item can e changed if it is being dome for an affordable project.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by He pe ., carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. d '1 , approving Parcel Map 7827.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 9, 1983
7:59 p.m. The Planning i« ion recessed
8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL, MAP 1 PENBO, INCORPORATED
residential subdivision of .585 acres within the --1 zone into 3 parcels
located on the south side of Demon Street at Kinlock Avenue
P Cad- 1- 1 (Continued from Planning m i i n meeting of
February 9, 1983.)
Parr l Rougeau, n idr Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King asked if parcel three is 7,770 squarefeet
Rougeau replied that it is.
Commissioner Stout stated that with respect to the storm drain will it be in
form of an easement and will it allow d buildable list.
r ; Rougeau replied that it will be between lots one and two and will allow rr
buildable lot
Commissioner Stout asked if the vacation of Kinlock will be contingent on the
construction of the storm drain nn that it will not be vacated until %building
occurs.
Rougeau replied that the storm drain will be bonded for and that a bored
will be posted at the time the final map is approved. Further that there will
either be a bond or a monetary guarantee.
.
Commissioner tout asked if the final l p they are talking' bout is the tract
to the south and not those three parcels.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
. Gary n r n, representing Linville, Sanderson, ;Rancho Cucamonga, stated
that he was in agreement with the general conditions but had no plans to build
in the near future. He indicated that he wished the tentative map to b
approved.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by R r pel curried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. , approving Parcel p 7812, issuing Negative
Dee lar* t ion
Planning i i n Minutes - - March 9, 1983
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7847RO INC. A division
of 6,.2 acresinto parcels 'with' wwt r 15 of the Industrial Specific
Plan generally located on the south side of Arrow Route, wrest of: tiwand
Avenue 'AP 1 1and 1 1-law
Paul RougeauSenior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman King asked if parcel two is dependent on access from Arrow along the
east side of`parcel. one
Rougeau replied that parcels two and three will have one-half of the
driveway for ; exclusive use of that parcel. He further indicated that
connection to Arrow will be provided, if needed
Chairman King asked if the.s will remain in the driveway status.
Rougeau replied that it would
Chairman King asked if. it is thought that the driveway status is sufficient
for the size of the parcel
r*. Rougeau replied that it is adequate so far°
Commissioner tart stated that it appears that there is 25 feet on each one-
half of: the driveway. He asked if these two neighbors do not get along, will
that width be sufficient.
. Hopson indicated that the City requires reciprocal ingress and egreas
access and maintenance easements and that this use runs with the land and
there are provisions that the easement cannot be eliminated without City
Chairman King stated that in view of the substantial size of the parcel,cel, it
may be that a public street would be a better requirement to service the
parcels than just a driveway.
Rougeau replied that use of those parcels will require huge amounts of
storage and if this should l.d core in for subdivision the City would lank at it
carefully to be surethat it is used for outside storage and only that.
Hopson stated that one reason that thorn would be a preference for private
ingress and egress is that the City ld not have to maintain it. Further,
that if you loofa at certain flag lots like that of Gemoo, the ingress and
egress can be covered in the cooperative agr ee ent .
Chairman King stated the only reason for his concern is the large neat of
acreage involved in these parcels.
Planning o f siw n Minutes 1 March 9, 1983
Commissioner Remp l stated that avers though it is a large amount of acreage
there is only one manufacturer. Further, with the huge trucks they will be
using at this installation, the street would possibly be damaged and it was
batter for them t sustain the damage than the City.
Chairman King stated that the parcel map provides the vehicle not to have only
area ownership and he felt that it right be better not to have a private
driveway but rather a public street.
Per. Sanderson stated that the main purpose for subdivision is tax purposes.
Farther, that while it is true that they can sell to someone else Aaron has
actually ally' drawn sap a joint ingress and egress agreement that will be recorded
along with this map which would take care of the problem in the :future. He
stated that he does not sae any problem if the legal document is recorded with
the parcel
r Lana stated that it is very unlikely that a problem will occur givers the
use and condition of the site
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stoutcarried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 3 33, approving Parcel Map 7847 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83-02 - (TENTATIVE TRACT
1 3 ) RANCHO ENTER A change of zone from P 3 (Multiple Family
aaada, i l) to P 3 Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development and
the development of 88 units arranged as fc r plc da on 6.4 acres located
south of Base Lime on the wrest aide of Hellman LPN 208-011-02, 04, 71
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman King' asked what the distance is from Bea Lime to the north Brad of
this project.
Gomez replied that it is 295 feet.
Chairman King stated that the General Plana shows the zoning on this as
Administrative Professional.
r ait i.r replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Stout asked ghat the difference is between wen R-3 and ;, 3 Pkl.
Mr. airin explained the difference between the base P 3 and the R 3 Pk
overlay, stating that with the base you are limited to a minimum lot size and
restrictive setbacks. He, indicated that with the overlay you mayarse the Land
more efficiently than what otherwise would be allowed
Planning Commission Hirsute 11- March 9, 1983
I
Commissioner Rempel asked what the estimated size of the storm, drain is.
Mr. Rougeau replied that he is not really sure but thought it would range
around 48 inches and is intended to be a part of a major drainage system for
the properties south of Base time and for the Lion Street development.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Doug Hone, general partner in the Rancho Center, thanked staff for the
work they did on a site with such extreme technical challenges.
Chairman King asked if when the northern part of this project is developed for
technical professional purposes, does the applicant see a conflict with the AP
use in terms of traffic flow.
Mr. Hone stated that what is happening all over Southern California is the
ire tion of mixed use and what future use this will have is predicted on
what is happening now. He indicated that this is the best kind of use for
this property.
Chairman King asked if Mr. Hone sees this as a private type of driveway or as
a public street.
Mr. Hone replied that it will primarily be a drive for the units to the rear
for the access of the other two parcels which could take 25 percent.
Chairman King asked if there will be a problem relative to the drainage aspect
and would it fulfill the drainage need as it relates to the parcel to the
north.
Mr. one replied that there will be a sophisticated drainage system which will
mitigate the site and will also solve the original problem.
Commissioner Stout stated that his understanding is that there will be a sound
attenuation it between the railroad tracks and the units and asked if there
will also be some additional insulation on the units.
Mr. Hone replied that the units will contain the highest energy requirements
and standards which will take care of this problem.
Commissioner Stout asked what kind of roofing material will be used.
Mr. Terry Christiansen, architect, replied that it will be an architectural
composition roof which will look like a slate or shake roof and contain, three
layers of material.
Commissioner Stout asked if this roofing material will produce a random had
effect, and also, what color it will be.
Mr. Christiansen replied that it will be a dark color much like a slate color.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 9, 1983
Commissioner McNiel stated that the drainage for; this site comes across from
the northwest along the railroad and part of the property on the southeast
drops sharply towards the single family residential area. He asked if
anything is being Borne to protect the people and property from the grater flow.
Tyr. Roo earn replied that the future flow through this will.l r°z drain
pipe from Base Lime through Lion Street and explained the drain that would
carry the water.
Rome stated that they are taking abase ground water and putting it
underground at Vineyard and over to Cucamonga Creek
Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Rougeau if on the tentative map the City allows lots that
are physically separated to have the same rnumber.
r. Rougeau replied that they will be numbered.
Mr. Hopson stated that on the tentative they are shown without any description
which would make them very difficult to identify.
flou earn stated that these are; shown like separate bouse lots and this
would d have to have another designation which would d probably be "DII. He
indicated that this would have to be fine-tuned when the final map comes
through
Chairman irn asked that in terra of the area south of Base Vitro and north of
the project, did the applicant have any problem with putting in some type of
grads seeding for the purpose of aesthetics.
. Hone replied that he wand have a problem because he is gettingready t
do something and he does not want to have to teary up any planted grass because
it would be a waste of money.;
Commissioner Rer pel stated that the conditions require that these two areas be
maintained in a reasonable and clean condition.
&r° Hone indicated that some landscaping will be prat in.
Chairman King asked if it really costs that much money.
. Rome, replied that he will be in there pretty quick and presently there are
acres of dirt which require irrigation. Further, that he will trim the area
and there is grass that can be kept up,
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
t,i rnt Moored by Rempe ., seconded y Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. approving the zone change from R-3 to ;R- for Planned
Development No. d
Planning Commission Minutes -13- reh 9, 1983
Motion: Moved by 11or p 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83 3 provin Tentative ct 12362 with the added condition ,
that the area north of the tract be kept in a clean and maintained state.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 1 - CUCAMONGA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH The
development of a 2,660square foot Christian duc tion building for the
Cucamonga United Methodist Church on 3.18 acres of land in the R-1 zone
located at 7690 Archibald Avenue APN`-20-o4i-29.
"rank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner Niel stated that he i ; a member of this church and on its
building committee and wax therefore excusing himself from any ;discussion on
this item due to a possible conflict, of interest.
Mr. Dreckman stated that Planning Division condition 2 would be amended to
exclude the requirement for special boulevard streetscape standardst this
time.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Randy Fehlman, building committee chairman, advised that he would answer
any questions.
Commissioner tout stated that a master plan as been indicated for this site
as referred to it Exhibit race. He asked with respect to phasing when future
building will occur and what it will be.
. Fehlman replied that they will probably not be ready for any future
expansion for years
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Motions Moved by Barkers, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 3 3 , approving Conditional Use Permit 3 11 for the Cucamonga
Methodist Chur4ch
8:57 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
9:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-02 NAZARENE CHURCH - The development of a 10,000
��q-uare foot educational building for the Foothills Community Church of the
Nazarene` on 3.89 acres of land in the -1 500 zone located at 9944
Highland Avenue Apt 1 p a 1
Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 - March 9, 1983
----
Commissioner Stout asked if it would be possible to fill the depression in the
parking area. Further, why this is a requirement since it is something ghat
has to be done an
r. Vairin replied that this applies to the northeast corner of the property
and they were going to grade this off" and fill it in which would cause
drainage problems for the adjacent property and the Grading Committee'did not
want this to our.
Chairman King opened the public hearing
r. Paul,Niel building committee ittee it rr, representing the Nazarene Church,
stated for clarification that the area questioned by Commissioner Stout is; the
forger Santa Fe railway -r right-of-way-way and was a depression and will be filled
in to incorporate parking. He indicted that the shaded red area on the map is
the area in question and will be filled in and landscaped. Further, that the
slopes will go down and transverse through the Lewis Homes track to take the
water
Commissioner Stout ,asked if the large open space is for future church use for
church-related purposes, or will this be sold off.
r. Niel replied that the rules of this Committee stag that this land cannot
e solved and will be used as future church development. He indicated that when
the church expands , they plan to develop the lower 5 acres.
Commissioner Stout stated that he is a naturally curious person and it appears
that the City is requiring street-frontage for a marrow purpose and perhaps
some time the future the church may want to use this as a baseball field.
e indicated that the improvements required for the whole length of the
frontage may place an undue burden on the church and asked if any thought had
been given to this
Niel replied that the original requirement was for over 600 Feet of
improvements but they had appealed and he has a letter in his file from the
City requiring only approximately 0 feet west of the surer they will be
bringing in and they will be removing the existing asphalt from the Lewis
Homes project on the east to the bridge on the crest. This will be done when
they develop and they will repave per City standardsm
Commissioner Stout stated that the actual curb and gutter will be required for
200 feet and asked: if they plan a major sanctuary.
m Niel stated that they plan on a future sanctuary but was not sure when and
he pointed out a division between the upper and lower five acres, proposing
that the sanctuary will be built on the upper~ portion. He indicated that he
did not know what would be placed on the liner portion and felt that they have
adequate parking for a feature sanctuary at this time.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was chased..
Planning Comission Minutes 1March 9, 1983
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-37, approving Conditional Use Permit 83-02.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83-n' - BARTON - The
development of an 80,000 square foot office building on T3--.22 acres of
land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) , located at the southeast
corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner McNiel stepped down from discussion on this item due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman it asked Mr. Vairin to point out exaotly where parking will be
provided.
Mr. Vairin replied that he should look at the hatched area which will be a
parking structure for the future buildings.
Commissioner Barker asked where the jail will be located.
Mr. Vairin replied that it will be to the southeast.
Chairman King asked where this sits with landscaping along Foothill Boulevard
relative to the parking area.
Mr. Vairin explained the landscaping and pointed out >that Exhibit "C" would
provide the detail of the planter along Foothill Boulevard. He also stated
that they will be requesting additional wells for plants.
Commissioner Barker stated that it was his impression while talking about this
in Design Review that the planters not be wasted by scattering them here and
there due to the size of the project.
Mr. Vairin replied that they my still be looking for an additional one or two
to be constructed.
Chairman King stated that he sees a definite need for more landscaping in the
parking lot itself.
Mr. Vairin asked if the planters should be triangular for more view.
Mr. James Barton', applicant, explained the parking structure, its capacity,
design and landscaping which would be designed to shield the parking area from
view along Foothill Boulevard. He also explained the material that would be
used for the construction of the parking structure.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 9, 1983
I
r arton requested that under item 2 of the resolution he have the ability
to resubmit to the Planning Commission a new site plan if he is successful 'in
getting a bank as d tenant, the plans for a drive-in window. He would like to
change the driveway adjacent to the building to accommodate a single drawer
drive-up window.
r. Barton referred to page 5 item 3 under engineering street improvements and
stated he has been asked to install the median on Haven. Further, that he
bonded for the rt improvements and has no objection to installingthe
radian, but dace not want to install both aides and asked how, if her is
required to do so, will he be paid
Rougeau replied that the .Longer the installation of the median islands is
delayed, the longer* the problem exists and it would be better if everything is
done at the same time
r. Barton asked if the City and County are going to do their median, south of
this piece of property.
.
ou earr stated that the County and City have not yet submitted their plans
but it may be that the Commission now starts thinking about the area of Arrow
Roans and Foothill 'Boulevard near the ;-Mara. Mr. Rougeau stated further that
awaiting for Vineyard on the west aide of Haven is not d wise thing, but it
becomes a question of when the City wants to start doing its shave in
beautifying a n this area and .it would be an important aspect to look at.
r°4 Roo eaar stated ,that somehow the City would have to foot the bill for the
west aide of the street that would be the City'a responsibility for
development and explained the various mechanics that would be possible t
apply to such development.
Lam da&rad about credit for systems fees
Mr. Rougeaar replied that this would not be fully appropriate because they are
not functional improvements; however, there is nothing written in the
ordinance that would prevent it.
Barton stated that Cal Trans will not allow a' median on Foothill Boulevard
and the City is asking for a lien there. I
Mr. Rea aaar replied that Cal Trans' will allow a median' island a = long as it is
a part of a comprehensive plan for a full mile or one-half ails. He indicated
that it could happen on Foothill as well.
Chairman "King stated that if it goes the lien route, his thinking n Haven is
that perhaps with this complex it is time for the City to proceed with
construction f the median on Baum. Further, that this is a significant
aspect of development it that area and would; add a large amount to that
intersection.
Planning Comission Minutes _1March 9, 1983
Barton stated that he is more than willing to install his half for which
he is responsible, but he would object if he is to pert up the front money for
.
the rest. He indioated that the amount of fees he is currently paying i
enormous mou nd dues not feel he should be required to pert in what is above and
beyond his project.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he wondered if Mr. Barton is successful in
getting a bank to locate here If they can be toured into remote system
rather than the built-in n drive-in window.
. Barton replied that he had taken some pictures of the Wells Fargo banks in
Irvine which use the system he is speaking of and feels that it works well.
Conunissioner l e rpel stated that the Planning om rissi n does not have any say
in the fee area
r$. Vairin stated he washed; to respond to Mr. Barton'srequest for a change on
condition two to add the following working. "If a drive-thru window is
desired , it shall: be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission." The
them item is with regard to the, fees; and Mr. Vairin stated that it is
standard procedure that the applicant in the Design Review committee eeti s
receive an estimate of the fees required based on the drawings ;which are
submitted.
Mr. Vairin stated that this was probably done by someone who did not know that
a previous review had been worked out on fees.
Mr. Lam stated that the only obligation to the applicant is the rye-half" of
the median and haw it is dune on the other side is up to the applicant to
integrate and can be taken care of to the satisfaction of the applicant..
Further, that if he would feel better, it can be stated that he will be
responsible for ogre-half. He added that the only time full construction ,is
required is when 'there is a safety factor involved, and this is not the case.
Chairman King asked the applicant what he thinks of the bonding versus the
onstr uetion issue.
Barton replied that if the City and County put theirs in he has no
objection. He indicated however that Haven Avenue is not wide ,enough at the
intersection to accommodate twr left turn pockets. He felt that there should
be some additional work can Haven scut bound or the west side
. Lam ,stated that the actual work on the median should be done at one
stretch at d time and the City, at this time, does not know what the County i
doing. Further, that information must be received before' thud improvements
can be ;budgeted
Commissioner lempel stated that since no one knows what the median will look
like, bonding is the only answer.
I
Planning Commission Minutes d larch 9, 1983
Mr. Lam stated that they are suggesting that the applicant only be responsible
for rye-half the median and when the median goes in is subject to when the
County rty r mplete their pleas 'and when the improvements are budgeted.
Chairman King stated the original question was should we stick it in or
require bonding.
Rougeau explained the mechanisms for the lien agreement for Foothill, the
option for a slash deposit, etea stating that a lien agreement would also
accomplish the improvements.
Barton stated he would lake a lien_agreement.
Lam stated that the condition_should be ;a Lien requirement.
Commissioner Stout stated that he is totally supposed to a driveway it front of
the building.
Barton replied that he is also opposed to that.
Commissioner Stout stated that if it must be done he would like ;it to be
remote.
to
Commissioner Rempel asked if there is any way that the Commission can get the
Foothill "ire District to tee a look at some of the buildings in Orange
County that have 100 feet of landscaping in front of their buildings.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. - 38, approving Development review 83-03 and issuing d
Negative Declaration.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT'S
Commissioner Barker requested that the Design Review procedures be revised to
allow a meeting time other than coming in at 1 p.m. for the meetings. He
indicated that it is difficult for him to get away since he works for a public
agency. He further requested that the.procedure be amended so that more
Commissioners can get involved and so that there can be fallow through when
the project goes on to the next Commissioners in Line to handle it.
Gomez suggested that the meetings begin later in the days and run into the
evenings.
.I
Commissioner Barker stated that it wind be good "from his tandp int
Planning; Commission Minutes -19 March 9, 1983
"I
Commissioner Stout stated that his proposal would be that the meetings start
later in the day and that there to a rotating basis of Commission assignments
to follow through on the projects. He indicated that all Commissioners should'
be, familiar with the projects evert if they serve only on a six-month basis.
Commissioner Hempel stated his agreement with what was being said, indicating
it is often difficult for him to get there. Commissioner empel felt that s
rotating committee right have problems with follow through on projects ,
however, if the time periods for serving is too 'short.
;. Gomez stated that another option would;;be for the Design Review Committee
to greet two tires a month.
Commissioner Barker stated that he is concerned rned with following a project if
the Committee members serve on a three- ninth basis"
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff is prepare a
report discussing, the alternatives for: meeting data and time for the Design
Review a ittee
Vice-chairman Hempel presented a Commendation Resolution to Chairman Jeff~ King
on behalf of the Planning Commission. Chairman King was also presented a
plaque commemorating his service on the Commission.
mm
ADJOURNMENT
,nett: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
at 10:20 p.m
10t 0 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned
Res eWSSeoretaryy
witted,
�ry
Planning Commission Minutes - C- March 9, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular tin
Chairman Jeff King celled the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission f
the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order .m. The i was held
Gods Community Centers, 9161 Base Liana Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Chairman King there led in the pledge ll i nce.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman
Rempel, Careens Stout,, Jeff King
ABSENT: C OMM ISSIONERS: Nora
STAFF PRESENT: Ban -Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack ;Lary, Community
Development Director; Rick Marks, Associate Planner; Janice
Reynolds, Secretary; Peal Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
APPROVAL CPMINUTES:
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stoat, unanimously carried, to approve
the Minutes of the Planning Commission emir: f" January 26, 1983.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Hempel., unanimously arr°i d, to approve
the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1983.
Commissioner Rempel requested ted that the Commissioners be provided with copies
of Resolutions approved by the Commission that had changes or modifications to
either the Resolution r^ conditions of approval.
l
Jack 5 , Community Development Director, replied that this could be done
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the Planning Commissioners Institute
would be hale March 2 through 5 in Monterey, California. Any Commissioners
who were planning to attend should contact the City office for travel and
itinerary information.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that theme would be an
Advisory Commission meeting t Lions Perm Community Center, February 24, at
:CSC p.m. to discuss, among other issues, the neighborhood commercial center
in Etiwanda.
i
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. VACATION CP PORTION CP 7TH STREET - CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS
R. VACATION OF d R STREET - CAL DWELL L,L COMPANY
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCELS MAP 1 KINNCN PIP F
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL LPL PERMIT R 1- NIRA A
Motion: Moved by Stoat, seconded by R mpel; unanimously carried, to adapt the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC REARING
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT d�_ CAL MAR A
request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plea from Medium-High
Residential 1 dwelling unit acre) to High Residential R 3C
dwelling ratite/acre) for the development of- 161 affordable senior citizen
apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of load located west of Archibald,
and north of lase Line APN 202-151-34.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLnANNE R L P 3 C 1 �PARCPt P
AL AI A change of zone from R P (Multiple Family
Residential/Planned Development) to R 3/ C (Multiple Family _
Residential/Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of
which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres of land
generally located west of Archibald ld and north use Line - Parcel 2 of
Parcel Map 5792 APN 20211 .
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that this is the conclusion of the first
phase of what has been established as a two-tier process far senior citizen
projects;ts; the first phase being the 'design review aspects, and the second
would be the development agreement between the City and the developer*.
Ries Marks, Associate Planner, narrated a slide presentation of the Planning
Commission's tour of Cal mark projects in neighboring i,ti.es.
Planning Commission Minutes -2 February 23, 1983
Dar Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the stiff report rt presenting four
options available: to the Commission regarding this item: ` 1) approval of the
project as presented* approval with modifications;ns; (3) return n the project
to ;the Design Review Committee to revise the project; or, denial
Rick Comet, City Planner, stated that the, project developer met with staff"
earlier in the day and an agreement had been gads that more attention would b
brought to the window treatment on the senior apartments and the meat' lire on
the market ratty apartments. "these changes would be brought back to the Design
Review Committee pri r to issuance of Building permits. Mr. Gomez further
stated that he wanted to add d 6th item in the General Plan Amendment
Resolution which would stater "Whereas, Section 65361 of the California
Government Code provides for amendments of mandatory elements of d General,
Plan at any time during d calendar year for an affordable residential
development, p ified in, said section."
Commissioner r rk stated that one of his ca re was with the separation of
the senior citizen community from the market rate community and asked if some
treatment had been devised to accomplish this
Dark Coleman replied that item 9 of the Resolution addressed this feature. R
stated that this was one of the concerns of the senior citizens group staff
had met with to ;gather input and landscaping to minimize the impact was
suggested as a solution.
Commissioner r•kter asked if this would then be brought back' to the Design
Review Committee.
Coleman replied that the final landscape plan could be brought back to the
Design Review Committee if the Commission desired.
Commissioner Barker, stated that he felt -it should because it is a major
concern of his. Commissioner Rempal agreed
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Larry Persons, representing Cal mark, 2121 Clovertie
ld, manta
California, addressed' the ;Commission giving the history of the Cal mark
Corporation. In regard to the segregation of the two projects, Mr. Persons
stated that the intent of the developer is to limit the amount of access and
intrusions, such as sidewalks, and have the project orient more toward the
interior of the project and to try to present a barrier through berm berming and
landscaping. He father stated that the only other way to completely separate
their would be with a fence, however, It was felt that this would create a
walled community and would isolate the sealer citizens' community and would
also create more problems. He stated that this has never been a problem with
other Cal mark projects. Also, the lighting concerns expressed by the senior
citizen group had been addressed in d recent letter from the Calmar
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 23, 198
Corporation and advised that this project wound be within the confines of one.
of the brightest projects to prevent possibilities of anyone hiding in the
dark. In regards to the handrails, he stated that a rounded top handrail is
being installed in all Cal mark projects. In regard to access to the shopping
center, the problem facing the developer is the grade deferential. The
present plan is to install a ramp at the extent of the drive at the corner of
the elderly and the general occupancy; an further to the t would place it
at the loading docks of the Alpha Beta store. Mr. Persons stated that the
applicant agrees with the conditions of approval imposed by staff and the only
concern was one of a monetary nature and requested that the fees be waived in
an effort to provide the lowest passible rents to the residents
Commissioner Pempel asked what the pitch of the stairways and the width of the
walkways was proposed to be, and also asked''what type of texture would be used
on the walks« He stated that he was concerned with the size of the recreation
or open. area between the buildings and wondered if the open space proposed,
wound be adequate for the people living there
Mr. Persons replied that the stairway pitch is 6 and 11 the walk width is
four feet, of a textured nature to prevent slapping, and water drains were
placed under the l to prevent puddling. With regard to the recreation
center, the buildings which are 2000 square foot and ;can be sectioned off for
smaller meetings by aedordian doors, is the sage recreation building size as
the Oxnard canter. With regard to open area outside, he stated that it could
possibly be the scale of the map as the actual open area outside is twice the
size of the Duarte project which has a substantial amount of open area.
Commissioner e pel asked how they intended to keep other tenants from parking
in the seniors citizens' parking area
Mr. Persons stated that this is not envisioned as a problem; however, should
it become one there are provisions for parking stickers.
Commissioner Rem el stated that he saw a problem with the parking in the front
of the col-de-sad craning into the main entry in that the general occupancy
visitors might take those parking spaces. _
Chairman King stated that there are various goals the Commission wishes to
achieve in passing along affordable housing to senior citizens. In exchange
for the Commission reaching that goal, there are various options such as
density bonuses and fast tracking that go to the applicant. He stated his,
concern that the applicant is seeking to upgrade the land: use or density from
what was deemed appropriate and there is a density 'bonus for achieving
this in the City and that he felt the City should be getting a project which
is top quality in terms of design. Further that hopefully, the City getting
the top; quality project and the applicant getting the added density bonuses
would arrive at a project that is not only as aesthetically pleasing
development, but wound; accomplish the purpose of providing affordable houasin
Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1983
to senior citizens. He voiced concerns with the elevations in terms of being;
aesthetically pleasing. Further, in terms of parking, felt Commissioner
Re pel'd concern was a real concern and heaped the design of the project could
address this. Also, the pedestrian access from the senior citizen aspect of
the development opme nt over to the far western corner of the project was a problem
and he did not see it addressed in the design. He suggested a covered walkway
be considered sea that during the rainy season a senior citizen could get from
his unit to a general con retational area. He stated that he realized that ,
the it 's requirements could be such that the project looses its feasibility
in terms of accomplishingboth the applicant's and the It 'a pals and did
not feel it was the intent of the Commission that this should happen so that
no one's goals were Bret and the project falls through. He further stated that
what the City is receiving back should compensate the community for the extra
density in terms of upgraded land use and density bonus.
r Persons stated that the project was designed and presented to several
cities. He stated that the denisty is 35 units to the acre when evaluated on
the number of units to the acre; :.however, when evaluated on the occupancy, it,
equates at a lower density because this product type has an average of 1 .2
people which is significantly leas than conventional apartments. This dengity
would be on the carder of 15 units per acre when calculated in this manner and
the impacts of lard, travel and services is significantly leas. Furthers, in
regards to amenities, everyone could add something, however it raises the coat
of the units; and it was found that the average senior citizen would rather
have a lower rent than extra amenities,
Commissioner Stout asked if any thought was put into mitigating the amount of
traffic;which would be going through the senior citizens' project because it
looks as if there is a straight path through the project to get two the
southern parking of the project. He suggested that younger occupants might
have a tendency to utilize that path to exit the project and disturb the
senior citizens.
Mr. Persons replied that a lot of thought was given to this and the developer
attempted to provide separate circulation patterns for each area and several
options; had been explored. The present design was selected as the beat for
all concerned.
Commissioner stout suggested that the branch of the 'IT" intersection at the
bottom of the project which goes into the senior citizens project could be
de for emergency vehicles access only and the seniors could enter ;from
Lomita Court, park, and exit the dare way.
Commissioner Rem el suggested that a one-way street be madefrom the uppers "T"
coming down and bring the point down at bottom so that it can only go one
direction.
Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that he did not see why the loop could not remain as
far as the Sunrise portion goes, but did not see why there had to be access
from the Sunrise portion along the south boundary to the senior citizen
area. Further, that there is no need for other traffic to drive through the
senior citizen project and that traffic could be out down 90 percent.
Mr. Persons replied that blocking this off or making it one-way prohibits any
type of emergency vehicles in non-emergency situations from going through the
project. He suggested the use of the devices used in drive-in movies and
amusement places that prohibit a car from going in more than one direction
might be considered. He stated that this has never been a problem and that
possibly the project could 'be developed as presented and if problems come up
at a later date, a means to alleviate them could be developed.
8:10 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:20 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman King asked if anyone wished to address this item. There were none
and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King stated that the Commission had several options before them and
it they desired further discussion, they could continue on the item. However,
he felt there are definite concerns by the Oommunion with the design and
possibly the item should be continued to March 9 no the applicant and staff
could work them out. He asked for the preference of the applicant.
Mr. Persons replied that he would be agreeable to a continuance to the March 9
meeting, however, would appreciate further input from the Commission on the
design so that they and staff could work out these concerns.
Commissioner McNiel stated his concern that the occupants of the market rate
units off of Lomita Park might use the senior citizen parking and suggested
some type of a plan that the interior parking be eliminated and placed where
these people could use it.
Chairman King recaped the concerns of the Commission and asked that they be
addressed at the next meeting. The concerns were as follows: concerns
relative to access; the ingress and egress as it relates to the general
population on the left complex going through and traveling in the areas
closest to the senior citizens; the parking and the possibility of the general
occupancy residents taking parking from the senior occupants; elevations; the
issue of open space and its adeqoacy; specificity as it relates to recreation
area typos of facilities, adequacy of access from senior project to the
general service area; and pedestrian access from the senior project to the
point of ingress and egress into the commercial area. He asked if there wer
other concerns the Commissioners wished addressed.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that possibly the option of locating the recreation
center more towards the center of the senior portion of the project should b
explored. He also stated that he realized there was a lot of thought put into
the present location by the applicant;, and would be willing to listen to the
reasoning t the net meeting, but the present location does bother him.
Motion: Moored by Stout, seconded by Hempel, unanimously carried, to continue
Planned Development d 01 and General plan Amendment 83-03 to the Planning
Commission meeting of March 9, 1983.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE INANC AMENDMENT d C1 An
amendment to Chapter 1 Section 1 .Cd®1 0 and 1 .0 .1` 0 of the Cit r of
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding home e occupation permits.
Michael yairin, Senior 'Planner, reviewed the staff report.
rt.
Commissioner Stout asked ghat type of home occupations are; being applied for?
yair�in replied that in these hard economic times people are applying for a
wide variety of aide-lime businesses.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, explained that even though there i
no fee for a hoe occupation permit, it is h record keeping system in which if
there is a problem, the City has the ability to provide more effective
enforcement.
er ent
Commissioner ;Stout asked if d cost study had been done on these permits.
r yairin replied that it had been done at one; time and it was around C to
$25, which included mailingnotification. With the implementation of the
proposed ordinance, the amount would be very nominal since it would be
permit issued at the counter.
Ear$ Lam stated that the problem in adding a fee for the permit is that a lot
of.the people now applyingfor the permits would not have florae so if theme was
a fee involved.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this might also dissuade
people from taking out a city business license.
Commissioner Stout stated that it seemed that conditions 4 and 5 conflict
because it states that you can grow fruit on your own trees and sell it, but
no one can come to your house and; buy it
yair°in replied that this was not the intent and would not be interpreted
in that manner.
Planning Commission Minutes -7February 23, 1983
Dare Coleman stated that you could add a statement in condition 5 of the
ordinance to include the sale of fruits or vegetables that would eliminate the
conflict
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt this inclusion would be a good idea.
Chairman King opened ed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried to adopt
Resolution 83-22 recommending approval ZoningOrdinance Amendment 3 1 to the
City Council with the change to condition 5 of the proposed City Council
Ordinance to include the sale of fruits and vegetables.
ACES. COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, McNiel, Pe el, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: CO
MMISSIONERS:11CT T1 m -carried-
H.
CONDITIONAL AL USE PE MI'I 83-03 - MCA 'I T11 The development pment of a 8,615
square foot preschool and elementary school in are existing building
located in Wendy Is Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C-2 zone APN
PC 1 4 , 15, 1 (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of
February 9, 1983) .
Chairman King stated that he has a son who attends Montessori Academy and
asked if any of the Commission construed this as a conflict of interest.
The consensus of the Commission was that it did not.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission.
n.
Chairman King awed in terms of entry if there would be some type of signing
that would direct Wendy 's traffic away from the school.
Coleman replied that this was correct.
Chairman King opened the public hearing
Russ dames, Western Commercial, addressed the Commission stating that, his
architect and the applicant sere present this evening to answer the
Commission's n's questions He also stated that the architect would address the
changes that`had occurred since the last meeting; however, the fence was left
off because they had some concerns s with this construction.
,I
Planning Commission n Minutes - - February 23, 1983
Herb Horowitz, of Leidenfrost and Horowitz, 3407 W. Olive Avenue, Burbank,
California, addressed the Commission stating that the changes had been made to,
the project which were of tiro concern to the Commission at the last
meeting. However~, the fence had been omitted because they "felt that the
parents aright park adjacent to the east parking lot and use the sidewalk as rr
alternate means of getting from their cars to the school building without
walking through the parking lot itself. Further, they had no objections to
putting the fence up if that is still the Commissions preference, however felt
the sidewalk would serve a greater number of people if the feriae were not
there. Mr. Horowitz pointed out that the directional sign is for the
Montessori School to develop a traffic pattern for the parking lot itself,
which would be a counter-clockwise route.
Sandy Schmidt, Director of Montessori Academy, addressed the Commission
stating that ,she was available to answer questions the Commission might have.
Commissioner Rempel stated that his concern was with the traffic and wondered
if itwouldn't be better to install a radius curb to better* facilitate
dropping children off.
Horowitz stated that this is a good suggestion and they mould be favorable
to it.
Commissioner kern stated that he was a little dismayed to see that the
fenced in walkway had been eliminated and ;that he could see the applicant's
logic, but at the same time the fence would have provided some measure, of
safety to the elementary school children. He asked if something couldn't be
designed that would allow periodic access.
Horowitz stated that they would be agreeable to putting a fence at the
walkway area if this was the Commission's desire and work with staff on any
access points they deem necessary.
Commissioner e rpol stated that he still has a problem with the selection of
the site due to the traffic turning left onto Foothill.
Ms. Schmidt responded that a lot of research had gone into the site selection
and this one was the best; suited to the creeds of the school. As fat as ,
traffic turning left on Foothill Boulevard, Ms. Schmidt stated that the only
solution she could see to this would be a right turn only sign.
James stated that since the hours; of departure re are staggered, the impacts
on traffic would not be as great- as if it were a use that'would be closing at
5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he did not feel the walkway could meet the
purposes it was designed to serve. Be: asked if the dentist had been consulted
as to the placing of the trash bids in front of his offices.
Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1983
Mr James replied that he had not contacted the dentist regarding the trash
enclosure inoo it was already there and there was room for a d rubl
enclosure. Further, if it caused a problem, the trash bins could b
relocated.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he felt the dentist should at least b ;
advised.
Commissioner Stout stated that he was in agreement that the fence should be
there and should not have an opening
Dan Coleman suggested , that,' self-latching gates could be installed if this
could serve the intent of the Commission: and possibly the applicant could
respond to this
Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that it had been suggested to the applicant
that supervision of the parking lot could be required to provide observation
of the students at the time of arrival and departure and if the Commission so
desired; this could become d condition of approval .
Commissioner Stout stated that Ontario has developed a Conditional Use Permit
for preschools in this type of location and that he would like to see 'ghat
their requirements are
Darn Coleman stated that he had contacted the City of Ontario and their
requirements ;are basically what is before the Commission tonight. Her added
that Ontario has had no problems so fan with the preschools they have approved
in locations similar to this one.
Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner McNiells statement regarding; the
placement of; the 'trash burs is well ,taken and suggested` that the southeast
corner may be a better location
Teri Moore, one of the shopping curter owners, addressed the Commission stating
that one of the owners of trendy's was present who could address the issue of ,
how trendy's prepares their trash for placement :in the bins if the Commission
desired his input
Commissioner Stout replied that he recalled that, there is an misting
structure there so the relocation of the burn may cause a hardship. He asked
if this became a major problem could it be brought back for a: change to the
Conditional Use permit
Coleman replied that one of the conditions provided that the use mould be
monitored over the next six months and if there was a problem, it could be
brought back before the Commission
Planning Commission Minutes _ 1 - February 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that it did not necessarily have to be a condition,
but could the dentist be contacted at that time to see how he feels regarding
the trash bin location
Coleman required that it could.
Chairman King closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Stoat, seconded by Rear el, unanimously carried, to adopt
Resolution 83-23 approving Conditional Use Permit with the amendments to
include the fencing and the radius curb.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stoat, Rempel, Barker, McNiel, Kin
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
A T: COMMISSIONERS: None carried-
r - Planning Commission Recessed
9z1 Planning ommission Reconvened
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN f 1
A Q V kiAYA " - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from
Medium Residential 4-14 dwelling units/acre) to Medium-High Residential
1 2R dwelling units/acre) on approximately 15.5 acres of land located at
the northeast corner of use Line Road and Rochester Avenue - AFC
227 91- $ (Continued from Planning o is ion meeting of;
January 26, 1983) .
Michael ; `airin, Senior 'Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
r a ee an Kanokvechayant, applicant, addressed the Commission thanking the
City stiff for helping her prepare the application for a General Plan
amendment from Medium Residential to Medium-High Residential. She stated that
this density only appears in the planned communities areas and that she had
been contacted by a developer who was interested in her property, but the
property did not carry a high enough density for her to dell it. Also, she
did not feel that a- problem would be created in this amendment. Dr.
Kanokvechayant stated that she objected to a staff report statement that
indicated that the entire 36 acres needed to be considered in the amendment of
this property because her property is d different situation since her property*
Planning Commission Minutes 11- February 23, 1983
is bounded by two major streets, s Line and Rochester, which could carry
more traffic and this traffic would not affect the Rochester tract.
Doh Baer, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission in opposition to the
rezoning of this property. Mr. Baer stated that this property was the subject
of lengthy debate during the General Plan hearings. Further, that he realized
that densities would change and was not against change as long as there is a
good plan; however, there doesn 't seem to be a plan for this property as of
now and that raising the density of the property without knowing what is going
to be built there would be contrary to the planning the City has spent the
last five years doing.
r ar ok echayant addressed the Commission stating that she is not a
developer or builder and cannot afford t 'bring a plan before the City. h
further stated that she would make sure that a good plan for the property was
submitted to the City,. Also, that one playa she had been working on; was
similar to the project on Grove Avenue and , th with a parking lot underneath
however, was not financially able to complete these plans
"there were no farther comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner kcNiel stated that he is of the opinion that the density is at
maximum now and it is out of reason to rezone it a higher density.
Chairman King stated that this specific parcel of property was discussed at
length at the General Plan hearings s and that everyone basically felt that Day
Creeks was the more centrally* located and more mass-transit oriented roadway
and therefore the higher density should be placed along that major iarterial.
Further,> that this piece of; property has the highest density of any property
west of Day ;Creek over to Haven north of Base Line and up to the Foothill
Freeway and the reason it has the present density is because of its location
with regard to Base Line and Rochester. It was felt that this piece of
property was a good piece of: property to have this higher density on.
Further, to raise the density any higher would be against much of the
discussion at the General Plan hearings and that good planning calls for° the
density that presently exists
Commissioner Rempel stated that the comment made by Mr. Baer is applicable in
this case and that a plan really has to core first.
`here were no further comments and Chairman King called for the vacation.
Motion:: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt
Resolution 83-24 to decay General Plaza Amendment d - 1 .
Planning Commission Minutes 1 - February 23, 1983
,AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Niel, Barker, Rempel, Stout, in
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: None -carried-
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised that this decision is
appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date.
Dire ctorj2_22ports
J. FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE
Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised= the Commission of the status of the Footbill
Community Plan. Mr. Gomez stated that the project is moving along and staff
will keep the Commission informed on its progress,
Public Comments
Commissioner Rempel asked the status of the Development Code.
Jack Lao replied that the draft Is to be on his desk by the end of the
month. Further, that this draft will be distributed in-house to give staff
the opportunity to refine it before distribution to interested parties.
Jeff Sceranka, Executive Director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce,
advised that there would be a Chamber of Commerce meeting on March 7, 1983,
7:30 a.m. , at Hens and Holsteins Restaurant regarding the Sign Ordinance.
Further, that Michael Vairin of the Planning staff would present a slide
presentation and discuss the revisions to the Sign Ordinance which he has been
working on with the Chamber.
Commissioner Stout stated asked if the Commission could revise the Victoria
Plan, or was it permanently set because he would like the Commission to review
the terminus of Victoria with respect to where it meets the Etiwanda Specific
Plan boundaries.
Rick Gomez replied that with further direction, the staff could look into this
and report its findings back to the Commission.
Jack Lam asked if Commissioner Stout was referring to the Victoria which
cul-de-saas rather than goes through.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 23, 1983
Commissioner Stout replied that he was referring to the Victoria which
uld -sans
. Lam stated that the Commission could initiate a request that this item b
brought before them.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if the question was could
you revise a specific plan, the answer is yes
Commissioner Stout :stated that to ;would like to request that staff take lank
t this and report tack to the Commission. Commissioner Stout asked when this
would be brought back
.` Gomez replied the second meeting in March.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would like it in the works before the first
trust is filed
. yairin advised that the first tract has already been filed.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would also like to know how many tracts are
involved.
Ted Hopson advised if they have final d the maps, the City no longer has
control; however, if the applicant wanted to, they could voluntarily change
the
Jack Lam stated that the issue is not whether or not the Lyon Company will or
will not cooperate, as he felt they would, but is if it is significant to look
at it because it was a very major item of discussion during the Victoria
plans.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff look into Victoria where it
meets the Etiwanda Specific Plan boundaries and report back to the Commission
by than adrrnd meeting in March.
ADJOURNMENT
Nation: Moved by Rempel, seconded by stoat, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
p.m. Planning Commission adjourned.
Res ontfu submitted ,
r
w,
JackLam, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 1 - February 23, 1983
CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION 11 L1 S
Regular Adjourned Meeting
February 17, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff King calked the regular adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Brie Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman
King then led in the pledge of allegiance .
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Ranker, Larry M--Niel, Herman Rer pel,
DennisStoat, Jeff ding'
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beadle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez , City Planner;
Edward A. ;Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Hebb , City Engineer;
{Otto Krorrtil , Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative
Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
Tim Reedl,e advised that the last two sections of the regulatory provisions of
the :ti anda Specific Plan would be reviewed by Otto Kroutil, Associate
Planner.
Mr. Krodtil. reviewed the special regulations regarding tree and windrows and
then went on to the section on architectural and design standards reviewing
the standards of those pertaining to future projects and those which applied
to existing standards. Fie explained that restrictive architectural standards
would apply should a developer choose to develop under optional development
standards. farther, that the most restrictive standards are found on
commercial developments and explained the definition of "barn style" to the
Commission. Mrs. Kroutil advised that the architectural and design standards
article contains provisions to encourage the preservation of historical
structures within the Eta anda area and that the Plan identifies those
structures.
Chairman King; asked the Commission for their comments
Commissioner Hempel ,Mated that several pages were shipped andwhich
deal with setbacks and freight limits next to existing churches. He raised
concern that setback conditions are written for churohe , however, the
reciprocaml, was not considered if a church is built next to;an existing
house. He did not feel:: this should be prat in the Plan.
Commissioner iel asked if under the H section .4 , should it not rend one
or, leas. He indicated that there is a conflict. Further,-on page P up to
one, and in fact, ;reads a density of lass than one dwelling unit per acre;
Mr. Kroutil replied that this should be changed to read "one or less".
Chairman in opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public
hearing was closed .
Commissioner Stout commented on architectural standards contained in section
5.44 and the language in section .802 relative to neighborhood commercial
facilities with respect to barn style architecture. Commissioner Stout
thought that this style should be used on any commercial type, not just
neighborhood commercial.
Mr. kroutil asked if this should pertain to office commercial as well.
Commissioner Stout replied that it should and further that it should look
unique,
Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to the architectural type for
residential areas, Etiwanda should have the same style throughout to be
consistent. He felt that an architectural theme containing the same style
should be encouraged.
Chairman it asked Commissioner Rempel for clarification of his previous
comments.
Commissioner Rem el replied that if limitations are made on residential
development where there are existing churches that the reciprocal should also
be made. He stated what bothers him is the delineation of churches and not
schools. He stated that this should be the same for residential. fie further
stated that the restrictions on development next to churches should be deleted
from the text and taken up under design review.
Mr. Beadle stated that restrictions were put into the text after hearing from
the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee regarding the affect on existing churches
in the Etiwanda area. Mr. needle further stated that it was the Committee
which put in setbacks and stated this should be considered whenever there is
development around churches.
Mr. Beedle stated that this language is not found in other ordinances of the
City but the Specific Plan provides an opportunity to deal with special
circumstances in Etiwanda. Mr. Beedle indicated that these can also be
focused upon through the design review process,
Chairman King stated that the community feels that the churches have special
significance and should be planned for setbacks.
Mr. Beedle stated that in one case, the Buddhist Temple is adjacent to
commercial/professional so it would be important to have setbacks there.
Commissioner Stout stated that school uses would have the same problem.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 17 , 1983
Commissioner Rempel stated that if you: say houses must be so far away, the
turnabout is that the residents may say they don't want churches to be built
too close.
Chairman King asked the Commission if reciprocal provisions should be placed
in the text
Commissioner Remp l felt that the setback provisions for development around
churches should be deleted from the text and taken up in design review
instead. He- indicated that special language should be contained in the text
that these areas are sensitive to special uses in the: community .
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
James Frost, Council member, stated that as a representative of the
ti rands Specific Plan Committee the specific reference to churches was made
because there was an opportunity to make therm good neighbors and not have ;there
become part of a retrofit program. Further, that the two churches are the
B ands Congregational Church with the railroad tracks which provide
automatic buffering and thane is no difficulty there because the church i
expected to expand to the sou tb. However , with regard to the Temple, because
ef°"its uniqueness, architecturally and philosophically as well as
aesthetically, it needs to be looked at as a renounce within the community.
He indicated that the Committee felt that the Temple facilities should be;
allowed to flourish ri, h n it was appropriate that special provisions on be
considered ed within ;the text of the Plan
Chairman King asked the Commission for general consensus on the language
proposed ed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee;.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he is inclined to agree with Commissioner
Redapel that conditions aright exist at some time in the future whereby the sage
conditions would apply to other development. He felt that the specific
language regarding setbacks :adjacent to churches should be stricken from the
text
�I
Commissioner Barker stated that accepting the fact that there may be
Situations down the road that they don't quite understand , he is Concerned
that by taking out the specific language, It may leave a document that had no
Meth . He indicated that he is not really comfortable with that because the
Commission has no gray of knowing whether at some future time the Design review
Committee may be disbanded. He indicated further that he would Dike to see
something a.th more strength than a general statement to the effect that the
Commission is sensitive to the churches and schools within the community.
I
i
I
i
I,
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1983
----------------
iedioner Rempel stated that he did not know the size of the lots involved,
but the way the Plan is written, if existing residences are adjacent to
church use and there is a lot 90 feet wide and d church builds abutting it,
and the church builds to the south you now have taken 50 Feet from that lot.
He indicated that the language is too restrictive in this rase and he had
problem with it. Commissioner Rempel stated that he can't see the difference
between a church use and a residential use in actuality
Chairman irk stated that he is in favor of making the language more general.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this should be deleted under .203 paragraph
and that A should be changed to a 1 -foot setback to be required on two aides '
of residential uses rather than one side
Commissioner Stout asked why this should apply only to residential rues.
Commissioner e el replied that he thought it was an error in the text and
that the plan intended to cover all types of uses adjacent to churches not
just residential.
Commissioner Stout stated that if mp 1 is kin these recommendations
regarding all Nture development that the reference to residential should be
deleted or modified. Mr. Hempel stated he would agree to remove references to
residential development.
Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission is going to slide in a sensitivity
statements
Commissioner Hempel. :stated that the wording night be that the City is aware of
the sensitivities to special types of buildings such schools, churches and
others added later on, but that the setbacks for those types of buildings
should be a minimum of 15 feet
Chairman King stated that this would accomplish just what the Commission; does
not want. Further, that if the Commission wants to be sensitive to -schools
and churches it will be better to get rid of all numbers and make a statement
relative to sensitivity and use discretion in administering it
Commissioner° lempel stilted that he mould change the wording to indicate that
when reviewing plans for development adjacent to uses such as schools and
churches, the City shall consider such plans with sensitivity to the use.
There being no further° comments, the public hearing was closed.
There was consensus among the Commission on Commissioner empel r recommended
textual change with all proposed development adjacent to churches, schools and
similar uses being subject to critical reviews at the time of Design Review.
There was consensus among the Commission on Commissioner McNiells recommended
change of one or less in the R district.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 1'7 , 1983
There was consensus among the Co i.ssion regarding Commissioner Stout's
extension of architectural style of ban type to professional as well as other'
commercial uses and convenience stores.
Chairman King stated that Commissioner Stout would like to require that type
of architecture contained within ;the optional standards on all types of
residential.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt if the architectural standards within
the Etiwanda'Specific Plan are to be unique there the architectural standards
and style should be uniform.
Chairman King stated he does not agree and cited Alta Loma and the sameness
that currently exists. Further, that there should be optional standards and
that the developer may do as he wishes; if he duds not like the architectural
style in the optional standards, "then he does not get the Peres-
Commissioner Hempel stated he agreed because in one area there would be a
problem ®- that of cost and maintenance especially when you get into lour .and
moderate income housing.
Commissioner Barker stated that his concern is compatibility and the
Commission gets back to the issue of design review and there should be some
means to assure compatibility of design. Commissioner Barker felt that this
should be the responsibility of design review and did not feel that there
should be a limitation to the styles allowed in the community.
There was no consensus among the Commission on modifying the architectural and
design section of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for residential construction, and
the Draft was left uncranged
outil reviewed the proposed: revisions contained within pages d and the
concerns expressed by the Commission at the previous hearing. He asked the
Commission to resolve the definition of acre.. Further, that the CUP is
intended for use only in the low-medium low-medium and medium density ranges.
r. Kroutil explained how the definition of net/gross acreage creeds to be
tightened down because in the lower density areas it is theoretically possible
to have up to 20 dwellings dr. a 10-acre site as opposed to 18. Re stated that
under the proposal suggested by Commissioner Rempel at the last meeting the
density would be increased under ;the ER or VL ranges and suggested that the
Commission use the wording "gross acreages may be considered for density
calculations" as an added incentive under Optional Standards.
Chairman King asked if ghat Mr. Kroutil is saying is "may" rather than
"shall"
Mr. 1routil replied that by having this wording there would be no guarantees
that the developer; would get the maximum;m1 the Commission would use their
discretion.
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1983
Commissioner Stout asked if since the only; problem appears to be with the ER
and VL, could this be dome dust for these two areas and not the other 3.
Mr. Kroutil stated that it would be possible to do this but it may be awkward
to administer over the counter.
Chairman King stated that the issues to be considered by the Commission are
the Optional Standards and whether it goes through the normal planning process
or a CUP; whether stronger standards will be imposed as it relates to the
Optional Standards; the consideration of gross or net acreage; equestrian
incentives and the trail hook up to Victoria.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed
Commissioner Rempel stated :that he did not see a need for a HR.
Commissioner Harker asked what the advantage is in high density areas, stating
that he was not sure what kind of package will core through and by making a
change it could have a major effect on the site area and he would have the
same problems with it He indicated that he world have no problem with it if
it does not go beyond
Commissioner Rempel stated that the only thing a CUP does is advertise
Gomez stated that it forces you into a public hearing
Comnissioner Rempel stated that if your have a tract map you rust have a public
hearing
Chairma,n King asked when Commissioner Barker's thought regarding the CUP
becomes relevant with the exception of the advertising aspect.
Commissioner Rempel asked ter. Hopson if there is a condition in the C&R's,
would this be covered under the reading of the tract maps
r. Hopson replied that if the project is in the low-medium range you may not
have MRIs. However , if you have a condominium project, for example, where
there is a common area, you will have rs but .if you have single family
residential without a common area you will not have the R's
Chairman King asked what advantage a CUP has over the present process of
design review for any subdivision relative to the hearing
Hopson replied that he does not see any advantage and; the only thing that
it is used for is to call the project before the Planning Commission.
Further, as a practical matter you would not want to do that because it would
foul up the lending if veal estate people knew that the Commission could call
this up at any time
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 17, 1983
Chairman King asked what the Commission wished to do about gross or net
acreage .
Commissioner Stout stated that densities should be based on gross acreages for
the ER or Very Low categories because there is more flexibility, but remain as
is in other categories.
There was consensus among the Commission on this issue.
Chairman King felt there should be stronger equestrian incentives.
Commissioner Barker stated that the whole area is an equestrian overlay zone.
Chairman King stated that in an attempt to encourage equestrian uses are there
any other amenities to get equestrian uses so that if a developer goes all out
he could develop high rises.
Mr. Cecil Johnson, landowner, recommended all the incentives they could get
for equestrian facilities. Further, that anyone willing to put in a training
track is adding benefit to the whole community even though it is individually
owned if it is held open to the community.
Chairman King asked if he is talking about dedication of public space.
Mr. Johnson replied not necessarily that but that a training track would have
a great >deal of worth to the community.
W. Kroutil stated that as far as the concept of providing incentives is
concerned you can go as far as you want but that the Commission should keep in
mind that the area in question is already up to 4 per acre. Further, that
unless incentives other than density such as waiving fees which seems
appropriate , there is nothing else you can do except provide more density.
Commissioner Rempel stated that it is not a prerogative of the Planning
Commission to reduce fees and therefore is not a perc that they can give.
Commissioner Stout stated that a master plan is being required for the area.
He felt that one of the peres that can be given to the developer is a
designation of equestrian commercial so that a small tack store can be located
there .
Chairman King stated that he felt adequate incentives have been provided and
if the Commission goes any further, they will be doling out freebees.
Commissioner Rempel stated he did not think that is what Commissioner Stout is
talking about but that it probably would not be a possibility without a CUP,
anyway.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 17, 1983
1 eedle stated that, a provision could be added to, allow a tack store to
operate in the area under the master plan approach which would ;allo some
commercial to be developed which would be geared to equestrian e indicated
further that the team could be massaged to address this if this is what the
Commission desires.
Commissioner Barker stated that a tremendous amount of tax money goes out of .,
the community and he would like to see these taxes star within the City limits
by allowing ercial geared to equestrian used in this area
Chairman King stated that this type of use; if properly done, would be
appropriate He indicated that Design Review would have to look at this ,
closely in terms of landscaping and setbacks so that it almost fades into the
countryside and becomes non-existent rather than become a-commercial setting.
The consensus of the Commission relative to allowing. equestrian commercial was
that it should be allowed in a limited sense and only as a part.: of a Master
Planned Equestrian Development.
. Kroutil reviewed the proposed trail hook up for Victoria for the
Commission. ;
Chairman King asked why it is felt the trail along the railroad tracks is not
good
routil replied that under the current conditions some horses may react in
an unfriendly manner to train noise and that it is a matter of public safety. '
Commissioner Barker stated that there is no guarantee that if the railroad
tracks are used for a trail there will be access
Commissioner Rempol stated that under, the General Plan this was also proposed
as a possible commuter lino.
Commissioner Stout asked what the grade separation is .
m Kroutil stated tracks are at RR on-foot abuse grade.
Commissioner stout stated that this would be very hazardous.
Mrs. Kleinman stated that on the reap the trail is shown going over the De' ore
Freeway and asked if the land there is being condemned or if this is gust a.
proposal
. Krdutil replied that most of this trail is on flood control land and what
Mrs. Kleinman is referring to is the stretch along Victoria and adjacent to
the freeway 'right-of-way. Mr. Kroutil stated that this is land that would sit
idle until the property develops and at that time whatever .is in the Specific
Plan would be required; as d condition of approval.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 17, 1983
Chairman King asked the Commission for their comments regarding; the trail hook
up
Commissioner Rempel stated that he has a serious problem with a trail along
Victoria. He felt it should be north of the school.
Chairman Eking asked hoer this is being connected youth of Victoria Parkway .
Commissioner Hempel replied that he did not;, remember and asked if there is a
trail along the green belt
Chairman King stated that he did not think equestrian uses fit an with the
general concept of Victoria Parkway.
Commissioner 'Repel stated that he did not think that the trail has access at
the west end" of Victoria Parkway."
r . Kroutil Mated that provisions have been made to hold. a 10 10 foot section
on the Etiwanda aide of Victoria even though the street does not continue.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he is talking about the west end of victoria
Parkway where it stops, not the Etiwanda end.
Ear... Kroutil stated that this is a question of the Victoria Community Plan.
Commissioner oner° Hempel l stated that there may be a problem starting there.
Commissioner "McNiel asked hoer much land is available along, the railroad
itself.
Ear . ECroutil stated that the General Plan calls for a community trail the
entire length of the City from Grove to where it crosses l 1 k He further
stated that in Alta Loma and Cucamonga some areas are built all the way up to
the right-of-way and in those areas the trail would have to be within the
Southern Pacific right-of-way. Mr. Kroutil stated that there may be a problem
with. getting Southern Pacific to allow this use
Following brief discuss-ion , it was the consensus of the Commission to leave
the trail as shown along the railroad tracks not to preclude the possibility
that it my be used at some future point , and whore another trail is needed ,
to provide for it to hook up to victoria Parkway.
There was discussion wrong the Commission of where an additional trail should..
be acquired
Jeff Sceranka voiced his concern with putting in an equestrian trail along a
freeway system and the attendant safety considerations .
Mrs. Kleinman felt that a trail along either the railroad or the freeway are
bad .ideas
Planning Commission MinutesFebruary 17 , 1983
Dave Flocker stated that both alternatives 2 and 3 bring the equestrian
trail along Etiwanda Avenue and basically he thought the general consensus of
the Etiwanda Committee was not to have it run along Etiwanda Avenue. Furfther,
to bring an equestrian trail through a non-equestrian area to unfair
especially where there is no benefit fie indicated it would require a
developer to Pay for something which he would not be allowed to use.
. Kroutil pointed out the alignment of the trail system to Mrs. Kleinman
indicating that ghat she had been referring to is are alternate ,and that the
original plan calls for the trail along Fast Etiwanda Creek. Further, that
the Equestrian Committee wanted to be sure of a connection on the Etiwanda
side of the freeway in the event that Fontana did not agree. He indicated
that if Fontana could guarantee a connection along the Creep it would be best.
Chairman King asked that regardless of anything else, is the Commission in
agreement that the trail should to kept along the railroad track.
The Commission agreed with this concept
Chairman King asked if the Commission wished to extend the trail beyond the
overlay area
There was consensus among the Commission for alternative three
Mrs. Kleinman stated that if a horse trail is put in along the railroad tract
it will make it difficult for them to develop that area
Johnson asked if the easement could be reduced to something Less than 1
feet
Mr. Krdutil stated that the Etiwanda :Plan uses city-wide standards for trail
width, slopes, and drainage, and generally speaking, the design is tried :and
true in terms of the dimensions and treatment. With regard to lessening the
1 -foot easement, Mr. Krouti.l felt that the easement should remain 15 feet
unless specific site conditions dictate otherwise
Johnson asked about consensus on Cherry Avenue 'trail Extension ,
Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission could include language to
bolsters the trail easement along the west side of the freeway, south of
Victoria and connect through to Fontana
Commissioner Stout started that he agreed.
Mrs. Kleinman asked what the incentives are to put in a trail system.
Chairman King replied that it depends on where your property is on a trail
system
Planning Commission Minutes lo- Febr4uary, 17, 1983
Mrs. Kleinman stated that the Commission is in effect condemning a piece of
land for a trail system.
Chairman King replied that he did not believe so.
Chairman dying theta went on to the issue of Cherry Avenue Equestrian Frail
Extension.
Commissioner Barker asked ghat is on the other side of 1-15 in Fontana.
Mr. Krodtil replied it is an industrial park land use between Route 30 and
1-15 on Font na's General Plan
Commissioner Barker stated that there is no logical reason to go in with an
Equestrian Trail.
There was consensus on:this matter.
8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8r48 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Otto Kroutil summarized the Draft Environmental "I pact Report comments
received from the;various public entities. He also reviewed staff responses
and recommendations for changes to the EIB.
Chairman dying asked how the EIR would be revamped in vier of the comments
received on the specific areas mentioned.
Kro til replied that the staff reports prepared for the Commission
included recommended specific changes and this would be added to the Draft, EIE
and would be forwarded to the City Council for their review and certification.
dr. Beadle stated that under CEQA the "City is obliged. to receive comments and
include responses to them in the "EIE report. The report rust be certified as
complete , recommended to the City Council and the mitigation measures which
are to be utilized must also be included. Mr. Beedle stated further, that
those mitigation measures which the Commission feels are appropriate will be
added to the Specific Plan.
Chairman King opened the public hearing
There being no comments the public heaving was closed.
Commissioner Stout asked about whether 7527 dwelling units were the worst-case
scenario and whether it includes any bonuses
Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 17 , 1983
s Kr util stated that this is the worst case scenario in that it is the
maximumnumber of dwellings passible, and that in reality the actual number of
dwellings would be less.
Commissioner Stout asked what would happen if minor changes are made to the
Plan, would it theta require a new assessment on the EIR.
rd til replied that the only time that would happen is if it is
significant change.
Chairman King asked if there is -general consensus among the Commission to
accept the EIR as presented , concurring with the recommendations contained
within the staff report and what the Commission has before them.
Commissioner Re el asked that the revised street calculations be included in
the EIR.
Mrs. Kroutil, replied that they would be
There was general consensus that the EIR be accepted as presented and with the
revisions presented to the Commission®
Beedle reviewed the General. Plan Amendment 83-01B for.the Commission.
Chaa it n King opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public nearing was closed
Chairman King stated that this evening the Commission had reviewed the
Regulatory Provisions and Implementation Sections of the Rtiwanda Specific
Plan and asked if there was general consensus on the Policy and Conceptual
Plan. He indicated that the Commission had reviewed four chapters this
evening, the introduction , goals , policies and objectives, setting and
conceptual plan and asked if there was general consensus
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
There being no comments , the public hearing was closed
Motion: Coved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. 88 25, recommending certification of the EIR prepared for
General Plan Amendment 83-01-B and for the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the City
Council.
Motion: Moved by DtNiel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. 8 26, ;recommending the adoption; of General: Plan Amendment
8 -018 affecting the land use and development element of the General Plan to
the City Council
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 17, 1983
`I
I
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. ` , recommending approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, as
modified, to the City Council.,
Mr. Beedle commended staff, specifically, rduti for the work over the
last two boars it the preparation of the Etiwanda Specific Flare and to the
Commission and Committee for their efforts.
Chairman King stated that he had forwarded a letter to Mayor dory Mi ola
advising of his resignation from the Planning o i sion to become effective
r~oh 10, 1983. Chairman King cited the reason for his resignation as his
intention to run for the City Council indicating he gild not wish to impair his
honesty and integrity nor create ny conflict of interest.
Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
9:05 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned
Respectfully submitted
R' ck mez
ting Secretary
I
Planning Commission Minute 1 - February 17, 1983
1
i
CITY CP RANCHO CUCA CRCA
PLANNING COMMISSION I U
Adjourned Joint Meeting with City Council.
February 10, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
R
An adjourned, joint, dinner meeting of the Planning Commission with the City
Council was held at the Magid Leap, 8189 Foothill Boulevard, on Tuesday,
February 10, 1983., The meeting was called to order at; ; 0, p.m. by Mayor
durr D. Mikels and Chairman Jeff f King.
ROLL CALF
PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Herman Rempel, Larry McNiel,
David Barker, Dennis Stout and
Chairman Jeff King
PRESENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. R grtat II,
Phillip Schlosser, Mamas C. Frost, and
Mayor Jon D. Mikels
ABSENT: NONE
CONSIDERATIONOF AGENDA ITEMS
A. DISCUSSION OF CITY POLICIES REGARDING DENSITY ISSUES I ? AREAS ADJACENT TO
UIN-GLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
Tree;concern was regarding the impact of higher density on established
neighborhoods. It was the consensus of both groups that this should b
studied prier to approval of any projects by staff or Planning Commission. In
some instances design may mitigate a.t some concerns of adjacent homeowners.
P. DISCUSSION REGARDING EA I ILI"T OF NARROWING GENERAL PAN DENSITY RANGES
t was the mad of the Commission and Council that the primary problem
with the Cameral Plan density ranges is that they are quite; broad. This is
particularly true In the multiple density ranges of four to fourteen units per
acre and fourteen to twenty-four units per acre. When the Commission adopts
the Development Code, this issue will be dealt with. In addition,
consideration may be givers to handli .g the bread ranges of density in the same
manner as they are handled in the;Etiwarrda Specific Plan. This will provide
overlapping drain designations or incentives for outstanding development
projects.
C. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Following discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of the
present Design Review process, the matter w$iiMll be considered by a subcommittee
consisting of Councilman Dahl and Councilman n Frost. It was the consensus of
both the Planning Commission and City Council that it may be desirable to
involve as many Planning Commissioners as possible in the Design Review
process.
D. DISCUSSION CP FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAT ANNEXATION
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission and City Council that the
advantages and disadvantages of annexation of the area within the City''s
sphere of influence should be evaluated by the staff . Because of the
potential impact upon the City of Rancho Cucamonga, this evaluation is to
include identification of both service and fiscal impacts with or without
annexation. A phased program of annexation be desirable.
R m PROGRESS REPORT C PREPARATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT DENSITY
RANGES RELATED TO DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The City Planner and Community Development Director indicated that the
Development Code will be presented to the Commission in the near future. The
Development code will include zoning considerations as well as .establishing
standards for design and development
P . ROLE CP THE COMMISSION IN ASSURING A QUALITY COMMUNITY THROUGH ITS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
It was the consensus that, the Design Review Process provides ample opportunity
for the Planning Commission to assure that quality development is achieved.
C. DISCUSSION OF RELATIONSHIP OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO OTHER COMMISSIONS
Discussion occurred between the Commission and Council concerning the
respective roles of the Planning Commission, Citizens Advisory Commission, and
Parks Committee.
H. WINDROW PRESERVATION
Councilman Buquet indicated that his concern over windrow;preservation is that
the City formulate a policy to serve as a guideline for future development.
It was the consensus of boar the Planning Commission and the City Council that
existing windrows need> to be replaced with a better species of tree. .Roth. the
Planning Commission and City Council reaffirmed support for retaining windrows
as a unique feature, particularly in the community of Etiwanda.
{
Planning Commission Minutes - February 10,. 1 3'
ADJOURNMENT
Motion; v d by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet; Moved by Rempel, seconded by
Stout, to adjourn the meeting.
Motions carried nanim ly by both Council and Commission.
Respectfully scab td
„y
JACK , tr ,
Planning o f ion Minutes February 1 , 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February , 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman 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 Park
Community Center, 9161 'Base Lime Road Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then
led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Ranker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rem el,
Dennis Stout, Jeff Kira
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Lloyd flubba, CityEngineer; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, AdministrativeSecretary;
Jack Lair, Director of Community e e op e rt; Paul Roo eau,
Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Re el, seconded by Stoat, carried unanimously, to approve
the January , 1983 minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission.
Motion: Roved by Re pel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve
the minutes of the January 12, 1983 adjourned regular meeting of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the next meeting and: public hearing on
the Etiwanda Specific Tarr is scheduled for February 17, 1983 at the Lions
Park Community Center*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously , to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE 'TRACT"` 11564 LANDMARK
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1146o - LEWIS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rick Gomez,; City ;Planner, advised that the applicant his requested that Item
, Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7812, Pentad, Incorporated, be
continued to March 9, 1983.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by MaNiel, carried unanimously , to continue
this item to March 9 1983.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL A subdivision of
a acres in the Industrial Park area (Subarea into t parcels located
on the west side of Haven Avenue, between 6th and 7th Streets
AP t 9 t2- 7, 09.
W. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report
Commissioner taut asked if the vicinity map it the exhibit which shows 20tb
;street is really 7th Street.
r. Roal eau replied that 7th Street is connect and the Bald numbering system i
being changed.
Comissioner Barker stated that Subarea 6 indicates a railroad service and
asked if the property parallels that line
. Rou eau replied that it dues and is the boundary, of that easement.
Commissioner Barker asked if that lot pattern will direct the traffic in the
area
Rou eau replied that if Commissioner Barker° is referring to the street
access, the parcel map should be looked at. Further, that of this i
developed as a large parcel it would limit traffic
Commissioner Barker stated that in the event there is future work, it would
not negate the access- going over to the f"ormer.
Rougeau replied that the street could still be procured to serve the
purpose of access and _would not go against anything in the Industrial pecif°i
Plan
Chairman Kira opened the public hearing
Ilanning Commission Minutes - February 9, 1983
Mr. dim Watson, representing the Investment Building Group, the applicant
stated that there ,are three conditions that he wished; to question. He
indicated that conditions 4 and 5 on the Engineering Conditions of Approval
would produce a hardship for him. Further, that this property should not
generate a lot of traffic and requested that there be two driveway cuts
allowed onto Haven in the event that there are separate owners
Lam responded with an explanation of the intent of the Industrial Specific,
Plan indicating that the purpose of limiting driveways onto Haven was to
reduce traffic.
Chairman King stated that the Industrial Specific Plan considers Haven a
crucial_ roadway for north/south traffic and its intent is to limit excessive
traffic and not clutter the view with driveway cats.
Lair stated that the City wants to limit conflicts and turning points.
Watson stated that there will be a median so traffic will only flow with
traffic and did not think that two driveways within a. quarter mile i
excessive.
M Watson stated that he was not clear on the reciprocal arrangement.
ou eau replied that the condition was put in in anticipation of this
being are industrial pared which would serve multiple parking lots. He
indicated that this would have to be a decision of the Planning Commission
whether_ to follow up with reciprocal access.
Ir. Watson stated that it is clearly not the intention of the developer to
have this
Chairman King stated that if there were common shared driveways between lots 4
and 5, it wouldn 't be necessary.
Cyr. Rou eau stated that it would be important to keep on driveway for traffic
going out and one for traffic coming in.
r Watson questioned the requirement for sidewalks on 7th and Haven Streets.
Mr. Rougeau replied that 7th Street is; planned as a local and that sidewalks
are usually checked off as a requirement on a major street like Haven.
Further, because Haven is so close to 7th Street, the Engineering Division
recommended sidewalks on 7th.
Watson asked that this requirement be waived so that pedestrian traffic
would be discouraged
Pou eau replied that Haven does have a sidewalk require ent
Planning Commission Minutes - February 9, 1983
. Watson asked if the requirement is on both 'sides of the street
. Pnueau replied that it is.
. Watson asked if idewa s are required on both sides of 7trr Street
ugeau; replied that it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
. Watson asked" if the requirement for ,street trees is only on 6th Street.
. Roo eau replied that the requirement for street treed is for both 6th
Street and 7trr Street and is a requirement of the industrial area as detailed
in the Industrial Specific Plan Further, that these requirements must be put
in at the time of development.
Chairman King asked if the equipment could be deferred from the Parcel Map.
Rou eau replied that they could be put in at a later time
. Lam explained that the °only_ reason for the requirement being stipulated
here is so that the buyer knows it exists. Fur«ther, that this is the best
method of advance information.
. Watson stated that if at all passible he would like to have the
requirement for street trees and sidewalks can 7th Street deleted.
Commissioner Barker stated that this would limit the number of permitted uses
in the industrial park and asked if what Mr. Watson is saying is that with the
elimination of the sidewalk requirement he is not interested in a higher
number of uses on 7tb, Street
Mr. Watson stated that he did not see it as limiting permitted uses on 7th
Street because he deed not see on-street parking in this area
. Rougeau stated that he does not anticipate parking restrictions unless
necessary. Further, that the streets in the industrial area are wide enough
so they will not be unnecessarily restricted.
. Watson Mated that his last question relates to landscaping in the median,
its crest, and maintenance.
Lam replied that landscape medians are presently maintained by the City,
winless there is an assessment district to maintain it, and there is not at the
present
'Watson asked that the landscape median construction be waived .
Commissioner Start asked if Mr. Watson is asking for more than one driveway on
Haven and, with respect to the median he wants waived, is he planning on
putting more than one out in its
Planning Commission Minutes 4- February 9, 1983
Watson replied that he would assume that no nuts would be allowed in the
median
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout stated that with respect to the request that landscaping on
"nth Street be waived, should that occur, it would present a facade effect.
Commissioner Stout felt that landscaping should be required for a portion of
th Street
Watson stated for clarification that he was not opposed to a landscaped,
bargm d area, he was apposed to putting in large trees;.
Commissioner Rampol stated that there,is no requirement for specimen trees;
however, there would have to be trees
Chairman Thing asked the Commission if them; is any b tion to having the
applicant put in the median.
Commissioner Ram dl stated that the applicant could enter into d Barr
agreement.
. Matson asked what a reasonable time is for the lien agreement.
Rnu eau stated that when there are time problems with lien agreements, the
City also takes cash deposits.
Watson asked for the number to be quantified.
Rougeau replied that this would have to be worked out on a square footage
basis. Further, that they must see what is happening on the other side of the
street
Watson asked if the medians are always ,put in by the neighboring property
owners.
Rou can replied that they are always put in by the person building.
Watson asked how this works for neighboring;property wner~s.
. Lam explained how reimbursement agreements work when the medians and
improvements are paid for by the developer.
s Rnu eau also stated that over three-fourths of Haven is developed in this
area so this might be an optimum time to put these pieces in.
. Tim stated that the only time the improvements are not put in is when it
is choppy. Further, the City waits for large pieces to be put in at one time.
Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1
Commissioner empel stated that on the issue of sidewalks, the people who will
work in the area must be given a place to walk whether it is on 6th or on 7th
Street. Further;, they must have some gray to get to the bus stops dither by
walking along 6th or 7th Street and it appeared that since Mr. Watson will
develop first, the burden falls on him
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to adopt Resolution No. 81
approving Parcel Map 7731 , and issuing a Negative Declaration with the
conditions of approval as specified by staff.
Commissioner Rempel stated< that he wished, to amend the motion to give the
applicant an opportunity for a second driveway onto Haven. He explained the
difficulty that would- occur if two separate owners would have to use the same
driveway and hoer it could present a problem with large trucks e stated
further that he would like to have the reciprocal access;easement left in but
to allow a second driveway.
Commissioner Barker stated that he would not accept an amendment to his
motion
The original motion carried.
Commissioner Rempel voted no and stated that he thought a second access should
be allowed
. Hopson stated that the motion was for approval without any change to the
onditlons as set forth, by staff .
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7 ISHB 4C residential
subdivision of 9.41 acres to be divided into 3 parcels within the -1 zone
located at the northeast corner of East and Victoria. Avenues
APN 7- 71-1
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff deport
Commissioner Stout asked, with respect to the parcel map is the 'IT" shaped
area shown a possible future street
you sari, replied that if what Commissioner Stout means is shown in the
_
center of the map, those are existing trees , and are windbreak's made up,of
eucalyptus treed
Commissioner Barker stated, that at the last meeting;on the Etiwanda Specific
Playa Commissioner Rempel suggested consideration of a trail playa going from
the east to west' and dropping south at Victoria. He asked whore that would be
in relation to this project
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 9, 1983
Mr. Rougeau replied that this is shown on Exhibit B and is being considered
along the north side of the tract.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he was talking about the east side of the high
school property.
Chairman King asked if all members of the Commission received a copy of the
amended conditions and whether the applicant also received a copy.
Mr. Rougeau replied that they did.
Chairman in opened the public hearing.
Mr. Darwin Mark, Box 15, Cucamonga, stated that he was available to answer any
questions.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-17, approving Parcel Map 7852 and issuing a Negative
Declaration.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-29 - HILLSIDE
COMMUNITY CHURCH - The development of a church and related facilities
including seve—n—(7) temporary, relocatable buildings, plus a request to
operate a preschool on approximately 10 acres of land in the R-1-20,000
zone located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Hillside Road and
Carrari Street, at 5354 Haven Avenue.
G. VARIA NC,E -01 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request to permit the
development of a 50 Post high church sanctuary on 10 acres of land in the
R-1-20,000 zone located on the west side of =Haven Avenue, between Hillside
Road and Carrari Street at 5354 Haven Avenue.
Mr. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed both staff reports. He stated
that there has been a change to Engineering condition M3 , requiring sidewalks
along Haven, and a change to condition 3 of the Planning conditions further
clarifying the circulation aisle requiring a turning radius and moving
ability. Mr. Johnston explained that the requirement for equestrian
improvement will eliminate the need for sidewalks.
Commissioner Stout asked if there will be sidewalks on the other side of Haven
or if pedestrians are expected to walk on the horse trails.
Mr. Rougeau replied that on this part of Haven where there are narrower
parkways and lesser pedestrian traffic near the Deer Creek subdivision, the
requirement for sidewalks is contemplated as unneeded. He indicated that this
area would be surfaced with a material that will allow pedestrians to use it.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 1983
Commissioner Stout asked if this will be like Sapphire above Bayan.
Mr*. Rou eau replied that it will be better.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
. Kea Johnson, 20707 Covina Hills Road, Covina, the architect, explained how
the buildings and: landscaping will develop and host with parking only on
Sundays, it was not felt that pavement should soak yap the entire atmosphere .
Mr. Johnson stated that they hate tried �.st i uish between vehicular and
pedestrian traffic on the site plan and that the parking area is totally
without any pedestrian walkways. He indicated that a pedestrian mall has been
provided as a safe place for people to meet after services.
Chairman King asked if there is any objection to providing feeder trails for
people to connect to
Mr. Johnson replied that he had met with Councilman Dahl and has no objections
to this
Mr. George Lightner, 1365 « Foothill, Suite 6, upland, president of the
church board, expressed his appreciation to Mr. Johnston, Mr. Gomez and
Lam for gear assistance on this project
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Chariman King stated he felt this to be a superior job
Commissioner Re pel stated that they who sat on the Design Review Committee
felt this to be well adapted to the area.
Motion: Moored by Rempel., seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-18 approving the Conditional Use Permit No.. - and
issuing a Negative Declaration with the changes to the conditions as suggested
by staff.
Motion: Moved by Rev el, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-19 grantingVariance 01 for the Hillside Community
Church
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENS l
d}fl INN OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to Section 61 .0217 of the Zoning
Ordinance to include are overlay district containing various development
incentives to producers of sensor citizen oriented multi-family housing,
as well as site development and general overlay district location
criteria
Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1983
Ries Marks, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman King stated that in terms of this amendment, it is well thought out
and has been discussed on previous occasions. rther, the Commission has
toured various senior housing projects is and it was his opinion that this kind
of program st be brought into the City and should be encouraged.
Additionally, some types of incentives must be created in order to serve that
need
Commissioner Stout stated with aspect to the ordinance, it would be important
to include such language that would ensure ,<that with this type of housing it
is still quality housing. e felt that an effort to curtail cost should not
preclude quality.
Marks replied that, staff will go over the guidelines in design and control
and this could be added within the amendment ent to the guidelines
Commissioner Stout felt that it is important that this be contained within the
ordinance so that it is understood that this is what this community is looking
for.
Commissioner Barker stated that he agrees
Commissioner Rernpel stated that this overlay district should permit some type
of storage facilities because when people dove from larger heroes into mousing
e this type there is less storage space availability.
Commissioner Barker asked if such a requirement ent is appropriate here or would
be better contained within the guidelines.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it important that it be contained
within the ordinance because mini storage comes under zoningas a specialty
item and would not be contained in the guidelines because it is, in
contradiction to the zoning ordinance.
Chairman King stated that he seed what the Commission is doing with this ;as a
policy statement and various conditions should to approached on a
pro ject-by-project basis
. Hopson stated that ghat is being suggested is that if storage uses are
more intensive than normal for senior housing but incidental to it: then he
does net see- this as being inconsistent with the City*s present zoning
designation.
Commissioner Remp l asked that the condition n for storage be added to item 5 of
section 5 of this Ordinance.
Commissioner Barker stated that it would establish intent and not specificity.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 9, 1983
Commissioner� Stout stated that the language should not state that it be
limited to that. He indicated that they will be close to foot traffic as
well
Commissioner Barker stated that most places that were visited had storage
amenities that were not necessarily on site
Commissioner e el stated that there should be something adjacent or there
could be a problem
. Gomez stated that under° the new development code this could be looked at
in the commercial area and decide whether this would be compatible with it and
allow it within the commercial and allow them to exist in the same area
Commissioner MaNiel. asked if there were anything within the ordinance that
would prohibit resale of the units for profit .
Marks replied that such a prohibition is included in the developer
agreement requirement, Section 7 of the ordinance.
. Gomez added that the time period for the housing to remain available was
also included in the ordinance
Commissioner Parker asked if the developers agreement is binding and if so,
whether there is a time limit on it
. Gomez replied that it is and is called out in the Government Cade which
states that cities have the power to enforce the agreements.
Commissioner Stout asked what the remedy is if they violate the agreement.
. Hopson stated it is the same as if anyone else violates a contract or a
zoning restriction. The remedy is a policing type anion and would be pursued
either civilly or criminally , if it is a violation of zoning. Further, that
state law now allows you to grant away ghat used to be a property right such
as ingress or egress. Mr. Hopson stated that he did not think' enforceability
would be a great problem.
Motion: gyred by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. d - 1 ,. recommending approval of the Environmental Assessment
and Zoning Ordinance Amendment d -G - Senior Housing Overlay District to the
City Councils for their* adoption with the changes to language ensuring quality
not be sacrificed for cost
8r1' p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes --1 February 9, 1983
J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The development of a 8,615
square foot preschool and elementary school. in an existing building
located in Wendy rp Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the -2 zone A2N 208-154-
14, 15, '15
Rick Gomez , City Planner, reviewed the staff report. He stated, for the record
that 2 letters had been received;. regarding;this ;.project, one from the
ennai.sance School, regarding the number of preschools in the city and another
letter from the property owner to the west, Mr. Sanford Blue, who expressed
concern regarding such a development within a commercial area and whether it
would preclude his future commercial ercial development.
Char man in opened the public hearing.
Russ dames, West Development Company, the applicant, stated he was
available to answer any questions.
Chairman King asked about the playground area and whether it would be left in
black top
James replied that'a portion would remain in blacktop for basketball but
the balance would ,be filled in and landscaped for the; preschool and elementary
school uses. He indicated that the plan would be submitted to the building
department and would have to comply with the State regulations governing
schools. e indicated further that dirt would be brought in and the area will
be enclosed with a wooden fence
Chairman King asked what the State requirements are with his only concern that
he has a difficult time seeing that the entire playground area is asphalt;
however, he is not sure what tyre of enforcement needs to occur' in order to
see that the requirements are met relative to playground needs. Chairman King;
stated that it is his understanding that some type of flooring or rubber mats
can be used to assure that a child will not be hurt.
James stated that there are several alternatives, one being the use of a
t and the other to bring in dirt and plant grass
Chairman Bing stated that if the Commission approves this there should be:some
idea of what wri,l.l be done with the playground area. He indicated that he did
not see' anything that says what must be done with the playground area.
, Gomez stated that if the Commission is concerned there can be some
language added that would met their intent
Chairman King stated that if the Commission grants this request he did not
known what options exist and whether this should come before the Commission or
staff for final review.
A Comet stated that there wrill,, be some control; through the application
process before occupancy takes place
Planning Commission Minutes' «-11 February S, 1983
Commissioner Barker stated that he would be concerned if 100 percent
is used. Further, that he would like to see total design with the Design
Review Committee approval.'.
Chairman King stated that he thinks it would be appropriate to add a condition
that the playground must go before the Design Review Committee for review.
Commissioner Motet asked why the applicant is selecting a wooden fence
Q James replied that it is to match the exterior of the building and it
would blend in and match better than other material.
Commissioner Stout replied that he is somewhat concerned abort: the use of a
Mood fence because in a semi-commercial area such as this, the tendency is for
a, wood' fence not, to stand up
Mr. dares stated that they have lw taken very good care of any center they
manage.
Commissioner tout asked if Mr. James would object to a condition in the CUP
to require the attractive maintenance and that this be kept in good, repair.
Mr. James replied that they have worked with Phillips Ranch where a preschool:,
and elementary school had been pert in and it was felt that it has been an
asset to the center.
. Dean Logan, 8205 Rosebud, franchisee of the Wend 's restaurant, advised
that he was not opposed to thepreschool but had some concerns. He asked
about the parking impact stating that he knows there will be a lot of traffic
and that the parking for the school has not been designated. He asked if it
would be to the dash
Commissioner Niel stated that he has two concerns with respect to the
dumpster which will be adjacent to the playground area and the gates which
will open into this area and whether it will be moved.
Names stated that he wants to work with the Wendyr's and the City to find a
suitable place for it,. He indicated that it coin.d be proved into a parkin
stall to the east of half way in the other direction to be closer to the
Wendy'Wendy's restaurant. He indicated his past experience with dumpsters is that
they are handy even if they are 50-100 feet away from the building.
Commissioner McNiel ailed how many stores would be consumed by the school.
. James replied they will occupy four.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there will be adequate rgestr om facilities.
The applicant replied that ;there will be
Planning Commission Minutes 1 February 9, 1983
Lam stated that an applications such as this,, it is normally the policy
that the applicant crake arrangements to discuss the solutions to existing
problems with other occupants in the center . Further, that it does not appear
that this had been done and there are some, details that remain to be worked
out. Mr. Lam stated that from the staff'staff's standpoint it was thought that this
had all: been worked out and Mr. Lary suggested that approval not be granted
until this has all been talked out.
m stated that staff will make every effort to work with the applicant
and Mr.: Logan and he felt that this could be worked out to everyone's
satisfaction.
Hopson stated that by the same taken if the Commission approves the
resolution a-condition should be added, that the conditional use permit will
not be valid ,until staff has pprro d the substitute location of the dumpster.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rerrapel stated that the Commission is getting into some serious
problems with this because it could be an attractive nuisance situation lake
the animal hospital at the Stater Bros. shopping center on 1 th and
Archibald. He indicated that there must be some method of guaranteeing the
safety of the youngsters who may be at the preschool from the traffic being
generated by; Wendy Is.
Commissioner Bar^ker asked chat the property to the east is.
Chairman King replied that it is Wilmington Savings, with a service station to
the west.
Commissioner Barker asked if there is some way to pollee this as some parent,
may leave their children off at Foothill, and asked further if there can be
some protected access.
Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner Rea pe 's concern is well founded ,
especially, if parents drop their children off at Foothill because the City
could have some liability. He asked if there is some way to clear the design
for, feet traffic
Chairman King stated that bath concerns raised are valid and bath must be
considered. He asked that the applicant do a little more ;work on this and
bring this back.
Commissioner Stout stated that he concurred with Chairman King and suggested
that a limit to access e placed on the school and playground area.;
Commissioner Barker asked if the project complies with the correct amount of
square footage for a school.
e applicant replied that it meets the state"s standards.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 February 9, 1983
Commissioner Stout stated that perhaps these should be placed in the
conditions to ensure that this project meets all required State laws.
Gomerstated that this could be amended to comply with all state
regulations governing preschools.
it
Chairman King stated that he does not see a problem with this project if there
is more thought given to it and that consideration should be given in terms of
parking for Wend 's and safe egress and ingress. He recommended that this be
continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
. James replied that they are willing to do whatever staff" feels necessary
to protect the children and that the outer area will be entirely enclosed.
Further, that the children will not be out without a_ teacher present at any
time.
James stated, that he would like this continued to the next, regular
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Bar er stated it was his strong feeling that; the applicant also
work with staff.
Commissioner Stout suited that he would like staff to contact the City of
Ontario for their conditional use permit for the school approval it had given ;
and also to inquire if they have had any problems since granting it
. Hopson stated that the preschool and elementary school in Ontario is
somewhat different in that it almost totally occupied a shopping center.
Commissioner Re pel stated that ;he did not think the school will benefit from
Wendy'Wendy's but that Wend 's will benefit from the school.
Motion: [loved by Stout, seconded by. Niel, carried, to continue this item to
February 23, 1983 in order to work out traffic and trash bin storage
Commissioner Rempel voted no on this item ;stating he thought this should be
denied tonight.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d MCIN YR - The
de elopz ent of a temporary bank facility on 1 .84 acres of land in the
Industrial Park category (Subarea: ) located at the southeast corner of
Oren Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 9-142-1 .
Assistant Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King opened the public 'hearing.
Planning Commission "nutes 1 - _ February 9, 1983
Steve Reender , applicant, stated he concurred with staff
recommendations and indicated that the permanent site plan need, some
additional work.
There being no farther comments, ,the public hearing was closed.
Nation: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. -20, approving Conditional Use Permit 82 24 issuing
Negative Declaration for this project
Commissioner Hempel stated for clarification that he has no conflict with this
project as he no longer works for Berry Construction
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K. STATUS REPORT ON FOOTHILL FREEWAY AY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Lloyd flubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report and advised the
Commission of theirs required participation in the Implementation Plan for the
balance of the calendar year.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the calendars plans for 10 months which world
put the conclusion of the Implementation Plan at the end of the year. He
indicated that it could appear there is no cushion in the time element with
this schedule and asked if it would be possible to compress some of the
schedule
Hubbs replied that they will try to have the plan ready to go to the FTC
in December but it is very trough to try to-get seven agencies to work
together. He stated that this is a big job and felt this to be a realistic
schedule
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by king seconded by Barker, carried unanimously , to adjourn to
February 10 1983;at the Magic Lamp Restaurant,_ for a joint City Council,
Planning Commission dinner meeting commencing at pry.
8:55 p.m. 'Th Planning Commission adjourned
Ree t ly Obitted
k:
Amok
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning iaaion Minutes 1 February 9, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
January 26, 1983
Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at
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: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City;
ty
Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Rick
Marks, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul
Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior
Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by cNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1982.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
A. REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR SUBAREA 16
Tim needle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and gave the Commission
a brief history of how Subarea 16 was developed during the General Plan and
Industrial Specific Plan public hearings.
Chairman King announced that although this item was not a public hearing,
public input was encouraged.
Gerry Koski addressed the Commission stating, that he purchased :his property
with the understanding that the zoning to the south would to residential not
the industrial category now proposed. Further, that he did; not feel that the
industrial pare category, is an appropriate use and asked that the Commission
consider single family residential or high density zoning. He also stated
that the school district is not allowing the residents in their tract to send
their children to the new high school, which he volt added to their isolation.
Rita Banks addressed the Commission stating her concern with the Industrial
Park designation and how it will be developed. Also, a lot of the home owners
in the residential project are absentee owners and asked the Comniasion , to
take this into consideration.
Isabel Nielson addressed the Commission stating her concern that the
Industrial Park designation would serve to further isolate their residential
property From the rest of the city.
Paul. Byrnes, representing r°lbor u h Homes and the Lusk Company, addressed
the Commission stating that his company was agreeable to either the industrial
park or residential zoning, whichever use the City felt was the most
appropriate.
priate
Dave Walker addressed the Commission stating his preferrance that the
Commission select option number two of the staff eport
Chairman King Mated that the City Council referred this item to the Planning
Commission for their discussion as to whether a General Plan. Amendment should
or should not be initiated
Mr. Walker stated that here was some discussion under the County jurisdiction
of whether or not this was an appropriate location for a residential project
and it was staffs opinion that it was not; however, it exists in that
location now and it is not appropriate to surround it with industrial type
uses and that it would be appropriate to have residential, mixed use
residential or commercial in that a:reaa
Chairman Kin stated that e would now like t+ stop the public input
ut and have
the Commission continue its review.
Chairman King opened the comments by stating that he was a supporter of the
fact that the: intersection of 4th street grad. Archibald and both sides of
Archibald leading up to th Street were the entrances to the City and must be
developed appropriately. Ele further stated his opinion that the Industrial
�.al
t
Park designation o a light industrial nature with a huh quality design
criteria,
-
landscaping, errs special setbacks along Archibald and Arrow and 4th
e intensity
use
ntens�t residential
mould be n appropriate land see Also, that a high �. y
might also be appropriate to mix in with this use with the idea that those
individuals who work in the industrial area could live there.
Planning Commission Minutes - - January 26, 1983
Vice-Chairman Rempel agreed with Chairman King and further state that traffic
with an industrial park use is not going to be as heavy as with a strictly
residential use. Further, that as far as 6th and 7th Streets being an
isolated residential area, adding more residential would not improve that
situation. In regard to the problems expressed by the residents with the
school districts, realignment is done at the discretion of the district.
Also, the reason he favored leaving the Industrial Park designation for this
location was due to the traffic exiting from the residential area onto an
industrial street, which is 6th Street, and this street would be a major
thoroughfare going east to the freeway. Furthermore, the City of Ontario is
bringing commercial in the area of 4th and Archibald , not high density
residential.
Commissioner Barker stated he would prefer to see a very controlled 'industrial
setting over a high density residential area of 14 to 24 dwelling units per
acres,
Commissioner Stout stated that he realized residents were concerned with
protecting their property values; however, a well designed industrial project
is not going to cause any more adverse impacts than a high density residential
project. Therefore, he favored leaving the designation as it already exists.
Commissioner Malliel stated that he was also in favor of leaving the Industrial
Park designation and that a high-quality industrial project would enhance the
area.
Chairman King asked if there were any more public comments.
Mrs. Banks again addressed the Commission and stated that she did not feel the
existing commercial and industrial projects on Archibald are what she would
call high-quality and asked that the Commission reconsider the residential
designation.
Chairman in stated that some people may concur with that; however, with
Design Review Committee constraints, the new projects being proposed would
enhance the area.
Gerry Koski again addressed the Commission and stated that the uses permitted
under the Industrial Park category would also allow hotels and motels and did
not desire those uses near his home. Further, that the property owners do not
want Industrial Park adjacent to their homes and the land owners have stated
that they do not have" a preference as to which designation, the land carries;
therefore, consideration should be given to those who have to live in the
area.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to
recommend that the City Council retain the Industrial Park category and not
initiate any General Plan Amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 26, 1983
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hempel, Mc Niel, Barker, Stoat, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT* COMMISSIONERS: None carer red
C Planning nin Commission Recessed
: Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman King announced that Items C and Don this evening's agenda would be
acted on prior to the Commission's consideration of Item B.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-fly -- I rERSTATS
Ctl SOLIDATED - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use p from
Medium Redldentla.l. (4-14 dwelling nits per re) to Commercial on
approximately S acres of laid located on the northeast corner f Ramona
and Foothill Boulevard APN 1 C - P 1- 1 . (Continued from Planning
Commission meeting of November 10, 2.)
Chairman King announced that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S --C1
ANOK C Ay.A T A 'request to amend the General Plan Lard Use Plan from
Medium Residential (4-1 dwelling units per acre) to Medium-High
Residential ( 14-24 dwelling units per acre:) on approximately 15.5 acres of
land located at the nor heaat corner of Base Line Road and Rochester
Chairman King announced that the applicant had requested continuation of this
stern. Chairman man King then opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed:.
Motibrrr Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue
Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment --01A to the Planning
Commission meeting of February 23, 198
Planning Commission Minutes - January 26, 1983
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP - BANKS - The division of
acres of land into 4 lots within the R 1 zone located approximately
feet great of East Avenue - APN 227-131-29. (Continued from Planning
Commission greeting of November 10, 1982.)
Paul Rou eau, Senior, Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Alice Flocker, property owner to the crest of the subject parcel map, addressed
the Commission in opposition to the project. Mrs.. Floc er stated that the
project should be in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and have the
sage requirements as everyone else in that area Mrs. Plucker also stated herr
concern witha the drainage problems and asked that the Commission considers that
the area be :developed as a 'uni.t not piecemeal.
Lauren Fritz, property owner in front of the Banks' parcel, addressed the
Commission stating that he was not agreeable to dedicating another 10 to 1
feet of his property for access. Further, the five acres which Nor°n 'Banks;
referred to as a mirror image of his property is owned by Mr. Scarlett who
approached the Commission with a request to further 'split, his parcels but had
been denied because it had been split once already® Mr. Fritz further stated
that he is ;not against the project, but groped that it mould conform to the
raster, plan for Etiwanda. Be also voiced his concern with the drainage'
problems, was not satisfied with the surface flog across Base` Lira and
suggested a pipe be placed in that location
Chairman King asked Paul. Rou eau what happens to the grater once it gets to
Base Line
Mrs. Rou eau replied that presently the plan shows the rater flooring across a
paved driveway to a 150 foot long earthen ditch into a culvert which takes it
across Base Line to the south
Chairman King asked if this improvement would be a requirement of the
applicant, assuming the access was granted to Base Line?
Rou eau replied that it would be a condition of approval.
Vice-Chairman Re pel stated that there would be a problem with the grater
velocity coming from a paged ditch across to an earthen ditch.
Rou eau replied that the driveway would be 40 feet ride corning to Base
Litre, but there could be problems with furrowing.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated` that if any of the drainage area gets paved.;, the
ditch should be surfaced and not left dirt as there would be serious problems.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 26, 1983
Jim Banks, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he was willing to loft
o along with the engineers and whatever drainage solutions would work.
Further, that he thought the dedication issue had been resolved when the
Commission previously reviewed the project and asked if dedication should be
rewired when plans; could be abandoned , and the road placed 300 feet to the
west Regarding the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements for 4-8 duelling
units per acre, Mr. Banks stated that he abstained from vote on that issue and
made it clear that if he had toted it would be at a lower density. Further,
that he had researched it and thought that he while he could not build more
than 4-8 dwelling units per acre, he could be less:.
Chairman king asked Mr. Banked if he had any objections to keeping the read
totally private, paving it and petting in the proper drainage improvements
until a circulation system is worked out, and then be faced with the
possibility of abandoning it
Mr. Banks replied that he had no problem in keeping it private and paring some
of it, but would prefers to pave 24 feet ;as opposed to 26 feet so that
telephone poles would not have to be moved. Further, that .it makes sense, to
make it a passable road for those who live them. Also, if this project is
approved he would be solving more problems than creating them since there is
the problem of the half street and any changes to the project were dome so at
the suggestion of staff. Mr. Banks also stated that he was willing to do
whatever the Commission wanted and was also willing to dedicate another 10
feet for the reload to sage the Eucalyptus"
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed
Vice Chairman Rem el stated that 10 feet more of dedication would not be
practical' since the trees will have to go anyway once the road is widened.
Further, that it is not feasible to pelt an off-set at that point and that
design provisions should be included in case the adjacent property owner
wanted to further subdivide.
Chairman King stated that he was in favor of staying within the ,present
easement and requiring the applicant to; bear all costs for properly improving
the present easement for purposes of ingress and egress as well as for
purposes of drainage and doing all necessary improvements to eliminate any
problems that may be created at lose Line as it relates to drainage. He asked
how the Banks property would be assessed for future i provemnts once a
circulation system ;is developed and if there would be a. need for further
contribution for public improvements later.
Paul Rou eau replied that theme would be no need at a later;date; since. he was
being required to fully dedicate the roadway around his entire property and
dedication has already been received from the adjacent property.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 26, 1983
Chairman King stated that he should not be getting; off without some type of
contribution in terms of private easement to the south of his parcel..
. Rou eau replied that as a requirement of development, property owners are
responsible for one-half of the street and as it is now, some of the paving
would have to be put in by Mr. Banks
"Ted Hopson, , Assistant City Attorney, referred to the City Engineer's Report
and stated ; that it requires both an offer of dedication and street
improvements ents on Oak Street to be constructed by the applicant on his own
property, which is what we would normally require. Further, that we, do not
normally_ re a it e more than a driveable ble surface.ce.
Chairman King stated that -it seemed that much more is normally required of
laird-looked parcels than what is being required' here
Raul Rou earn replied that the applicant is beng repaired to put in almost the
same as would be required if it were possible to get full dedication.
Further, that he is being required to install curb and gutter ;entirely around
his property.
Vice-Chairman Rertpei stated that he agreed with that and asked who would
maintain the pavement along Oak and Pecan
. Rougeau replied that dedications world be sufficient for the City to
maintain them as public streets because part of it is already dedicated, even
though it has not yet been improved Further, it could be accepted after
improvement and be maintained provided the access easements were modified to
give the City the right to go rip ,to those parcels now because access easements
normally only allow for the property owners to get to their property.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that with the streets only ;half completed they,
would be subject to more damage than a completed street and asked if there was
a 'way the City would not accept the responsibility for maintenance until the
streets are totally completed.
`. Rou eau replied that the City has the right to not accept the streets
until they are improved. However, Pecan would be frilly improved on both sides
and there is an obligation for improvement on the west side as well, therefore
this would only apply to Oak Street,
Commissioner Stout stated that the street had been previously referred to as
conceptual and asked if there was a reason for not master planning streets.
Rou eau replied that it is difficult to master plan streets and it was
beat to require streets where necessary.
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes 7- dannary 26, 1983
----------------
Commissioner Stout asked if this street plan would be available for adjacent
property owners to view when they decided to improve their parcels?
Mr. Rougeau replied that it would probably be worked into the Specific Plan
and that it already', shows some parts of it. Further, that the Plan tries to
stay, away from planning local st,reets; however, conceptual circulation could
be included.
Commissioner Stout stated that this is one of the defects of the Plan and that
the Commission might want to include some of these things as they go along.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that, what we are saying now is that Oak Street is
there.
Commissioner Stout agreed and asked about the formalities.
Mr. Hopson replied that as a practical matter as far as setting the street
goes, this is true. As a legal matter, if there is an irrevocable offer of
dedication which the City does not accept, at a later time that offer of
dedication can be abandoned. In theory, if the street hadn't been approved
because staff's recommendation was to approve on issuance of a building permit
and it is never issued for Lot 1 , the street never goes in. Also, if the City
chose to abandon because the parcel to the east went in with some type of
interior street system, you never have Oak Street. Further, that Mr.
Rouge au's statement that the City does not have to accept dedication is
correct.
Commissioner Stout stated that he agreed with Chairman King in that there is
no need to improve the easement any more than a temporary private road to
allow access at this time.
Commissioner McNiel asked what kind of burden would be placed on M. Fritz
with regard to dedication and improvements as a result of this subdivision.
Mr. Rougeau replied that Mr. Fritz is not obligated for any of these
improvements until fie wishes to divide his own property.
Commissioner McNiel asked how the water would be controlled on the south side
of the half street.
Mr. Rougeau replied that an asphalt curb would carry water in an east-west
'throe ion. Further, that a plan had been worked out which didn't call for a
fully improved ditch; however, if the Commission desired an asphalt or
surfaced ditch as opposed to dirt, it may be a better solution.
Commissioner Barker asked if this would be at Mr. Banks' expense?
Mr. Rougeau replied that it would.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 26, 1983
Chairman, lying asked Mr. Rou eau if he had a ball park figure.
Roseau replied that it should be less than an additional 1 ,011 . ter.
Rou eau asked the Commission which recommendation they would b going with.
Chairman King replied that he would be in favor of the 30 foot private road,
asphalt street improvements, drainage in the area of Bade Line with proper
drainage improvements along the 30 foot easement'.
Rou eau stated that the first Resolution of approval would be the most
appropriate to adopt with a modification to the City Engineer's Report to
delete the 40 foot dedication, require 26 root pride pavement but to require a
paved two-way improvement all slang the private easement and determine at the
plan stage how wide it; should be l and to provide' for positive drainage control
to and along Base Line
Commissioner Stout stated that the right of public' access for, the City to
maintain Oak Street should be included.
Chairman lying called for the motion
Motion: loved by Mcl iel, seconed by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt. the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 3383 with the
previously mentioned modifications.
4
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ie Ba
rker,ar p , Rempel, Stout, King,
NOES- COMMISSIONERS: Horse
ABSENT: COMMISSION None -carried-
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney' stated it regard to the north-south
potion of the private street being maintained, there is a statute that the
owner could submit to the Superior ` Court on how it would be maintained.
Further, that Mr. Banks should anticipate this problem and that with deed;
restriction maintenance will be borne by the owners unless and until
dedication is accepted or the private street replaced by a public street.
E. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDtENT 1R
TI ANDA SPECIFIC PLAN An amendment to the Land Use and Development
Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the circulation,
trails, and land use plans in the Et iwanda area.
Planning Commission Minutes - - January 26, 1983
Tier Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending that this
item be continued to the Planning a rla inn meeting of February y , 1983.
t air man King announced that the review of the land use portion ' of the
Specific Plan had been completed by the Planning u issi n and advised those
wishing to address specific pieces of property to attend the City Council
meetings and express their concerns- for the ouncil"a consideration. Chairman
King then ;opened the public hearing.
Cecil Johnson addressed the Commission recommending they accept the Specific
Plan
Alex Catania addressed the Commission stating his desire to have the 20 acres
f his property which was split between Very Low and Estate Residential
designated' under one land use
Bob Floc erg addressed the Commission stating that the number of dwelling units
proposed for Etiwanda should be consistent with the General Plan and suggested
that the drop from 10,000 dwelling rnit to 7,000 was too law.
Larry Arcinage;addressed the Commission stating that the Specific Plan was a
good compromise and supported its adoption.
John ' uher°b, representing the Myohoji Temple, addressed ,the Commission stating
that he didn't recall discussion regarding the widening of Etiwanda Avenue and
asked the Commission to address this issue
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King called for the motion
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue
General Plan Amendment 83-01B to the Planning Commission meeting of February
17, 1983.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ` -0 -__CLIY OF RANCHO
UCAMONG - A revision of the Circulation Element of the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga concerning the continuity of Banyan Street
and Wilson Avenue.
Paul. Rou, eau, nior- Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report.
II
Chairman King asked if the Metropolitan Water District was approached with the
prospect of Banyan being continued through their easement.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 26, 1983
Rougeau replied that they were not and staff was basing the feasibility of
continuation on an observation of equipment on the alignment on Haven Avenue.
Chairman King asked if there was a way to jog Banyan in the area of Haven in
some other fashion so that it wouldn't interfere with either the church or
with the
r. Rougeau replied that it would have to go north, which would take a portion
of the flood; control basin creating a poor alignment and still be very close`
to the existing Banyan,. Further, that there would be a problem with where to:
put the median opening
1
Commissioner Stout asked if the continuation of Banyan "hadn't already been
approved for the either side of Haven
Rougeau replied that it had; however, the exact location has not been set
and the only thing that had been determined is that it should align ;with
existing Banyan
Chairman King opened the public" hearing. There were no public comments and
the public hearing was closed
Chairman King stated that he would lice ;to see the Banyan aspect explored
further. In terms of major arterials, Chairman King stated that Banyan is a
more appropriate location in terms of dealing with greater amounts of traffic
and is more centrally :`Located than Wilson to carry east-west traffic. Also,
Banyan should be studied as to whether it is feasible to continue it through;
he Metropolitan Water District's easement.
Commissioner Stout agreed with Chairman in 's comments regarding Banyan,
however stated that Wilson as a major arterial is a good idea and couldn't see
why a choice' had to be made between the two. Further, that he would like to
see. the Wilson change put into effect, but also see Banyan further studied.
Commissioner Barker stated that he did not want to surari.nder Banyan as being a
major divided access and wound lice MWD contacted to determine the feasibility
of continuation of Banyan through their easement
Commissioner McNiel concurred that a major thoroughfare is necessary'.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that he dial not want to preclude Banyan from being
a major arterial, but the chances of getting the City to pay for a mile of
street at Million to Million up there are slight.
Rougeau stated that this is an important point in that the entire portion
of Banyan from .Alta Loma Creek to Raven would be at the City or public expense '
because ` there will to no private development to require installation.
'ur°ther, that if the Commission desired, he would came up with an exact cast
estimate at a future meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes ' _11- January , 1983
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that available funds are going to be used more for
the freeway or some type of thoroughfare in the freeway location rather than
the continuation of Banyan
Chairman King called for a motion.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would make the motion if it would also
include study of keeping the; corridor open and bending Banyan back down to
where existing Banyan joins Haven.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that this would be very costly and: would also
eliminate the church's parking area, which would require them to find another
parking location
Chairman Ching stated that cooperation with the MWD and having their equipment
moved on Haven along with the cost figures should also be included.
Vice-Chairman Hempel stated that the motion should not totally abandon Banyan
as going through, but at the same time put money into things obtainable for
the City to gets
Chairman King asked
Cc f the Commission wanted the item to be brought back?
Vice-Chairman Rempel replied not until something positive could be obtained.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City attorney, stated that the Commission might wish to
set a specific date so that the item would not have to be readverti.sed;.
Vice-Chairman Rempel suggested that it not be brought back in the near future
because staffwouldn't have time to do an adequate study with all of the other
projects they are working on
. Hopson replied that General Plata amendments can only be heard three tires
a year and his concern was that the middle cycle is generally for
city-initiated amendments, and if it is missed it won't be beard again for a
year ,;
Chairman King asked if the motion made by Commissioner Stout still stood?
Commissioner taut replied that it did with the inclusion of those items
previously mentioned. This motion was seconded by Cc .el, unanimously
carried
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, McNiel, Barker, Rempel, King
NOES- COMMISSIONERS: None
Planning Commission Minutes -12 January P , 1983
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
Vice-Chairman Rempel asked if there was a date on having Banyan brought back.
Hopson replied that it would be continued to the next amendment cycle
Chairman Bing asked for a motion regarding Wilson Avenue
Motion. - Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried to adapt the proposal
regarding Nilson Avenue
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ching
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried-
Chairman King voted no for his previously stated reasons
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT' 0 - TENTATIVE TRACT
12320 L & C A :change of wane from R- #T' (Multiple Family Residential)
to :R- ./PLC (Multiple amilmy. Residential/Planned Development) and the
development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of hand located at the
southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN P P 1 1-07.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff report recommending
inclusion of the requirement for a tot lot in the Resolution.
Vice-Chairman Rempel asked ; for clarification of drainage on the east 'side
across the other project.
Reu ea.0 replied that the other project has an underground storm drain
designed in one of its 'streets and if this project gees in first, some type of'
semi improved ditch would have to be put across that property in an easement
until that project is developed.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Pat Meyer, 200 E. ,State Street, Redlands, California, addressed the Commission
stating that he represented the applicant in his concurrence with the staff
report, . however, wished to clarify one paint in that this; project is a
four-plex development and not a condominium project. He asked for
clarification of the condition requiring the applicant to be responsible for a
master planned stem: drain from 1 th Street southerly. Since there was
another, development to the north, he asked if theywouldn't be re uared for
that portion of their property.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 . January 26, 1983
I
Rougeau, replied that this refers to a storm drain entirely in Archibald
Avenue. Further, that if a new project comes in it would be imposed with,
similar conditions because It would lie in the path of the natural drainage
also. Additionally, another project to the east has had the same conditions
placed on it and; whichever project goes in first will have to put the storm
drain in, then be reimbursed by :the others.
Meyer asked how much would be reimbursed
Rougeau replied that it would be 100 percent reimbursement it this case
because it is a master planned storm drain
Vice-Chairman Rempel advised that since this is a four-plex development, it
would require it e specialCC&Rls.
. Meyer replied that the project would have a Master Homeowners' Association
to take care of the maintenance of open spaces
Ted Reason, Assistant City Attorney, advised that there are additional
problems with these .kinds of developments ents as to what constitutes common area
and he would be looking closely at the R's.
Thre were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Loved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel ,: unanimously carried to approve
Tentative Tract 12320 with the inclusion of a requirement for a tot; lot.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rem el, McNi.e , Barker, Stout, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Af ENT; COMMISSIONERS: None carried
Motion; Hayed by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to approve
Planned Development 8
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Barker, McNiel, Rempel, Kind
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: florae
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: (lone -carried
-
Chairman King announced that due to the length of the next item, the public
hearing would be suspended and the Commission would move to Item d under
Director's Reports.
Planning Commission Minutes 14- January 8 1983
J. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' -0 BOAR'S HEAD
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended that
the Commission take public input on this item.
Chairman King announced that the public was invited to comment
Mel Futrell Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that the blocky wall
required at the previous meeting had been worthwhile and the noise has been
down approximately 90 percent. He attributed this decline in noise partly to
the blocky wall, however stated that it could also be declining as it does in
the winter Months but increases in the summer. Mr., Futrell complimented Mr.
dina e on his concern and efforts it working out these problems. He further
stated that the parking lit corner has not been completely closed off" and
people were still parking back there. He also stated that he hoped this
problem would serve as an indication to the Commission what kinds of problems
are associated with placing a use such as this in a residential area.
Michael Vairin stated he world like to report what had been observed when the
establishment was inspected prior to this evening's meeting. He stated that
the block wall requirement had been accomplished as well as the planters which
were required and a chain on the north entrance which has also been pert in
place. Further, it was assumed that this chain is being, put up during evening
hours, which is the requirement of the condition...
Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission> stating that the reason
the chain has not been put up is because a second tree still has to be pert in
place and reflectors have been ordered to be placed on the chain but have not
yet arrived. Further, that he would not like to have a chain across that area
without some type of reflectors because of liability. Further, that he had
not observed cars parking in that area.
Vice-Chairman Rempel advised that phosphorescent ent Paunt might be used in lie
u
of reflectors
Larry Arcinage addressed the Commission stating that he sent copies of Letters;
distributed to his employees regarding the patrolling of the; parking lot to
eliminate noise and also to beep' Boar's head patrons from parking in the; rear
parking area. Farther, that he would have no control over patrons o ether
establishments in the center
Commissioner Stout stated that he was quite skeptical that Mr.. .rcinage would
be successful and complimented him and the shopping center, owner on working
out these problems with the members of the community.
Planning Commission Minutes I January 26, 1983
Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation for the good faith Mr. Arcinage
demonstrated in going about as far as any businessman could be expected to go
to solve problems.
H. PLANNED COMMUNITY 81-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Review and final
consideration of the Terra Vista Planned Community text and final
Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300
acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and
south, and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report to the Commission
stating that staff was seeking final comment from the Commission on the
proposed planned community and a recommendation to the City Council dealing
with the final, certification of the rEIR and the planned community text. Mr.
Vairin further stated that an addendum had been prepared to this report which
stated that a reduction in the amount of parkland and green ways had taken
place since the prig al plan, due to the applicant's use of the Foran Bill.
The applicant had chosen to provide the minimum amount of parkland dedication
of public open space. Further, the Commission originally spoke in terms of a
60-40 percent ratio split between public and private; however, under the
provisions of the current plan (since the passage of the Foran Bill) the ratio
of overall open space requirement had been reduced to approximately 42 acres
of public open space and 13 acres reserved for private, a ratio of 77 percent
public and 23 percent private. W. Vairin requested the Commission make a
specific recommendation in the Resolution to the City Council regardng the
parkland dedication issue. In regard to the Foran Bill, Mr. Vairin explained
that the Bill states that "a planned development shall be eligible to receive
credit"; however, the amount of credit is to be determined by the legislative
body at the time specific development proposals are being reviewed. Also, any
other conditions the Commission wished changed should be included in the
Resolution.
Chairman King asked for the number of acreage which would be provided under
the 77 percent to 23 percent ratio split.
,Mr. Vairin replied that it was C. acres of public open space and 13.2 acres
reserved for private in the form of credit for a total of 55.8 acres, the
minimum amount according to the Foran Bill. He also explained that this
figure was derived from the calculation of the estimated number, of people
contained in the planned community.
Chairman in asked how many acres would be provided if the applicant chose to
provide the sminimum amount under the Foran Bill.
Mr. Vairin replied the minimum would be 55.8.
Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1983
i
Chairman king asked if staffs interpretation of the plan; is that it provides
the minimum amount of parks space,
. Vai:rin replied that what is shown as public parrot space is actually below,
the minimum; and if the minimum of open space was shown, it would be 55.8
acres. The plan only shows 42 acres in public open space with the reserve
being shown as potential private open space credit.
Chairman King asked that regardless of whether* it is public or private open
space, ;based on staff's calculations regarding number of units and number of
people etc. , does the plan provide the minimum amount of park space.
Mr. Vairin replied that based on staffs, calculations, it provides only the
minimum amount of open; space, which is required at 55.8 acres, if the 13 acres
of private opera space is included. if it is the desire to provide the minimum
amount totally is public opera space, then the plan is presently short 1
acres,
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Kay tlock , Lewis Homes, addressed the Commission stating that she did not
feel it correct to say that the parks plan provides the minimum amount of
parkland under the Foran Bill. Further, the amount of private opera space in
the plan was previously estimated to be in excess of 50 acres and that in
addition to the amount of public open space provided , calculates to at least
p acres of overa.11 open space, which;is in excess of any requirements. Also,;
that the Foran Bill provides_. that when a developer improves dedicated
parkland, he is to receive credit for those improvements against the amount of
land otherwise required. f4s. Matlock further stated that the practical effect
of that, given to cost of improvements roughly equal; to the value of the land
is to cut in half the amount of acres a city can require based on the
standard. Further, that the applicant's interpretation of the Foran Bill did
not require 56 acres, but 28 acres and, that the Bill also provides that
private open space is eligible for credit. A,ddi.ti.onally, the applicant
considered the 43 acres of fully improved land plus 50 acres of private opera
space placed them well over the minimum amount of dedication required.
Chairman King asked how the figures discussed by the Lewises and the figures
discussed by staff were so much in disagreement in that the Lewi.ses are
claiming acre ' of private and staff claims 13•
Mks. Matlock replied that there is no discrepancy in the amount of land the
plan will provide which i ;at least 13 acres, ,but that credit was not bean
asked for private open ,space over and above the; 13 acmes
Planning Commission Minutes , -17- January 26, 1983
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, agreed that there really isn't
disagreement on the amount of private open spade that may ultimately be bull
in Terra Vista. He pointed out that the Commission should decide if they
wished to recommend a new percentage, stay with the original percentage, or
recommend no amount of private open space credit under present circumstances
Chairman King asked for clarification of :the statement " shall; be eligible for
credit", in the Foran Bill
Lam replied that the statement means that it is up to the legislative
beady, in this case the City ouncil, to determine what amount of credit should
be given.
Chairman King asked if there are any higher density projects approved in the
City which were given credit based on amenities.
Mr. Lana replied that Deer Creek is the only project which has received some
credit;
Mr. yairin stated that most of the higher density projects have been submitted
under the planned development combining districts which require a certain
percentage to within `'aspen space areas and this is why most of them: have not
applied for credit.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that he did not recall which project it was, but
there was one other project that applied for credit
Commissioner Niel asked if he was correct in that the applicant is asking
credit' for : 13.2 acres, but in `actuality there will be more private acreage
than that.
. yairin ,replied that this is correct
Commissioner c iel asked if this was substantiated.
Mr. Lain replied that this was a difficult question to answer because the
actual development project has not been submitted. However,' if the question
is could you conceivably have another 50 acres of private opens 'space, the
answer`would be yes.
Matlock replied if the question is could you conceivably have less than. 13
acres, the answer to that would'be it is impossible.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood this, however, would lake to
know the applicant's intent{
Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 6, 1983
;III
IDS. Matlock stated the estimate for the amount of open space had been based on
a review of projects the applicant has built elsewhere, and how much of that
site was devoted: to open space, and of that opera space , how much should
reasonably* apply towards credit.
Commissioner McNiel stated that it would be nice for them to came in and say
they were going ,beyond what is required and only wanted to knows that the
applicant 's intentions were good
. Ralph Lewis, Lewis Humes, addressed the Commission stating that his
instructions to his staff were to give more brad than what is required and was
shocked to hear staff says that the bare minimum was being proposed under the
plan. Further, that staff had been shown the calculations and formula and
they had agreed to it. Further, he knows with apartments and planned
developments there will be private open space. Taking a reasonable percentage
of this and ,in line with the Foran, Bill and what the City Council has always
said, they are giving well above what the Foran Bilk. requires. Also, he had
instructed his staff to give more and Kay, Gruen, and the attorneys for the;
Lewises calculated the figures out and all came up with more than what is
required under the Foran Bill .
Commissioner Barber stated that; the amount is less than the last time the
Commission saw the plan and this is one of the reasons they are considering
how much is available .for public and not gust public and private.
r. Lewis stated that before the new Commissioners were selected, considerable
time was spent in front of the Council and the Council asked how builders
would be encouraged to pint in amenities if they; weren't given credit for theca
and at one time indicated that credit should raze from 50 to 100 percent.
Mrs`. Lan stated , as a ,point of clarification, there is no disagreement in terms
of discussion of, private open space and this is not the issue being dealt
with. Staff only wished ;to ask how much credit the Commission wishes to
recommend in view of the Foran Bill because the prior credit discussion
occurred prior to the Bill .
Chairman Kingstated that what he heard from staff` was that the 55.8 acres
being provided was the ultimate minimum under the Foran Bill, but what he was
hearing from the applicant is that this is not true and 42 is the bare
minimum.
Michael Vairin explained that Section VI, page 3, of the planned: community
document contained a table which projected., popultion figures based on
household size, number of units, etc. , on an 8,000 overall figure. This
computed to a minimum requirement of 55.8 acres, as previously stated by
staff.. Further, that was what Ids. Matlock stated according to their
interpretation of the Foran s Bill if they provide all that acreage plus develop
then they are beyond the requirement of the, Foran Bill.
Planning Commission Minutes -19 Januarys 26, 1983
Vice-Chairman Rerpel stated that he would prefer to see the greater acreage of
development inside the units rather than to put a big park in because it seems
that people do `not really use the big parks, but use the areas inside the
development. Farther, that if it was his choice, he would prefer the
conditions that existed 15 to 20 gears ago when we had one large park and
larger lots
Commissioner Barker stated that he had a feeling that when speaking of credit,
it does not allow general access or access two the parklands by the general
public Also, Mr. Lewis is not the type of developer who will develop
something that is not apt to sell and include enough amenities to attract
people. He further stated that he ;had witnessed what Mr. Lewis builds and
knows that he is ;successful when a lot of people are not
Commissioner Stout stated that since the Foran Bill has passed the ratio
between the public to;private should be completely reexamined :Further, that
e should not go back and say that the precedent set before the Foran Bill is
ghat should be carried on, now that the Bill has considerable emit back the
parkland that can be required
Chairman King asked if there were others in the audience who wished to comment
on the subject being discussed by the Commission,
Doug Hone, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating with the number of
years spent in the creation of the playa and the fact that the Laewi ; Company i
renowned in the industry as being an excellent developer, what should be
taking place is a ceremony and not whether the City should e getting two more
acres of park at this late date. Further,, that the Commission should be ready
to hand these people their cease to go out and create a new and beauti,ful
community for Rancho Cucamonga and Irish them well. He further stated that he
felt it would be an excellent idea to have a workshop on what the Foran Bill
means and ghat is going to be given for credit. He also stated that if a tour
was taken of Lewis developments, it would be noted that they have integrity
and do a goad job and there is no way you can legislate integrity; however,
their pride in their product and their standing depends on the good job that
they do. Further, that the Commission should pass this project and Irish therm
well and time would tell, without trying to nickel and die them over thirteen
acres
Chairman king replied in response to ter. Tease's comment regarding trying to
nickel el and dime them over thirteen acres that, it could easily be 'turned the
other 'day.
Commissioner Barker started that; admittedly, this has been going on through
more than one Commission for a lung period of time, but the statement seers to
be kind of like saying it's too bad we made such great plans, but now that the
bride and groom have changed, we should go through it any way. Further, that
Planning Commission Minutes - January 26, 1983
the greenways have changed and the park changed and these are two very major
items as far as he was concerned and also as far as the other people in the
community are concerned. He stated that he would also like to see the playa
get going, but we are not talking about the same playa that the Commission saw
six months ago.
Rick Reiter, a resident in the Rochester tract in Etiwanda, addressed the
Commission stating that he yid not like the proposal of having the junior� high
school and the elementary school right react to each other because the age'
mixture is not a good one.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that the locations of the schools are
determined by the school districts and unless the district decides that for
some reason it dues not like this particular site, this is the site it has
selected. He indicated that the map currently dons not show the two schools
adjacent to each other, and the original map Mr. Reiter referred to has been
abandoned by the applicant.
r°. Renter asked if the map on the wall was an indication of the dray things
would be in regard to the parkland.
Chairman King replied that it is a general -depiction
Chairman King asked if there were any other issues that anyone would life to
address before going back to the park issue. He also commented that he did
not recall an Office Park designation at the southwest corner of Milliken and
Base Line.
1r. Vairin replied that the first plan showed a neighborhood shopping center
at that location,' but after discussion by the Commission of having two centers
at that location, it was removed and replaced with an Office park designation.
Vice-Chairman empel replied that he felt it fit orrery well l and was not out of
line
`. Vairin stated' that in his review ' f the document;, he noted that there was
discussion on that corner as being a different, character from the Office` fart '
designation to the wrath..
Commissioner Barker asked if anyone else had concerns with the width of the
r�eenwra rs.
Vice-Chairman Rempel Mated that he would lute- to see the width of the walk
reduced to be a 12-foot combination walkway; ay and bicycle path,; especially when
the green way is riot 'along the street. Further, that the; path could be
straight through with landscaping n both sides..
Lewis acted for clarification of' this by Vice-Chairman Rempel.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 26, 1983
Vice-Chairman FRe pel, replied that instead of the 10-f~ nt and -foot walk
shown, it would be combined into a 1 -foot walk ;which would be pared and
people could walk on it and also ride bicycles because there would not be that
much traffic that two bicycles could not pass each other and also have someone
walking ,along. Also, it would Meander through there much better. ,
Commissioner Barker stated that he had a concern with that because he could
see someone roaring down the path on their ten speed bicycle and running into
a bunch of people who are walking.
Chairman King stated that he felt separate is better.
Commissioners Stoat and McNiel agreed that it is best to keep the paths
separate
Chairman King stated that the issue now seems to focus on the parks and
suggested that a resolution be reached
Commissioner Barker stated that he unsold like to ,sea a specific number of
acres as much as possible donated specifically to public access parks
Chairman King stated- regardless of who was nickel and diming ho over
thirteen acres, he felt comfortable with the; gray ;;the plan presently is in
terms of the public and private open ;space.
Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that he agreed with Chairman n King. Commissioners
Barker and McNiel also agreed
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt there should be a specific number of
acres because he did not feel comfortable with using a percentage now with s
few acres
Michael Vai in stated that if the numbers of acres is a concern, Section VI,
purge 4, of the plan states that public parks, green a s, trails, passeds, is
not to total less than. 42.6 acres and the issue would be the remaining 1
acres because it is, not ,guaranteed to be in the public open' space for,
potential private credit open space since it is not shown elsewhere in the
plan
Vice-Chairman Rempel suggested that the private open space include only the
amenities that would not normally be "in planned development passed so fates such
as swimming pools and tut lots, but include such items as volleyball and
tennis courts
Chairman King stated that he recalled the discussion, but thought it was s
little on the vague side
Planning Commission Hinutes -22- January 26, 1983
Chairman King replied that his question was a little on the vague side and;
wondered if there was a way to rake it more specific.
Michael Vairin asked if the guidelines on page 4 were not difini.tnive enough
and if more detail was desired in terms of the actual amenity. Further, that
the guidelines do not discuss the actual, physical amenities discussed by
Vice-Chairman Rempel in terms of a pool versus volleyball courts, but refers"
to the ' space donated which would be designed ' to be used for some type of
recreation purposes based can the type of unit, and whether it is proposed for
young adults`, senior citizens, etc
Chairman King stated that as long as we have a flat acreage, a minimum of 42.6
acres as the public, he was not sure that was should be that concerned with
what we do in tens of private oxen space.
Vairi.n replied that it is needed in terms of the implementation of each
individual project. Further, that the question is of the 55.8 acre is the
42.6 acres which is currently shown on the map a comfortable ratio, or does
the Commission Irish to make an alternative recommendation the the City
Council.
Chairman King stated that 42.6 is not a comfortable figure at all, but given
the For an Bill and the ratio of public and private open space did not feel
that the figure is disproportionate. Further, that he is not comfortable with:
any of the figured, but given what was are looking at here and the scope, felt
comfortable with the 77 pendent to 23 percent public to private' breakdown.
Commissioner Stout stated that the 55.8 figure was based on the premise that
i.t. would be built at mid-point at the maximum as opposed to the mid-point,
would the amount of land allowable under the Foran Bill be greater.
Cyr. Vai tin replied that this could not necessarily ;be true since a lid was
placed on the maximum number of dwelling units that could be built at 8,000
with a potential beyond that for some affordable units. Further, that if a
number of units was over 8,000 because of affordable bonuses, additional land`
dedication or fees would be required
Chairman King stated that although the plan; states no less than 42.6 acres, it;
creeds to also state, or 77 ';percent, whichever is greater. Further, that the
42.6 is based can a numerical number of units and people and if they have more
units and more people, should provide =trove park space.
. Lewis stated that he Mould agree to this because it is likely that there
will be some residential. units larger� than 8,000 because staff is requesting
it and he agreed to put in 15 percent or more affordable units. Further, that
if; the affordable units are built, there wuld be a density bonus generating
more people, and the park requirement would increase.
Planning Commission Minutes -23- January 26, 1983
Commissioner Stout ;agreed that he would like to see the 42.6 or 77 percent,
whichever is greater, language added
Commissioner marker" asked how this would be monitored.
Michael Vairin replied that one of the statements in the plays and also a
condition of approval required the development of a detailed park
implementation system. He explained that some of the exhibits displayed a
density distribution plan which illustrated how many units would be built in
each of the pod areas and with this staff would be able to estimate the amount
of park acreage generated with each of: these developments. Staff would then
be able to determine where to plan for this park, ;where it should begin, where
the trails should begin, etc This would be closely monitored as well as any
increases' in the number of units above that projected in case of extra
generation of park Fees or land dedication. Further, that this implementation
plan would be a very detailed document and staff would monitor it on, an
ongoing basis, update is as needed, and make whatever modification as land
develops
Chairman man King stated that the only modification seemed to be the addition of
the 77 percent, or whichever is greater, language. He asked if there were
other comments regarding this matter or any other. There were dune and
Chairman King called for a motion.
Motion: Moved by R mpel seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the
Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Planned Development
d11 .
YES: COMMISSIONERS: Pempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Hone
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None carried
I. HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW RECESS RESOLUTION
Tips Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this Resolution be forwarded to
the City Council for their review and consideration.
h
Planning Commission Minutes -24-_; January 26, 1983
K. AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
Rick Marks, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and advised that this
item would be returning to the, Commission for their consideration at their
meeting February 9, 1983.
ADJOURNMENT
VIotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
10:35 - Planning Commission adjourned
Respectfully on mitted,
Jack Lam, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -25- January 26, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
January 12, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff King called the adjourned regular meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9 p.m. The meeting was held at the;
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Rase Lime Road, Rancho Cucamonga for the
purpose of hearing the Etiwarada Specific Plan.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, tarry MoNiel, Herman Rempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: . Novo
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Eee le Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil,
Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary ;'
Jack Lana, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau,
Senior Civil Engineer; Michael " airin, Senior Planner
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES
Commissioner Stout asked that the voting be changed on the motion recorded on
page 14 of the November 18, 1982 minutes to read that he had cast a no vote on
the motion.
Motions: Moved by Stout, seconded by, Barber, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of November 4, 1982, November 18, 1982 as corrected, and
December 9, 1982.
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Chairman King stated that if the Commission keeps on its schedule there will
be one more meeting after tonight to consider the Etiwanda Specific Plana.,
Further, the land use aspects had boan completed; it was hoped that the
Regulatory Provisions would be dealt with and the next item to be considered
would be the Environmental Impact Report.
Chairman King indicated that a request was received by the Commission to
furthers discuss brad use; however, the Commission has completed its study and
for those who wish to !further discuss it, the proper time would be when it
comes before' the City Council. He indicated that he felt the Commission
should not back track on those areas already considered. It would be unfair
to reopens discussion on land use when people who might be affected were not
present to offer comments.
Commissioner Remel asked if an appeal is made to the City Council will It not
have to come back to the Commission if it was not reviewed previously.
Mr. Beedle stated that if the topic had been previously discussed by the
Planning Commission it could go directly to the City, Council and if it had not
been discussed , it proud have to; core before the Planning Commission before
the City Council could tale action
Commissioner Hempel stated that perhaps this should be taken up' at the newt to
the last greeting so that here will be, an opportunity to review those topics.
Chairman King stated that this is a possibility but his personal preference is
that the Commission not do this He felt that the lard use issues had been
thoroughly discussed.
f Commissioner Barker stated his agreement with Chairman Kingts comments. He
further stated that at the last meeting when some changes occurred, members beas of
the public thought that decisions had: already been made and they were then
changed. He did not think this fair. Further, that to continue after a
certain point is not food or logical.
Commissioner Stout stated that he concurs but asked what was meant by the
definition "topic" and whether if it was talked about it has been laid to rest
or whether a certain location is a topic
r. Boodle explained that if that becomes an issue when it cores before the
Council, to -reviews the p if they want to have further information tion they will
refer it back down to the Commission but generally if they are dust ;talking
about overall land use and have looked at that map and the Commission has also
looked at it in their =consideration, them they can go ahead and approve it.
Chairman n ing stated that there is consensus on this point.
* Beadle reviewed the staff report going over the items to be considered
such as regulatory provisions, circ lation-related standards and finally,
those that are special features and architectural guidelines
. Beadle stated that the schedule calls for two additional greetings, one of
which is a regular Planning Commission greeting on January 26, at which time
there would be an introduction to a General Plan amendment with the adoption
of the;Specific Plan and following that, on February 17 a special meeting to
wrap up any additional comments and recommend certification of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendments, and to recommend
adoption of the Specific Plan itself. Mr. Beedle stated that even at the
final meeting should the Commission feel that there should be changes, they
could be added as amendments to the conditions of approval. He further stated
that the Commission could give its approval to the concepts as they are being
presented or wait until the earl of this greeting;
Planning Commission Minutes January 12 , 1983
. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, began his presentation of site-related
standards and spoke of the basic and optional standards, stating that they are
one of the ley elements of the plan. The standards define further the meaning.
of the brad use districts. The basic standards are designated to guarantee
certain minimums for the Etiwanda area, and the optional standards encourage
projects to go beyond the minimum. Mr. Kroutil reviewed for the Commission
the optional and basic standards as shown in the Draft Specific Plan.
Commissioner Barber stated that he would like discussed and considered the
requirement of a CUP with the optional: standards; however, there were no
provisions for this in the specific plan at this time
Chairman King asked if we go through the public hearing process does it make
any difference if it is just normal public hearing route that the Commission
goes through or dries it have to be a CUP.
Kroutil replied that in the case of residential projects over 4 dwellings
there must be a public hearing on the tract map. The amount of discretion
that the Commission has under the CHIP is greater in that certain findings must
be made as to hoer well the project would meet the intent of the Specific
Plan. ter. Kroutil stated that with the conventional standards all of this is
spelled out and as long as the development meets all the standards in the
Zoning Ordinance or in the basic standards it becomes difficult to ask for
other things unless there is a strong public input regarding it. Mr. Kroutil
continued, that the answer is yes and no because the Commission has the
discretion either way through the public hearing process; with the CUP you
have the little extra leverage depending on what you want to accomplish.
Chairman King stated, that a CUP does not really fit and asked if the
Commission would be earcercising do much discretion so as not to be
appropriate
Mr. Kroutil replied that on higher density areas it would =seem that the
Commission would want to have this discretion whereas on the lower density
areas there may be no weed for it.
Chairman King asked about the process for a CUP versus the normal hearing
process.
Mr. Kroutil replied that there are additional fees in the amount of
approximately $300.00 but the notification process is similar.
Chairman King stated that as far as the applicant is concerned it really
doesn't tern whether he goes through the normal heaving process or a CUP.
Commissioner Barker asked why we would mandate an additional fee and is it for
the posting
Pick Gomez replied that a CUP handled separately would guise the fee to
cover the cost of the preparation of the CUP, mailings, posting, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 12 1983
Commissioner Barker asked if those fees could be waived under these
circumstances.
Commissioner Rem el stated that he has several problems under the optional
standards. if someone came irewith a cre site in the low density he has a
10,000 minimum square footage of his lot. That is in 43,000 square feet per
acre and he can theoretically make 20 lots. However, in reality if he has two
or even three streets coming off":. the area he can lose an acre of land around
his site. Commissioner Repel felt that metes and bounds should be used;
because a5-acre site might not end up 5 acres because of what'will be lost to
streets.
Chairman in stated that he faces the same prospect with the normal
standards.
Commissioner Rempel. stated that here we are setting up standards to give him
more and then we take it away and it is not the same thing.
Commissioner Stout stated that this concept of basic and optional standards is
an excellent concept and that he, likes it. He stated further that he has one
question with regard to basic standards for the Estate Residential and the
Very Lowy category. Be indicated; the difference between the basic and optional
standards appears to be very Little in those categories. Be asked if this is
a' true assessment.
. Kroutil replied that it is and it was done on purpose
Mr,. Stout stated, that his only concern is that the way the plan is set very
much of the property above Highland Avenue is Very Low or Estate Residential
so in essence there is no incentive to have that area go .into the optional
standards.
. lydutil replied that this is quite true and the reason is the relatively
lour density of the area would not require the use of, the optional standards
for incentives because the basic standards come close to achieving community
goals. Using RR as an example, standard one acre lots with lack of solid
walls and with substantial setbacks are something that the community would be
happy with as fare as open space. Mr. Kroutil stated that it is just a matter
of hoer'much ,incentive;to build under the optional standards you want to build
into each category, and that the need for such incentive is greater in higher
density areas.
Commissioner Stout asked what the incentive would be for Very Low, and how it
could be made stronger.
. Kroutil replied that he would have to make specific calculations.
Commissioner Stout stated that what Mr. Kroutil is saying is that you can fool
around with some numbers but if you fool around here you can throw the
relationships of basic ;and optional standards out of whack.
Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1983
eedle stated; that: if the Commission desired , this can be examined by
staff and brought back with some modifications and they can also come up with
some options.
Chairman King asked if there were any members of the public who wished to
comment.
. Joe Dilor o stated that he had his planners go through the basic and
optional standards and they thought it is d very good idea.. Further, that he
tended to agree that the optional standards are a little bit higher than they
should be and possibly not attractive enough for a developer to use.
Mr. DiIorio felt it may be worthwhile to go through a graphic comparison to
see what they look like. He stated that if they work they may be one of the
most critically important things about the plan.
Mr. Cecil Johnson stated that he is in fawn of the emphasis n the optional
standards along with the basic and felt that the City will get much <better
development than it would otherwise.
There were no contrary comments towards the use of both basic and optional
standards.
Commissioner McNiel stated that these are a good concept and he is inclined to
agree with Commissioner Rem el in that in some instances the option is
nullified by virtue of the penalty. He felt that staff could core wit with
some graphic illustrations that would give the Commission a better feeling.
Commissioner tout stated that he would like to see some examples to see
better pictorial view to show the public and get it clearer in his mind..
Commissioner Barker stated that he is in favor of the concept itself and that
he would like to see the CUP on the higher density projects.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he has no problem with the concept but in some
areas it will be difficult to interpret at a later date for a developer gust
what is required when one gets into higher density. He felt that this will
cause a problem and needed clarification. Commissioner Hempel stated further ,
that the definition of terms also must be clarified ,in opera space and co `ors
open space and whether a person is buying land just for himself or for
community use.
Commissioner Barker stated that just for the sake of the public so that they
will not think that there is a way of circumventing the density' requirements,
ents,
there is a provision under -0 , density ranges, which says that projects
may also be Filed under* optional standards, etc. , which only allows the
densities up to the maximum in the density range and it may be proper to
insert d phrase like "shall not exceed" so that it will be known. He
indicated that this wrap the public would know that they are not trying to
destroy but to create the environment that they are attempting to protect.
Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1983
Chairman King stated that if the public thinks ;that there are things that
should or should not be included in the optional standards, they should
contact the Planning Division
. John Seherb,":representing the Miyohoshi Temple, stated that there was a
lot of debate at the last meeting about how to compensate someone for coning
up with an architectural theme or entrypo i t into the community. Be stated
farther he was unable to express his thought at the last meeting that simply
allowing an additional density bonus to someone for taking a piece of their
property to create such an 'entry point would be an appropriate nay both to
urge the things they are trying to develop and make it profitable and
worthwhile for the developer was well.
Chairman King stated that the Commission would consider the overlay districts
for Etiwanda Avenue and Community Service. He further stated that he would
not be participating in any discussion on the Community Service Overlay nor
the consensus on this overlay.
Mr. Kroutil: explained to the Commission the purpose of the Bti randaAvenue
overlay district, stating that this is purely a design consideration and not a
land use tool, with the intent to protect the character of the Avenue. The
Community Service overlay is designed to do that and more in that all the
design and architectural criteriaa and landscaping criteria also apply to the
Community Services District. Additionally, it allows opportunities for very
limited kind of professional commercial rn ua i e erei 1. uses. Mr.
Krouti . further stated that when the committee looked at this they: had a mixed
feeling about the whole idea in that they ;felt that a focal point was a good
idea but they were apprehensive about going too far with the kind of
commercial noses that you would allow in as an incentive. Mr. I routil Mated
that the key is the balance between an incentive to create an opportunity for
something special to happen, and an assurance that the uses going along with
it will not overwhelm; the character of the residential. area.
Chairman King asked for any thoughts on the Etiwanda Avenue Overlays as it is
presently set up
. Joe DiIorio, stated that the Victoria plan shows a different configuration
on Etiwanda' Avenue at Miller than is -shown here and he felt that it is a part
of the character. Be stated further that from Foothill to Miller, as they
build the regional shopping center, will be one of the main access points to
the regional and he did not think Bti anda Avenue would want to be continued
as a straight shot at that point. He further felt that there should be an
offset.
. Lnilori.o stated that the second point is the street between Miller and
Base Line with the things that are right now, Victoria and the Temple, the LM
densities, while ;they, are usable , small offices such as attorney's offices
that would fit the scale of the ;area rather than residential at 4-10 dwelling
units per acre, would -fit in with what is already there. He felt that the
area right along Etiwanda Avenue is not the ideal place for residential.-
Planning Commission Minutes -, January 12 , 1983
Mr. DiIorio stated that what had been the core of Etiwanda many years ago may
not be in the future and therefore there should be more of a blending of that
kind of commercial in the area.
Dr. Poland Smith stated that he goes along with the previous speaker. He felt
'that offices or neighborhood commercial should go there and did not feel that
the overlay is particularly meant for that area.
Mrs. Pat Gearhart stated that every time there is discussion of Etiwanda
Avenue there is always a subtle harangue over commercial property. She stated
that you can tell them to stick to the overlay but it always comes back to the
desire to build more commercial on Etiwanda Avenue. She stated that the first
thing to be decided is what you are going to do with the overlay. She asked
if the desires of the residents who have lived there the longest are going to
be kept or not.
She stated that this is also the first time that she heard that the park
requirements had been changed for specific plans and asked if this will affect
the specific plans regarding parks for Etiwanda and if so she would opt of the
optional standards in order to get more park requirement.
Mr. DiIorio stated that there should not be commercial in the old area. In
fact, he stated , he would like to see old houses moved into this area but that
you will not get people moving into the old houses because they will not use
them as single family homes.
Mr. John cherb on behalf of the Temple stated that the Etiwanda Avenue
overlay only represents a 3treetscape theme at this point and is an admirable
part of the plan because it protects Etiwanda Avenue and enhances the concept
of old Etiwanda. He felt it goes a long way in setting a theme for the city
and setting up the uses that may or may not be good for the city.
Chairman King stated that the consensus of the Commission is that the Etiwanda
overlay is desired.
Chairman King then stepped down.
Vice chairman Rem el asked if there was any discussion relative to the
Community Service overlay from the Commission.
There being none at this time, Vice chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. John cherb stated the he has strong feelings on the Community Service
overlay because from what he has been hearing at the last few.meetings the
expansion of that particular district in a southerly direction towards the
Temple is precisely the kind of thing that he has always asked the Commission
not to allow in their subtlety. He stated that he predicted that there would
be creeping commercialism and now it is coming true. He stated that the
Commission should look at the Community Service overlay and what the committee
did when it first came out in draft form as it had a lot more intensive
commercial uses than the plan before the Commission at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 12, 1983
9
e
tension of
Mr. Scberb stated that be is a.rast n southerly northerly
this overla.y district farther, that such;, extension would establish strip
commercial.
routil stated that he had received a request which was included in the
Commission's packets for an extension of that district. He stated that he
wished that the Commission would loop at that before any recommendations are
de on this overlay district
Commissioner Stout asked if a decision on specific boundaries must be made
tonight.
"dice Chairman Rempel stated that the Commission could go one ways or the other.
. Kroutil stated that if there is any consensus it should to found out.
Commissioner iel stated that he liked the concept because it is romantic
and homey; however, if he was going to open a shop he would go' i_n there He
further stated that he is more in favor of a graduated increase in commercial
drawn to the freeway because that is the logical' way that things will happen.
Commissioner Stout stated that he liked the concept but that the Etiwanda
overlay district will predominate all the ways through as one consistent design
type. He felt that under these ;particular standards there will be o lot of
commercialization and what does develop in there will be very desirable. , e
stated that what;the Commission is trying to do is limit it don to those uses
which are desirable and that he favors the concept and he felt that the;
district should be limited and not expanded, any further. He would not litre to
see, he said , a strip ':commercial street.
Commissioner Barker stated that he did not feel- that any portion of the
overlay should be altered at this time
Vice chairman Rempel stated that the Planning Commission has always been quite
emphatic that the City* not"promote strip commercial and has not allowed that
type of development in the City.
Vice chairman Rempel stated that his opinion of the Community Service Overlay
is that in order to get development along Etiwanda Avenue that will be what
people cant to beautify it, housing will not do it. He indicated that he did
not wart commercial to develop all along it either and that office or that
type of use is what should go in there. dice chairman Rempel stated that he
did not favor an expansion of the Community Service District because it can be
dome other ways. He did not feel that people would want to build single-
family hoaxes here and he stated ,that the Commission may have to reduce or make
concessions as fare as lot sizes 'to get development along Etiwanda of the type
of units that people want. To require one-half to one acre lots along here i
not the way to do it either because all one has to do is drive along Euclid
Avenue to see that this is the type of development that is desired and the
lots along there are not that large "
The consensus of;the Commission was to approve the Community Service Overlay.'
Planning Commission mutes January 12, 1983
Chairman King returned to the table
Chairman King stated that the Commission would go on toCirculation-Related
Standards unless anyone had; specific comments about the Equestrian Overlay.
. Kroutil Mated that the Equestrian, Overlay District basically follows the
General_ Plana designation of rural eguesri.an area north of 'Route 30 and
provides a place where horses may be kept for personal use,.
Commissioner Stout stated that since in that district the purpose is to keep
horses in a residnetia . area, he suggested ;the Commission should extend the
optional dev opment standard versus the basic development standard concept to
include this type of overlay district. He further stated that if a persona
were to develop under the basic development standards that they would be
required to provide access to all lots. He asked if the minimum would be
20,000 square feet.
Mr. Kroutil stated that it would be the minimum which is what it is now. He
stated that a developers will have two options if he chooses to develop in the
Equestrian Overlay area: one, to provide access throughout the project to
community trails and feeder trails or, two if he does not rant to provide
equestrian lots, provide through trails to the community trails; and have the
option of recording the C R's the same way it is being dine in; other areas in
the City.
Commissioner .Stout stated that he did not litre the second option because
horses should be permitted and it would allow problems to occur as are
happening his area where they,are in an equestrian district and not allowed
to have horses. While people should not be forced to have; horses, they should
not be precluded from having them.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be all right just as long as it
also allows people who do not rant horses to live there. He indicated that
you would be allowing everyone to have homes but not, allowed to put it in
their tract.
Chairman King stated his agreement with Commissioner Stout to put in some
incentives that are optional that would encourage the developer by giving him
a few more peres if they have horses. But, he stated, he dial not buy that
anyone could have a hearse in the:equestrian overlay zone if they Ararat one.
Commissioner Re el stated that they would be assuming that everyone who lives
up there would have horses and that is not ,right'.
Commissioner Stout asked that certain ;conditions' Faust be placed to run with
the land at the time of tract development and whether: conditions can be placed
on those covenants that a condition not be filed. For example, no
restrictions on equestrian uses.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 12, 1983
Hopson replied that you must go back and trace where the City gets its
pourer to do this which is through the Subdivision Map act. Further, that
a
traffic and utilities deal with ' ubi, .c safety and are a police 'power. He
stated that he has never seen anything that would allow the Cif rt ti or;any
municipality to bar restrictions on animals, for example, because it is almost
like a` dourble negative; nor can they require that they have animals. They
could only bar these things as an exercise; of the City's police poorer, barring
occupants in a single family residential zone to a single family zone and he
was not sure you could substantiate it .if you posed a condition onto a tract
that the person who was directing the land use of that tract could not
preclude animals. at wound be an exercise of police powers that would be
supportable by the Constitution that a municipality has. He stated that this
could be researched. His reaction at the moment is that it is beyond the
scope of things that a City can do.
Mr. Kra uti.l stated that what their concern is has already been addressed and
under the basic standards there is no question; however, under:the optional
standards you would be required to provide substantial amounts of open space
that is common, i.e. , greenways and trails and it would seem in an area that
allows horses it is more than lively you would have a community trail near
your property and you would' have munch open' space to ride horses. Mr. I routil
stated 'perhaps the incentive is already in them but perhaps more should be
provided to satisfy the concerns' that Commissioner Stout has without actually
saying that horses must not be prohibited by 'a
Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see that general area explored
with more alternatives and also to see the incentives increased.
h see under Pld like t t the same that e o una Cecil Johnson commented a u
limitation per square` foot requirement for horses be allowed it the total
r theequestrian; development n
development `�aa,th Ikre option of providing all of h
p p
a specific area where horses would be concentrated in stalls, etc. He felt
that there should be a limitation of horsed being permitted in the specific
lot area of the house He stated that this would be the beat of both
worldsFurther, that this is what he would want to have, developed on his
property.
The Planning Commission stated that this is what they have done.
Chairman King stated that the Trails would be reviewed
Mr. Kru until reviewed the staff report concerning trails.
Chairman King stated that in terms of an extension of trails is Victoria
on Victoria Parkway
r should e extended al
Parkway, he believed that the trails ah u_d b
y�
if one believed that the trail is amenable to horses. tie further stated that
in his ovary mind when they went through the Victoria plan he had a hard time
initiating a thought that horses are amenable to the Victoria Parkway. He
stated that the Commission must provide a proper lira or the trails; become
worthless but he does not see it as a serious thought along Victoria
Parkway. He stated that he is in favor of the proper system.
Planning o iss on Minutes, -1 January 12 , 1983
-I
Commissioner Kemp l stated that In terms of the trail running along the
railroad trader where there will he trains isquestionable; however, he asked
if there is really room for trails along Victoria. He cited the school and
wondered if there is morn and whether another area should be looked for where
the trail could come through
Commissioner, Stout stated that he liked the concept of connecting Fontana with
Victoria but wondered if that trail is consistent with the Bti a.nda overlay
and that maybe the Commission should move it over to East Avenue.
. Kroutil stated that this would not wordy because it can't be moved to East
Avenue dire to traffic volumes and because of constraints of existing houses.
Be, stated that they can make it work along ;Btiwanda Avenue with the exception
of several, hares where they have no legal gray to acquire access and he stated ;
that only time might make it worst here.
Commissioner Rempel suggested that the trail come down 1 th Street and between
Highland and Victoria rather than on Etiwanda. He felt it could come along
the north side of the high school and come down the wash.
Commissioner Barker asked if this has been considered and brought before the
Trails Committee.;
Pam Henry replied that the idea was that a route was needed to connect with
Fontana and to link with, Day Creek and therefore Victoria was the most logical
route.
Commissioner Hempel stated the problem along Victoria Avenue pointing out that
you can get to Fontana along the wash
. d ro ati.l stated that the real issue was to get to Victoria Park Lane trail.
Chairman King stated that the other way to connect is with the Day Creeds area.
. Kroutil explained the problems with some of the trails along streets and
the forcing of public streets.
Commissioner He el stated that he sees some serious ;problems with street
dedication on Victoria and it may be the wrong thing to do.
Chairman King asked if the Commission-;would agree that there has been some
fairly reasonable orit sm aroused on this route and perhaps agree in concept
on what it is that the Commission wishes to accomplish and to spend more time
over the next two weeds to see what the proper route is
Commissioner rd er asked why what he had explained would .dictate a street
going through in that the objective is to put a throughway from one point to
the other.
Planning Commission Minutes 11- January 12 , 1983
. Kroutil explained that in the equestrian district you may put your
ommunity trail along a public street, in back of a project, or; running right
trough the Middle of a project, providing it is designed ri ht. In the-non-
equestrian areas the choices are more limited and it could make more sense in
that setting to put an equestrian trail along a public right-of-way and if it
baud dictate a specific street alignment, it will be difficult to implement
because it must be on a project-by-project basis.
Hopson explained the problems with a developer who does not wish to have
an equestrian project and the leverage that might or might not be there in the
equestrian overlay area
Commissioner Re pel stated that he sees a problem with a. trail at either;
Victoria or the railroad.
Chairman King stated that generally the consensus would be to do it but look
further at the specific alignment. Chairman King asked for permission to
defer the windrow and architectural and design guidelines to the next meeting.
Commissioner Stout asked about architectural and design guidelines for the
commercial area he noticed that the barn type architecture is to be encouraged
but it says it is only for neighborhood commercial and asked if there is some
reason it shouldn't be for all the different types of commercial in the area
. Kroutil stated that this was not the intent and that it was to cover all
commercial and professional used.
Chairman King stated that the public hearing would now be open for the Draft
Environmental pact Report for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and asked for
comments.
There being no comments, the public hearing was, closed
.ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Niel, carried unanimously, to adjourn.
10 0 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned
ep ctf9ullyr so mitted ,
i f
JACK t ecretary
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 12, 198,E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA
PLANKING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
January 12, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff in called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at .30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions
.Pare Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road , Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King
then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry: McNiel, Herman empel,
Dennis s Stout,, Jeff Ring ;
ASSENT. COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT. Shintu React, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez ,
City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;
Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Liam Community
Development Director; Paul Roo au, Seniors Civil Engineer;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
TERRA VISTA SLIDE PRESENTATION BY THE LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Chairman King advised that the regular ularti meeting of the Planning Commission was
scheduled one-half hour earlier than usual in order that the Lewis Development
Company could makea slide presentation of their° Terra Vista Planned
Community. Further, that there would be a scheduled public hearing on Terra
Vista at the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
. Jeff Skorneck, representing Gruen and Associates, consultant to Lewis
Development, along with Elaine CarNbrayy and Ann Castle, provided a chronology
in the development of the Terra Vista Plan. Mr. Skorneck explained that the
slide presentation was being done- an that the Commission could see some of the
design element, and although they would d be broad concepts, would further be
explained and detailed in the community plat document.
The slide presentation concluded at : O p.m. and theme being no comments from
the audience Commission, or staff, the meeting was recessed.
O p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Lien. Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the December d, 1982Planning Commission meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion Moved by Re pel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve
the Consent Calendar.
ENVIRONMENTAL ,ASSESSMENT FOR; V L P ENT REVIEW 82-2 _ - R.C. INDUSTRIAL
The development of two warehouse/distribution buildings of 345,500 square
feet and 28,000 square feet on 73.55 Gored of land in the General
Industrial/Rail Served zone ;(Subarea 10) , located at the northwest corner
of 8th Street and Buffalo - APN 229-2 1-26 and 28.
S8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW � The
de e op ent of two manufacturing/warehousing buildings of 21 ,600 square
feet and 10,800 square feet on 19.4 acres of land in the Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial triall zone (Subarea ) to be located at 11711 Arrows Route
APf 229 111-17 and 18.
*Pro
ject et falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 122 8 C.H.
residential subdivision of 74 lots on .5 sores of land in the R 1 zone,
.
located on the north aide of Church Street between Hellman Avenue and Lion
Street APH 208- 11 C8, 208-2 1 02 , 11 , 13, 19, 22 and 23.
Chairman King advised that this item would be handled first on the agenda.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report®
Chairman King opened the public hearing
Mr. Ronald Martin, P.O. Box 1 El Taro, California, the applicant, indicated
that he had nothing to add concerning the conditions of approval but would
answer any questions
John Hamilton, 7480 Hellman, asked about the flooding and drainage ditch ,
and whether, if they put yap a retaining wall in conjunction with this project,
he will be flooded out.
Mr. Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that when the detailed review
of the grading plan is made' there will not be any pockets of ur drained water
that will be' allowed to ford and further, that they will be watching for any
problems.
Mrs. Linda Heauleu, 1C Hell. n, aped about the cul-de-sac at Hellman and
under what conditions the street would be allowed to go through.
Planning Commission Minuted 2- January 12, 198
ou eau replied that the street would go through only if the houses of the
two lots affected were torn down and somebody wanted to subdivide into three
more lots, or if another lot were created. Mr. Rougeau indicated that they
would have to be sure that that street were not blocked off; however, if the
people living in these houses continue to do so and do not try to further
subdivide the property then the street will: not ' o through and the property
rights of the existing residents would prevail
Mrs.d Beaulieu asked what this tract will provide to the school districts.
. Lard replied with the requirements that are made of the developer to
provide certification from the school districts stating that there is adequate
space in the classrooms, fees which are paid through the building permit
procedure, and the timeframes in which the certification is obtained.
Mrs. Beaulieu asked if before this tract .id finally approved there will be a
presentation such as the one made by the Lewis Development Company.
Lam replied that the final approval of a map is ministerial, and must
conform to whatever the planning Commission has approved. Therefore, the
final map is placed on the consent calendars for City Council action which, in
effect,; finds that the map is in conformance with whatever had been presented
to the Planning Commission. M. Lam stated that since this is the case a
presentation like the Lewises would not be grade
Barbara Bond, owner of property in front of the proposed project, stated
that a wooden fence would not serve the purpose at the cul-de-sac but would be
an open run for children on the way to school. She stated that after a period
of time this would their be considered public right-of-way and she did not want
this to happen. She asked ed what the developer intends to do at this location.
Curt Johnston, assistant Planner, stated that what is shown on the tract map
is a sip-foot block wall and there is no mention of a wood fence at the
cul-de-sac.
Mrs. fond stated that Mr. Martin indicated it would be a wood fence
Hamilton asked when they widen Hellman will there be four or five lots
between.. Base Line and Palo Alto that are narrower and if they have to put in
street improvements. Further, ,would it have to match the new street, and at
whose expense
r:. Rougeau replied that the approval, of this tract, because of the large
number of houses along Hellman, will really have no bearing on how soon
Hellman is widened. Mr. Rougeau stated that when home improvements are made
the City requires that street improvements be rude also, but this will not be
dome at this location for a long;time and that perhaps in the long term this
y be a City project but it would be a long way off.
Mrs. Betty Burgess, resident at Church and Lion,; asked if the design of these
homes will be single or two;story.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 12, 1983
. Johnston stated that at this point in time this project is for the
subdivision of load only and the applicant is not the developer. Mr. Johnston
explained the growth management plan which necessitates the developer coming
in and going through a point rating system at which time the tract would be
reviewed. Mr. Johnston advised that if the residents wish to, they could
provide staff with their names and addresses and when this designs is
finalized , they would be notified so that they could examine the design.
Chairman King stated that given the interest shown by the residents, the City
would make sure that their names get into the file so that they can be
notified when this project comes before Design Reviews.
There being no further comments, the public heaving was closed;...
Commissioner Hempel stated that having sat on the Design 'Review committee and
working with the applicant he knows that the applicant has been quite diligent
in bringing through a ,good project. Mr. Rempel further stated that the wall
is a valid point and that an expansion joust could be put in so that it could
be knocked out if a street ever goes` through the cul-de-sac area.
Hopson stated that a tentative tract map on this property has already been
approved and asked that the Commission place a condition on this tract map
that when the first tract map is final this one is revised so that different
lot numbers do not appear.
Chairman King asked if rather than revising this a condition could be placed
on the map which would wound whatever map was not final.
Mr. Gomez, City Planner, stated that the applicant was present, and asked if
the Commission could address this point to him
Cyr. Martin replied that whatever records first would void; the other. H
indicated that there are three major property owners involved in this and he
has 9 acres upon which ,he holds an option that he does not Irish to lose
but he would consent to that condition.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there is anything in the future that would say
when something will be donne with Hellman.
. Rougeau asked if Mr. McNiel meant widening of the street.
A
. McNiel replied yes and stated this would be below Base Li
ne.
Mr. Ro ageau stated that there is nothing in the -year capital improvement
program to do any street widening there; however, there is a project currently
under design to clean up the water over the railroad tracks. Mr. Hougeau
stated that development along Hellman would take cane of some street widening
and if them are spots that are not widened, a 'City project will be needed to
clean up the rest of it within the next 1 C years
t n before the Commission does not: address an of
that the a b
. a.e l stated p
it with the exceptions'of the 7 Lots before Church Street.
Planning Commission Minuted 4 January 12 , 1983
Pou eau replied that this is correct. Farther, that the street mould be
narrow in front of the"school..
Commissioner Stout stated that he agreed with Commissioner Pe el on the
condition for the block gall which could be taken down if the street goes
through asked where the water will go after improvements are made to: the
drainage ditch.
Rou eau replied that it will run under the railroad tracks to the storm
drain our the north aide of the tracks. Further, that there will not be any
large puddles our the railroad tracks or north of the railroad. Mr. Pou eau
explained the large basin south of Vineyard Park; and that the water on the
property itself will be carried to the street.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82-05, approving Tentative Tract No. 12238, issuing a negative
declaration with an amendment to the conditions of approval that the first
tract map to final will void, the other tentative map, and that the yell design
be continuous and designed with a knock out for a future street.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP R.C. ASSOCIATES.L. II An
-
inddatrlal subdivision of 68-79 acres into 3 parcels, located our the south
aide of 8th Street, approximately 440 feet east of Pittsburgh Avenue in
the M-2 zone - A 1 , 28.
Paul: Pot eau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report and pointed
out a change to condition 10 regarding utility bonding which would defer this
requirement on parcel, number three.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. dire Westling, applicant , asked that the Commission consider holding the
requirement for street lighting and street trees on list three until it
develops
r estling indicated that other than that request, he had read and
understood all other conditions and there was no problem.
There being no further 'comments , the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pe rpel stated that he agreed with the applicant because from a
practical standpoint there is a chance that the improvements will be damaged
and would have to be replaced.
Hopson stated that there might also be further subdivision of this parcel..
Pou eau stated that it would be appropriate not to put in trees or street
lights at this time
Commissioner Stout asked if underground electric would be put in at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes January 12 1983
. Rou eau replied that it would be without any problem.
W. Westling stated that due to, the expense of bringing in utilities his firm
is examining the possibility of a utility corridor to cut down the expense.
He indicated that if it is feasible, it would preclude installation of
utilities at this time and if they are able to, this is ghat they will. do.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
,Resolution No. d 01 , approving Parcels MP 7797, issuing a negative
declaration and amending the conditions to delay bonding, street trees and
utilities on parcel three.
Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area,.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL SAP 7215 - GADOMSKI - A division of
5.25 acres into 4 parcels within the A l zone (R 1 pending) located on the
east side of Beryl. Street, approximately 10 feet south of 19th Street -
APN 221-15.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 2 C MAC% A change of
sortie from A-1 (LimitedAgriculture) to R 1 (Single Family Residential) for
.25 acres of land located on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000 feet
south of 19th Street - APN 202- 1-1 .;
Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rou eau, reviewed the staff reports and asked that
item the Zone Change , be acted upon first.
Mr. Tire Mim Mack, 214 S. Euclid , Ontario, the engineer, reviewed the
conditions and asked that the improvements on Eastwood Avenue and Beryl Avenue
be waived at this time because of the hardship it would cause.
Commissioner MoNiel asked at what point putting in the improvements would be
reasonable.
Mr. Mi.m Mack replied that it is up to the City to come in with an assessment
district and appoint each lot its fair share of the improvements. He
indicated that they would be willing to enter into a lien agreement for the
curbs and gutters but indicated that the dimensions are not correct from the
center line
Mr. Cary Bonne, 6875 Beryl, the applicant, indicated' that they are only
interested in the houses on the property and are not subdividing. He
indicated that the assessments to pat in the improvements on Eastwood are
unreasonable.
. Hopson stated that this is a requirement of state law and not d
requirement ;of City lava.
Mr. Burke stated that they are just trying to bray the house.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 12, 198
Ron Woodhouse, 6867, Eastwood, asked what improvements are being looked at
for the finishing off of Eastwood.
Rou eau replied that for the purpose of; the subdivision, the thought is
that the requirement Mould be to widen Eastwood to what it should have been at
the time it was built. He indicated that it is less than a hail` street and at
best it makes circulation difficult. Mr. Rougeau stated that normally the
requirement is that a street be built at a 6 fua t width with right-of-way way for
safe two-way traffic . The requirement in this ease , he stated, would be to
provide an extra 8 feet ofwidening and that street lights are not being
contemplated now.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout asked ghat policy, if any, had the Commission set for
property fronting on Beryl.
Chairman King replied that the Commission has required compliance with the
conditions.
Hopson stated that Mr. Columbero in the" industrial area was granted a
waiver a long time ago and this has not been done in a residential area.
Commissioner Barker asked what the due process is for the individual,.
Hopson replied that if the individual finds any condition distasteful
they can appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Barker asked if it would be deferred and asked about the
improvement on Eastwood Avenue. He asked if it is logical or a precedent that
the cul-de-sac on ;Eastwood Avenue not be developed until such time as the;
parcels develop.
Riau eau replied lied that if the cul-de-sac developed to the p _ _ p
is fullone-half
width it the beginning, the City would not recommend that any more widening
take place until future; subdivision. However, because this street is so sub-
standard they are asking that it be widened out partially at this time.
Rou eau indicated that the cost would be nominal.
Commissioner Barker asked ghat nominal is.
[fir. Rougeau replied that there is not much that would;be nominal for a
homeowner and indicated that there is a provision within the City Code wherein
the City Council could waive the requirement, replacing it Frith, a lien
agreement.
rHopson stated that this is true, only the City Council could waive the
requirement but not the Planning a i sion especially when it is one that
impacts 'public safety.
Mr. Barker stated that the Planning Commission, assuming it approves the
tentative map really has no option but to provide for the public safety.
Planning Commission Minutes,. January 12, 1983
Rou eau stated that this is true :and there is no option on Beryl; however,
there is option on Eastwood and it would be up to the Commission to decide.
Commissioner Barker asked if this involves a safety factor.
Mr® Rou eau;replied that it does but that the Commission may still have
discretion. on Eastwood but because of technical differences between the way
the ordinances are written the Commission would use the same consideration
that the Council would use.
Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the things that enters this is that
under County regulations and before the City incorporated,, the other developer
Auld have had to grove the other street in over 8 feet, putting it on his
property. Further, that they get d feet of property they would not have
gotten otherwise
Commissioner Rempel stated that he can see reasons the owner of this property
should not do it at this time but that the Commission would be setting up two
other land locked parcels €mess he does some development of it. Further,
that if parcels 3 and 4 are sold to someone else they will need access.
Chairman King stated that he thought that Eastwood should be expanded and the
improvements made because they are necessary from the standpoint of safety,
access and precedent. He indicated that it is true that all they want to do
is buy a house but the Commission must do everything it can to eliminate' an
unsafe street. He stated that it is unfortunate but this is the way it is.
. Va .rin stated that he heeded to recommend that there be an additional
condition requiring final adoption of the zone change by the City Council
before the final map is approved.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. approving the zone change to R 1
Commissioner Barker stated that he feels frustrated in that if he votes no he
is voting against the parcel map and he wished that there were some way to
provide safety and since this is not a professional developer and he is not
attempting to make money on this, he would like the parcel map to continue.
Commissioner Rempel ,stated that these things happen and it is something that
F the Commission must live with.
Motion: Moved by MoNiel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adapt
Resolution No. -0 , adopting Parcel Map 7215 with the requirement for street
improvements and the condition of acceptance of the City Council of the zone
crane
8.03 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:13 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes - January 12 , 1983
F . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PMESSENGER -
development of a 180,05E square foot industrial building on 8.6 acres
of land in the General industrial Category (Subarea 8)' located at the
southeast corner of Maplel and Elm Avenue.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report and read into the
record the standard conditions that would apply ;to this project, which had
inadvertently been left out of the agenda packets, those being: A , P1 , B3,
P : R5, PE, D1 , D2, D3, El , E8, E1 , H1 , R , Ram H5, H7, 11 , 13, E1 " K2, C ,
N1 , 01 , 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, Mi , M4 , M5, M6, M7, M8, M11 .
Chairman King opened the public hearing
Jeff Gorden, 2501 Almond, Irvine, representing the applicant, stated h
had no comments.
There being no further comments , the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rap 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Ratsluti n No. - approving Conditional Use Permit No. P pE
H. ENVIRONMENTAL A E ENT ADD PLANNED D ELPE NO. - SALVATI - A
change of zone from -1 (Limited Manufacturing) to R- PD (MAltiple
Family Planned Development) and the development of 248 condominiums on
11 - 5 acres located at the northeast corner of dth Street and Grove Avenue
APN 07-251 , 03, 13.
Cunt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report, stating that
there are two items of concern with this project; traffic and safety.
Further, that the ,Engineering Dedart ent, in order to mitigate ;these concerns,
recommends that the developer widens Grove Avenue in front of the project t
th Street to a 2-lane" road in each direction.
Johnston stated that drainage is also a concern and that Pawl Rougeau has
amended the conditions of approval in the staff report.
Johnston stated that a letter of opposition to this project had been
received in the mail today .
Paul Rougeau called to the Commission's attention the conditions of this
project. He referred to item E which had been handed to the Commission
changing the conditions, and Engineering Conditions4 , 5 , 6, and 7 which refer
to drainage of the project. He indicated that condition 5; has been remised to
delete it from the Resolution and clarifies what should be done to the
drainage along Grave Avenue. Item E was also revised to further detail the
work to be done on the railroad right-of-way. Item 9 was :revised to further
detail the means of handling the drainage on the eastern side of the, site and
which will give better control during the plan approval process which will
follow.
Planning Commission Minutes January 1 , 1983
Commissioner Stomp asked what the first condition means.
Roy eau replied that it deals with the lay out of the pipes which
indicates that drainage age on Grove was to be taken straight down south to
Ontario. He stated further that the piped; are silted up and must be graded
properly to work.
Commissioner Stout asked if this will take some coordination with Ontario.
. Rou eau replied that it will require permits from Ontario and it looks
like the drainage structures in Ontario are adequate to take this water'.
Commissioner Stott asked if Ontario would :consider this an improvement.
r. Rougeau replied that he would think sd
Commissioner Stout asked with respect to the block wall and wrought iron use
on the corner small that separates this from the drive-in dairy if this is a
masking type mall or something you can see through.
. Johnston stated that h would refer that question to the applicant
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Davis, architect for the project, stated that this would be a
continuation of the block wall on the; north side of the property and will be
screened.
Commissioner Stout asked if they are intending to use the wrought iron
treatment there so that they can see'through.
. Jervis replied that they will not
. Vito de Vito Francesco, P.O. "Romp 591 , Ontario, representing owners to the
east, stated that he is in favor of the project, wishes theme good luck and
hoped that they can start immediately. He indicated that the General Plan
allowed a density of 1 ;to the acre is this area and hard something
different. He asked for clarification.
Jar. Johnston replied that the zoning in this area does allow 14-2 4 to the acre
in this area.
There being no further° comments , the public hearing was closest
Commissioner ioner Remmmpel stated ;that this project will improve the area..
Rick Gomez requested that the work curve in the Resolution be changed to read
curb
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Remrmp :l, carried unanimously,ously, to adopt
Resolution ;approving the zone change from PJ-1 to R S/Pfm.'
Planning Commission Minutes 10- January 12, 1983
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution 83-06 , approving Planned Development 82-04 and issuing a Negative
Declaration with the amendments as discussed to the conditions®.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A
custom lot residential development of 86 lots on 55.95 acres, located on
the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside in the R-1-20,000 zone -
APN 201-091-03, 16, 17, 23, 30, 36 and 38.
Chairman King stepped down from discussion on this item due to a possible
conflict of interest.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout asked if there are any provisions in the conditions that
would insure that after the homes are occupied the neighbors don't go in and
cut down the trees in this area.
Mr. Vairin replied that there will be restrictions in the CC&R1s that will
prevent that from happening.
Vice Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Scott, applicant, indicated that there were two areas he had
addressed earlier in the day with the Engineering Department. One was the
joining of the Alta Loma storm drain if their project is approved. He
requested that the Commission allow them to dewater their site should the Alta
Loma Channel project not be completed and provided the Commission with
alternatives to the channel. The other item was the request for sewer
installation should some of the homeowners desire it. Further, that it
currently is planned to be served by septic tanks and cess pools and he wished
to negotiate this with the Cucamonga County Water District and the City and
not be, prevented from this by a condition of approval.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this is entirely up to the Water District. Further,
that Mr. Scott thought the Commission might be concerned with water
conservation.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the decision to bring sewers up is up to the
Cucamonga County Water District and the Chino Basin Municipal Water District.
Mr. Scott stated their intention to join in the Storm Drain District and
further stated that they have in process a higher density subdivision on this
piece of property in the tentative stage. He indicated that it is their
position that that tentative had been approved de facto in the past because of
lack of action with the City not agreeing to this position; however, upon
approval of this tract map with the legal time requirement, it is their
intention to withdraw that prior project. He further indicated that
documentation to this effect will be provided.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 12, 1983
Mr. Hopson asked why, if the property shown on the blueli:ne map crest of ,
Hermosa is not to be a part of this project, it is shown <at all.
. Scott replied that it is just a standard feature.
Mr. Lamm requested that if this tract is approved tonight that the appl.ica.nt,,.
after the appeal period is over, submit a letter withdrawing his prior
application.
. Scott replied that he will be happy to do do and asked that a draft be
provided to him.
4r. Steve Marlowe, 5344 Hermosa, stated that his property is shown on the map
as a poultry ranch; however, they are two separate residences. He indicated,
that when he purchased his property nine gears ago it was Mated that all of
the property above Hermosa was supposed to be one-half acre and asked what
happens with the rain. He further asked if the Cite is going to develop the
flood channel.
r. Ro Beau replied that the City is working on an assessment district t
develop the channel; however, all of the facts are not known at this time.
Mr. Marlowe stated thatyears ago he had several kids killed in his front
yard because of poor road conditions and when the two accesses dump into the
one street it will increase the problem.
Vice chairman Rempel Mated that the applicant must have two accesses.
r. Marlowe asked if the property across the street is going to be a City
park.
Vice chairman Hempel replied that he was unable to answer one way or another.
a
There being no further comments, Vice cha
irman n Hempel closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Stout asked why, if condition 10 requires the Alta Loma channel
along side of this property, they are also asking to join the assessment
district.
. Rougeau replied that the beat thing that could happen is that the
assessment district be formed and everyone joins in to the Alta Loma basin.
e indicated that should that not happen the individual projects will have to
build the channel that they are truing to build through the assessment
district. He provided the reasons the channel, only goes as far as Wilson.
Commissioner Stout asked if there should be a time condition.
r. Rou eau replied that there should not because whoever develops this
property should also develop the channel.'
Commissioner Stout stated that ghat he sees is the applicant waiting and the
assessment district being some time down the line which would -inhibit
development.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 January ,1 , 1983
ou eau replied that he <will have to bond for this portion of the channel
so he will not have to wait.
Commissioner Stout asked if the amount of foes he puts in would be enough to
cover the entire channel.
Pou eau replied that they would not be
Mr. Pou eau stated that if the assessment district should not come to pass,
they would work with Mr. Scott to see if there is some other war he could'
build his project. He' further stated that this would then have to come back
before the Commission with a recommendation for change in the tract
g Rou eau stated that at this moment he feels that the wain the conditions
are stated is the gray it should go because it provides protection for the City
in having the channel built one way or the other. Anything else would take
serious- reconsideration in whether or not it would be possible for this one
tract to develop with some other store drainage provision 'being made.
Commissioner Stout asked ghat the applicant is really asking for in the gray of
reduction on the channel
Pou eau replied that he is not asking for it to be reduced, he is asking
that if worst comes to worst he would be able to develop his project with some
other means of draining it.
Hopson stated that if this is to final before the Alta Loma channel is
constructed, the City would require a bond amount to construct the channel
douse to Wilson
Rou eau replied this is ;correct
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded b Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. , approving Tentative Tract 12237' with the conditions as
suited and issuing a negative declaration.
8:45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
to the Etiwanda Specifics Plan Meeting, scheduled immediately after this
meeting.
Ike ectfallr bs .tted g
LAB, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 12, 1983