No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jan-Dec 1984 CI OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :00 P.m. The meeting was held of Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CAL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chiti; a, Larry MoNiel, Herman R r p 1, DennisStreet COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Rona STAFF F PRESENT: "Tit So dla, Senior Planner* Linda Daniels, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner, Barr ye Hanson,, Senior Civil Engineer;; Edward rard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutill Senior Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez City Planner, ' announced that the December 26, 1984 Planning Com mission Rican meeting had been'canc elled due t6 lady of Co mmission ion acorn . CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT T `GR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 4 ROPGAAR EN The development of a 43,000 square foot industrial building on 2 acres of lard in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ) located at 9871 6th Street, east of Cottage Avenue - APNPC 1 , G7 (portion). R. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12091 SA VATI - A proposal to develop -condominium unite on 11.35 acres in the Medium-High 1 4 day ao) Residential District located at the northeast t corner of 8th and Grove C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 DEER CREEK -- The development of single family detached dwelling units on 32.3 .acres of land in the fro Residential District 2 4 d / c) located at the southeast corner* of Banyan Street and Carnelian Street APN 10 2 1m-01; 10 2- 7 C1 Commissioner Barker requested that Item C be removed from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the remaining Items on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Hempel commented that item f , Salvati, was one of the nicest apartment designs to come bo oms ,the Commission and hoped to ace it built C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 DEER CREED Commissioner Barker stated that when this tract was before the Commission for approval:, there were a number of issues associated with the project and concerns were expressed over the design of the east/west street. At that meeting the Commission 'attempted; to redesign the street without taking a look at ghat; the final design would loots like, He further stated that in the future it right be boat if redesigns ns are referred back to staff and the Design Review Committee for review. Since the developer had designed the street in compliance with the recommendations of the Commission at the meeting, Commissioner Barger made the motion to approve the design review for Tentative Tract 12801 , Doom Crook. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McNiel and unanimously carried PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be heard concurrently. D. AMENDMENT C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C CBRT TESON n amendment to % the conceptual plan for the Virginia flare Center, a business part consisting of office, commercial, restaurant and theater craps on 13. 7 acres of "land in the General Commercial. District, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue APN 10 `7 01-01,; 03. R,' REVISIONS TC PARCEL BBC CHRi ' C1 - A change from 15 parcels s to 11 parcels A division of 13.1 acres in the Corraral Commercial District (CC) looted at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hawn Avenue PN 1077-4 31-01 , 03. Commissioner Remp l stepped down from the podium due to possible conflict of interest, Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 12 1984 1 i Tim Beadle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report pertaining to the Conditional Use Permit and Barrye Samson reviewed the report on the Parcel Map Commissioner Barker referred to the fast food use at the northeast corners and asked hoer access would be obtained from the property owners to the north® Paul Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer, replied that this was a condition placed on the original parcel map and would assure that the fullest access is gained for the center as a whole. 'Further, that access through h the property to the north will be necessary for this project to have left turn access across the median dr. Hagen Avenue.. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing 'Sill Menton, representing the applicant, stilted that the site purr depicts the applicant's intent, but did not believe that immediate access out to Raven had bun planned at this stage. He further ,stated agreement with the Resolution and conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated concern with the location of the fast food restaurant. He stated that he was very proud of this project and it is a very special one, but did not understand the logic behind the fast food use at that particular location. He stated that the location and design of the fast fend use creates traffic problems and oats downs on the open space. Additionally, if that part were to be eliminated he would have no concerns. Commissioner McNiel stated that this issue was labored over during Design Review and that the Committee recommended that the fast food use be designed with a there consistent with the rest of the center and have sufficient landscaping and berming to almost conceal: it e stated that the applicant anticipated that most business will be generated from within the project and that the possibility of moving ;the fast food use to another location Mill exists Commissioner Chi.ti.ea stated that placing a fast food restaurant: at that location does seem to create access problems with the property to the north and should be further reviewed Commissioner Stout stated that if the applicant needs a fast food use, he did not see the need for it to be a free-standing building. Further, that he; would be more inclined towards approval if it were part of the main building. r. Heaton stated that the applicant shares the concern of the City that the entire development should blend in well. He advised than the applicant currently has a proposal for the fast food restaurant and that it will be before the various City committees and the Commission for review several, times Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1984 before a specific design is developed. He further' stated as the architecture and engineering has not been done on the upper right corner of the project, he could not speak to that issue. Commissioner Barker expressed concern that approval of the revision now before the Commission would lock in the fast food use. Tim Needle, Senior Planner, stated that the Commission could indicate that the fast food portion of the conceptual master, plan is conceptual only and does not waive the requirement, that the, fast food use would be a conditional use permit separate from this conditional use permit/master plan® Commissioner Barker asked if approval would not mean that a fast food use is acceptable at this location. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that in approving the conceptual master plan the Commission ,does nothing, but indicate that it is willing to accept a conditional use permit application fora fast food restaurant. Commissioner Stout stated concern that approval of the conceptual master plan would be indicating that the Commission is in favor of a fast food with drive through capabilities at that location. Mr. Hopson advised that approval, would simply mean that the City is willing to consider an application for that purpose. He stated that the developer is asking for a chance to disprove the Commission's reaction that he can't make traffic, general and aesthetic compatibility work with a fast food facility., Further, that since a fast food use would otherwise be a permitted use with a conditional use permit in this zone, findings would have to be made as to why that determination is being made. Chairman Stout asked if it is a permissable conditional use, did it mean that the City had to allow a freestanding building or could it be required to be a part of the larger building. Mr. Hopson advised that this would be a condition of approval on the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if he would be willing to have the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map without the fast food use and return to the Commission on that issue at a later date to show that these concerns could be mitigated. Mr. Heaton: stated that he would prefer that the Commission approve the plan to allow the applicant to come back for further review on the fast food use, thereby allowing the applicant to proceed with the theater negotiations. Commissioner Barker stated concern with the existence of parcel five on the parcel map if it is approved. December 12, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes ............. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested that staff work on language would would combine the parcel with parsel four. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitina, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 83-07, with the removal of the building at the northeast corner of the site. AYES: CC ISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RR PE -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving an amendment to Parcel Map 8303, with the deletion of parcel number five. AYES: COMMISSIONERS.# BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEHS, RE PCB -earried Commissioner Hempel returned to the podium. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-22 - BENTSRN - The dev 1 pment of a 924 unit apartment complex, to be built in 3 phases, on about 58.3 acres located on the nofth ,side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue in the MH Development District - APN 202-271-59, 60. Paul Re ear, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Rick Gomez, City Planner, gave an overview of the Commission's past action regarding the project and advised that the item is before the Commission at this time for environmental review only. Don King, 9375 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had no problems with the mitigating measures outlined in the study and the staff report. An adjacent resident opposed the project and stated concern with traffic impacts on Lemon and Haven and additionally opposed the street widening of Lemon. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 12, 1984 Jack Sylvester, Newport Beach, urged approval of the project and stated' the creed for apartments exists He advised that when the City and its design reviews process finishes_with the projeatt it will be one of which the City and its residents can be proud. Catherine Porter, 10702 Finch, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed ,the project dire t traffic is concerns There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that when the project first came before the Commission he had concerns with traffic and was surprised that the traffic stud indicated that the figures proposed by the applicant had actually been conservative. He farther stated that based on proper° engineering, mitigation ation of the concern would be possible and with ;that in mind, and not speaking on the merits of the project, the environmental assessment seemed appropriate with the mitigation on measures proposed. Motion: Moved by Rempol, seconded by MeNiel, unanimously carried, to direct staff to prepare appropriateappropriatemi tigation measuresfor inclusion into either the ultimate project design or its conditions of approval AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MP L, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, PARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried 8r1 Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be heard concurrently. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8815 - A-M COMPANY A division of 1 acre f nd irrtcs parcel in : the Low Medium (4-8 du/ac Development District, located on the west side of Beryl Streetsouth of 1 t r Street Pad 20 3 3 31 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12d A-M COMPANY - A proposed subdivision to create 103 residential lots on 21.41 acres in the, Low Medium L Residential District ( du/aa) generally located on the gent aide of Beryl Avenue, north of Base Line Rod APN 2- 3 30, 31. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Planning e is iibn Minutes -6- December 12, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Bob Ba bye, 1111 S. Craemer, Brea, stated that the applicant had worked with staff on alternatives for pedestrian and emergency access. He stated that the - alternative had been designed to complement the northerly tract« He additionally suggested that the 13 feet on Avalon left as a result of this alternative could be deeded back to the Homeowners' Associaton of Tract 12726. Bill Blanchard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the developer had been verb cooperative in trying to meet the neighborhood's concerns. He advised that the intent of the emergency access was to allow access to the southwest corner of the tract and stated that it seemed to be an ideal solution. Regarding the vacation of the deadend on Avalon, fir. Blanchard d stated that he mould be interested in discussing the matter with the developer. Michael Va.i.rin, 6981 }pal, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that this project now is a good example of a Low Medium project which meets the intent of the City's Development Code. He further stated; that it was a satisfactory change of transition and supported the project. Bob Chel.son, 9036 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with the size of the home proposed on Lot 96, the; elevated grading of the lots to the rear of his tract, and the lass of ;privacy. He suggested that the lots backing the existing hors be single story. He additionally stated concern with the placement of the proposed retaining walla Martin Balding, 9016 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concern with the obstruction of views to the north. Bob Linsey, 7145 Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga, stated, that the project was going to enhance the area and supported the project. Afar Sanchez, 9046 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern with the pad elevations and the: retaining wall as proposed. There were no further comments, therefore the public 'hearing s closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he understood the concerns expressed but that the ,developer is doing a lot for the residents in his cooperation and that the project would be a good addition to the community. Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant would address the issue of the retaining wall. Cary Mitchell, representing the applicant, replied that City staff has made it a condition of approval, that the developer make every effort to work with the adjacent property owners on possible; connection of the retaining walls to existing walls. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 12, 1984 commissioner Chiti a requested that language be added to condition number four to clarify that the cul-de-sac facing Beryl would not be closed off completely. She advised that this was an issue discussed during Design Review. s. Daniels advised the applicant indicated` the opening on the project plans, but the -foot opening could be dded to the Resolution. She further stated that if the Commission was inclined to approve the applicant's alternative design, that conditions one and two should be modified to accommodate the alternative. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by I cNi:el, unanimously* carried, to adept the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8815 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12830 with the amendments to include a requirement that the final design and maintenance of the emergency and pedestrian access ' easement be subject to review and approval by the City Planner and completed prior to map recordation; the reuiremnt for a -foot opening at the front of the cul-de-sac facing Beryl; and the requirement for a grater easement to be provided at that location of the 2 -foot pedestrian and emergency access easements I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND , INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT S - 2 - HAV1 1''AVENUE , OVERLAY DISTRICT - Planning Commission review of public comments and recommendations of the Interim Development Policies for Maven, Avenue between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S -A - HAVEN AVENUE CV AY DISTRICT - A General Plan-Amendment fr°om Office to Industrial 'Park for approximately 40 acres of land located on the crest side of Haven Avenue, between foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District APN 20 - 1-01 , 12, 13, and 208 1- 1. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT -C - HAVEN' AV 1 0V RLA DISTRICT - A Development District Amendment from OP f fioe "rofeaac n tp ISP (Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately C acres of land .located on the west side of Haven Avenue, in conjunction with the Havers Avenue Overlay District - APN 20-3 1-D1 , 12, 13, and 208 1p-C1. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -01 - HAV N AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - An ndment to the Industrial Specific Plan to expand the boundary of Subarea 7 (Industrial Park category) to include approximately 40 acres of land; located on the vest side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Armor Highway, in conjunction with Planning Commission Minutes - December 12, 1984 the Havers Avenue Overlay District APN C 1 C , 12, 13 and - 1 C1. Otto Kroutil, Session Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea stated that; kiosks had been eliminated from the design elements listed under Pedestrian Facilities, Fa . and requested that they be included. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Lowell Ganes, 8772 Vi Terc, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the Commission reconsider the removal of a north/south road between Haven and Utica from the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Hill Kirkland, West Coast Batting, opposed the extension of Acacia off Baker Avenue. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that these issues deal more with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and not with; the Haven Avenue Overlay District which is before the Commission at this time. He further advised; that the Commission might want to consider having staff place this issue on a future agenda as an informational item for direction and inclusion into revisions to the Industrial Specific Plan. It was the consensus of the Commission that this issue be broughtback to the Commission as an informational item at; a future meeting. Robert Clark, Reiter* Development addressed the: treatment of parcels directly adjacent to the railroad tracks and asked for the Commission's direction. Chairman Stout replied that this had been discussed several times and the general consensus of the Commission had been that there would be her special treatment given to parcels directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel addressed the parcel located north ' of Arrow, crest of Havers, and stated that the development has to be special design to assure compatibility. Commissioner ' cNi l addressed the issue of the actual. Overlay District and stated concurrence with the contents contained within the, Overlay Guidelines and advised that if adjustments 'need to be made when a project is submitted they can be made at that time. Commissioner Barker stated that when this issue had been discussed previously it was the concurrence that no special treatment should be givers in the corridor in are automatic manner. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1984 Commissioner Rempel agreed that some special consideration should be given to final design; of projectsilly since some parcels within the District will have restraints such as the future viaduct going under Haven Avenue and the fact that the railroad will cause some problems. Commissioner Chitiea stated that it =would be more appropriate to look at special ;circumstances individually when projects are submitted than to begun considering a whole new set of special rules and guidelines at this time. Chairman Stout stated that before a change is made to a basic general rule he would like to see a project' submitted and would be open to reconsideration at that time. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded d by Chitiee, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Industrial pecific Plan Amendment 4 R, Haven Avenue Overlay District s l- carried to adopt unanimously p �Totn.orn; Moved b cel, seconded b area, urns � 3� the Resolution recommending`approval of General Plan Amendment 0 A, Craven Avenue Overlay District. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Development District Amendment 4 0 , Haven Avenue Overlay District. 4 motion: Moved by Rem el, seconded by Mo iel a unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Industrial Specific .Plan Amerndmernt, - 1 , Haven Avenue Overl ay District. r 5 Planning o i siorn Recessed 10:05 -; Planning o i. siorn Reconvened M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8486 PLAZA DE LA MANCHA LTD. A d visio n of 34.2 acres of land into 4 parcels in `the Industrial Park District` (Subarea located on the southwest corner of Arnow and Haven APN 209-092-04. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public, hearing. Dennis , Hard rave, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report and Resolution. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning ng o i.ssiorn Minutes 1 Q December 1 , 1 Motion: Moved by Romp el, seconded by Barber, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8486. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, ;MCNI L, SPOUT - DES. C OMMISSICNERS NONE ABSENT": COMMISSIONERS: NON -carried NEW BUSINESS N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 51 REITER - The development of four office buildings totaling 76,512 square feet on 5.68 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea ) and haven Avenge Overlay Districts at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street -` APN 209-401 m-1 . Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff" report. Chairman Stout asked for public comment. Kerr Lewis, representing the applicant stated concurrence with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Shut stated that he was extremely proud of this project and that it was are excellent example of ghat ;the City would like to see on Haven n Avenue. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 651. AIRS: CO ISSIONER&: BARKER, SPOUT,, CHI I A, MCNSEL, REMPEL NOES; C OMM ISSIONERS, NONE ABSENT: - COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried .. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GENERAL DYNAMICS the development of a 580,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing building; two -story office buildings totaling 166,500 square feet, and a field measurement area (2.6 acres on 75 .acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) and Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) located between 4th and 6th Streets, and between Utica and Cleveland APN 210 DR1DR through 10 Cunt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 11- December 12, 1984 Chairman Stout invited public comment. Dick Raddiner, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Hempel stated that he was happy to see General Dynamics continue its move into Rancho Cucamonga and that: the project would enhance the; area. Chairman appreciation for the cooperation of h applicant , - tout expressed during Design Review. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by MeNiel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review - . DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 12238 � 30 - CITATION BUILDERS The develop rent of 78 single family detached units on 18.5 acres of 'land in the Lour Residential District - dulac) , located on the test side of Hellman Avenue, north of` Church Street Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Jerry Linton, representing Citation Builders, stated concern with the composition of the proposed wall. Mr. Linton displayed a slide presentation for the Commission which reflected the applicant's intent and expressed a desire to ,construct the walk of slumpst ne as opposed stucco. He additionally advised that stucco requires more 'maintenance ai.ntenance which may present problems later- as apposed to slurnpst ne which is a more durable product. Commissioner Mc i l asked for clarification on the wall insets r. Linton replied that the conditions of approval called ;for Eucalyptus trees to be planted 20 feet on center, therefore to break the monotony of the planting it would be preferrable to place the insets at the location where the lets step up commissioner Re rpel stated that the smaller insets rather than 30 feet might be a lot to put up with on Rase Line. He disagreed and stated that it would lock much nicer to -nary the distance in the recess. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - December 12, 1 rl Commissioner Chitiea stated preference with the stucco and advised that it i ; attractive and appropriate In Rancho Cucamonga. She further indicated that it there does not seen to be a problem with maintenance in other areas of the City. Chairman Stoat stated agreement with the stucco with the rock insets.. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the developer would be agreeable to make the stucco match the existing dlumpatone block gall ad daent to the sidewalk on Hellman r Linton replied that the developer would rake every effort tomatch' the existing wall. Motion Moved by Stoat, seconded by ' e pel► unanimously; carried, to change the recommended condition of approval to go reflect the original conditions o approval requiring rock veneer pilasters at the insets at 10 feet insets, and tan stucco finish to match the existing alumpstorne block adjacent to the sidewalk on Hellman. Q. SIGN AMORTIZATION PROGRAM - HISTORICAL/ HARDSHIP DETERMINATIONS, Carry Richards, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout Invited public comment. Dave Kiedrowski stated agreement with staff "a recommendations. Motion: Moved by Chiti a, seconded by Re pel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution granting historical significance to the Magic 'Lamp, Sycamore Inca, Thomas Brother Vineyard Gainey and Cpici. Winery. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution granting hardship status to Sunrize Shopping Center. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Rempel requested drawings designating the locations of rights-of-way on Foothill Boulevard from Baru Bernardino Road to Grove. He stated that if people are parking oars within the right-of-way area along Foothill, something :needs to be dine about it Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that Foothill between Haydn and the City Limits should be looked at also, He additionally stated that the sin program is a kay element t cleaningup Foothill Boulevard and future project should b « a l d at closely as they will set the theme f that street and reflect what the City expects in the future as apposed what is there now. Rick Gomez, City: Planner, advised that staff will begin working, on the preparation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan afters the first of the year, which will address many of these`issues. ADJOURMNT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. i 1 :C p.m. PlanningCommission i si n Adjourned ap tul submitted, m uty Secretary Planning Commission Minutes; December 1 , 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 28, 1984 Vice-Chairman David Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7.'00 p.m. The meeting was held at Liens Park Community Center, 9161 Ease Lisle Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice-Chairman Barker there led in the pledge to the;Flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry Niel, Herman Re rpel COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dennis Stout STAFF PRESENT: Tim Eeedle, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick Gores, City Planner; Barre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward' Apses, Assistant City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Seer$etar y$ Paul R uSea r, Senior Civil Engineer PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE ERiI" d 1 S A RE INVEST N S The development of 'a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant and gasoline service station convenience gasket on 5.44 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Rase Line A N P P-1S 2 . Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and additionally, requested are; amendment to Planning Division condition number 7. He stated that it was not staffs intent to include the requirement for a water element, and> requested that it be removed from the Resolution Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing Al, Diegliamo, architect for the applicant, reviewed the pro ct's architecture Jim Jes er, landscape architect for the applicant, reviewed the landscaping. dank Tarr, representing the applicant, stated that the project had been designed in accordance with Design Review Committee recommendations and Development Code and General Plea requirements. He requested, however, that Planning Division condition number 2 of the Resolution be modified to allow the applicant flexibility in the design of future buildings. He advised that. the buildings could be designed with consistency of theme without the need for combining them into a single building footprint. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Commissioner Rer + l stated that he had no problem ,with one two or three buildings, as lung as the design i consistent. Commissioner MaNiel agreed and stated that this project has been reviewed and revised many times and has become a project of which the applicant could be proud Commissioner Chimt ea stated that she had no problems with the changes and would agree to allowing the applicant design flexibility for future buildings. Vice-Chairman r erg, stated that the original design was a strip taco stand, gas station and convenience store and in his opinion this design is the same. He stated that he was not overjoyed with the project, but was overjoyed with the amount of progress made Motion: Moved by Re el, seconded by McNiel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adept the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-1 , Sycamore Investments, with elimination of the water element feature on Planning Division condition 7, and modification of Planning Division condition P to state that future building layouts are to be designed, consistent with the approved mission architectural style AYES: COMMISSIONERS* REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PARKER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried B. N 'IR N RN A ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d P SAR A IAN A revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to allow the development ;of a esret kW s residence in conjunction with a mini- warehouse e facility on 11 .0 acmes of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1), heated on the west side of Vineyard between Arrow' and 9th Street PN 072 ' Tim Reedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report 'ice-Chairman Ranker opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1984 Pete Pitassi., representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and conditions. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Perpel, seconded by MeNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-27 for a caretaker's residence located on the west side of Vineyard, between Arrow and 9th Street. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4 UTC ISON - The development of a second dw olling unit within a garage on 14,000 square feet of land in the Lowy Medium Residential District, located at 6897 Amethyst _ APN 202-121-01. Tim Needle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rem el. asked why the street widening, curb and gutter requirements were not shown in the Resolution. a rye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that this was are oversight and it would be appropriate to include them. Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Doug Hutchison, applicant,scant, stated that the street requirements, were; submitted with the plans and were possibly omitted when the plans were scaled do Commissioner Pemp l asked what how the living quarters would be used. r . Hutchison replied that he had no particulars plans for the quarters other, than for use by overnight guests. Commissioner Pempel explained that the reason for allowing second dwelling units is to provide "granny flats" or dwelling units intended for use by immediate family members and are not intended to be used as rental units. Commissionioner, Pdmpel further} questioned the use of the garage and stated that if the applicant's intent is to use power equipment which would generate noise, it would become a nuisance to the adjacent mobile home park. r. Hutchison replied that the garage woul.d to used mainly for storage. Commissioner McNiel stated that he shared the. same concerns as Commissioner empel, but that the project could he conditioned to a time for review. Commissioner Pempel stated that his main concern was the size ' f the building in a residential zone and what it could be turned into. 'hare were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1984 'I Tim Beedle, Senior or l nner, advised that the Home Occupation Permit requirements state that the use cannot create noise, nuisance, or glare problems with adjacent surrounding residences He further advised that storage is not permitted in accessory structures. Vice-Chairman Barker stated that -sound attenuation should be required through. the use of landscaping to buffer the adjacent projects. Commissioner Hempel cautioned that the City may be setting a precedent by allowing large structures of this nature in a residential area, as they can become eyesores and nuisances. He suggested that staff research ways of preventing these types of buildings in residential areas. Motion: ore y d Mc Niel, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit with an additional Planning Division condition requiring a landscape screen along the rear property line , and an Engineering Division condition requiring the improvements of Amethyst, Street adjacent to the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 'd 21 - ALA LOMA SU 1STIA CHURCH A request to convert an existing 1,868 square foot single f°ami y residence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the great aide of Sapphire, .cos from Orange APN 1062-332-23. Tim Poodle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Vibe Chairman Parker opened the public hearing Reverend David McClary, representing; the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit: Kooky Chapman, 6337 Marble, 'Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns with the existing wall treatment, lighting, and drat created by the; vacant areas. Mike Kennedy, adjacent resident, stated concerns with grading of the existing pads, the composition and placement of the existing gall, and lighting. The following individuals uals addressed the Commission in support of the Conditional Use Permit: Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1984 i Tony Lopez Mignonette Rancho Cucamonga I Sere Srrrrell Rancho Cucamonga Resident Sill Unge,la Sapphire Rancho Cucamonga Linda mope Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Tim Reedl.e, Senior Planner, stated that most concerns expressed seem to be with the existing Conditional Use Permit for the church and not the conversion f the residence to an office, which is now before the Commission. He suggested that staff research the original CUP for compliance with the conditions of approval :and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated that the revised Resolution basically meets the intent established by the Planning Commission at their November 1 th meeting; however, the 'landscape planer described in 'Planning condition number 4 was to be removable. Commissioner Barber requested clarification that the use would convert back to a residence at the end of the -month the period unless extended. by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the Resolution did not prohibit the housing or sleeping children, as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and Mated that it should be added as a condition of the Resolution. Movedb Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit d l with further conditions o prohibit' the 'housing of infants and toddlers, clarification that the use would convert back to a residential use at the end of 24-months unless extended the Commission, and construction of a removable landscape planter placed in the driveway. AYES: O ISSIC RR$ REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA,;; BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT carried Additionally, staff was directed to research the existing Conditional Use Permit for the church for compliance with condi.t ins of approval. : C p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed ; C p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened art Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1984 New Business E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANDDEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACIFIC SCENE The development ent f an 80,000 square toot office/warehouse multi-tenant industrial park on 5.75 acres of land in the General Industrial category, (Subarea 11), generally located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Utica Avenue - APB209-411-17. arrye Hanson* Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff sport* Vice-Chairman Stout asked for public comment. Ken Spear, representing the applicant, addressed the Engineering Division condition of approval regarding the driveway widths on 6th and Utica. He stated that the applicant should ld not be required; to construct the entire drive approaches on those streets and then have to dedicate access to the adjacent property yawner. He suggested that the applicant be required is install a portion of the access, with the remaining driveway width to be installed by the future adjacent property owner. Mr. Hanson outlined the alternatives as recommended by City staff and by the applicant. He advised that the: alternative proposed by the applicant would create unsafe turning ndi.tinns for motorists since the access would also Involve truck traffic.' He additionally state . 'staff's concern that the City would be left with half a driveway under the applicant's proposal. J Commissioner McNiel expressed concern with the potential traffic conflict � between delivery trucks and motorists 'using the driveways and stated that this might cause an unsafe e i..tuati on. Dwight Capatani, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in support of the alternative proposed by Mr. Spear. He advised that these drive approaches would not be the rain points of access, therefore would not create mach conflict with truck and oar traffic. He further advised that the trucks utilized by the tenants of this project would not be of the 1 -wheel variety. Commissioner Rempel stated that a 0-foot drive approach width would be adequate to handle the traffic and that the adjacent property owners would have to be advised that they could install a drive approach it the Middle of their property, but if a secondary access is needed it, would have to be combined with the; existing drive 'approach for this project. Motion: Moved by tlerpel., seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84-48 with a modification to Engineering Condition number one,, which would require the drive approaches on 6th Street and at the north end of the property on Utica to be secondary access points with 0-foot widths. The eventual width of the ,two drive approaches will be determined at the time of development of the adjacent properties Planning Commission MinutesNovember 28, 1984 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNI L}, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried Directonj Raports R. REVIEW OF UTILITY 'UN ROUNDIN POLICY Raul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Rou eau stated that staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission in order to draft amendments to the City's utility under grounding policies for consideration by the City Council. Commissioner Rempel stated that, when the undergrounding benefits property owners on both sides of the street, a justifiable assessment should be imposed on both sides rather than on one. Commissioner Chitiea stated ;,that she would like to encourage under grounding of the entire area, not just ports here and there. Vice-Chairman an ar erP expressed concern ith the total parcel size and stated that he would like to see a method developed which would give smaller property owners the ability to function together without destroying their ability to sell or develop their property. He further stated that he was uncomfortable with the -foot minimum and would prefer to see gather alternatives where practical Vice Chairman Barker recapped the Commission's direction to staff stating that the general consensus was that the present policy is preferred with adjustments to make it more equitable. He stated that the Commission would like to see' alternative time lines established with consideration to small property owners, and a method whereby the cost would be shared by all who benefit on berth sides of a street. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Re rpel seconded by Chit ea,, unanimously carried, to adjourn .m. - f'1 aping Commission adjourned. c submitted, ck o e eu3 etary Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 1 , 15 Chairmen Dennis Stout called the Regular} Meeting f the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Miens Park Community Center, 9161 Sale Dine Road, Rancho Cucamonga,' California. Chairman Stout then ;led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, Suzanne Chit:i a., Larry MoNiel, Herman R rnp 1, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner ; Rik Gomez, City Planner, Barrye Hanson Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto r util, Senior Planner, John Meyer, Assistant Planner, Janice Reynolds, Secretary, Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OFF MINUTES Commissioner R m el requested an amendment to page 10 of the October 24, 1984 Planning Commission minutes. He stated that the third paragraph relating to Development Review 84-44 should read that a storm drain should be installed t drain Hellman from north of Rase Line to the storm drain at the railroad.; Commissioner Niel. ,stated that the first paragraph of page 4 should reflect that the stars church he referred to is on Archibald rather than Foothill. hill. Motion: Moved by R mp l., seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of October 24, 1984, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12256 - BI AL - The development of 20 condominium units on 2.1 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (6-1 du/ac), located at the northwest corner of Archibald avenue and Norte 'data. Street - A N 20 -1 1 27, 61 , 62. P. TIME EXTENSION R TENTATIVE TRACT 1186 ROBERTS GROUP The de elop ent f" 7 units on 9.75 acres of land in the Medium Residential District ( -1 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Highland - A N 201-252 2 , 26, 26. C.TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 6976 - B.C.G. PROPERTIES - Located can the south side of Arrow Route, east of Hagen Avenue - APN209-141-68. D.IENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 6 01DONNELL., BRIGHAM AND PARTNERS The development rent of two warehouse industrial_ buildings totaling approximately 78,607 square feet on approximately 6.2 acres of land in ;Subarea 1 (General: Industrial Rail Served) located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Plaice 22 -261-71 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, ' seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried to adept the consent calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS E, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PE I'T -1 S � N- ES " NTS ® The development of-a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant and gasoline service station/convenience market can 5.44 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner* of Archibald and Base Lime PN 202-1 1-27* Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated the applicant's desire to continue this item to the Planning o is ion meeting of November 28, 1984. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the 'public hearing was closed Motion: loved by Chitiea, seconded by MoNiel , unanimously carried, to continue Environmental. Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 84-13, Sycamore Investments, to the November 28,;;1984Planning Commission meeting. Planning o issi.on Minutes ` -2November 14, 1984 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8695 - OIDONNELL, BRIGHAM FARTNERS - A division of 6.285 acres of land into 3 parcels within the General Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea 10) located on the north side of 7th Street, between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive - APN 229-261-71. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. it Commissioner Rempel stated that there should be a consistency of policies when dealing with rail provisions. He further stated that there are some parcels in the City designated rail served which don't really need rail service, such as< this parcel. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing�. Jim Westling, representing O'Donnel, Brigham, and Partners, applicant, advised that the size of the buildings on this project preclude rail. He additionally stated concurrence with the staff report and conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: So v'ed by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8695. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-21 - ALTA LOMA, CHRISTIAN CHURCH ® A request to convert an existing 1,868 square foot single fa;Fi-lyresidence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the west side of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 1062-332-23- (Continued from October 10, 1984 meeting.) Tim Beadle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Reverend David oClary, representing Alta Loma Christian Church, explained that the conversion of the single family residence to an office would be a temporary measure until the church membership and funds are available to complete the church's expansion. He further advised that the office would be converted back to a single family residence at which time it would serve as a residence for a youth minister or other church official. He stated that small group meetings and counseling would be conducted in the house and that no cooking of meals or housing of small children would take place at that location. The following individuals addressed the Commission in support of the Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 14, 1984 Roy Millmore Sapphire Street Rancho Cucamonga Raymond Walton - Rancho Cucamonga resident Jack Paige - Rancho Cucamonga resident Toni Lopez - 9443 Mignonette Rancho Cucamonga Ron Dacco - Rancho Cucamonga; resident Steve Morrison - Rancho Cucamonga; resident The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition si.tion to the Conditional Use Permit Rill Ungels, 6375 Sapphire, Ranchos Cucamonga, stated concern with the traffic on Sapphire, use ;of the kitchen to prepare meals, and the housing of young children at the residence. Mr. Ungels stated that this use does not conform with the ity's General' Plan. Mrs. `fol.len, 6357 Marble, ' stated that the fence constructed around the existing property is an eyesore and that the use is not compatible with a _ residential area. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he would like staff to take a, closer look at this request. He further stated that conditions, such as prohibiting the housing of children at the -residence," could be placed on the CUP which would mitigate the concerns of adjacent residents» Commissioner Rempel agreed and advised that, the driveway could be required to have temporary removable planters to keep traffic from driving g through. He also stated that conditions could be added that would prohibit the kitchen from being used for preparation of meals for the preschool. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that a reasonable time limit could be placed on the CUP, such as twenty-four months, since the applicant felt confident that the use would be converted back to a residence within that time. Chairman Stout stated that he had no problems with the concept and felt that staff had been given enough direction to prepare conditions of approval. Motion: Moved by MaNiel, seconded by `Hempel, unanimously carried, to continue Conditional Use Permit 4 1 to the Planning Commission meeting of November P ;, 1984. Planning Commission Minute 4- November 14, 1984 H e ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ENEFI IAL R H `I S A proposal for remodelingthe storefront facade, additional landscaping in the parking area, reconstruction of drive pro , minor building addition and a conceptual building pad for an anticipated drive through fast food; restaurant in an existing Neighborhood Commercial shopping center on approximately ' .S acres in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and Base tine Road - APN 202-381-26d- , 36. Linda (Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Greg Hayden, representing the applicant, requested that the Planning Division conditions of approval be amended to allow the applicant the flexibility to work with staff on a landscaping alternative for the driveway located at the main north/south drive aisle. He stated concurrence with the remaining conditions of approval. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that staff would have no; objections to working with the applicant on alternatives for this condition. `share were no further comments, therefore the public nearing was closed. Commissioner Rempl proposed that condition 13 requiring a pedestrian opening along the east property line be eliminated. He advised that the tenants may not want an easy access point there for use by the high school students. r Hayden stated that he would not object ;to the removal of this. condition. Motion. Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 5 , with the deletion of condition 13 and an amendment to condition 8 to state that landscaping would be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner on the north/south drive aisle. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS SSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P R 1 S S �- RAT fyl° R f PAH" The establishment of a, recreational vehicle assembly, ia-nufacturing and distribution center in an existing 168,400 square foot; industrial building located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue on approximately 10-35 acres in Subarea 2 - General Industrial/Rail Served District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan APN209-012-15. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minute - - November 14, 1984 Gerry Utt, applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report and conditions of approvals Chairman Stout asked when the applicant proposed to construct the patio area. r Utt replied that the company presently" does not have a sufficient number of employees to warrant construction of the patio; however, anticipates the hiring of additional employees in May or June of 1985. He advised that he would anticipate the construction of the patio area within two years. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would be opposed to the inclusion of this two year time frame into the Resolution. r Utt replied that he would not object. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to issue Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 8 -32, with an added condition that, the outdoor patio area be constructed within two years.' The precise designs are; to be reviewed and approved by the, Design Review Committee. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12820 HIGHLAND COMMUNIT TOVENANT CHURCH - A residential subdivision to create 16 single family lots for custom home development in the Low Residential District, du: ac on about 4.1 gross acres of land in the Low Residenti 1 Development District at the southeast corner of Jasper Street an Highland Avenue APN 01 S14-0 Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff 'report. Chairman Stout opened the public hear William Snns, Pastor of Highland Community Covenant Church, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the staff report and conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. _ Commissioner Rerm el addressed Planning condition of approval number requiring an foot wall adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway. He stated that he had a problem with that height and recommended than the wall be a minimum of 6 feet and the wording "adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway" be eliminated Planning Commission Minutes - - November 14, 1984 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and "Tentative "Tract 12820 with an amendment to Planning Condition number 3 as proposed by Commissioner Rempel ,I K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P R I'T 44 5 TI R 4*4 tPANY/ I IPRODUCTS - The establishment of a drywall contractor and retail supply office on 5 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald, north ,of 6th Street in the Industrial Specific Plan District (Subarea 44) APN 20 11-14. John Meyer, .Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff" report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Tom Wolff, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff ' report and conditions of approval. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would agree to a condition which would prohibit outdoor storage of materials. r. Wolff replied that he Mould not be storing materials outside of the building and would not object to such a condition. "There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 415 L. NDITI NAL USE P RMIT- 4- - VALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A request to operate a driver improvement school in an existing .Industrial Park building with a lease space of 1100 square feet on 7.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) located at 9587 Arrow Highway APN 209-021 5 "Tim Needle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Rerie Horton, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staf°f°, report And conditions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing s closed. Planning o issi an Minutes 7- November 144, 1984 i Motion Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adapt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 4 .. A " M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN PARCEL - BAR IAN Thedivision 11 �}5 were land rota par�nela in tyre General Irxdutrial category of(Subarea 1) located on the wrest aide of Vineyard Avenue, between Arrow Route and 9th Street AP 7 44. Rarsrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Shitiea, unanimously carried, to issue Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8828. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8889KAISER DEVELOPMENT O PANY; A consolidation of 74.53 acres of land into one parcel in tree, Industrial Park and General Industrial categories (Subarea 11 & 1 located on the south side of 6th Street between Cleveland and Milliken Avenues APN 1 (1 -1 - 7. I arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Dan Reid, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with` the conditions of approval. Jack Sylvester, Newport Such, addressed the Commission in ,support of the project. 'there were no further comments, there ' re the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adapt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8889. 9:20 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9 5 p.m. - ,Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1984 Chairman Stout advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. rently. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 4 0 HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT Planning Commission review of public comments and recommendations of the Interim Development Policies for Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -04-A - HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT A General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximately 40 acres of Land 'located on the west aide of Haven Avenue, between Foothill. Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 0 1 01 12, 13, and 0 1 01 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84 04 E'EN TWENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - A Development District Amendment from OP (Office/Professional) to ISP (Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haven Avenue, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District APN 0 1 1, 12, 13, and 08- 401 ., R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 4-01 RAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT An amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan to, expand the b�-undary of Subarea 7 (Industrial Park category) to include approximately 40 acmes of land located on the west aide of Haven' Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the haven Avenue Overlay District - APN POS- 1 01 , ' 12, 13 and OS 41- 01 Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and advised that staff would need further direction from the Commission in order to prepare the final ordinances and amendments for City Council. consideration. Further; that these amendments would be presented to the Planning Commission at their December 12 meeting, prior to review by the City Council. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Darr Richards addressed the Commission in support of the Overlay district and amendments. He referred to the landscaping and atreetacape requirements and noted that the area between Arrow and Foothill on the great aide had been omitted from the Master Plan and asked if this was an oversight. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, replied that this area is not located within the Industrial Specific Plan area and that, the landscaping and atreetscape requirements are simply a part of the ISP regulations. Planning Commission iaaion Brutes November 14, 1984 i r Richards also referred to a one acre restaurant site within the Daon Barton Master Plan area and expressed concern with the parking and setback requirements on that parcel. He requested that special consideration be given to existing projects within the Overlay District which aright have certain constraints Arnold Anderson addressed the Commission regarding Parcel Map 8345 and stated that a conceptual master plan had been provided for the Commission which depicted the inclusion of the parcel one into the Overlay Districts Rick Comet, City Planner, advised that the issue for the. Commission to decide was that if the 350 feet is an appropriate location for the boundary and should that 'portion be office ice professional with the balance designated as multiple family. Bob Clark requested that the Commission reconsider the motion made at their previous meeting to not change the standards for parcels immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks on dth Street. Further,, that the; Commission consider uses not quite as, stringent as other areas on Haven Avenue. Jack Finley asked if the master plan is conceptual at this point. Chairman Stout explained that the master plan is net being reviewed at this paint and is only intended to indicate a master plan could work, not necessarily this particular master plan, and is conceptual only. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. The Commission made the following amendments to the Haven Avenue Overlay District Text Chairman Stout requested that language be added to the Applicability sections on page' one> which would state that development immediately adjacent to the Hagen Avenue Overlay District should consider compatibility with the Overlay District through a master plain process. It was the consensus of the Commission that this statement be added Chairman Stout requested that appointed officials be added to the first paragraph of page P, under the goals section. This was added by consensus. Following discussion regarding the permitted, ancillary, and conditional uses it was the consensus of the Commission that the following amendments be made: Financial, Insurance and Real. Estate Services relocated to the second slot on the list and Eating and Drinking Estabishments moved to the last place. Business Supply Retail Salves and Services and Business Support Services Caere; removed from ancillary uses and placed under permitted uses with an aestris designating there as ancillary uses. Additionally, ancillary use designations under conditional uses were recommended for Convenience Sales and Services, Food and Beverage Sales and Personal services Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 14, 1984 It was the consensus of the Commission that language be added to the Master Planned Development section, C.1, to require a statement addressing how the project meets the intent of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. Additionally, language was added to section C. to include a variety of styles. Further, the addition of citrus and grapevine plant material consistent with the City's heritage was added to section E.4. Language was added to the goals statement under Open Space and Pedestrian Environment, Section F, to include the promotion of a campus like setting. Additionally, kioska were added to Pedestrian Facilities, section F-3. Also, Architecture, Section G.2., was modified to state that variations in architectural styles, construction methods and materials for ancillary uses may permitted only where the architecture is exemplary. Following these recommendations for amendments to the Haven Avenue Overlay District text, the following motion was made: Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessments and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 84-02, General Plan Amendment 84-04, Development District Amendment 8,4-04, and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 84-01 , all pertaining to the Haven Avenue Overlay District, to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 1984. Motion, Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to continue past the 11 .*00 p.m. adjournment time. OLD BUSINESS S. BOAR'S HEAD UPDATE Per Planning Commission request for an annual update on this Conditional Use Permit, Rick Gomez, City Planner, reported that the Boar's Head Restaurant has been closed for several months due to a fire. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Larry Arcinage, owner of the Boar's Head, stated that the restaurant had been closed since May and he was anticipating, reopening it in December. He further stated that he proposed to change the name and the theme of the restaurant. Mel Futrel, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated the noise which was a problem when the Boar's Head existed had ceased since the closure of the restaurant, therefore it would not indicate that Bob's Big Boy restaurant was also a contributor as discussed previously. He further stated that he hoped that Mr. Arcinage did reopen, it would be a family type restaurant as originally proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 14, 1984 Robert, Futrell, Rancho Cucamonga resident, thanked the staff and Commission for listening to the concerns of residents. Motion: , Need by McNiel; winded by Repel, unanimously carried, o continue. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS T. USE DETERMINATION`: SENIOR CITIZEN E (CONGRETATE RESIDENTIAL) PROJECT LOCATED AT EASE LINE RAT EAST E CARNELIAN IN THE OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Tim Eeedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and advised that the applicant was seeking the Commission's conc rare ee that this particular- site would be suitable for a senior citizens project. A representative of CaliforniaRetirement Villas reviewed the conceptual site plea and explained the; operations of the proposed project. I Upon review, the Commission determined that the use could be compatible at the location of Ease 'Line Road, east of Carnelian, and advised the applicant t proceed with a formal Conditional Use Permit application. , Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried_, to continue. U. SELECTION OF ONE COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE ETI ANDA DRAINAGE PLAN ADVISORY 50-` ITTEE Paul R u e u, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that a Commissioner to be selected to serve an the Etiwanda Drainage 'Plea Advisory Committee. Commissioner Re p l was selected to serge on this Committee. i Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 14, 1984 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout,, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Re of ubmit ed, ck o, ez, putt' Secretary Planning oa ission Minutes November 14, 1984 CITY CE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 24, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:CC p.m. The 'meeting was hold at Lions Farb Community Center, 9161 Bade Limo Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout thorn led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitioa Larry Mc Niel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tire Beedle, Senior Planner; Linda Lea Daniels, Associate planner; Rick Comet, City Planner,* Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, SeniorPlanner; Dino Rutr*ino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL of MINUTES Commissioner Chiti a requested that the Minutes of September 12, 1984 be corrected on page S under Approval of Minutes to read "elimination of meandering sidewalks in front of the Christmas Hoe Commissioner McNiel requested that "secondary access" be amended to road "emergency access" on Avalon Street on page 7, and on page 13 his statement of clarification should reflect that Design Review did not design the buildings. Commissioner Barker* referred d to page 3 and requested that the language "brought up and" be eliminated from the first sentence of the first paragraph. He additionally advised that page 7 referred to Cary Mitchell as being resident of Hamilton Ranch and should be amended to read representative. Motion: Moved by Model, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes of Septembergi 12, 1984. Commissioner Hempel abstained as he was not in attendance at that meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempal, seconded by McNial, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the September 26, 1984 meeting. ` CONSENT CALENDAR A. N IRONMENTA ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 34 24 RAN I H The de lop cnt of a 13,000 square foot warehouse-office addition on 12 acres of land in the Minimum Impact' Hay Industrial (Subarea 9) category located at 11266 Jersey Boulevard, west of Milliken Avenue APN 209-142 u3. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 64 33 RLR DEVELOPMENT PAN The development of a 34,710 square foot industrial/ arehous b_uildlng on 1 .63 acres of land it the General Industrial category; (Subarea 1 located at the northwest currier of 7th Street and Toronto - APN 2og-01-0. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEw 4-37 FOR BAN The do olopm nt of a 2-story industrial building totaling 65,2 6 apuar feat on 5.33 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) category located at they and of Hyssop Drive, oast of the Devore Freeway - APN 229- 283-60.; D. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -36 FORRM The d cI went of a 63,000 square .feast industrial/warehouse building on 3.09 acmes of land in the Industrial Parr category (Subarea 6) located at the southwest corner of 7th Street and UticaAPN -411-3 and 44 E. TENTATIVE TRACT 1192 - DAVIS - Design revisions to an approved tract, the Highland Villas project, to be located on Highland Avenue, rear Ramona Avenue. F. TENTATIVE TRACT 1249 - AMERICAN NATIONAL Reapplication for Design Ro icr of site plan and architectural changes for 121 condominiums on 6.1 acres of land, located on the cast side of Vineyard, south of Foothill. G. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 3P - RARI A AN - Planning mission review of building elevations. Motion. Moved by Rep 1, seconded by Mc 'i t, unanimously carried to, adopt the Consent Calendar. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 24; 1984 PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Stoat advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONALS USE PERMIT d p HIGHLAND C UNITY COVENANT CHURCH The proposed master plan for the development of a 6400 square foot church and twomulti-purpose accessory buildings on 3.5 acres of lard in the Lour Residential District 4 dot located at the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland APN 01 `1 0 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ENTALd ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL; MAP 8785 - HIGHLAND COMMUNITY CC 'ENAN'T CHURCH A division of 7.7 acres into 2 parcels in the Lowr du/ao) Residential Development District located on the south side of Highland, between Carnelian Avenue and Jasper Avenue A N 01- 1 08. Commissioner Barker stated abstdnsi,on from these two items due to possible conflict of interest and left the podium at 7b 1C p.m. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. William Enns, pastor of Highland Community Covenant Church, addressed' the Commission. Reverend Evans addressed the Design Review Committee's recommendation that the sanctuary and accessory buildings be 'flipped on the site plan and advised that the reason the church had been designed with the'. courtyard and increased setback in the front was to create an open feeling. He stated that it was the church's position that this plan- is more aesthetically pleasing and welcomes people approaching the sanctuary and requested that the site plan be approved as submitted;. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Tina Needle, Seniors Planner, advised that normal setback on a special boulevard is 45 feet and that the r Design Review Committee felt that the chu ch's proposal: of 120 feet was too far and the buildings would be difficult f"gar° people driving by to see from the street. Commissioner ' emp l stated that this issue 'should be addressed at the time of precise site plan submittal and should not to considered at this point. Chairman Stout stated his concern that it is not made clear in the Resolution that approval of the site plan is not being considered at this time Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Commission is now considering approval of the master playa and that: through comments made by the Design Reviews Committee and public testimony tonight are determining that the site playa works well. Planning Commission Minutes ' October 24, 1984 Commissioner McNiel stated that while he could appreciate what the church is trying to accomplish, the decision to approve the raster; plan with the setbacks established may not be in: the best interest of the church. He pointed out the expansion problems with the Methodist Church on Archibald and suggested that this church might also experience expansion problems Commissioner Rempel stated that the site plan before the Commission i conceptual only and not for approval at this time. Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission night want to add language to condition number 5 which world state that the site plan is not approved and would have to be brought backs to the Commission along with building elevations at a later date Commissioner Hempel pointed out that Planning condition number 1 of the Resolution meets ,that intent and stated that condition number 5 should b deleted, from the Conditional. Use Permit Resolution approving the master plan. Motion.; Moved by Hempel, seconded y Chitiea, carried, ' to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit -P for a church facility master plan at the southwest corner of Highland and Carnelian Avenues Frith,the deletion of Planning condition number 5. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MPBL., CHITIEA, M HIRL , STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NBHH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HHR ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Hempel, earAried to issue a Negative Declaration and adept the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8785. AYES* COMMISSIONERS: CHITIRA, RH P L, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried 7:30 P.m. Commissioner Barker returned to the podium. J. ENVIRONMENTAL NTALm ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5 SAHTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT TOMPANY A division of 131 .02 acres into 14 parcels : in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial area (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Arrow Route east and crest of Milliken Avenue - API 111a- 3 Planning Commission Minutes - October 24, 198E arr e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that street improvements are normally listed but in the chart at the bottom of page 2 on the City n ineer 's Report. He asked if the >Jersey and Street "All south were to be considered interior streets Mr. Hanson replied that both Jersey Street and Street "All south are considered interior streets and therefore the intent is that they are covered cruder condition number 1 r Hopson advised that improvements on major streets have been spelled out in the past as a means of clarity rather than legality. Chairman Stout agreed and suggested that both Jersey and Street "Al south be included in the chart Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Robert Sunstror, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant understands that Jersey and Street "All are to be reproved. Mr. Sunstrom referred to condition number 12, page 5 of the City Engineer's Report regarding rail service to parcels 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 and stated that 'the applicant would prefer to have the option of ' where they are going to set the rail service lines on parcels 6 and 7 based on physical site constraints at the time of development, with the understanding that they could core back and modify the map which is referred to by exhibit, He additionally stated that the applicant could accomplish the rail service provision through deed restrictions, or any other Method deemed appropriate by the City. Tire Beadle, Senior Planner, advised that the Resolution addresses this issue and that as long as feature rail service is ;'provided for those parcels it would meet the intent of the Industrial Area Specific Plan`. Commissioner Barker referred to condition '3 on page 3 of the.. City Engineer's Report and asked which storm drain was being referenced. Mr. Hopson advised that language should be added to state as delineated on the map® There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion:' Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8578 with the addition of Jersey Street and Street "A" added to the sheet improvement chart on City Engineer's Report, and added language to condition 3 of the City Engineer's Report to state stoma:drains as delineated on the tamp. Planning Commission MinutesOctober 24, 1984 : 18 Planning Commission Recessed *"15 Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 - BEER CREEK A residential subdivision of 96 lots on 32.3 acres of land in the Lour Residential. (2- du/ad)) District located at the southeast corner of Banyan and Carnelian - APT 2- 1-01; 1 2- -C91. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner,, reviewed the staff report and suggested the following amendments to the Standard Conditions: Page 5, Condition 2, amended to require dedication of 14 to 17 additional feet on Carnelian, and Condition 5 ;amended to require vehicular ingress and egress dedication on Banyan and arnelaan for the length of the project, with the exception of Lot 20 on Banyan. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vair .n, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the staff report and Resolution. Mr. Va`irin stated that the applicant had spent a great deal of time and moneys researching the Eucalyptus windrow and Felt that successful preservation could to accomplished. Art Bridge, 8715 Banyan, addressed the Commission in support of the windrow preservation. Kenneth Bird, 6287 Opal, stated concerns with additional traffic on Opal and suggested a cul-de-sac at the end of Opal. Neil Murphy, 6095 Sacramento, stated support of the windrow preservation. Robin Beaman, 6207 Opal, stated concerns with grading and flooding Melinda Ryan, 6258 typal, expressed concern with additional traffic on Opal and rats oozing From the removal of the citrus groves. Gerald Dunn, 6213 Sacramento, expressed concern with flood control Pam Beaman, 6207 Opal, expressed concern with additional traffic and additional aster runoff on Opal. Bill Melzer, 9009 Regency Ways, expressed concern regarding grading of the site and grater runoff on Opal. Barbara Bird, 6287 Opal, requested cul-de-sac can typal to alleviate traffic. Se gi,e Pasil,los, 6212 Sacramento, expressed concern with cater runoff and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes October 2 , 1984 F. Bemiien, 8768 Banyan, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. S. Hammerl, 8796 Banyan, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. A. "ahra.ti, 8780, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. Chairman Stout advised that some issues raised during, public testimony were not under consideration by the Commission at this stage of the process, but would be considered when precise plans are submitted , Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that City staff would notify concerned individuals when the improvement plans are submitted if they would leave their' name and address with staff. Michael " airin, representing the applicant, advised that he would be available at any time to talk to adjacent residents about the project and clarify what, is being proposed.® 'there were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel addressed the windrow preservation issue and stated concerns with saving the trees. He advised that preservation would require the City to incur a lot of liability and recommended that the trees be replaced with an appropriate variety. Commissioner Barker stated that citizens had expressed a desire to preserve windrows in the City wherever possible in an effort to retain the character of the community. He disagreed that the trees should be replaced and recommended that they be Mopped and saved. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she didn't see the need to widen the street to the full .feet she additionally ,stated that removal of the windrows would result in the lass of Banyan treet's character' and was also in favor of topping and preserving; the existing trees. Commissioner McNiel stated that most people who enjoy Blue Curs Eucalyptus trees either don't have thew on their property or they have large enough lots that the trees don't bother them. He recommended that the gees he removed and replaced with a more appropriate variety. Chairman Stout stated that Banyan is not a residential street and will be a major east-crest thoroughfare and whether it is widened or not will carry a lot of traffic. He also stated that Blue Gums are not an appropriate tree for residential areas and that the windrow should replaced and replanted. Commissioner Chi.tiea addressed the street issue and proposed the possibility of providing emergency access and reversal of the cul-de-sac as suggested by the residents. She asked if it would 'be possible to have pedestrian access at the cul-de-sac which would be aeceptible to the Fire District and alleviate the traffic problem. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1984 1 Chairman Stout advised that not only would the Fire District's access needs have to be addressed but also some type of access to allow students- to get to the junior high school without going all the way down to Banyan. Commissioner em el stated that if a cul-de-sac is proposed going south, permission would more than likely be required from the people on the north because people wouldn't want to see are opening, drive up there and not be able to turn arounda Commissioner Barker stated that the street as designed would encourage more traffic going through on Opal. He further stated that Commissioner Rempel had a valid point, but fire access could be allowed through the use of turf block and still allow foot traffic City Planner Rich: Gomez advised that it aright be best to deal with this issue on a general basis and stated concerns`, with making technical decision without knowing the ramifications sine the Fire District was not represented at this time Commissioner cNiel stated that the street should have access to the school and if that issue cannot be resolved by a pathway, the street is still essential. He further stated that it could be mitigated by design... Chairman Stout stated that the consensus of the Commission seems to be that emergency access needs to ;be provided as well as pedestrian access to the school. He suggested that the design; details of how this is to be accomplished`should be worked out with the Engineering Division staff. Michael Va.irin, Deer Creek Company representative, stated that there are two engineering problems to be considered; drainage; and grade at the point of the cul-de-sac. He suggested that the bast solution aright be to take "Ell Street and drop it parallel to Mandarin and out the street off at that point. Further, that the cul-de-sac could be 'designed in accordance with the Engineering Standards within the existing right-of-way widths, which is acceptable to the `Fire District. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission still wants to have some type of pedestrian access r airin replied that the design similar to that used in freer Creel's Red Hill project could be used. Chairman Stout recommended that a condition should be added to clarify the windrow replacement. Motion: Moved by Re rpelo seconded by McNiel, carried; to eliminate Engineering condition 1-A of the Resolution, thereby requiring the widening of Banyan to 22 feet and removal of the windrow; addition of a fourth condition to require that Mandarin Street be redesigned dependent on final engineering Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1984 decision; Opal Street be a designed with a cul-de-sac at the north end and have provisions for pedestrian right-of-way; and a condition to clarify the windrow replacement to the satisfaction of the City Planner. j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RR P L, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, C I'TISA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f1C carried Commissions arker and Chitiea voted no because of previously stated positions on the windrow issue. 10:00 Planning o i i.on 'Recessed 1 ':1 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Chairman Stout announced that it was staff'srecommendation that Items , N, and C be continued to the Novembers 14, 198 meeting and suggested that they be considered out of sequence. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL. PLAN AVE P—ENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT A General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial ial Park for approximately 40 acres f land located on the west side of Raven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Aurora highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 1-01, 12, 13 and 0 41-{11 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMEfd S °T -C - HAVEN AWENHE OVERLAY DISTRICT A Development District Amendment from OP (Office/Professional) to ISP Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately 40 acmes of land located on the crest side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with <t e Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN PCs 1-01 , 12, 13, and 208- r4 01. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -01 TAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to the; Industrial Specific Plan to expand the bou_ndary of Subarea 7 (Industrial Park category) to include'' approximately 40 acres of lend located ;on the meat aide of Raven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Armors Highway, in conjunction with the Raven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208-331-01 , 1 , 13 and PCB, r41 01. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minute - Octobers 24, 1984 a Rill Kirkland, `hest Coast Netting, addressed the Commission stating that he had been working with staff to receive input and address issues associated with developing their project There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing s closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General. Plan Amendment -C A, Development District Amendment 84-04, and Industrial Specific Flan Amendment 4- 1. Chairman Stout announced that due to the lateness of the hour, the public hearing would be closed and the following Director's Reports considered by the Commission: DIRECTOR'SREPORT R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW d 4 - FORECAST The development of a -story office building totaling 4,340 g uare feet on 0.5 acres of land in the Office Professional District, generally located on the east side ' f Hellman Avenue, south of Base Line Road APN 208- 431-29. Tim Reedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner McNiel questioned the signing on the existing building and stated that it detracts from the building. Commissioner Rempela agreed and stated that the Design Review Committee recommended that all the signs were to be the same, but a variety of different signs are going up that should not be there. He further stated that it is time that the City deed something with the drainage in this area, the lack of sidewalks, and all of the 'traffic caused by development e further stated that the City needs to use; systems development fees and funds from not only this development but the development that would` be going in across the street to help; install a; drainage system underground to drain from north of Base Line to the storm drain at the railroad. Rarrye Ranson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that this had been given a rather low priority can the Capital Improvements Projects. Tier Bee le, ,Senior Planner;, stated that it might be helpful to provide the Commission with additional information on the Capital Improvements Program and ghat the options and expected improvements are in the area of Hellman and Rase Line Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84- R `, heated at the east side of Hellman Avenue, south of Base Line Road. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 24, 1984 AYES: COMMISSIONERS:NERS CRITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, RE P L, STOUT OS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB, -carried Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 88 - OIDONNELL/BRIGHAM - The development of two manufacturing buildings totaling 41,245 net sq. ft on 2.26 'acres of land located in the General Industr"ia/Rail Served District Subarea 10) generally ;located at the northeast corner of 7th ' Street and Milliken Avenue APN 1 70. Tim Eeedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated that the following amendments to the Resolution were suggested by staff: addition of "as per site Tarr" to Planning Condition 2; Planning Condition f 8 modified to include a landscape planter at the southeast corner of Building A to soften the height of the building; Planning Condition #4 modified< to require that the *pest gall of building S be constructed' in a manner to eliminate the need for a retaining mall to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Additionally, r$ Beedle stated that the easement required :ruder Engineering Condition f1 is not necessary and recommended that it be deleted. Roland Childs, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant accepted the Resolution changes by staff. Motion: Moved by McNi.el, seconded by Rempel,_ unanimously carried, to Adopt the Resolution with amendments as proposed by staff. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNIEE, RE PEL BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing' for consideration of the following item. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC FLAN AMENDMENT 84-0 EfA EN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT Planning Commission review of public comments and recommendations the Interim Development Policies for Haven Avenue, between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. Otto Erna uti.l, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that staff" was seeking Commission direction on this item. Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 24, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission and recapped the Chamber of Commerce comments. He suggested that street furniture in the gray of seating areas should be encouraged within the ,courtyards and plazas rather than on Raven. Addi.t'ionally, Mr. Barton; Bested that the landscaping requirements be reduced to 25 percent. He stated concern with the elimination of the use of tilt rip buildings and requested, that the Commission consider allowing delineation in parking and access to break up the sterile' effect of buildings placed in a row. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Land Use Chairman Stout stated ;that this issue is ;should something other than office professional and financial administrative type uses be allowed on Raven, specifically with regard to the rail served, light manufacturing uses adjacent to the tracks on 8th Street The consensus of the Commission that an exception not be grade for these parcels. Site Orientation It was the consensus of the Commission that the word "prohibited" should by replaced with "discouraged" in regard to parking and circulation along the l percentage for streetsca eparking should Haven Avenue frontage, and that pe p not be used; as a standard. However, some type of languag ae should b incorporated to provide for a variety of setbacks. 8teetsdaeandsdapin It was the consensus of the Commission that 2 landscaping and hardscape coverage be required for net lot area (exclusive of street right-of-way), except at the urban centers where the 8 landscape hards cape coverage requirement shall remain C do aoe��' destrian nvirorraent Chairman Stoat stated that the list of items for pedestrian hardscape areas were intended to be suggestions and recommended that the language ;state "include but not limited to . . « . It was the consensus of the Commission that this language be included Architecture It was the consensus of the Commission that a ;positive statement be provided as to ghat the City is looking for on Haven and should include graphics and reference to a pictorial portfolio of acceptable architecture Additionally,, a' statement is to be added outlining certain building forms which are highly discouraged. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - October 24, 1984 Master Plans It was the consensus of the Commission that a general statement of intent t b provided with the Muster Plana to indicate now this particular project is going to address architectural design issued of the Haven Avenue Corridor., Urbana Centers It was the consensus of the Commission that a more intensive statement b provided to indicate that the City is looking for something different for urbane centers in order to provide the gateway image. ADJOURNMENT: Motion. Moved 'by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11 0 pay. Pl ng Commission adjourned. Re pest u submitted, ick omen eau Seer ark Planning Commission Minutes 1 October , 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 10, 1984 CALL TO ORDER 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 Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barkero Suzanne Chitiea, Larry MeNiel, Herman Repel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Tim J. Boodle, Senior Planner; Linda Daniels, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, asked that this meeting be adjourned to October 15, 1984 at 6:30 p.m. for a workshop on the Terra Vista Planned Community at the Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga. MINUTES Motion: Moved by cNiel, seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the August 220 1984 Planning Commission meeting. fl CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Stout requested that Item A of the Consent Calendar be withdrawn for discussion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the remaining items, B, C, D, E, and F on the Consent Calendar. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1984 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 9 - FORECAST The devoloprtent of an 18,500 sq. ft. office building on 1 . 1 acres located at, the south side of Citric Center Drive, east of Haven Avenue in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) -District APN 2 R 5 1 . C. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT RNVIEN 5 ETIN'AN 9A INVESTMENT The de elopment of a 411 ,000 sq ft. . eh e distribution facility on 23.8 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial (Subarea 1 ) category located on the south side of 7th Street, approximately 1 ,045 feet west of E'titi anda Avenue, Parcel 2 of Parcel Tip 6658. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW d -O2 ® BARMAEIAN - The development of-six (6) industrial buildings totaling 25,032 sq. ft. can 1 .57 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea' , located on the north; side of 5th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue APN 2+ 7 271-5 , 54 and 55. E. CONCURRENCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CUCAMONGA CREE SIDE PARK P. CONCURRENCE WITH BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT CONCEPT PLANS FOR CARNELIAN' STREET AND BASE LINE ROAD A. TENTATIVE TRACT 1249q ® A E ICAN NATIONAL - Reapplication for Design Review of site plain and architectural changes for 121 condominiums on 5.1 acres of land, located on the east side of Vineyard, south of Foothill. Chairman Stout asked if there will be a. request for continuance of this item to October 24, 1984. Mr. Gomez replied affirmatively stating because of the issued raised during Design Review the applicant is redesigning this project and will bring i back. Motion Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the October 24 1954 meeting. PUBLIC BEARINGS G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" 84 21 ALTA LOMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH - A request to convert an existing 1 ,868 sq. ft. single family residence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the crest side of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 102- 2-2 . Tier Beadle, senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Beedle what the applicant's response has been. Mr. Beadle replied the applicants are concerned about delays to the project and are interested in ;the compatibility and land use issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE -2- October 10, 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regulars Meeting October 1 , 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman DennisStout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 'CC p.m. The meeting was hold at the Lions Park Community Cantor, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitioa, Larry too i t, Herman R mp 1, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NCNB STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner*, Tarr J. Beedle, Senior Planner", Linda Daniels, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Barr Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, ,Administrative Secretary; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Paul Rouu, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner Rick Gomez, asked that this meeting be adjourned to October 15, 1984 at 6:30 P.M. for a workshop on the Tara vista Planned Community at the Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga. MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNi 1, seconded by Chiti a, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the August 22, 1984 Planning Commission greeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman mad Stout requested that Item A of the Consent Calendar, be withdrawn for Motion: Moved by Rempe , seconded by; Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the remaining items, B, C, D, g, and F on the Consent Calendar . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -1- October} 10, 1984 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - - FORECAST - The development of an 18,500 sq. ft. office building on 1 .1 acres located at the south side ofCivic Guitar Drive, east of Haven Avenuein the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) District APN208-633-38. , C a TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - - ETINAN A INVESTMENT - °The development of a 411 ,000 s . ft. warehouse distribution facility on 23.8 ; acres of Land in the Heavy, Industrial, (Subarea 1 category located on the south sine of 7th Street, approximately 1 ,0 feet crest of Eti. anda Avenue, Parcel 2 of Parcel trap 6658. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 2 EAR AK N - The development � , six industrial buildings totaling 25,032 s . ft. on 1 .57 acres of land in the General. Industrial category (Subarea 1) , heated on the north side of 8th Street, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN 2 7-271 , 54 and '55. E. CONCURRENCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CUCA ONGA CR ERSIpE PARE E. CONCURRENCE WITH BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT CONCEPT PLANS FOR CARNELIAN STREET AND BASE LINE ROAD A. TENTATIVE TRACT 12490 - AMERICAN NATIONAL Reapplication for Design Review of site plan and architectural changes for 121 condominiums on 6. 1 acres of land, located on the east side of Vineyard, south of Foothill. Chairman Stet asked if there will be a request for continuance of this item to October 2 , 1984. r Comet replied affirmatively stating because of the issues raised during Design 'Review the applicant is redesigning this project and will bring it back Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the October 24, 1984 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT -2 - ALTA LOMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH - A request to convert an existing 1,868 sq. ft. single family residence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian: Church o .25 acres of lard in the Very Lora Residential District, located at the west side ,of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 1062-332-23. Tim Beadle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Ree le what the applicant's response has been. Mr. Beadle replied the applicants are concerned about delays to the project and are interested in the compatibility and land use issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- October 10,, 1984 Commissioner ,Barker asked if a precedent would be set in approving this Conditional Use Permit and if it would crake it possible for others to argue that you could use a horse for a church or office facility. Mr eedle replied it would and that he is not aware of any other project that was approved as a temporary facility. Commissioner Re r el stated there is another church in the community that has used a residence for offices and related uses. Commissioner Barker awed ghat church Commissioner ' ke rpel replied the Brethren in Christ Church. Mr. Beedle stated that it is, net to another residential area. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if the design criteria issue has been dealt with. Mr. Beedle replied that they are working in on a Master Mara and that the City has not seen a design that addresses the criteria® Chairman; Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. David McLeary, Minister of the Alta Loma Christian, Church, gave some background on this project indicating he was unaware of any problem until about a week ago* He stated they were advised there would be questions which needed to be addressed and he asked for continuance of this project in order to address the concerns raised. Chairman Stout indicated the: concern with a Master Plan for this whole area. as well as the way the house is set up. Mr. Bill Un l.es, 6375 Sapphire,; asked if this house is converted into an office if commercial standards and commercial zoning would be given to this property. Mr. Stoat replied it would not be rezoned commercial and that most likely it would have to conforms to office/professional standards. He indicated more parking space would be required. r. Un l s cited others problems with this property such as flooding, retaining wall, and elevations, and asked if they mould be allowed to hold Bible classes or 'post signs on the property. There were no further comments and Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Chairman Stout asked what a realistic date mould be, for continuance of this item. Mr. needle replied November 11, 1 6 * Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried,unanimously, to continue this item to the November Zak, 1984 meeting. ,I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- October 10, 1984 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26 - STORALL - A quest to convert 5 sq. ft. of an approved building into a caretaker's office and residence for a self-service storage facility on 3.51 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea District, located at 9605 9th Street, crest of Archibald Avenue - APN 20901-0 . Assistant Planner, Dine Putrino, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing Mr. Daniel McBeth, the applicant, asked if the CUP 'expires with a change of ownership. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Chairman Stout replied that there is no reason why this particular CUP should run with the applicant. Mr. Reedle stated there is no problem with this change r. Hopson asked if this has been set yap to be an amendment to an existing approved CUP or whether this is a totally new grant of approval;. Chairman Stout replied that this is a new one. Mr. Hopson stated he is unaware of the condition of the on-site improvements; however, if this is a new one, it should run concurrently with the other one and be tied in. r. Seedle replied that additional language mould be added to the resolution. Commissioner McNiel indicated that .Conditidn No. 6 should then be deleted. Motion: Moved by Reampel, seconded by MeNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. d -11 , approving CT 26 ' with additional language in Condition No. 4 to tie it in to the existing Conditional Use Permit and that Condition No. 6 be deleted. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8763 - ROCH ST R FREEWAY NORTH LTD. - `,A division of 9 acres into 2 parcels in the General Industrial Development District (Subarea 1 located north of 6th Street, east of Old Rochester Avenue APN 229261929. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Roueau, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout questioned the timing in bringing this item in after the project had been approved. r Rou eau explained that as originally proposed the project dial not include a public street and since it was not in the first concept it did not involve the necessity for the street and the immediate parceling of the property. Further, the applicant wanted to ,get that approval, out of the way and come back later for this approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if this is consistent with the project currently under submittal. Mr.. Rougeau replied it is. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Pitasi, representing the applicant, indicated they have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and are in agreement with them. Commissioner R mp l asked if the street as now shown is in conformance with the original plea as it is not new before the Commission for comparison. r. Pita i replied that it is, as 25 feet of landscaping is included. There being no further comments, the public;bearing was closed Motion. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rcmpcl, carried unanimously, to adept Resolution d. 84-116 approvingParcel Map 8800 with the issuance of Negative Declaration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE I` -24 CHAPPI ' - A p—roposal' tc operate n 1 ,050 d . fta auto rental office and maintenance of maximum of 15 automobiles within an existing' commercial plaza on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, goat of Archibald Avenue APN208-261- 52. Assistant Planner, Dino Putri c, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Nanette Neremberg, representing Western Commercial Development Corporation, provided the Commission with a petition that had been signed by tenants in this location indicating their support of the proposed use of office ice space as a car rental leasing office. There being no, further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner MoNlel stated his appreciation of the fact that a given number of spaces had been designated for parking use for the rental agency; however, he believed' that other tenants would quickly become annoyed if customers of the rental agency constantly used the gather tenants' spaces. . Neremberg replied that they would be responsible in ;seeing that parking; space use was not abused. Commissioner Chi.tiea asked if some type of security would be provided; for rental cars during the night r.. Chapp e, the applicant, replied that it would be provided PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5- October 10, ;1984 Following brief discussion it was moored by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-117, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 84-24. Chairman Stout stated that the following items would be heard concurrently. L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT 4- A HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT A General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximately 40 acres of land located can the crest side of Haven en Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay Di tict APE 2 8 1-01 , 12, 13, and 208-341-' G1 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 04 - HAVEN Ay" NLS OV RLAY DISTRICT - A Development District Amendment from (Office/Professional) to I P (Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately o acres of land located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Amour Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District trict - APN 208 1-01 , 12, 13, and 20 1-01 . N. N' I ONM N'TA ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 01 - TAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan to expand the boundary of:Subarea 7 (industrial Park Category) to include approximately 40 acres of land located can the west side of Haven Avenue,,,between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, In conjunction with the Shaven Avenue Overlay District - APN 2 8 1- 1 12, 13 and 208- 1 1 Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if action on these items could be taken at this meeting. Mr. Johnston replied It could; however, although a resolution has not been prepares, the environmental assessment could be done. Chairman Stout indicated that these items are contingent upon the Overlay District and if there is none, these changes would be unnecessary. Johnston stated that the Chamber of Commerce subcommittee agreed with the goals established for Haven Avenue and the Planning Commission's comments. However, concern was expressed regarding the railroad tracks near 8th Street and the Chamber of Commerce asked for preservation of the area to provide rail service for light manufacturing use Further, they agreed with land use and were interested in the proper balance of support uses for office professional. Mr. Johnston stated staff has no problem with the rail service as long as designs meet the intent of the, Overlay District and that there be no rail service loading doers 'visible from the street PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - - (October 10, 1984 r. Johnston stated that regarding the Faster Plan requirements, the Chamber Committee suggested that the architectural requirements be reproved from the Master Plan. He indicated that staffs comment here is that staff thinks the architecture needs to be consistent with the Master Plan to produce architectural compatibilwity. Mr. Johnston suggested that another alternative is to add another policy dealing with the consistency of architecture Regarding flag orientation, the Chamber Committee recommended having no parking along Haven; however, staff recommended a percentage to provide design flexibility. Mr. Johnston stated that the Committee's recommendation is that for streetscape and landscaping coverage,, it to reduced to 25 percent and to 30 percent in the interior of the corridor. Mr. Johnston stated that staff does not have any roblems with their recommendations as long as they tighten down exactly what will be included in the street furniture. Further, that one of the things they are looking at is to actually have a handicaps architect do a design there for Maven Avenue. r Johnston' related that regarding architecture, the Committee was looking for a variety of styles that could be used to promote Lavern Avenue. H indicated that there needs to be some balance and they will work on a policy that will, meet theirs and the Committee's goals. Chairman Stoat stated ;it is really difficult to deal with all: four items at the same time because the last one is really a different animal and, therefore, the first three will be discussed first. r Cornet stated that these items are for the Commission's consideration tonight only and no action is expected to be taken. Farther, staff wants feedback on ghat has been proposed and whether it is appropriate. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r Jim'Barton stated that a minimum of 450 feet depth is needed along Haven for parting, etc. in Girder to have the taller buildings work. He stated that 660 feet is more than sufficient but 350 Feet is really ;getting down tight. r Joe DiIorio, representative of the BIA Commercial and Industrial Council and Chair of the Chamber subcommittee studying Haven Avenue, stated it would make more sense if Items L, M, h1 and C; were discussed all at once. Chairman Stout explained the rationale of taking the three items together so that one does not end up it the General Plan and the other in the Industrial Specific flan. There were no further comments, therefore, Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barker started that Medium High designation currently exists on the northwest side of the intersection and also asked about the distance South of Civic Center Drive and depth of the parcel PLANNING COMMISSION MI UTE - October 10, 1984 r Comet replied that part of that was dealt with on the Master Plan as part of;the parcel: map requirement to give the designer and the City flexibility in dealing with the constraints of parking and osculation on both sides. Further, the Master Plan and Overlay District would deal with the design, issue. Commissioner Rempel stated that when this project was originally talked about the Commission nearer said they would change the use on it r> Rory eau explained why the owners set the frontage at 350 feet. Following brief discussion It was the consensus of the Commission to have the whole area examined as part of the Overlay District. r'. Gomez stated that thetwo major areas of interest are the depth and the Master Plan of the Overlay as it applies to that area: O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT d CtP AyT rJ t OF Oy1 RLDISTRICT Planning Commission i.ssion review of public oo ents and repo enoatioras frdm the Chamber of Commerce regarding the Interi�a evelopm nt Policies f'dr Haven Avenue, between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard Chairman Stout opened ,the public hearing Mr. sloe Dilorio talked about the Chamber of Commerce subcommittee meeting dealing with the Haven Avenue issue. He advised that in the early days of the City, Irvine had been used as a reference to ghat Rancho Cucamonga might someday look lake in terms of how it would grow and nature. Mr. Oi orio advised that the subcommitee felt that Landscaping is critical to the look they Irish to achieve and that the control of traffic is another critical issue. Other important areas were, no strip or spot commercial; Haven must be the high point in the Cite concern; with the railroad running through this area; non-uniformity in architectural style, and varied building heights with high design quality. Chairman Stout asked how high design is enforced and how you legislate taste. Mr. DiIorio replied that you can point to Barton Plaza on one end.. and Chevron on the other end and the gas station on Haven as being the most aesthetic in the Mate of California. Farther, as long as you Lay down groundr leso it will not become another Archibald Avenue Chairman Stout stated that he sits on Design Review and there are many well intentioned people who come In and say that their project far exceeds the design criteria. He indicated; that they always ask to be shown something in writing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- October 10, 1984 °. DiIorio cited an instance when a major company met informally with the Chamber Board and discussed theirs project. He indicated that in a couple of. instanced this has worked in getting the type of development that is wanted. e further stated that peen pressure among the developers has worked to a great extent as well. Parking l Haven Avenue was discussed with different ways of designing to alloy such parking Commissioner McNiel ached if there had been any discussion in the Chamber, subcommittee meeting regarding design theme and architectural. relief with regard to restaurants, banks, etc. r« DiIorio replied that as a group they feel strongly that Haven Avenue reeds to have a lot of architectural style and, as far as parking is concerned, there can be surface parking as long as it is broken up and can be attractively placed Discussion ensued wrong the Commission and Mr. DiIorio relative to the way;, parking was ` handled in the Irvine area, especially along MacArthur Boulevard. Architectural style along MacArthur Boulevard was also discussed with favorable comments in being a. model for haven Avenue. r Darr Richards, member of the Chamber r of Commerce and the BIB, indicated that there are other issues of concern to the ,smaller developers. He asked if, the Commission will also consider other wawa than have been proposed such as they have done in the instance of rail served parcels. He indicated that the smaller developers nosed like some opportunities to discuss these gather vases and alternatives. He Mated further that a Master Plan for the area is fine, but they grant to be a part of it. rJohn Me.ldher, of Lewis Homes expressed concern with the interim document language that refers to Foothill and Haven as an urban center. This, because of their property at the northeast corner of that intersection and the fact that it is shown for an entirely different use. He wanted to be sure that the Overlay District extends only to Foothill and not north of it. r henry Reiter stated he felt that the evolution of: large buildings on haven has messed up the community incredibly and felt there must be further discussion about the concept. He indicated what the Commission is trying to do is hide the large buildings with larger buildings. He asked for specific guidelines on Haven Avenue that would promote growth Chairman Stout asked if there was something intimidating` about the forum of the Planning Commission. r Reiter replied that it is not intimidating, but he felt that more could be accomplished over a cup of ;doffed rather than having a project that has gone through the process of being rejected which makes everybody look bad r Dora Barmakian, local developer, expressed concern regarding the Havers corridor and the absorption rates of office space. He cited figures on availability in the City of Ontario and what is being built in Rancho Cucamonga, indicating that there is no need for so much high end spade. Mr. Barmakian a I greed with the object of the it of Rancho Cucamonga in trying to enhance its image with urban centers but felt that the middle of the corridor does need additional attention. Mr. Bill Kirkland, owner of KVL West Coast Netting, indicated that they will be leaving the community because of the image being promoted by the City. He felt that businesses such as his no longer it in and are unable to be maintained with the high standards that are currently being sought. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Kirkland what caused him to reach this conclusion and stated he felt Mr. Kirkland was overreacting. He indicated that what Mr. Kirkland had just said concerns him as an individual. Mrs. Rosalie Mandella, 8635 Country Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she and her parents are in concurrence with what the City is trying to do. Mr. DiIorio stated that the Chamber of Commerce does not want to give anyone the impression that they are trying to chase anyone out of the community. Further, that if there is any concern with any of the existing industries over what is being done, to let the Chamber of Commerce no about it. Mr. DiIorio stated that they do not want to endanger any businesses, especially those that Piave been here for a number of years. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner MeNiel reiterated what caused the Haven Avenue corridor study to take place and the need for philosophical standards. process of Chairman Stout indicated that this is the first out in the establishing standards and he was convinced that they will come up with something everyone can live with. Commissioner Barker stated it was interesting that this began with Mr. DiIorio's comments requesting that they be given the latitude to do what they want to do, given diversity, creativity and quality to full circle with Mr. Reiter's comments of tell us what to do. Commissioner Barker stated that landscaping must be used to the maximum, there must be a theme and that diversity is important -- he indicated the importance of guidance so that this does not become the Levitt To of high tech. He expressed concern as to how this would be used along the railroad and the special area treatment that Mr . Richards wants extended to all small land owners. Because of this, Commissioner Barker stated that the commission will have to be careful not to give the special interests so much concern as to obviate any reason for the Overlay District. Commissioner Rempel stated that the guidelines for buildings is what the Commission will not be able to do. Further, they will not tell anyone there is a design for Haven Avenue. Commissioner Rex pel indicated that the size of property must be taken into account and that these different sizes and businesses must all fit in. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- October 10, 1984 In regard to the statements made by Mr. Kirkland, Commissioner Rempel stated that the Planning Commission is not telling anyone that they must pick up and move and they are not forcing anyone to do 'what they do not grant to do. Commissioner Chitea indicated that good points were rude regarding the parting situations and that they should look into the aspect for create design for Hagan. She felt that the Commission would have to stick with a firm statement of ghat it wants for HavenAvenue; that if the Commission alloys a lot of diversity and there is a lot of flexibility on top, the Commission must state that it will be within a certain range and the Commission must say this is what we grant. She indicated that the Commissions is trying to stop wasted time in Design Review. r Gomez asked for specific areas of concern in carder to develop specific language. Commissioner McNiol stated that ghat' the Commission is saying is that they grant high tech quality and they are also saying that they don't want to see a specific imprint of architecture Chairman Stout indicated that what the Commission needs to address are the concerns which have been heard and what is in the resolution in such a manner as to have positive choice e indicated further that this could, be done in addressing these as issues. r. Gomez requested that if the Commission shared the concerns expressed at this meeting that they be conveyed to staff so that they would incorporate thus into the resolution. Chairman Stout did: not feel that this could;be done at this meeting. Further, Chairman Stout indicated that if .someone has specific problems with a project they could come to the Commission on a project-by-project basis to address: the specific issues, which, e thought, would be better than simply saying that they will use light industrial, in this particular area and it would be difficult to say that the Commission will make exceptions without seeing the projects. He indicated that he would really not litre to deal with that issue. On another* issue Chairman Stout stated that people tend to grant to make Land cases what is marketable now or three years from now and it is the job of the Planning Commission to make plans - C years down the line. He indicated it is impossible to know if they can sell all the property along Haven within the next few years for high office but that is not relevant, He indicated ;that they are looking ahead more than just years Chairman Stout expressed his concern that one individual feels that he is being forced out of the community. He indicated that for as long as he has been on the Commission nothing has been done to change that particular area and the Commission has dealt with non conforming uses and is very flexible and had done all"kinds of things to be fair and equitable. He indicated again his concern about that kind of statement Chairman Stout hoped that the Commission could pass ak resolution that everyone will be happy with PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES l l� October 10, 1984 ............ 9:15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. NEW BUSINESS P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-42 - BARMAKIAN - The lopment of a 2-story medical office building totaling 1-9, 100 sq. ft. on 1 .07 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Avenue - APN 210- 381-01. Associate Planner, Linda Daniels, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if a meandering sidewalk and easement was required as part of the conditions. Mrs. Daniels replied that the requirement was contained within the Engineering Division conditions and was acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Chitiea asked who names the streets. Mr. Rougeau replied that these were named by the subdivider, however, now there is a more thorough reviewing process for street naming. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Pitasi, representing the applicant, stated that the Conditions of Approval had been reviewed and are acceptable. Chairman Stout commented on the color of brick shown in the applicant's rendering as being very attractive and the apparent difference with the actual sample. He indicated that he would prefer the color to be more like the rendering. Motion: Moved by Rexpel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-118, approving Development Review 84-42 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 84-31 - MORE AND STEELE - The development of a 12-unit apartment unit complex on 0.88 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14) du/ac) located at 8670 Arrow Highway, on the north side of Arrow Highway between Baker Avenue and Vineyard Avenue - APN 207-201-12. Associate Planner, Linda Daniels, reviewed the staff report. Tom Harris, representing the applicant, stated he would answer any questions. Commissioner Barker remarked that he had viewed many fine projects as part of the recent Planning Commission tour of projects. He indicated that during the tour, people he had spoken to in other apartment complexes expressed concern PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -12- October 10, 1984 with burglaries that had taken place in 'their units and eared if there might be some protection afforded to tenants. Rased on their inquiry;, Commissioner Barker asked if some type of alarm system could be installed in this project r whether it could be pre-wired for some type of alarm system. r. Harris replied that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is already very restrictive in their demands for protection such as deadbolts on doors and window locks. He indicated that this is a very small ;project and the problems that were related by Commissioner Barker might be those associa.ted with the larger complexes. Chairman stout indicated that Commissioner Barker , is more ' interested in security because there are some people who would look at; a project such a this one and see that there are 12 television seta per acre, and asked Mr. Harris if he would be completely against some kind of security system ; requirement. Further, that he did not know and asked whether it; would be marketable or expensive to include. r.' Harris replied that burglar alarm systems in themselves are not that expensive. Commissioner Barker asked if at this, stage in the project it would have a large impact to install either the wiring for a burglar alarm system or a system. Mrs. Harris replied that it would not have a large impact. r. Gomez indicated that staff would explore this with the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Barker asked that the Commission be provided the results of the staff investigation regarding alarms. Mr. Gomez asked if the Commission is talking about imposing this condition on this particular project. Commissioner Barker replied that since he does not know what the state-of-the- art is regarding alarm systems, he would _a Tait st .ff's report; however, he felt something should be started at this point. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adept Resolution No. 84-40A approving Development Review d 1 with the issuance of a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 October 10, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-06 - COCA COLA - A quest to expand a previously approved warehouse addition from 21 ,600 sq. ft. to 31 ,200 sq. ft. on 9.2 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 9) category located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Utica Avenue - APN 209-411-16. Senior Planner, Tim Boodle, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Ramirez, representing Coca Cola, advised there were no problems with the condition of this project. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by MaNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-119, approving Development Review No. 84-06 with issuance of a Negative Declaration. COUNCIL REFERRALS S. CASAL ET" I'S POLKA PALACE - Potential General Plan and Development fii trict change on the property generally located southwest of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues. Chairman Stout opened the meeting. Mr. Bob Casaletti came forward and requested that his name be spelled correctly. He then provided background on when the Polka Palace was constructed and the zoning that was assigned in 1946. He requested that rather than the present or designated by the General Plan, he be allowed to again have commercial zoning. Mr. Casaletti also requested an explanation of a conforming and non-conforming use. Mr. Bee ale explained conforming and non-conforming uses to Mr. Casaletti. A discussion ensued among the Commission members on whether a mistake had been made in the General Plan designation for this property, what a proper zoning might be, and whether this property should be afforded some kind of protection. The discussion was not resolved by the Commission members and Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. There was further discussion on what kind of finding would have to be made in order for the zoning to change. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if there is some way to protect this property without rezoning it and asked for investigation by the Historical Preservation Commission for designation as an historical building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -14- October 10, 1984 Commissioner Chitiea asked if this could ` be held in abeyance until it i examined by the Historical Preservation Commission. The consensus of the Commission was that this be forwarded d for consideration f designation of an historical structure the Historical Preservation Commission. Motion: caved by Barker, seconded by 'Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn n to October 1 , 1984 at : C . . at the Neighborhood e tery for a work k session to review the Terri. Vista Planned Community. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 1`1 ¢49 p.m. au a submitted is y p�yg ..pp�er y� m z Dep ty ary h PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -1 - October 10, 1984 CITY CP RANCHO C 'CAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE Regular Meeting September 26, 1984 I Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regulars Meeting of the City of Ranches Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161- Pane Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then lad in the pledge to the Flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Parker, Suzanne Chiti a Larry McNial, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tian Beadle, SeniorT Planner; Nan; Coleman, Associate Planner; Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner, Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul R ugeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rink Gomez, announced that the Planning Commission would adjourn to September 29, 1984 for a 'City tour of recently developed projects. Mr. Gomez suggested several workshop dates for the Commission's consideration t -discuss the area development plan for the next phases of Terra Vista. It was the consensus of the Commission that October 15, 1984 be set as the workshop date APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by`. Hempel, seconded by MnNi 1, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the duly 25, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 113C14 AND 11805 EEN devrelopmant of 76 condominiums on 11.03 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenues. R. PD 83-01 - CAL MARK An 'agreement ;to provide access from Heritage Perk to the shopping center. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 43 BARTON The de el.opme t of, two 2-story and one 3 stoat office 'building totaling :,CCC " square feet on 44.1 acres of land in the Industrial Par} (Subarea 7 District looted on the west :side of Utica between Aspen Street and Civic Center Drive APN 0 -3121 D. TIME EXTENSION FOR "TENTATIVE 'TRACT 11853 PARR °TT IRV NE DIVISION A total development of 72 condominiums on 5.71 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-1 du o) located on the north side of 1 th Street at Ramona Avenue APN 2 2 171-441 Commissioner Rempel requested that item "B" be removed for discussion. Commissioner Re pel stated that the ,21-inch Sate opening proposed for the Heritage Park access was not wide enough and may cause problems Commissioner Barger agreed and stated that it should be widened to allow handicapped access. Commissioner Rempol replied that 3 inches is the normal width for gated to provide handicapped access. Chairman Stoat agreed that the exhibit should be attached to the agreement and should.. reflect aate inchopening. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the consent calendar with the recommendation that the gate opening for P 83-01, Calmark, be increased to 6 inche . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Stout announced that the following two items would be heard concurrently. E. VARIANCE 4 3 AME ICAN SENTINEL SELF-STORAGE INC.. A request to reddce the front yard Setback of 35 feet toa minimum of 20 feet along 8th Street for a 45,,546 square foot self-storage facility on 2.45 acres of land looted at the northeast corner of 3th Street and Baker Avenue APN 207-27101. . Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 26, 1984 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 - AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF T"GRAGE INC. - 'the development of a 45,546 ;-quare foot self-storage facility and 1040 sq. ft. caretaker's quarters on 2.45 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1) category, located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue - API 207 271_C 1 Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. 'Robert O'Leary, representing the applicant addressed the Commission, stating agreement ith the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Loved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance d -C . Motion: Moved by Me Niel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit -17. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -27 d EARMA IAN the total development of five multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 0,000 square feet, a 70,300 square foot mini-warehouse facility, and a gas station on 11.03 acres of lard in the General Industrial (Subarea 1) category located on the west side of Vineyard, between Arrow and 9th Street - APN 20 2 2 . Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. Andrew Barmakian, applicant, addressed the Commission stating concern with Planning Division number 4 of the Resolution regarding the use of split face block along the top band of the buildings and: split face vertically fluted block along the bottom of the buildings. Mr. Earmak.ian Proposed that on the mini storage facility instead of the tilt up material, vertical fluted split fade block be allowed. He further proposed that all of the project walls which carry the berming and landscaping, the walls between the buildings, and the accent walls around the corner area of the project be constructed with vertical split fade block Chairman Stout asked which of the alternatives the applicant was proposing to use for the gas station and pointed out that one elevation called for a tilt up light sandblasted finish and the other proposed vertical fluted grey split fade block. He stated his concern was than a third_ material was being introduced into the design. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 26, 1984 ar a iwan replied that in order to tie the project together, whatever material is used on the columns will dictate what material is used on the building itself. Further that he would prefer to have the options of using either the sandblasted concrete block or vertical fluted block on the columns. There were no rt er comments, therefore the public hearing s closed. Chairman Stout stated either of the two options were agreeable as lore as there is a consistency in theme Commissioner Respel suggested that the elevations be attached to the Resolution and that approval is granted subject to consistency with the elevations Dan Colenan� Associate Planner, suggested that condition: number 4 could be modified to meet the Commission's intent by eliminating staff's proposed language at the end of the Resolutions and substituting the language "consistent with the attached elevations". Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chi.ti.ea, unanimously carried, to issue Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 7 with amendments to Planning Division condition number 4 to add "consistent with the attached elevations". AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MP L, C I 'IRA, BARKER, MC IEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NC E ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8587 PR VI'TI - A division of 1 _04 acres into 2 parcels in the Very Low F2 du/acDevelopment District located on the southeast corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street A ' 01 111 > Papal Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Pr viti., 10313 ancho, Rancho Cucamonga, California, addressed the Commission stating concerns with the requirement that the bridle trail be installed before parcel B is recorded. He suggested that the trail be bonds be posted. r. Rou eau replied that bonds would be acceptable Planning Commission Minutes - - September 26, 1984 Gary Sanderson, Linville/Sanderson Engineers, addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant was also concerned regarding the clarity that the equestrian trail is proposed to run north and south between the two parcels and objects to the trail running south of parcel number one. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, replied hat the map depicts the trail running along the south boundary of parcel number one. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8587 with an amendment to the standard conditions to reflect the bonding for trails. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: RSMP L, PARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL CHAP 868o MORRIS & SEARLES -- A division of 3.177 acres of land into 3parcels within the WMedium - u c) Development District located on the east side of Ramona Avenue, south of Base Line- Road - API - 107701 Paul Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. d freer, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating agreement with the staff report, Resolution and:. Conditions. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by;Rempel, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8680. I BARKER STOUT AS, COMMISSIONERS: l� L, R , � FORS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NON -carried Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1984 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12809 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT E PA - A division of 100.16 acres of land into "11 lots within the Terra Vista Planned Community for City park purposes, located on ;the north aide of Edge Lire Road, between Milliken Avenue ;and the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-221-14 , 25 Paul. Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Stan Bell, representing Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission stating agreement with the staff report and Resolution. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Robert Dougherty, City Attorney, advised that since all of the off-site improvements would be done by the City, the words "conditionally" :should be stricken from the Resolution and it should simply state "approving". Lotion: Moored by Chitiea, seconded by Rer pel., unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adapt the Resolution approving "Tentative Tract 12809 with amendments to the Resolution 1:o remove the language "conditionally approving" and the sub titian of "approving". AYES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REM EL, DARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AID -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDEMNT d - -A - E & R I -VESTMENTS -` A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Lour Density Residential 24 ulao) to Medium High Residentia l 14 2r4 du/ao on _;1 .55 acres of land, located on the south side of Eer=ron Boulevard, between Turner and Ramona - APN 209 d5-D2, 03, 14. Otto ' rdutil Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report which recommended that the Commission consider an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Hawkins, H & H Investments, presented a letter to the Commission which outlined the app cant'a intentions for this project. Mr. Harkins indicated that if the Commission so desired, the applicant was grilling to have an EIR prepared for this project Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 26, 1984 Terry Christensen,' TA Development, addressed the Commission in support of the project and urged the Commission's consideration of a focused Environmental Impact Report to expedite the process Macho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he and other North Town residents had net with the developers and 'while the ;project looks rice, felt the trade-offs were too high. He stated that the [berth Town residents envisioned a more centrally located park site and that this particular site has too many problems He additionally voiced concern with the high density proposed for the project. � 'I Mr. Ayala, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked whether :the units would be owner occupied or rental: units. Ride Gomez, City Planner, replied that they would be rental units. Chairman Stout asked if there are Community Development Block Grant funds allocated for a park in the North Town: area. Bill Holley, Community Services: Director, replied that the City ouncil's approved allocation of Block Grant funds this year include the selection of a committee to select and purchase a park site in North Town He further stated that the lard purchase would be completed this year, with development hopefully occurring the following year. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that if the Commission's intent was to require an Environmental impact Report, they may wish to consider the inclusion of the issue of the park site and its impacts. Commissioner Rempel stated concerns with the density of the project. He stated that it doesn't fit in with the area and that there are other uses for that piece of property. He additionally stated that he could not see a need to prepare an EIR and that the bent course of action .for the community would be denial of the General Plan amendment. Commissioner Barker stated that if the Commission ,does require are RIR, he, would suggest that the impacts of various densities be addressed along with the impacts of traffic on Turner m Commissioner ay c l stated agreement with the comments of the ether _Ne Commissioners and advised that he would agree with ;Commissioner Rempel that the General Plan amendment be denied Commissioner; hitiea stated: that along with the issues of density and traffic, , the hydroly and storm problems should be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes Septembers 26, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that if an EIR is required that other densities such as 44-8, 8 14+ and 14- 44 should be explored. He stated that if it is economically feasible for the applicant to have an Environmental Impact Report prepared, he would suggest that, in addition to those areas suggested by staff, land ; use alternatives be explored such as the no project alternative, lower densities, hydrology, and traffic Motion: Moved by Rerpel, seconded by McNiel, to deny the General Plan Amendment. Motion failed - d Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, to require the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Report focusing on the areas of hydrology; population; socio-economic factors; laird use and planning n .id r° tion ; traffic; recreation; health, safety and nuisance factors; utilities and public services appropriateness of the park site and its location; and that the land use alternatives be expanded to include densities at 8, 81 , and 1 4-24 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Rempel requested an amendment to Chairman Stout's motion that the possibility might be explored of having a plaza with shops ;substituted for the park. Chairman Stout and Commissioner Barker accepted this amendment to the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 8:15 p. . Planning Commission recessed 8r30 P.m. - Planning Commission reconvened Chairman Stoat announced that the; following items would be heard concurrently. 111 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-03- V LBEUA ® A Plan Land Use from Low Density, «� st - to amend ` the:; General_ R request Residential ( n4 d r/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential ( 8 du/ad) on .78 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Sierra Madre and Comet APN 207-222-08. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-0 U - CLREDA A request to amend the Development District Map from "Ll' du/ac) to 11L n1 -8 du/ c) for 4.78 acres of land genrally located on the south side of Arrow Highway between Comet and Sierra Madre - APN 207-22 C8, Otto Iroutiln Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes September PB;, 1984 Pete Volbeda, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the density requested is not a large increase from what currently exists at the site. He further stated that the project proposed would be similar to Orchard Creek and would be 1-story units. co Cable, 8680 Edwin, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if Edwin Street would continued or if it would remain a dead-end street. He additionally opposed the increase in density and would stated a preference to see the densities lowered. Chairman Stout advised that the design and street issues would be addressed when the project is submitted to the Commission for review and explained that the items before the Commission this evening are amendments to the General Plan and Development District Maps only. Hans Crolapp, 8289 Arrow Route, opposed the high densities and stated they bring property values down. Mr. Jordan, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated concerns with the rook pile which exists on the site and asked that it be removed. Mike Chrislan, 8616 Edwin, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the high densities and opposed the continuation of Edwin Street. Don VaVerka, representing the Orchard Creek project, urged approval of the project. Dale Hubbell, 8281 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns with the rock dwelling which exists on the site and suggested that it be considered for preservation as a landmark. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked if the rock dwelling had been reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, advised that the dwelling is not on the City's list of historical structures. He further stated that the possibility of incorporating the structure into the development might be explored by the developer at a later date. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that the project density is not much of an increase from what currently exists and would not be opposed to approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would support the Resolution of approval and that the rock dwelling could be considered in the future when the project is submitted. Mr. Vaverka indicated that he would be willing to examine the issue of the rock dwelling. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 26, 1984 Commissioner Barker stated the issues raises by the surrounding property owners would be brought back before the commission during the public hearing for the project. He further stated that the density as proposed _would be between 5 and 6 dwelling units per acre therefore he would support the Resolution. Motion: Moved ed by Chitiea, seconded by Barren, unanimously carried, to adopt " the Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 844 0 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from tow Density Residential 44 du ao to Low Medium Density Residential du/ac) on the south side of Arrow Highway,hn ay, between Sierra`Madre and Comet. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council approval Development District Amendment to amend the Development Districts Map from ar t' 44 du ao to '"LM't - du al on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Sierra Madre and Comet. Chairman Stout advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN N ME `l 4- 03 -RCITY OF EeeEm 1 tlAN1�n A request. to smernd 'the rner�al Pl.arn Larnd Use dap f om D rnsit 4iea derntial �r4�144 du ao General. Industrial to Industrial Park on 18.8 acres of land located on the south side of 9th Street and Saar Ap 7- 71 4 through 10, 17 through 20, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44. . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT T DISTRICT AMENDMENT 4 0 Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to amend the Development District p from tt tt Plan (General Industrial Subarea 1 dua and Industrial Specific o 1 o Industrial. Specific Barn (Industrial Para) for 18.8 acres of land located at the south side of 9th Street and Baker APN 2 71 4 through 10, 17 through 20, `35, 37, 38, 43, and ; 44. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff repeat. Mr. Kroutil advised that staff received d a letters of opposition from Dian Mills Company, one of the property owners affected by 'these amendments. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Dorn Wilson, 8893 Jasper Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with impacts on traffic and lower property values as a result of the amendments. He asked what types of uses are permitted 'under this category. Planning Co ' i.ssiorn Minutes -10- September 26, 1984 Chairman Stout explained that uses permitted under the Industrial Park category are quite different from those permitted in the General Industrial designation in that Industrial Park uses include very light research and development and offices with heavier landscaping than that required by the General Industrial uses Jeff Se rank , Rancho Cucamonga; resident suggested the possibility that certain photo processing plants might be allowed in time Industrial Park category in instances where a retail outlet is located in the front and processing Is done in the back; therefore, Olen Mills may be able to locate their plant in that location Chairman Stout advised that the processing operation proposed by the than Mills Company is on a much larger scale and that their retail outlets are typically at another location. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Re mpol stated concerns with the compatibility of placing the Industrial Park category on lots 9 and 10 when the surrounding lots have not yet gone in Gomez pointed out that nonconforming uses will Mill exist and that the master Alarm requirement mould be the method used to look at the uses to assure neighborhood compatibility. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, advised that action taken by the Commission this evening would change basically the zoning of the General Plan and Development District Maps. Additionally, modifications to the Industrial: Specific Plan would be brought `back to the Commission with recommendations for ;either an amendment to the subarea or the creation of a new subarea, and suggested that Commissioner Rempel's concerns with mots 9 and 10 could be addressed at that time. r�. to adop t im l carried,b: Parker. unanimously p. R 1 seconded P� b e__ e Moved Motion: p � � it of General Plan r the Resolution r000 rmdirm approval to the t om�rm_o_ r- Plan and Use a from edim mom Density Amendment _S to amend the General Residential 4 1 din :c General Industrial to Industrial Park on the south side of 9th Street and Baker. Motion: Moved by Chltiea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt; the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Development District Amendment 5 - -R to amend the Development District Map from I'M" 1 dim do and Industrial Specific Plan (General Industrial Subarea 1 to Industrial Specific Plan (Industrial Park) on the south side of 9th Street and Baker. Planning o ission Minutes _11 September 26, 1984 'I ;i P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENSRAL PLAN T A C CITE CP RANCHO CCAOCA A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium await R aidarsti l A 14 dash to Lour Medium Density Raaidenti,al. 3' du/a ) on 15.8 acres of land located on the west t side of Hellman Avenue, south of "nth Street - APN 209-161-04t; 16, 23 and 10 3 1 . Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed ed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public haring. Larry DeCrorrd, area property owner, requested that this area be compatible with surrounding rop rti s additionally expressed concerns that this designation y hold a property owner at 4, 6, or 8 dwelling units per acre and would not like to be prohibited from coming in with a site plan at 1 units per acre. Thera were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stoat stated that in terms of proper mixture and what the adjacent Ontario area is designated, A is probably what this area sho4ld be designated; hwraa r, 11- 8 is a raaorrabld compromise to assure economic wribiit ® Commissioner Barker stated that capping the density off at 8 units per acre is liberal and still compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner ssioner Chiti a stated agreement that 4-8 is a consistent range. Commissioner McNiel stated that this area is a unique situation and dial not believe that '4-8 world negatively vel affect the property owners. Motion* Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment S O3-D to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential ( 1 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential al. ( 5 du/a on 15.8 acres of land located on the wrest aide of Hellman Aerate, south of 7th Street,. NEW BUSINESS C. ENVIRONMENTAL SESS ENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 4 O° Ot LL -� The development of a 91 ,700 square fiat warehouse distribution building on 4.5 I aces f land in General Industrial Sbara 11 category located at the northeast `corner of 6th Street and Pittsburgh A N 1 . Rick Gomez, City Planners, reviewed the staff report Jim Westling, applicant, addressed the Commission stating agreement with the Resolution and Conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 26, 1984 Motions Moved by Barker, ascended by Stoat, unanimously parried, to issue Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving l pment Review 84-34. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Parker requested that the Commissioners and staff take into consideration an interim design review team to handle the heavy volume f projects scheduled for design review. He suggested the possibility f dividing the Design Review Committee into residential and commercial review Commissioner Barker additionally requested that staff look into a north-south stop sign for the intersection n of Hillside and Beryl. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned R p tfully* ,u ttad, 111 f 1 RickImeButatar F, Planning Commission Minutes 1 September 26, 1984 I N U T E S CITY CE RANCHO CCACCA PLANNING COMMISSION E"TING September 12, 19811 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held t the Lions Park Community Building, 9161 Baseline Ruud, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman Stout at 7 p.m. He there led it the pledge of allegiance. ' ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT* Herman R mp l STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, ; City Planner; Edgard A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rog eau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, advises there would be a tour of Rancho Cucamonga for the Commissioners on September that would begin at r C a.m. The group will return at :soon for lunch and discussion critique of ghat has been viewed. Mr. Gomez advised that the Bentsen appeal to the City Council has been returned to staff for r par t.i n of an additional traffic n l is relative to capacity and density of the site. Chairman Stout asks that alternatives to all traffic in out Lemurs and dumping on Haven be examined; the elimination of' B nt n's mitigation measure of a temporary solution on a second method of egress southward;` and 'exploring the possibility continuing Lemon past Day Creek with the thought that a permanent solution towards the south be found. r° Gomez advises that_R. J. Investments has withdrawn its appeal to the City Council and has submitted a new site plan for the apartment proposal l t Baker south of Foothill which will be a townhouse proposal l i .il rM to Acadia with lower densit APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Cb tti a requested that the minutes of August 8, 1984 b corrected to show elimination of meandering sidewalksin front of the Christmas Hou , Item B, Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 6 15 `'Ilsley and t�i d azra Motion: 1 b ;1�'� 3i1.., seconded b Barker, carried , to approve the Minutes of the August 8, 1984 meetingas corrected. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner r r requests t that Item p be, removed from the neat Calendar for discussion. Chairman Stoat requests t that Item P be removed d from the Consent Calendar and discussed under Director Reports later it the agenda. Notices. Hawed by Barker, seconded by McNiel, .raid unanimously, to adopt Items A , C, E and G of the Consent 'Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAPS 7 61 2 AND 061 KAISER DEVELOPMENT TO-PA - Located on the south side of 6thStreet between i land rid Milli s Avenue - APN 2lo-o82-6, 28, B. TIME EXTENSION FOR 'PARCEL, MARS 6962 KEY - Located on the Worts side` of Nicene Drive at Jasper Street APR 1061-1 1 6. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10210 FORECAST MORTGAGE CORPORATION - A custom lot residential div°i i rr 6 acres into 33 lots in the Hillside Residential District, generally located on the sortie aide of Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN PCC m 61 1R, 00- 51 M ,u, '061 -C . R. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACTS 11625 AND 11781 DALE" Reapplication for Design Review of architectural changes for 176 condominiums on 13.7 acres of brad located - on the northwest corner of 1 th Street and Hermosa. G. GRADING MODIFICATIONS TO TRACT 12238 - CITATION BUILDERS Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 12, 1984 D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE =TRACT 10076 - LIGHTNER - A residential subdivision of 19 lots on 6.9 acres of land in the Low Residential District, located south of Banyon Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-251-63 & 64. Commissioner Barker requested clarification that Banyan would be continued. Following discussion it was determined that Banyan would be continued and that the applicant would be notified that a General Plan amendment is not contemplated; Mandarin does not exist as a street; therefore, a temporary cul-de-sac is unnecessary. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-81A approving a time extension for Tentative Tract 10076. PUBLIC HEARINGS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8345 - SERO AMUSEMENT - A dirrision of 37 acres of land into 3 parcels tithe (Medium High) Residential and O/P (Office/Professional) districts located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN 208-344-01 ,04. Raul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviews the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Anent, 930 Redding Way, Upland, representing Sero Amusement, states his concurrence with the staff report and advises he would answer any questions. He further states his agreement to the requirement for a master plan for this site. Mr. John Fehn, vice president of Lincoln Properties, 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. , Los Angeles, states his agreement with all conditions of the parcel map with the exceptions of items 11 and 12 which needed clarification. Following Mr. Rougeaus's explanation of item 11 , the applicant states agreement and asks that item 12, requirement for a master plan, parcels 2 and 3 be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to their development. Further, that item 2 referencing a lien agreement be amended to provide subordination by the City in order for them to obtain a construction loan. Following discussion and clarification of the subordination agreement to be included in the lien agreement and development of a master plan for this parcel, it is moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 12, 1984 adopt Resolution ;No. 84-93, with the addition of Section 4 to rescind the previous map and replace it with this map and an addition to condition 11 that otherwise all reap requirements in these conditions refer only to the parcel being developed I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TA IVE TRACT 12621 RICHWOO - A residential development of 90 townhouse units on 7.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential District 14 du/a looted on the south side of Arrow between M d one and Baker AP 7 1 Chairman Stout states a letter his been received from the applicant indicating the owner's withdrawal al of their objections to this project. Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advises that if the property:owner his withdrawn his objections, the Commission could proceed with the hearing. Barg Coleman, Associate Planner, reviews the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Adams, r. Chris A m 304 Mar Vista Pasadena A indicates he has reviewed ed the conditions of approval and can comply but asked for modification to'Condition No. 18 to allows installation of a concrete ribbon drain that would be built to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. r Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replies that accommodations can be grade and yet insure that the City's concerns are met. Thane being no further comments, the public hearing is closed. Motion: Moored by McNiel, ,seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 4 r4,' approving Tentative v "r of 12621 , issuing a negative declaration with modification to Condition No. '18 to allows a concrete ribbon drain. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 77 : MORRIS & SEA.RLES lh developments of 81 single family ily detached houses on 15.2 acres of land in the Lowy Medium residential District 4 d du/ao generally located between Ramona and 'Turner*, approximately 1000 feet south of Baseline ARN 1077- 1 , , ,4r Planning Commission Minutes - September 12, 1984 Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviews the staff report. He advises that a letter in oppositions to the project has been received, however, it does not_ point out anything specific. Chairman Stoat opens the public hearing. The applicant states he has no objections to the, conditions of approval. Mrs. Hose Ann Cayman, 7494 Turner asks if there will be any type of retaining wall on the back of these homes r. Coleman replies there are none indicated on the grading plan. r din Coyman, a resident on Turner raises concerns regarding drainage and asks applicant if there will be a partitioning of property between, existing homes and new horses. Applicant replies they gill probably construct s wood fence, although that is not: a condition, and asks if owner would like to shave in its cost. Applicant indicates that is an offer. Mr. Coy man replies with concern that a wood fence will not hold Grp. r. Richard Black, Ramona Street resident, asks if parcels are owned by same person. r. Coleman replies that they are. There being no further comments, the public heaving is closed. Motion: Moved by Ch tiea, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt. Resolution No. approving Tentative.ve Tract 12772 ith the issuance of a negative declaration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT H AND CONDITIONAL USE FIRST SPA I H ASSEMBLY OF CCp' CHURCH The development ;T-2V,475 square foot church facility and a request to operate a preschool on 4.29 acres of ;land in the Loy Residential district 2 du ao located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Calaver s and Sierra Madre Avenue APN 2 2 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 12,' 1984 I Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, revises the staff report. Rick Gomez, City* Planner, states that one verbal comment has been received at the City Planning Counter in opposition to the project. Chairman Stout opera the public hearing. r. K. Nakana, architectural firm representing the applicant,cant, expresses concern with the requirement for fencing just discussed by the Commission. He indicates that his meetings with Design Review have resulted in a better8 project. Followingclarification that small children carrot be dropped off at preschool, the public hearing is closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt with modification requiring fending in compliance plianc with State law, Resolution /, approving nd .ti n l Use Permit No. 83-20 with issuance f negative declaration. 8: 15 p.m. The Planning rr i si n recessed 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. L. i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1272 - A M COMPANY A residential subdivision of 33 bats on approximately 4.28 acres in-the Low Medium Development District - d a ) located great of Beryl Avenue and south of Hamilton Street APN 2 2 22 and 25. M. ENVIRONEMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE ZRA _ 12727 A M COMPANY A residential subdivision creating 21 single family residential lots and one open space lot already developed, on 2.6 acres in the Low Medium Development District, located west of Beryl Avenue and south of Hamilton Street p - , 70 and 71 Linda Daniels, Associate Planner,; rigs the staff reports. Commissioner Barker asks her tracts 12414, 12726 and 1 727 can be legally bound together so that conditions imposed on one tract can be placed upon another Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1984 i Mr. Hopson explains the procedure e f annexation into a homeowners association that would satisfy the Commission's concernsfor adherance to conditions of approval Chairman Stout opens the public hearing. Mrs. Gary Mitchell, representative esentativ of Hamilton Reach, advises that the conditions f approval are acceptable to his client. Ir.; John Samar, representing the ACompany, advises that; they have prepared a document for the annexation into the homeowners r i .tin in compliance with the State Department of Land"and Real Estate. Mr. Bill= Blanchard, 8890 Avalon, owner of lot 28, speakingfor some residents, asks for density transition and a buffer zone; vehicle access to eliminate traffic congestion; fencing and the elimination of a proposed no man's land between existing and proposed tracts and reduction f two story houses so they do not look into existing hones. Michael Vairin, 6981 Opal, expresses concern with lack of transition and non- conformity to General Plan and City Codes. Others who spoke regarding increased, traffic and inability to get out on Avalon Street, limited spare on driveways that could hamper parking, grading, placement of a retaining wall and'turning radius were: Richard Penny, 8811 Avalon Williams, 8821 Avalon Karen Osmondsdrr, 8850 Avalon r. Gary* Mitchell explains their planning and design concepts. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. , Commissioner Barker expresses concern with private streets bordering pu li streets;; and overall design as far as total area and access to Beryl without putting Avalon through permanently. Commissioner n i cites problems with access discussed during; Design Review and states that there must be secondary access. He indicates he was inclined to leave Avalon as the emergency access but it invites problems later on if that is done. Commissioner hits a suggests removal val , f lot 20 to give more space to lot 1 which would help in providing access Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1984 Linda Daniels replies this cannot be dome because it is necessary to connect an existing water lire at this location. (, Chairman Stout states that the transition of density is one of degree rather than one of philosophy and cites the difference between a large apartment complex next to single family homes as opposed to single famil.y hones next to single family homes. On the issue of circulation on Avalon, Chairman Stout states that secondary access rust be provided in the event of accidents or flooding. Monona. Moved by Barker that the proposed site Tract 12726, be annexed to the current tracts; ,liven that part of the proposal is that Avalon be turned into a cul-de-sac, lot 20 be eliminated; rasing; the alternate playa distributed by the developer that fire and public utility easements be plat through to Avalon cul-de-sac and designed for pedestrian access,; north/south street be moved slightly to the east, advantage of the house placement be taken and Avalon access he designed into some park like structure that could allow children to calk through i Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion Commissioner McNiel and Chairman Stout dissented and the motion failed. Following further discussion, it is moved by McN el, ' seconded by Stout, carried to adopt "Resolution No. 4 " , approving Tentative Tract 1272 with; modification to conditions that Avalon be a connector that ties the two tracts together, the existing homeowners association annex the two new tracts; elimination of one lot along the west edge to provide an additional 250 square i feet per lot, and the issuance of a negative declaration. Commissioner Barker dissented. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by lcN al. carried to adopt Resolution No. 4 d approving Tentative Tract 12727 with issuance of a negative declaration. N. HAVEN AVENUE STUDY Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviews the staff report and resolution. Chairman Stout advised the resolution will have interim standards ;until the overlay district is in effect and will not have the same force and effect of an ordinance Planning Commission Minutes -8 September 12 1984 Chairman Stout asks for input. r. chards Barton, 552 Canistel, Rancho Cucamonga, asks what the second sentence in No. 1 of Section 8 in the Resolution means as he felt tilt-up buildings could be done in such a way as to ' e very successful. Mr. Johnston replies that the intent is to, eliminate sterile components that are poured in place. Mr. Barton advises that the City is in a unique position because Haven is a major entrance to the airport and a major arterial to create what will ultimately happen with this property. Mr. Dan Richards, 9333 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, states that retention of Raven Avenue as a high quality corridor is critical to the growth of the City. He feels that the problem which needs to be addressed is that of the thirty percent of net lot area landscaping requirement for those owners with smaller parcels. He also expresses concern with restrictions on architecture type and its application to restaurants. Mr. Larry Bliss, 6634 Carnelian Avenue, developer, compliments staff can report and development of high quality standards for Haven Avenue. He advises it is important not to let a Mc Donald's or other fast food chain develop on the street. Mr. Henry Reiter, Newport Beach developer, agrees with what has been said; however,;, expresses need for research and development types of single story buildings, as well as office; professional that are multiple stories. r. Jeff , ce an a, 6211 Phillips Ways, Rancho Cucamonga, addresses sections within the Resolution such as Section 2, No. 2, and restriction that of floor area shall not be used for commercial and business support service uses. He feels this restriction should be examined for buildings rather than projects as it may be possible for a large project to ;dedicate an entire building for such use and still fit in with the 20 percent limit. He reinforces Mr. Richards comments on use of pads or small lots as there will be pads for single story structures which can be used for bans restaurants, etc. He feels clarification is needed on where they will be allowed. r. Sceranka, requests' clarification that public meeting half should be a permitted use along Haven Avenue r. Sceranka emphasizes that the discussion of landscape should allow for a hardscape definition as pant of the 0 landscape 'areas. Further, future irrigation systems should consider sleep watering because of the shallow rooting of trees that are significantly damaged during grind and rain storms. Planning Commission Minutes 9September 12, 19 , i eerarr a asks that in the overlay district, the area between Foothill and Arrow west of Haven be included. Mrs. Seeranka pints out that at the off ramp of the San Bernardino freewayat Vineyard there is are In and Out Burgers which, he states, is the kind of concern that gust be addressed here as these incompatible land uses will set the tone of Haven Avenue. He encourages the City to followthrough on this trued of study. Mr. Lloyd Michael, representing Cucamonga County Watery District, expresses concern on water usage within City and requests consideration of landscaping apin using substantially Less water than is currently being used at such companies as ar*t and Coda Cola. He advises that future water will be scarce and � costly and every effort must now be made to save this scarce c commodity. Chairman Stoat closes further discussion from the audience � Following discussion it is consensus of the Commission to add words long-merge in Section 1 . Goals Statement to read. "Encourage long-range master planned development Section r Land Use policies. It is the consensus of the Commission to modify "Item 2 to read "Select ancillary commercial and business support service uses, strike currently permitted_ by the Industrial Specific Mars, Subareas 6 and 7, continue with shall, not exceed of the fl.'uur area in are project. Change word over-concentration to concentration. It is the consensus of the Commission that Section r Masten Play Developments er is is all right, Section r SiteOrientation: Consensus of Commission that Item 1, word "limited" be charged to read "avoided unless unusual, circumstances" and Item 6 strike "with roll. up doors". Section 5: Streets cape and Landscaping. Consensus of Commission is that;this section be rewritten to include use of hands ape areas as part of percentage of net lot area requiring landscaping, credit toward required ired landscape/hard sca e coverage if public art is provided,ed, uidellines regarding watering and watering conservation, treatment of gateway/entrance to Haven Avenue, use of building pads to improve views of buildings. Section 6: Open Space/ edestrian Environment. Consensus of Commission that Item have covered walkways added Sections 7 r Architecture Consensus of Commission that another item be added to defuse architectural style and types of construction that considers ancillary use of buildings and retains high quality of office professional. Planning Commission Minutes to September ber 12, 1984 Section d m Urban Centers Consensus of Commission that Item 1 language be refined to define desired architectural components. The consensus of the o i ion is that language be added to provide credit for public art Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. -- as amended. Motions Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The dolopmnt of 4 industrial buildings totaling 76, 120 square feet on 5.68 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street* Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviews the staff report. Discussion ensues regarding the raising of building pads to achieve added building height. r, dares Barton asks if one and two stories will be built as part of this project. Mr. Reiter replies affirmatively* Mr. Barton states that a minimum of two stories is a mast along haven Avenue for this type of building and that this project should be turned down because of the guidelines just adopted by the Commission. r Larry Bliss states that this is exactly the type of project he does not wart to see on Haven Avenue.; r Reiter indicated he has 'tried to make an attempt to enhance this project. The Commission discusses elevation of pads to raise buildings approximately 1- feet. Commissioner McNeil asks developers opers what is objectionable abort the building. r. Marton states that the rectangular shape of building is objectionable and creates a sterile looking site Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1984 Mr. Bliss states that this project does not convey corporate image and feels this is cheap construction. Mr. Bliss suggests that parking should be away from building. Mr. Seeranka states that Commission has just adopted a resolution setting guidelines for Haven Avenue requiring an overlay district and feels that this project is in conflict with the resolution just passed. He indicates that the Commission must determine whether there will be an exception to the resolution and whether this building will be totally consistent with the resolution. Mr. Reiter states that he has put everything into the project that has been requested. Chairman Stout states he does not think this meets the guidelines of the resolution totally but does meet it in a lot of respects. He indicates that no one in the audience has seen all of the design changes that this project has gone through but there have been a lot of significant changes. Chairman Stout states that there comes a time when there is an equitable issue and this project is a straw person for the guidelines developed for Haven Avenue and it has changed to meet some of the guidelines they want for Haven Avenue. He further states that he is not an architect and as a consequence may not know what a beautiful project might be for Haven Avenue. Chairman Stout indicates that this project has been important in the development of the guidelines because it has pointed out some of the things that they do not wish to have but there comes a time for equitable considerations when the project has been through the system and you have to draw the line somewhere. Commissioner Barker states that the modifications of the project were an attempt to make it something that it is not. He indicates that it does not project the image that is wanted for Haven Avenue. Further, the modifications were not substantial enough to change the project as only an over would do that. The Commission discusses two areas: whether the project meets the intent of resolution just passed, and whether the applicant has a right to expect that his project will be approved because of the many changes he has one through in the Design Review process. Mr. Hopson states that the Commission cannot stop someone from planning a project as this is a risk that everyone takes in any city. Further, that no one gains a vested right that backs the Commission into a corner, legally. Courts have taken great pains to defend cities that say the rules of the game are what the city says is final and the applicant does not have a right to depend on anything the city says until the city approves what the applicant is Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1984 doing, but you have not spent an inconsiderable amount improving the land on which the project in located. That, he says, is the general terror- of California laws, it is not what is fair to the individual or what is fair to a property owner, the Commission is supposed to be observing and trying to place for a city of 125,000 that will stand for longer than some of the Commission will be alive. r. Hopson states that the Commission cannot be carried away with what is fair because if the Commission changes its focus of what is fair for the City or what is fair for the next 30 years, they will get a different conclusion. Commissioner MeNiel states for -clarification, that eien Reviews did 'not design the buildings but made suggestions for changes in the building materials, footprint, and lay* out. He indicates that in_Design Reviews they are; thrashed for letting some people continue an well as not allowing some people to continue and he positions himself for denial. Commissioner Barker states that this project is wrong for the City and he would deny it Motion: . Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to deny the project because of its: inconsistency 'with the recently adopted Resolution setting standards for Haven Avenue DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. POLICY DECISION ON THE LOCATION OF PORTABLE RECYCLINGCENTERS Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviews s staff report on mobile uses presented to the o iaaion r. Darwyn Harder, representing Goodwill Industries,; indicates they will not locate a noble unit on Haven Avenue and there will not be a proliferation of these units because there gust be at lent a five mile radius between them. Ron Choice, operator of Garden State Paper company, Inc. , ;.advises of benefits of recycling and favorable impact on environment. Discussion ensues and the Commission advises that they are not against recycling. The issue is whether this kind of solution is acceptable. The Commission expresses concern with aesthetics, location, landscaping and Planning o issi n Minutes 1 September 1 , 1984 allowing private concerns to be able to do that sort of thing without incurring cost associated with establishing a business even though they are helping the environment. Motion: Moved by Strut, seconded by Parker, carried unanimously, to affirm ire the existing requirements of the 'Development Code. Chairman Stout states there may be some ether solution which may be presented at some others time. i Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Parker, carried unanimously, to continue beyond 11 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR F. PERIMETER WALL DETAILS TRACTS 1P 1 1� City Planner, Pick Gomez reviews the staff report. Star Bell, architect representing the applicant, showed pictures to the Commission of the various textures, design and treatments of ll . r Gomez asks the Commission to make a determination on the percentage of mix between vine 'treatment,; and a finished stucco wall. Following discussion, _it is consensus of Commission that the galls be 50 peasant vines. Walls should be offset- r1 slumps tone cap should be used on top of> wall, which extends approximately 2 inches wrought iron fencing at ul da- sacs; crud slump atone at entrances with planters. Percentage of vine to b examined over a period of time to determine whether it sufficiently covers the parameter walls. Planning i si n Minutes 1 September 1 , 1984 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stoat, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 1*15 ease. the Planning i i n adjourns. Re otfU itt peaty Secretary Planning to i i n Minutes 15- September 1 , 1984 CITE' CP RANCHO CSC CC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 22, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at r CC p.m. The meeting was held, at Lions Park Community Center, 1 1 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout ; them lad in the pledge" of allegiance. ROLL CASE C"ISSIONERS PRESENT: P. David Barker, Suzanne Chiti a, Larry McNiel, Merman Rrtpl, Dennis Stoat COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tips Beedle, Senior Planner; pan Coleman, Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Associate Planner; Ruck Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Rubes, City Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Dino Putrirno, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regarding the Minutes of the June 27, 1984 r tirn Commissioner darker referred to the discussion regarding the lattice screening material and stated that Chairman Stout had made the comments. Commissioner Chi i a suggested that the first name appearing in the public hearing might be misspelled. Motion: oved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to approve the amendments with the above corrections. Regarding the Minutes of the duly 11 , 1984 meeting, Chairman Stout referred to the second paragraph of page 3 and amended it to read "a request to change the OP` in the location to Medium-High residential"; page 6, third paragraph was amended to read "". . m he feels may be appropriate"" rather than "i appropriate"; and page 7, last paragraph amended to read "windrows to the north and south are on this parcel". Commissioner Chitiea requested that the middle paragraph of page 8 be amended to read "". ® if Mr. Mazur intended t add . . .1n and additionally requested that paragraph 6 of page 9 b stricken. Commissioner Barker amended page 6, sand paragraph to read " design issue which has been addressed" and the last line in that paragraph to reflect that the developer did' :not want single story units. Motion: Moved by Parker, seconded by R r pd , unanimously;carried, to approvethe Minutes of July 11 , 1984 as amended. Planning Commission Minutes August PP 1984 CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 - 7 KAISER The �_evelopment of six industrial warehouse/manufacturing buildings totaling 55,200 square feet on three 31 acres in the Industrial Park area: (Subarea 12) located at the north side of Thomas Street, between Cleveland and "Vincent LPN 1 P 1 5, 5, 10 thru 13., E. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11" EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A proposed ' custom lot subdivision of 2.7 acres of lead in- the Low Residential district into tarn 1 1 lots located on the north aide of Finch Avenue, west of Raven Avenue and south of Highland Avenue - APC -1 1 15 ' E. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 088- NI SIA A residential subdi isi n of 82 acres into 131 single family lots in the Very Low Residential District generally located at the northeast corner o Archibald and Carrari Street APN 01 17 1 , 37,..and 45. Motion: Moved by N mp 1, seconded by M N el, unanimously carried, to adapt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 1d RAIRE A request to convert a portion of A maid nee into a second dwelling unit on one acre of land in the Part' Low Residential District, to be located at 5507 Canistel Avenue. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no coments, therefore the pubic hearing was closed. Motion: Commissioner R r p l stated that this is an appropriate use to supply the need of keeping families together and made the motion to approve. Motion seconded by Barker, unanimously carried. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REP PELF, BARKER, CITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ; NONE -carried Planning CommissionMinutes; August t P, 1984 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C ISEII (CHURCH 6—PLATTER-DAY SAINTS) The development of a 25,000 square foot building for a church and m ing hall and a 336 square foot storage facility on 7.74 acres of land in the Very Low and Lots District (Etiwanda Specific Plan) located at 6829 Etiwanda Avenue, north of Victoria Avenue APt 227-06-65 and 23. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that the major issue involved with this project was to design the church,and site to be compatible with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and surrounding residences. Further, that the church had been redesigned to reflect the Design Review Committee's recommendations of having the 'building style and 'design be ; ore compatible with existing single family hones through the use of dormer windows and recesses to break up the roof mass, the use of traditional building materials as set forth in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the replacement of the parking pavement with turf block, in the area leading to Victoria Avenue, and the design and height of the identification tower. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ronald Ishii, architect for the applicant, asked if the proposed roofing material was acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Barker replied that the Design Review Committee desired cod or rustic roof the appearance and that; the proposed roofing material seems to meet that intent. Mr. Ishii addressed the issue of the tower. He stated that the tower proposed for this church rises 48 feet above the roof line of the building, which is above the height limitations of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. fir. Ishii, stated that the tourer is an important part of` a Latter-Day Saints;church building and has been given special exemption in other cities. He requested that the Commission consider this a special circumstance. Jim Frost, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission expressing concern that no plans were being submitted for the entire parcel and ask what legal leverage the City would have as improvements were installed on the eastern side of the property. Mr. Frost also questioned the timing of the windrow removal at the eastern part of the parcel. He additionally expressed corker with the adjacent` property owner's liability in connection with the athletic field and with the drainage on Victoria. James Clark, 686 Etiwanda Avenue, expressed concern with the design of the : church, off-site parking, and with setbacks. He requested that the church be roved further to the east. Dave Hawkins, 6990 East Avenue, stated that he was happy to have the church come into the community. Planning Commission Minutes - August 22, 1984 David Long, Etiwanda resident, stated that staff worked hard on this project with the applicant. He stated that the property to the east is part of the grading and drainage plans approved by the City. Additionally, that the setbacks are designed to enable the placement of the athletic fields on the site. Mr. Long stated that the church is sensitive to the needs of neighbors and provided more parking than required. Further, that the windrow removal and replacement is monitored by the City. Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission has the flexibility to deal with the tower issue. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that if the limitation is for structures, the Commission could determine that something in as open an area as a tower wasn't the kind of structure for which the limitation was Intended. Therefore, the Commission could make this determination without harming the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan 'has no requirements for bell towers or spires; however, the Development Code has provisions that state that spires, bell towers, or similar architectural features may not exceed heights of 15 feet above"a roof line. Chairman Stout stated that it then appears that 50 feet would be an acceptable height. Mr. Gomez advised that the height of the tower should also be reviewed in light of compatibility with the surrounding area. Mr. Ishii addressed the Commission stating that the setbacks are 10 feet further back than those required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan and that the drainage problems in the area probably will be solved with the development of the church site. He also stated that the building materials are not those traditionally used by the church and asked for an explanation of the architectural requirements. Ms. Daniels explained that the Etiwanda Specific Plan recommends three architectural styles, the bun gelow, Victorian or barn style, with certain types of materials such as wood siding and the use of rock, which is compatible with the existing residences in Etiwanda. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel addressed the windrow removal issue and stated that the trees cannot be cut down until such time as the play area develops and must be replanted at the same time. He pointed out that there are two streets which dead end into site but there are no conditions reflecting what will happen to them at that point and suggested that there might be a problem with drainage and circulation at those locations. Commissioner McNiel stated that a lot of work has gone into this project and that most questions raised during the public hearing have been answered. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 22, 1984 Chairman Stout asked what the expectations rs for the out ;parcel. Tim Beadle, Senior Planner, replied that any alterations would have to come back to the Commission in the form of a Conditional Use Permit. "fad Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the site plan is reflected in Exhibit "B" of the Planning Commission staff report and any alterations t that plan would be required to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner are r asked if there should be a condition for the stub streets. Lloyd Rubbs, City Engineer, replied' that a condition should be added t address the stub streets. Chairman Stout requested that a condition be placed on the resolution which clarified that any development or lighting f the fields on the back parcel , rind be required "to creme back before the Commission. on Motion: Moved by R mpa1, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-09 with additional conditions to require any ham s such as lights or buildings on the rear parcel to return to the Planning Commission for review, and that streets dead ending into this site are to be cul-de-sans or ether means to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MP Lx, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, SOU NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: (1 -carried, F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S 1 - SYCAMORE IN S NTS The ,development of a 43,992square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant, and gasoline service station/con rienc market on 5.444 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial district located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line APN 202-181-27. Darn Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.- Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jan Kraus presented the site plan for the applicant, which she" stated met the Design Review Committee and staff recommendations. Sant Stryker, Stryker Engineering, presented a second grading playa which in his opinion mitigated the Grading Committee's concerns. Planning Commission Minutes - August 22, 1984 Chairman Stout closed the public hearing Commissioner Chitiea stated concerns with another commercial center at that location and the safety of pedestrian walkways within the project. She additionally stated that the Del Taco architecture did not match the rest o the center. Commissioner McNiel stated that fused on the history of this site, he would have expected a much better design and that he was disappointed in that this project seems to be a very efficiently designed strip center. He agreed that the pedestrian access seemed hazardous. Chairman Stout stated that the project seems to be 5 separate buildings with nothing which congests theme in theme, shape or; form and loops like a strip commercial center. He agreed with Commissioner Chitiea in that the design of the Del Taco' does `not fit in with the rest of the center and also expressed concerns with the pedestrian access in lint of the adjacent proposed senior citizen project. Commissioner Barkers agreed that this project does not fulfill the objective of being pedestrian-oriented. Commissioner Remrpl stated that this is not going to be a center where a- person will spend ' . lot of time, but one where an item or two is purchased and them you leave. He agreed that the Del Taco does not echo the theme of the rest of the center. He also stated that adequate provisions for pedestrian access exist in the center, but suggested that more birches be added- and recommended that the walkway from the Del Taco into the project be more defined. Also, that the south driveway onto Base Line should line up with the Albertson's driveway. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, carried, to - deny the Conditional Use Permit84-13. AYES: COMMISSIONERS.* CNITICA, BARKER, MCNICL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS, REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON -carried Commissioner Rempel stated No because he felt the concerns could be mitigated. :30 Planning Commission Recessed : C - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes - August 22, 1 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8648 - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY A di i.si on of 22.41 acres into 3 parcels within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9) located on the northwest cornerx of Rochester Avenue and dth Street - APN P 111- , 9. Lloyd Rubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout stated that when this project was before the Commission as a Development Review conditions were placed on the Resolution requiring some type of agreement for future rail use and asked if those conditions would still apply to the Parcel Mr. Ru is replied that a condition was placed on the Parcel Map which incorporated all conditions of the Development Review. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Rill Shubi n,' representing Lincoln Properties, addressed the Commission statist that the applicant is currently working with the Engineering staff and City Attorney to dome cep with the proper agreement for the rail use. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8648. AYES, COMMISSIONERS: REMPELO BARKER, CRITIRA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB- ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS MICR -carried H. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 FORECAST Planning Commission review of the Draft RIR. for a custom lot subdivision of 16 lets on 20.9 acres and al conceptual master plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally crest ,of Sapphire Street APR„ 0 1-0 , 07. Curt Johnston, associate Planner, reviewed the staff areport. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Art Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter to the Commission which outlined his concerns. Mr. Bridge summarized the contents of his letter which expressed concerns with grading and padded lots, street; lights, hydrology, density, multi-story units, and circulation. He suggested the possibility of the applicant posting bonds to restore the site to its natural; state should the project not be completed. Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 22, 1984 Chuck Morgan, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission stating that the area is not conducive to one-half acre- lots and would prefer 2 dwelling units per acre. He expressed concerns with hydrology and runoff down Incline Drive. He additionally expressed: concerns that this approval is for a master plea of 94 acres. Cary Healy, Module & Associates, addressed the Commission explaining that: the project will drain into the Almond Intercept and will alleviate some of the flooding problems ' in the area. He further advised that the grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval by the City staff. Cart Johnston, Associate Plattner, explained that the master plan for the entire 94 acre parcel was a requirement by staff and that the intent was to set a street pattern and determine how its effects on `bract 12376. He advised. that the basic lot configuration will require further review when the parcel, has a map submitted Michael Vairin, 6981 Opal, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating concerns with circulation and hydrology. He also pointed ou t that the EIR doesn't address the issue of recreational vehicle access to the mountain Brea above this parcel and suggested that the Commission might address this issue. Lloyd Dorsey, 7825 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed agreement with the comments made by those who, spoke before Prim Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that this site is unique in its comination of all environmental concerns and warrants special consideration Jiro Previty, representing the applicant, advised that the master plant for the entire 94 acre parcel was done as a requirement of City staff. Fortner, that the applicant had tried to comply with all suggestions of the City. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barker expressed agreement with Mr. Bridge's statements regarding the size of the lots and agreed that the hydrology must be addressed with permanent and substantial devices. He asked fir. Hopson if the bonds suggested y Mr. Bridge can be required. Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that development 'bonds for completion of off-site improvements are provided for in the Subdivision Map Act which allows for bonds to be used to completed unfinished off-site improvements. However, bonds cannot be acquired to plane land back it its original state Commissioner Barker stated that he was most comfortable with Alternative 3, but even that alternative has some problems in that it places some (rouses on fault lines He advised that the location and size of homes is of extreme concern and care should be taken in their placement. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1984 Commissioner Rempel stated concerns with some proposed street and lot layouts around the wash and advised that the City should not get into the area of placing hones where landslides would be a problem. He also echoed Mr. Bridge's concern regarding padded lots and stated that the house should fit the lot. He suggested that the pads not be graded or driveways put in until the house is ready to be built. Regarding drainage, he advised that he would like to see ; country roads with catch basins every few hundred feet and no curbs. He stated that his choice would be some hybrid: variation of Alternative 3. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the concerns expressed and chose Alternative 3. Commissioner Chit<iea agreed that Alternative 3 was one of the batter alternatives in that it considers greenbelts and trails. She stated that she liked the clustering and smaller ll.er lots to get open space. She; disagreed ;that only single level homes should be built in the area and stated that some split level designs with certain color and landscape palettes could achieve a more aesthetically pleasing view than a long linear house. Commissioner Stout stated that he favored Alternative 3 in that it seems to mitigate most problems although it has problems also. Further, he would not like to see the 'building pads graded flat, but take advantage of natural contours. He advised that the idea of hillside residential Data of 2 net buildable dwelling units per acre care into effect in areas with no problems; however, the overall density of;this project would be much less dine to the nature of the problems associated with it. He further stated that there are fire concerns which should be addressed and suggested that the ,applicant work with the Fire District for possible solutions such as fire breaks or the use of certain plant materials. He agreed that hydrology is of major concern and that the project has to provide access to the recreational areas. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would prefer to see some method to prevent motorcycles and dine buggies from getting to the hills above this project because the area is not conducive to those types of vehicles. Chairman man Stott summarized the Commission's direction for inclusion in the EIR to include minimizing the amount of pad grading and have design of structures take advantage of natural terrain whether through built-up foundations or multi levels Alternative 3 or some hybrid for the area plan, hydrology and the major flooding issue to be addressed by permanent rather than temporary measures; and a more definitive look at the fire issue. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 22, 1984 I DRAFT VIR t AL IMPACT REPORT FOR U - HFA ASSOCIATES - Review and consideration of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report RIR prepared for development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land; in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill 'Boulevard, west of Interstate 1 - APH 7-201- ; 227-211-3,0. Ilan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing "there were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by MoNiel, unanimously carried, to find the, draft t RIR adequate and forward it to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for their review and comment. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HFA ASSOCIATES Conceptual review of a waster plan for the development of a regional shopping center on; 100 acres 'of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the worth side' of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 1 APN 7 Po1 3 1 7 1-3U Dare Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tuns Felix, representing the applicant;, addressed the Commission regarding the water element. He indicated that the renderings before the Commission this evening represe nt the most the developer can do and urged that the Commission take into consideration the problems and liabilities associated with this requirement. He advised that regional projects which contain water elements are typically deeded to the City. He suggested that at this time the water element be kept outside the ring road and if in working with staff a solution is found to permit penetration of the element, the developer would do so. He advised that all other'suggestions by the Commission had been addressed. Michael Vairin, 6981 opal, Rancho Cucamonga, encouraged the Commission to pursue the style of bringing outside elements into the project to alleviate the harshness of the exterior. Jib Barton, 5520 Canistel, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that landscaping should b around the perimeter of a project and disagreed that landscaping should be in placed in the interiors of the parking areas, but should be placed on the lead end sides or near parkways. He expressed concern with future expansion of the center as presently configured.` Additionally, he agreed with the developer that the water element should be kept on one side of the project and suggested the possibility of bringing the grater environment to the inside of the center. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 22, 1 ' Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, addressed the issue of future expansion and explained that specific architectural designs will be submitted at a later date and advised that the intent of this meeting is to reviews the master plan. There was further discussion regarding future expansion plans, and,: the accommodation of parking areas. Mr. Gomez explained that the Hahn Company i not committing to a certain design at this time, but complying with the terms of the Agreement between the company and the City which requires that a master plan and Conditional Use Permit must be submitted and approved by the City. Additionally, precise development plans would be submitted and reviewed by the Commission some time it late 1985. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would lake to see a citrus tree element included in the landscape plan. MrColeman replied that citrus trees could be used as an accent. He advised that staff has been working with the applicant's landscape architect and :will continue working with therm on a concept to be presented to the Commission in late along with the development plans Commissioner Barker addressed the water element and stated that although it: was not the way he envisioned it in the Victoria Plan, he was not opposed to the way the site is currently planned He suggested that later some sort of lake or water statement might be included as pant of the interior site design Commissioner Remrpel agreed and stated that as the road goes by the lake it would be visible to the people driving by. Chairman Stout stated that if the general agreement was that it is not feasible to bring the lake down further into the shopping center because of liability he would suggest that the water element be required to be a very,. strong element and suggested that meandering rock landscaping ;should be used to suggest a continuation of the lake element. Chairman Stout referred to the smaller lake at the southwest corner of the Victoria;Plan which was a pant o the Resolution and: asked the applicant if t that condition was agreeable. Dan Felix, Rahn Company, replied that the only lake consistently looked at by the developer is the lade on the northeast corner of the project. He advised that the more lake element the more problems are created which grow in magnitude. Chairman Stout stated that if it turns :out that the lake element is not possible some type of open space element would be an interesting compromise. Commissioner McNiel stated a lot is being lost with respect to the aesthetics of the project. Further, the lake was originally proposed to be an integral pant of the design but has become an obscurity and a good deal of the original concept is being lost. He further stated that the lake as it is presently designed has no effect on the building' shape, but if brought can the Esther side Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 22, 1984 of the loop it would to some degree dictate the shape or configuration of the mall.. He further stated that with all,;due respect to Marketability, this plan is consistent with most other malls passed on every freeway and that the City has an opportunity before them to develop a' mall that people respond to. Commissioner Chitiea quoted from. the Victoria Plan and stated that the lake is more isolated and is not a key element of the design. She stated that the design is typical of any center anywhere and that the landscaping is not approached in a creative manner and is not special to Rancho Cucamonga. She referred' to Chairman Stout's recommendation for the use of Citrus trees and stated that they are essential to the plan and that palm trees are not expressive of Rancho Cucamonga. Further, that the whole concept is not remotely what was originally envisioned and that she would hate to see money put into a design which the Commission would not be any happier with than they are now. She suggested that massive 'changes should be grade at this point in time because crone of the issues of the design workshop had been addressed Commissioner Rerpel stated that neither of the regional centers had originally been designed around a water element. He advised that what was being said at that time was that the City wanted a regional 'center because it is a focal point of the community and because of tax base.; He further stated that there may be a some people who would go to a regional center because of its beauty,' the other million' would go for one thing only and that would be to, shop. He stated that convenience is prime factor to be dealt with along writh, the issue f getting the center and that the harder it is for an applicant to build a, center, the longer it would` be before the City would get one. He pointed out that the City is in a battle with Ontario and Fontana and than too many roadblocks placed in front of the applicant would keep the project from going; on schedle. He additionally stated that he would hate to have been on Commisien which saw the regional center moved to Fontana. , Commissioner Chit ea stated this`mall is going to be here a long time and has to be more than just another shopping center. Further she wanted to have something for the people of Rancho Cucamonga to be proud of, not another°. Montclair Plaza. Commissioner Rempel proposed a motion that the late at the northeast portion of the site be designed to give more attractiveness and visibility to the area so that the lakes that will continue north are the prime area that will make this area unique. He added that this would be an amendment to condition two of the Council Resolution. He further suggested that reference to the lake at the southeast quadrant be changed to read that it be designed with adequate open space. Motion died for lack of second. Chairman Stout .made a motion to adopt Resolution as currently written, seconded by McNiel. Motion failed 23 Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 22, 1984 Motion: Commissioner Chitiea made the motion to adopt the Resolution with the following rewording to the first sentence of condition number two of the Council Resolution: "The northern lake shall become the form giving element and provide greater visibility of the lake and lake edge act viti a.0 The remaining portion of the condition would remain as written. Motion seconded by Stout, unanimously carried. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEAP STOUT, BARKER, MCNIELO REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE : -carried ASSENT. COMMI SSIONERS: NO NE U 1 :0 p.m. Commission Recessed 11:10 p.m. Commissionen Reconvened Motion: Moved by Reap 1, seconded by McNiel, unanimously earried, to continuo past the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be hoard concurrently. K. ENVIRONMENTAL NTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4 UR A 1 TH STREET CORRIDOR R STUDY An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map 'from Medium-High Residential 14 P4 du/ac) to Medium Residential 4 14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest dormer of 1 th Street and Beryl Street APN U 1 PP 1 Ud. L. ENVIR ONMENTAL TAC, ASSESSMENT ANTS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CT ND NT 4 A 1 TU _ STREST CORRIDOR STUDY 'A Development District amendment from 11MH" 1' -23 du/an) to "M" ( ,-14 du/ao) for 4.96 acres of laird, located at the " northwest cornea of 1 th Street and Beryl Street APN U 1- 1 0 . M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-0 E 19TH STREET R ID R STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium Residential 4-14 der/ac) and from Medium-High Residential. 14 P4 du/ o) on 18.75 total acres of laird, lootedon the 'north side of 1 th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue APN 01 101 07 11, 1 , 22. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EN NT 84- R 1 TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY Development District amendment from Of (Office/Professio al) to 14 du/ad) on 18.75 total acres of laird, located on the north side of 1 th Street between Archibald Avenue APN 01 101 "7, 11 , 21 and 22. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - August 22, 1984 i 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN 8 19TH STREET Z—ORRIDOR STUDY An amendment to the General Plea Land Use trap from Office and Low Medium Residential ( -8 dec o), to Low Residential (P- du/ad)) on 11.28 soma of land, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue APN P 1'9 18, 1 , 28e `II P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 8 - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District amendment from "OP" (Office/Professional) and "LAM" ( 8 dd ao) to "L l' (2- dec o) on 11 .23 acres of land located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue . APN -191 1 , 14 and 23. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public ;hearing; James Chase,, part owner of the sites on items and P (northeast corner of 19th and Hermosa) , objecting to the redesignation of the project as Low and stated that 11LM11 is an appropriate land use and 'compatible with adjacent area. Richard Di anon, Lincoln Properties, addressed items M and N (north aide of 19th great of Archibald) and stated that the developer of this site had redesigned his project to be compatible with existing General Plan and Development Code requirements and that this design would be presented to the, City Council at their next meeting. He stated that Medium High is are appropriate designation for this site and requested that no action be taken at this hearing Rrno.o Ann Hahn, 9910 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, resident, suggested that the site at 19th and Hermosa be reduced to Low. Additionally, 19th and Archibald should be designated to be more compatible with the surrounding area. There were no farther comments, therefore the public gearing was closed. Item Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously oar*riadt to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 8 02 A to t General Plate Land a from Medium-High Residen tial to Medium amend 'the p1 Residential :for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Avenue APN PLC 1 1- 8. I Item L Motion: Moved by Chi t io , seconded by Barker,, unanimously carried to adapt the Resolution recommending approval of District Change 8 A, requesting a change in the District Designation from Medium-High to Medium for 4.96 aorod, located at the northwest corner of 19h Stre et and Beryl Avenue AP; Ptl11 8 Planning Commission Minutes 14- August 22, 198 Item I Commissioner iel. suggested that the Office designation t the northwest corner of 1 th and Archibald be retained. He stated that 10-15 years down the road, they may be deeded Commissioner Chitiea agreed Commissioner Barber stated that he understood Commissioner Ni l' position, but was not heartily in favor f continuingthe ffi e Pre ' nion 1. Commissioner McNi l reiterated his position n the need for office designations. He stated that ;this intersection is geeing to be a major intersection and dial not see the need to abandon the office designation at this time. `Commissioner R mpel. stated that it is a vary small piece and as is too small for an office complex, but more suited for a service station or rµa tua r nt which would take a Conditional Use Permit. Motion: ed by McNiel, seconded t uat to retain the office professional as presently designated on this site. Motion passed 1 with Commissioner Barker voting n . Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment B, which amends the General Plan Land £1ae Map from Medium High Residential to Medium Residential -1 duulae) on ;approximately 15.75 acres of land, located on the north aide of 1 th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue. Item R Motion: Neared by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of District Chan - - , requesting a change in the District Designation from Medium High to Medium for approximately 15-75 acres of lard located on the north aide of 1 th Street, between Archibald and Amethyst. Item Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 02- , amending the General Plan Land Use from Low-Medium Residential and Office/Professional to er Residential on 11 .2 acres of land, ,located at the northeast corner of 1 th Street and Hermosa Avenue. Item P Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, unanimously^ carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of District Change -02_ requesting a change in the District Designation from Low Medium and Office/Professional to Planning Commission Minute 1 - August 22, 1984 Low for 11 - acres of land located at the northeast corner of 1 th Street and Hermosa Avenue. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 2 - BAR A The development of an industrial complex totaling 123,000 square feet on S acres of land in the General 'Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea ), located at the northwest corner of Center Avenue and 6th Street APN 209- 261-26. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated that most concerns of the Design Review Committee had been addressed with the exception of the colors proposed for the building. She explained that the Design Review Committee had stated a preference that the concrete 'regain in the natural grey color; however, the applicant expressed preference to paint the grey" surface Chairman Stout stated, that there was one other issue discussed in Design Review relating to the use of fluted concrete block on the connecting walls, which the applicant had agreed to provide. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he would agree to providing the fluted concrete block on the connecting walls. He sated'' agreement with the staff report and the Resolution with the exception of the applicant's desire to paint the non-sandblasted exterior surfaces rather than leave it in its natural concrete state. He advised that this mould give the building a more uniform color. Additionally, he advised that the applicant was flexible; on the accent: colors and world accept the Commission's suggestions. Commissioner Hempel stated that there are two things wrong with painted surfaces; they require more maintenance and at some time will creed to be repainted, at which time a different exterior color might be selected. He suggested that if the applicant desired a darker grey, he could add more concrete to the mixture. Chairman Stout stated that he thought the accent colons would be on the fluted concrete but that the Flat surfaces would be sandblasted. r. Gomez stated that during discussions in Design Review it was determined that, fluted 'concrete would go around the office portions of the building with the remainder to be sa.nblasted and the color accents would be around the fluted concrete. Additionally, that only the colored reveals would not be sandblasted Chairman Stout agreed with Commissioner Rempel and preferred sandblasting to the parted. surface. Further, he lied the fluted concrete used as an accent and would like to see a condition added requiring the use of the fluted concrete block on the connecting galls. Additionally, he suggested that the orange and purple color hues be deleted from the applicant's suggested color palette. Planning Commission Minutes 1 August 22, 1984 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stoat, unanimously carried to issue a Negative Declamation and adopt the Resolution with additional conditions stating that all exterior flat surfaces of concrete be sandblasted, orange and purple hues be deleted from the 'accent color palette, and that the block on the connecting walls be fluted block. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE FELL, STOUT, BARKER, C 3 T'IEA, MCNIEL NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT": ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried R. PARK AND -RECREATION FEES FOR TRACT 1241 AEI COMPANY Rick Comet, City Planner, advised the Commission that this item had been placed on the Agenda at the request of the A Company for the Commission's consideration regarding the percentage of park credit for open space. Additionally, explained the limitations under the current 'Ordinance and those under the recently adopted Ordinance 06 C which would be effective September 1 , 1984. Cary Mitchell, representing the; A Company, addressed the Commission and explained that the applicant was; requesting partial credit for private open space for this project. He stated that one level of neighborhood parks mould be provided for residents and requested a favorable consideration of granting a fee reduction for this project. John Sauer, president of A-M Company, addressed the Commission requesting favorable consideration in this request. He stated the problem with Ordinance 10 -C is the 3 acre minimum which limits the ability in other areas within the city that would alloy developers to provide neighborhood park facilities. Jeff Sceranka, 6211 Phillips, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that neighborhood parks which are used by residents and are maintained through their homeowner's associations do minimize the use of the larger earns and they allow for different types of uses by the residents of the community. He advised that when, Ordinance 105 C was reviewed by the City Council, they stated that if legislation changed they would be inclined to reconsider their position on the minimum 3 acres. He stated that he had seen park concepts such as that proposed by this project and that they further the cause to brig those in the community closer together. Lowell Gorges, 8772 Vivero, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed with Mr. Sceranka and stated that a project such as this proud should be allowed to provide pares at the minimum. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Hopson what authority the Commission had in this ratter. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 22, 1984 Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission has the power to make this decision under Ordinance 105 which h is the current, effective legal ordinance in the City until superseded by Ordinance 1 5- , which is not effective until September 1 , 1984. N further advised that the Commission could decide under 1 5 refuse to decide under 105 based, on CityCouncil' action on adopting 1 5- . Chairman Stout stated that he wild have preferred Community Services Director Bill Holley to provide the Commission with some guidelines on which to bane their decision and could not gust; grab a number out of the air._ Commissioner Barker stated that the City Council had givers the Commission direction by adopting Ordinance 1 5 which would coma into effect in another week and a half and did not feel comfortable with making any other decision. r Hopson advised that under the current Ordinance, the credit can only be given by the Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to grant a 30 percent credit for the project. AYES- COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, M NIEL, 'C I' I A NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Barker stated that he could not take action based on direction by Council through adoption of Ordinance 105 S. Chairman Surat stated that more information should have been provided on which to base the decision. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempol, unanimously ;carried, to adjourn. 12:40 a.m. Planning a i sion Adjourned Res eetf 11 ubm tied R ok e pu y ea ary k 'i Planning Commission Minutes _1August 22, 19 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1984 i CALL TO ORDER Chairmen DennisStout called the Regular; Meeting of the Rancho Cucamo Planning Commission to orders at 7.*00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Linn Perk Community Center, 9161 Rase Line 'Reed Ranches Cucamonga. Chairman Smut led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Beaker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry MaNiel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout ISSINRS ABSENT: - None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tier J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Carty Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorneys; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Paul Ruu ,eau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, introduced Dine Putrino, new Assistant Planner, t the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Re rpel, seconded by McNi 1, carried unanimously, to approve ove the Consent Calendar. A. THEME PARK - LEWIS HOMES - A 10,,000 square foot theme park located on the southeast cornea of Haven and Rase Line. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4 15 - I SLEY AND "Tt E - The establishment of 4—bedroom, Bed and Breakfast Inn within the House historic landmark on .89 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and north of 6th Street in the Low Residential P- du/ac designation. Senior Planner, 'Tip Seedle, reined the staff report. i Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Jay ,llsley, co-applicant, indicated he has read the staff ;report and has expressed concern with street tree and garage requirements. r. Art Bridges, Alta Loma resident, supported the bed and breakfast inns concept indicating it will be an asset to the community. There were no further comments and Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. There was Commission discussion on; use of the house ' for serail wedding; receptions, landscaping and tree types, requirements for a garage, who the reviewing body should be, and meandering sidewalk. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, :carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 4— 5, approving Conditional Use Permit No 84 15 with a delay of 5 years in the requirement for a garage e subject to review by the Design' Review Committee, limitation to wedding receptions based on the number of available parking spaces, crape myrtle trees to be integrated into landscaping, and the issuance of ,a Negative eclaration. Chairman Stoat cautioned Mr. Ilsley that if there are problems resulting from receptions, the Conditional Use Permit would be subject to review by the Commission. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 - A request to operate a meeting hall; and; to serve alcoholic bevera es' in an existing building with a lease spade of 5,000 square feet on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial Subarea' category located at 8751 Industrial Lane APN - 1-74 Senior Planner, Tim Eedle, ,reied the staff report. The Commission requested investigation of conformance with ABC requirements and whether business closing tires had been reviewed. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing r. Gene Barnes, 612 th Street, Junior Vice Commander of Upland-Cucamonga Post 8680, advised they have an approved ABC license and that only VFW members and their guests are allowed Mr. Barnes requested reconsideration of time restrictions set in the resolution. PLANNING t ISS N MINUTES 2 August 8, 1984 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Following brief discussion on parking space availability and possible conflict with industrial uses, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit be brought back for Commission review. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-76 approving Conditional Use Permit 4-14, with the deletion of Condition 2 in ,Section 2 of the resolution relating to time limitations, 1 and direction to staff" to bring this item back to the Commission for review twelve 12) months from this approval ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5 L TEEN AND MAC BETH - A division of 5.717 acres into P parcels within the General Industrial District (Subarea ) located at the southwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue APN209-031043. Associate Civil Engineer, Shintu Bose, reviewed the staff report and replied to ChairmanStout's question relative to the division of parcels at this time. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to adopt; Resolution No. 4-77, approving Parcel Map 8653 with issuance of d Negative Declaration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Cole AMENDMENT 4- P - Amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Cede, Sections 17.02.110, 17-0 C C, 17.07.050, and 17.0 .020, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, ; in relation to time extensions, public hearing; notification, transition of density, neighborhood compatibility (side plan design, landscaping, open space, grading, architecture), and preservation of viershed. Rile Cote , City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout questioned the lack of provision for notification language to govern single family detached housing in lame projects as it relates to in fill. Gomez explained how this category would be cohered ;within the proposed amendment. Commissioner Rempel questioned conflicts 'between the General flan and the proposed amendments to the Development Code as it relates to affordable horsing and whether this has been reviewed by the City Attorney to be sure there are no conflicts Fir. Hopson replied he has not gore through the Development Code or the General PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 August 8, 1984 Plan section by section but did not envision that there, are any conflicts because usually notice 'requirements or other references are deferred back to the Development Code Mr., Gomez indicated that staff has gone over both and it does not appear there is any apparent internal conflict but is seen as furthers implementation of policy and statement. Additionally, it is thought to be consistent n grousing and land use with the existing language, but does discourage dissimilar product types that would promote incompatibiliRty Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Dixon, 16152 Beach Blvd. , Huntington Beach, California, asked about density transition; however, did not feel it should be addressed here. He further advised that absolute policies are addressed in the zoning map and the General Plan. There was discussion regarding density range and sensitivity and Chairman Stout defined the concept as having two parts; the law, and the Planning Commission which is charged with interpreting what the law means. Further, the Planning Commission does set precedents and compatibility and sensitivity are subjective with decisions regarding these issues made ;on a case by case basis. There were no further comments and Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the permissive mature of language contained r thin the proposed Development Code notification section as well as the nptifiction process itself. Further questions were asked regarding usable open space, human scale, and the change in language tenor of the, proposed ordinance from positive to negative. Following consensus on language changes, it was moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, to adopt Resolution No. 84-79 approving Development Code Amendment No. 84-02 with modifications to page ' 1 `, section 4, that street pavement width for the d du/ac category be changed to 36 feet: ,standard with the rest of the description deleted; insertion of section 4, page 1 , into ordinance on page F 1 ; language changes on page 1 , slope planting, for clarification; the word all to be deleted: from section S , page -3 relative to visitor parking; provision of homeowners associations under certain circumstances; addition of language, "may be permitted" to F 17, architecture 'relating to L-M density; deletion of permissive language within the proposed notification section as well as the notification process itself ; change in language terror of the proposed ordinance which runs from positive to negative, to be consistently positive; and, recommendation for approval of the enacting ordinance by the City Council. Commissioner Rempel asked that the proposed amendment be checked for inconsistency with the General Plan or be brought back to make the General Plan consistent with what has dust been done Commissioner Barker asked if an amendment could procedurally be grade. dr. Hopson replied there would not be a problem PLANNING CO I I IN g August 8, 1984 Commissioner McNi.el stated he would accept the amendment in order to be consistent with the motion. Mr. Gomez advised that the Commission would be limited in time constraints in forwarding the ordinance to the City Council if an amendment is required. After brief discussion, Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission has already found that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan and Commissioner Re pgl's argument is on a< philosophical plane. He further stated that his office can look at this to be sure there are' no technical inconsistencies. The motion then carried, with Commissioner Rempel dissenting, citing his belief that there are inconsistencies between the General Plan and, the Development Code amendments. Motion Moored by Stempel, seconded by Stoat, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 84-78 approving amendment to tentative map time extensions and recommending its approval by the City Council. p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 1:41 p.. , The Planning Comission reconvened, F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 4 C An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, amending Chapter 17.08, Residential Distracts, regarding residential development standards and, in particular, amendments to the Low-Medium residential development standards. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. He requested that street pavement width for the 2-8 du/ac category on page -1 , section 4, be charged to 36 feet standard and that the remainder of the description be, deleted. He further requested that section 4 be added to the ordinance on page F-1 , which had inadvertently beer.;' left out and suggested language changes on page F--1 , slope planting for clarification purposes. Commissioner Pempel questioned setback requirements shown in Exhibit A in 5,000 6,000 square foot lots. Following discussion by the Commission and staff, the Commission concurred that variations might be precluded and asked that those standards be examined to ,see if there is adequate space for variations. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 August d 19,84 Following i f discussion by the Commission, Mr. Gomerstated that based can the direction given by Commissioner Rntpl, setback standards can be looked at during the Design Review Committee meetings= and if any problems come forward, they wil'l be referred back to the Commission. Chairman Stout objected and indicated, if there are problems, this should b reviewed and brought back to the next meeting. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stunt, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution . 84-80 approvingamendment 8 f the Development Code with modifications regarding street width as presented by Mr. Coleman with the addition of rural character and 2B standards to 2C, including rural l character; transition of visitor parking and language change under slope plantings; provision ion of homeowners associat on n r certain i u t n ; material in F-16 added which had been; left out; F to add the , language, "may b permitted"; and, deletion of item F in exhibits A and B because garages_'less than 18 feet are no banger allowed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stunt, carried unanimously,- to adopt Resolution 8 -88A, with modifications to -foot width street standards` and rural character. DRAFT EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12376 8 FORECAST custom lot subdivision of `18 l its on 26.9 acres and a conceptual master plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open, Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally Brost of Sapphire Street. Chairman Stout advised that a public hearing had inadvertently been advertised for this item to be heard at this meeting, however, the scheduled date for Planning o i sion review is actually August 22, 1984. Chairman Stoutopened :nod the pu blic hea ring. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the August 22, " 1984 meeting. Commissioner Romp l stated that he, Mr. Rougeau, fir® Beedle, Mr. Grant, and the construction superintendent of the apartment ;complex at Foothill and Hellman t and discussed grading and the gall on the south side of the str eet d otherproblems di n: err for the project. He asked that because f final at this site, more definitive criteria: for changes to approved projects be developed. Following brief discussion, , Chairman Stout requested that Commissioners Rempel and Chitiea comprise a subcommittee to work with staff to resolve these issues and bring their findings and suggestions back to the 'Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINTS 6 August 8, 1984 ADJOURNMENT Motion: - nerd by MaNiel, seconded by Barber, carried- unanimously, to adjourn. 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Rp t 'ul y° td, I Ri U U u °t Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .August 8, 1984 i CITY OF RANCHO Gi1GAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July R , 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting . of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at .m. The >meeting was held a Liens Park Community Center, 9161= Rase Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the Pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker,; Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rem el and Dennis Stoat STAFF PRESENT.* Tim Beadle, Senior Planner; Shinto Pose, Associate Civil Engineer;i Darr Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank recRman, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rcu eau, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL CP MINUTES Commissioner Rempel requested an amendment to page 18 of the dune 13, 1984 Minutes. He stated that the Commission ion suggested priority changes which 'were not reflected in the motion and requested that the motion include the priority changes. Motion: Moved by Hemel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of' dune 13, 1984 meetingwith the above amendment. Commissioner Chitiea abstained as she was not on the Commission at that time. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR R tt1P ANT REVIEW GABRlC The development of a 50,972 square foot industrial building on 2.64 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1 ) designation located on the south aide of 7th Street and east of Utica Avenue'- APN 0 11 and 07. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rem el. unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 25, 1984 PUBLIC I ARI B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RN RN L" NNHAVE APARTMENTS) A review f the environmental assessment for a proposed master plan for 936 apartment ent units located on approximately 58. acres on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Haven Avenue in the Medium-High Development District APN - 1 5 , 69. Riots Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and explained that the purpose of the hearing this evening was to make an environmental determination, and not a decision on the project at this time Chairman Stout opened the public hearing., Don King, 9375 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant,' addressed the Commission. ter. King Advised that the environmental document prepared and; distributed prior to this meeting was the third such document to be prepared for this site. He further stated that the Commission had adequate environmental documentation to make a decision now without the requirement for additional environmental information. Mrs. King stated that this project would generate school fees for school expansion and would' also contribute towards the construction of a' new fire statism. He further stated theSheriff's Department advised that this project would not create crime problems in this area and would not have a significant impact on the Sheriff's Department. Gordon Rric a.n, 1621 N. 17th, Santa Ana, California;, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that traffic noise level studied were prepared for this site and that there are no problems associated with this project which cannot be mitigated. Herman Kemmel, 3300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that his firm had prepared traffic studies for the environmental document presented to the Commission. Mr. Kemmel reviewed the traffic impacts and mitigation measures Peter* Pfeil.er, Pfeiler Engineering, 1749 Euclid, Ontario, California, representing the Applicant addressed the Commission regarding the drainage and hydrology impacts and mitigation measures for the project John Futscher, Saar Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, Rancho Cucamonga Substation, addressed the Commission to clarify Mr. King's statement regarding, crime impacts. He stated that the fact that the 900 units were apartments would not be significant; however, 900 units; would have an, impact on lac ' enforcement capabilities. The following it g individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project, based on, concerns regarding increased crime, impacts on schools, compatibility, traffic, seeds on Lemon Avenue, and drainage. Planning Commission Minute - duly 25, 1984 Cathy Drees, Rancho Cucamonga Daryl Nicolay, 6245 Dakota, Rancho Cucamonga Mary Dodds, 6709 Mango, Rancho Cucamonga James Hill, Rancho Cucamonga John Car dra, 9633 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga Craig Nelson, 10 C Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga Laura Nelson, 10560 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga Mrs. Beckman, 1031 Liberty, 'Rancho Cucamonga Additionally,, a petition was presented to the Commission which contained the names of over 200 individuals opposing the project. Doh King responded to the concerns of the residents. He stated that those concerns expressed regarding apartments could not be addressed because apartments are provided in the General Plan for the City and this applicant is trying to design this project in a manner consistent with those goals. He advised that this project would mitigate traffic and drainage for the entire area, Additionally, the apartments are adult units and would only generate approximately 4C school children, of which only about 25 would be K- ' grade students. He further stated that market studies show that there is a rued for apartments in the City. Commissioner Chitiea asked ifthe thought had been given to working with the commercial group next to the project to provide a second 'access to the southwestern portion of the project. Mr. King replied that this option had been explored; however, from the Cit 's traffic standpoint this would not be desirable due to the location of the ' freeway era on and off ramps Pahl Rougeau, Senior Cavil Engineer, clarified that the alternate presented to the City proposed an access point at the southerly access of the shopping center; however, an access point at the center access might to a good secondary access. r. King stated that this site is a neighborhood commercial center and to put a road through the center would make that particular site unusable as a neighborhood convenience center because there would not be adequate space for parking or good marketing. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner orner aar° er stated that taking into consideration the surrounding properties including the recent change in the sphere of influence to the east he would feel more comfortable if the issues were looked at it in greater detail. He additionally stated that to would lie to see other alternatives explored and discussed so that they could be compared and would recommend a focused 'Environmental Impact Report, Planning Commission Minutes - duly 25, 1984' Commissioner Remp l agreed with Commissioner Barker and stated that the_, traffic and , circulation needed to be further explored. He additionally requested that more definitive data be provided on how fire and police response tires were arrived ;at and a comparison of these calls between aan single family housing and apartment units Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would like to know whether the 'fire responses were keyed to exterior or interior fires. She further requested more information on the type of formula used to determine the number of students generated by this project. Commissioner Barker explained that there are standard formulas used by the school districts to determine the estimated number of students. Commissioner 'MeNi l stated that his concerns were the same expressed by the other Commissioners in that the density is excessive and that traffic is d problem Chairman Stout stated that he could not make a decision on this project without the requirement fors focused Environmental Impact Report. Motion: Moved by Stoat that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project focusing on the issues of land use, traffic and circulation, and density,and additionally should identify other land use alternatives. Motion seconded by Barber, carried unanimously. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIE , REMPE NOES: C OMM ISSION ,RS t NNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12365 - LEWIS - A. request for approval of carport screening material. and modifications to conditions of approval for same. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff" report. Chairman Stout opened the public ;hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - July 25, 1984 Stan Bell, representing Lewis Homes, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the conditions of approval. There were no farther comments, therefore Chairman Stout chased the public hearing. Motion: ; Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution approving the use of lattice screening material, to be maintained by the management company, on the end of carports nearest public streets ;for "Tentative Tract 12365. Additionally, the details for the carports' are to be included in the construction plans for review and approval by the City Planner. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITI A, MCNIRL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NCNB ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB -carried i D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 PACIFIC LIGHTING - A totaI residential development of 294 single family homes on 57.7 a. r of land in the Low ( 4 du/ac) and Low Medium (4 du ac) Residential Districts generally located between Haven and Hermosa, south of 'Nilson. Avenue APN 01 1 1-0 , 12, 13, 14, 63, 65, 69, and 79. Dare Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ernie Reynolds, representing Pacific righting, addressed the Commission requesting that sidewalks s be required on one side of the street only. Additionally, Mr. Reynolds displayed a slide presentation of other Pacific Lighting projects. He also addressed the grading issue and referred; the Commission's on's questions to Prank Williams. Prank Williams, Associated Engineers, addressed the Commission regarding the grading issue and steep slope embankments. Mr. Williams explained that the grade could not be teen op in 8-foot increments due to the size of the parcel ; however, suggested there are other ways to mitigate the situations There were no further comments, therefore Chairman ;Stout closed the public hearings Commissioner Stout suggested that an alternative drainage method could be explored which would drain the loner lots on the south side of the street to the rear through other lots. He suggested that this method aright reduce dope heights Planning Commission Minutes - July 25, 1984 Commissioner Barker stated that he preferred the east-crest orientation but had concerns with the backyard slope, however, preferred the 12-15 foot sloped to the; north-south sawtooth orientation Commissioner MaNiel stated concerns with the slope heights and.. stated he also was not an advocate of north-south streets Commissioner Chitiea expressed agreement with the east-crest street, orientation, but <stated she would like to see the slope height reduced by -feet if possible. Commissioner Stout suggested that design measures could be taken to ;break the street orientation east and west along the north-south streets. He further stated that the plan appears to be a sea of houses and suggested that different street trees might be used to divide it into four different neighborhoods as opposed to one large neighborhood. Motion: moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving 10827, itt conditions requiring sidewalks on one side of the street only, landscaping with a there to appear as 3 or 4 separate neighborhoods. Commissioner Rempel_ proposed , a condition to require the applicant to work with staff on an alternative drainage system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 'Ted. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the drainage could possibly be channeled to an area which would be maintained by a homeowners' association. Motion unanimously passed. AYES: C OMM ISSIONERS: BARKER, RR PRL, CRI'T'ISA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB ABSENT: C"IS>IONSRS: NONE carried, E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1 CORNWALL ASSOCIATES Proposed office addition of 625 square feet to an existing church with other minor landscape, retaining wall, parking lot improvements, security gates an storage building n 3.1 acres of land located in the Low Residential Development District located on the south side of Rase Line Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN -CS C Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms. Fong advised that an addition condition should be placed on the resolution which would require installation of fire hydrants at locations to be determined by the Pobhtill. Fire District. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Dare Anderson, representing Cornwall Associates, addressed the Commission concurring with the conditions and the resolution. Planning Commission minutes - - duly 25, 1984` Raymond Walton, 7355 Agate, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission regarding the block wall on the south side of the property. Mr. Walton' explained that he was the adjacent property owner and asked if he would b able to utilize the area between the property line and the wall, to improve his entrances Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that th .s matter would have to be discussed with the applicant as this issue is a private matter and is not one the City could address. There were not further comments, therefore Chairman an tout closed the public hearing Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt,, the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit d 12 Frith_ an additional condition to the Resolution requiring the installation of fire hydrants per Foothill Fire District. 9: C Planning Commission Recessed 10 CC Planning Commission Reconvened Fo ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT d C2 A' - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY LAND USE AMENDMENTS - Are amendment to the Land Use Plan of the 'Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the land: use designations for certain properties located within the 19th Street Corridor Studer area. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. The following sites were submitted for consideration by the Commission: Site 1 West aide of Beryl Street, south of Hamilton`Street LPN 2 2 C 2C, 21 , and 22. Site 2 Southwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street APN 202-461-61 through 65. Site 3 Northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201 221 Cd. Site 4 North aide of 19th` Street, between Amethyst Street and Archibald APN '202 1'C1 07, 21 and 22. Site 5 North aide of 19th Street, from Ramona to Hermosa Avenue APf1 '2C2- 171-2 , 26, 31 , 32, 35, 42, 58, 59, 6o, 61. Site 6 Northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191 1 , 14, '23. Chairman stout opened the public hearing. The following individuals addressed the Commission* Planning Commission Minutes duly 25, 1984 , Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, Rancho Cucamonga, requested zoning on sites , 5, and 6. Jim Ellers, 10206 Ping, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that all densities be lowered» Mary Dodds, Rancho Cucamonga resident, requested loner densities and removal of OP designations. Jim Reams, Barratt Irvine Corporation, requested that site number 5 remain as now designated. John Gardner, Highland Avenue resident, requested down zoningn site number 4. Tom Winfield, Robert Group ' representative, requested no action be taken on site 5 at this time Richard Dickson, Lincoln Properties representative, requested that no action' be taken on site 4 until the proposed project is reviewed. Greg Enthrop, 6791 Berkshire, Rancho Cucamonga, rearrested sites 5 and 6 be single family residential Jack Ca ise , Rancho Cucamonga resident representing owner of site 6, stated that it is not appropriate to ask a property owner to down zone his property in order to raise the property values of others. Bruce Ann Hahn, Rancho Cucamonga resident,: requested down truing on sites 4, , and 6. Larry Bliss, 6632 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that apartments is are an appropriate land use for site 4. Additionally, three other Rancho Cucamonga residents addressed the Commission requesting down zoning on sites 4, 5, and 6. "there were no further' comments, , therefore Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. .After review of each of the sites, the Commission directed staff to prepare further analysis and alternative land uses for sites 3, 4, and 6. These sites will again be reviewed by the Panning Commission for possible General. Plan and Development Code Land Use amendments. Additionally, the Commission directed that should the map expire on site number 9, it will be reviewed by the Commission at that time for a possible land use amendment , 11 1 Planning Commission Recessed 11 - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1984 tiurr; Moved by Barker, seconded by MeNial, unanimously carried, to continue past the 11 ,00 p.m. adjournment time., C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 - SECS - The development a fully automated oar a b on approximately on -i? acre of b rea 6 located at the northeast land in the Industrial Park category u. corner of Haven Avenue and Jersey Boulevard APN 209 2 3 . Dare Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Larry Beck, applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the staff report and Resolution of approval. There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded b Parker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative e Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit d1C8 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BANKER, CHITI A, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES.* COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT* COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Lotion. Hawed by Hempel, seconded by 'McNi 1, unanimously carried, to continue past 11 CC per. adjournment nment time. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8550 ; WAGNER - A division of 16. 2 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located on the southeast corner of Rochester and 7th Street APN 229 2 1 ; 66 and 66. Shinto Bose, ;Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman ar Stoat opened the public hearing. Doug Mayas, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence ith the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 26 198 Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by P cNi 1, unanimously carried, to issue Negative Declaration and adapt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8550. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REM EL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CRITIEA, STOUT NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT. CC ISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCLE MAP 8649 - SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY division of 10.169 acres of lead in the Minimum impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, east of Vincent Avenue ARN C 14 . Shinto, Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff" report. Chairman Stout opened the faradic ;hearing. George MimMack, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the staff report and Resolution. Commissioner Chiti.ea stated that the landscaping is around the larger building, while building number two is mostly parking area with little landscaping Chairman Shut asked ifthe landscaping r oun the two buildings would be consistent Mrs MimMack replied that the landscaping ;would be consistent in style., He stated ;that the problem is that the bulk of parking area is in front of building one and at the side of building two. in landscaping, at the conclusion of which Thane was furthers discussion regarding E� Mr. MimMack arced that the applicant would improve the landscaping around parcel two. Motion: Moved by Stout seconded by Chit ea, to issue a Negative Declartion and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8649 with an additional condition to require improved landscaping around: parcel two. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNI L, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NON -carried Planning Commission Minutes' _1 duly 25, 19 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to continue. NEW BUSINESS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-13 - BAR Ad - The lopment of two (2) warehouse distribution buildings, totaling 78,940 square feet on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 4) located approximately 250 feet east of Archibald, south side of 6th Street - AR N 210-071-50. Frank Drew an, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84- 13. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Rai e"ch submitted,a "t Qitted, s '4'0 ty ok mez, Depu y Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 25, 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stoat called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to; order t :00 p.m. The meeting held at the Liege Park Community Center, 9161 Brie Line Read Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Shut then led in the pledge to the flag® ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry Niel,, Herman Rempol, Dennis Stoat COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NON STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim J. Beadle, Senior* Planner, Shisntu Bose, Associate Engineer;; Pan Coleman, Associate Planner ; Frank Ones an Assistant Planner Nancy Fang, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner ; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse,e Administrative e Secretary; John Meyer, Assistant Planner ; Paul Rraraea�x, Semi Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that not listed on the agenda is the election of Planning Commission 'ffiee which should be done at this meeting. Chairman Stet asked the Commission if they would like to proceed with selection at this time or later in the agenda. The consensus of the Commission on was to proceed Motion: Moved by Barker, 'seconded by MaNiel, carried unanimously, to have; Chairman Stout continue an chair. Commissioner eNiel nominated Herman Re rpel as vice chain. Chairman Stout nominated David Barker. Theme were no further nominations and by voice vote David Ranker was elected vice chair. Chairman Stout than proceeded with Committee selections. Design Review Committee: Chairman Stout, and Larry MeNi.el Alternate: Herman Rempel Effective 1/1/85 Hempel will replace McNiel and Suzanne Chitiea will be ome the alternate. TrailCommittee: Suzanne Chitiea CONSENT CALENDAR City Planner, Rich Comet, advised that there was a correction to Item C of the Consent Calendar to be a Negative Declaration only. Motion: Moved by McNi 1, seconded by Parker, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE 'TRACT 10414 LA IDCC A proposed custom lot subdivision of 10 'acres of land in the Very Low Residential District into 17 lots located south of Canrari Street and west o " Maven Avenue APN 2011011 R. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL 3 TCN PROPERTIES The division of 33.7 acres into 12 parcels for industrial use located north of 4th Street at Santa :Anita Avenue - APN PP-P . C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -1 - dASKA The development of two ( ) warehouse buildings totaling 34,475 sq. ft. on 2.3 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea and I GeneralIndustrial/Rail Served District (Subarea , located at 9155 Archibald Avenue - APN209-211-12. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12597 - LINCOL.N -. The development of 200 condominium units on 11 . 11 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential 1 P d /ac District located on the northwest corner of 1 th Street and Archibald Avenue APN 202-101-21 and 22. Dan Coleman, Asso iate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman man Stout opened the public hearing Tr. Walter M. Ingalls, 3737 Main; Street, Riverside, California 92601, stated his agreement with the General Plan designation ofMedium-Higb density for this area based on proximity to a freeway corridor, major arterial.., office commercial uses, and commercial. r Rion Dickerson, representing Lincoln Properties, the applicant, made a slide presentation of the current uses along 19th Street. Chairman Stout indicated that the Planning Commission has three options available for consideration and asked Nor. Ingalls if option three ;were selected., would he provide his consent for continuance pending the results of the 1th Street Corridor Study. Mr. Ingalls replied that hi.s consent would not be available at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 duly 11 1984 Mr. Amos ar e, 9606 Hamilton, indicated that residents of this area had just erne through another hearing of this type approximately three months ago. Chairman Stout replied that the previous hearing was a request to change the office/professional in this location to Medium High Residential Mr. Comm stated that was correct; however, Lincoln Properties withdrew their application and the 19th Street Corridor Study was began. Commissioner Barber stated that ;the 19th ,Street Corridor Committee proposals , were made to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission made recommendations to the City Council. The ,shady is still in progress and has not yet been eolidi.fed by the City Council. In the meantime, this tentative tract map came before the Planning Commission and staff provided some options. rather', the Chairman asked the Lincoln properties' representative if they would be willing to accept option three and they declined approval, therefore leaving the Planning Commission with only two options to deal with; this evening. Mr. fiarte advised that the freeway is still. 7 to 10 years away and condominiums are bad enough, but apartments would be gorse for the area. Mr. Al Domena, resident living south of the site,, indicated that Lincoln Properties stated these units would be condos. He further indicated be was worried about increased traffic and the impact these ,par m nt would have on schools. Mr Don na asked that the Commission deny this request. Mrs. Mary Dodds, 6709 Mango, voiced concern w th heavy traffic and impacted schools. [fir. Jerry tenter, resident above 19th ,street, felt the builder's concern was only with the roofs. He felt the freeway may never go through and was concerned whether thaw would be apartments or condos. Chairman Stout replied that the City his no legal authority to tell an applicant whether they mast be condos or apartments. r. Jim Prather, resident living north of the project, felt that a shopping center would be better than multi-family units since it would not affect schools or increase traffic. Further, till roof's are not a concern; Foothill Freeway should be disregarded from future planning. Mrs. Christine Wilson, 6749 Cambridge, agreed with the staff report and was concerned with the possibility for increased crime. Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeite, provided eight more letters in opposition to the project, citing concern with the crime rate. He asked that affordable single family homes be considered instead. r. Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, advised of neighborhood watch participation but felt that density rust be Dept down. He cited concern with increased' traffic and water run off on Ramona. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT 3 July 11 , 1984 Bruce Aran Hahn, 9910 LPaVine, asked about condo ownership, stating that this project has always been intended to be an apartment 'unit Further, that Tyr. Ingalls felt that single family dwellings should not be placed next to a freeway corridor, but her feeling is that 1th Street is becoming an apartment row and apartments are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. James Anderson, 6451 Kinsman, asked about the Lucky sign that used to be there. Commissioner Ltempel replied :that during the General Plan_;hearings, because of protests of too much commercial, it was decided that no two commercial developments could go on the same intersection in the City. Further, in actuality, the General Flan does say that theme may be two commercial developments on the same intersection but at the time of the hearings, they dad not want there at this particular intersection and the Planning Commission and the 'City Council decided not to allow them here. Mr. Scott Davis, 9729 tan anita, stated that the issue of a higher crime rate and the report mentioned by other residents is devoid of methodology. His belief, ;he further started, is that a project like this is not comparable to high density areas and that the crime rate is not significantly icantly higher than where the mortgage payments are around the same dollar amounts. Mr . Davis felt that growth should not be stifled and requested that the Commission consider approval of this project because people need a place to lire other than single family dwellings. lr. Davis indicated that approval of this project would give the City a chance to rectify a mistake that the City previously made in the quality of other developments that were approved. Chris Lynch, resident southeast of the proposed project, shared the concerns expressed and felt that the Bruck project has detrimentally affected those homes in back of that project. She did not feel that a wall is an issue as it would be put up anyway and she did not have any pleasant memories of living in an apartment Ron Golding, an attorney who practices in this County and represented the owner of this property, Mrs. Bennett, felt that the City should not deviate from their General Plan. Further, methods of proper planning were used when the densities for this area were determined and this is one of the best General,- Plans in the area. He asked that the system be wade to work from the legal standpoint. Chris Lynch stated no objections to apartments being built in this community; his objection is where they are being placed as he felt there are much better places that an apartment complex can. go. Chairman Stout asked fir. Ingalls if he wished to rebut any of the testimony. Mr. Ingalls stated that he and ter. Golding have appeared before many boards and Planning Commissions and he did not envy the Commission in having to make a "decision with conflicting sides. He indicated that his company was the owner-operator of one of the largest apartment/condo developments in the country and would operate this development as rental units because they are needed. He further indicated that the zoning provided by the General Plan for this area is not for the present but for the future, and ;asked that plans not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 duly 11:, 1984 be made for this 'moment. He stated the freeway will be built and that the property be zoned with that in mind Ingalls related that commercial uses would generate more traffic than residential uses and sated they would accept all 75 standard conditions He indicated his concern about the exterior stucco color but could live with that. Mr. Ingalls objected to condition No. 2 in the Engineering section as they would meet the intent although not through the reduction of the tract map, and he asked that the project be approved. He stated that their project does not impact negatively upon the neighborhood, but rather it impacts' positively, and asked that they not visit upon them the sins of other projects that were not se good, and if the residents ent twat to have this area as e perk they can pay the $1 .3 million it .would cost. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea did not think the freeway or sound barrier should be an issue, and she Walt that condominium or apartment dwellers are as worthy as; single family residents and should not be denied. Sera. Chi.tiea stated that the General Plan: is a flexible document and can be amended or changed and one thing that they are trying to do with the 19th Street Corridor Study is simply to study the area, and felt it a shame that this could not be done since the developer dial not ',provide the option. She asked, rhetorically, if it is because the developer thirds there is going to be a lower density as a result of the study and continued that if the project is worthwhile, and if the density stands, there would not be a problem. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that if anyone were to look at the property objectively they would see it is bordered to the north by a major arterial and office professional on either side and has all the earmarks of being ideally; suited for apartments. He indicated that he is not happy with the architecture and while this was haggled at during Design Review, they cane to no absolute agreement. He further stated that the only thing being haggled about now is the outcome of the 1 th Street study and in its original state, this area was designed wrath high density and that it be available to freeway access Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he would have to oppose the project as presented tonight but not because of the density issue. Commissioner eip l stated that be was chairman of the Commission during the first General Plan hearings and` this' area was considered as a major density area and the logic and necessity of the freeway determined to, a major degree what density would be allowed along this corridor. He indicated that the single family horses along 1th Street were not included at that time because they already had recorded tract maps and the people who heard the General Plan also agreed with staff, the consultant, Planning Commission, and City Council, that this area should be designated M to MR. Further, that this proposal; does meet the standards of the General Plan and if the Planning Commission suporits the resolution to; deny, he would have a problem because it is not in conflict but is in agreement with the prestated land use policy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 duly 11 , 1984 Commissioner Rempel indicated that if as a Planning Commission they wish to say this is a bad design, that is all right, but the Commission should not bandy around; words because they are trying to justify their actions. He felt that the exposed parking area is a problem and 'there is a need for more open space but this plan is ;not inconsistent with the current land use designation. Commissioner Barker stated agreement with Commissioner Chi.tiea in that there have been strawmen and red herrings bandied about which are not appropriate to this project. He indicated that what is important is the compatibility of design issue which has been addressed and less intensively, but consistently, for the last several years. The Commission has, he stated, addressed the, transition of density` which was not addressed to his satisfaction by the developer because the developer did not grant single stories. Chairman Stout indicated he has three major concerns, one of which deals with the transition of density. He advised of the 19th Street Corridor Committee's 12:recommendations, stating his preference for a, step system or project design: which would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Further, that because the applicant ;is unwilling to continue this item, he is put into position of approving a project he feels may be inappropriate, or having to deny the project- Chairman Stout stated because of the design problems he perceives and the fact that single family dwellings are adjacent to this project plus the huge the roof expanse, there are serious design problems. Further, he felt, that traffic could be a problem and should be looked at through the 19th Street Corridor Study in order to examine impact in its totality and to take another look at hoer traffic develops along the corridor. Because of this, Chairman; Stout stated he mould have to deny the project Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitica, carried, to adopt Resolution No. - 2 denying Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12597. Commissioner Hempel oast a negative vote stating the motion as, proposed is in conflict with the General Plan and is not accurate, correct, or consistent with the land use policy of the City. 9 r 0 p.m. The Planning Commission ission recessed. 9: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. E. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE "TRACT" 1 21 PSOMAS., HARRISON CCIATES (ROBERTSON HOMES ORTTH R ) A total, development and a subdivision bf 1 sores into lots to allow the development of 270 units in the Medium Residential 'District, ;generally .located on the east side of Vineyard avenue and north of Arrow Highway LPN 208-2 1 C2 and 14. Assistant Planner, Frank Dreckman, reviewed the staff* report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 July 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout expressed concern that the comments, made by the Design Review Committee had not been addressed ;by the applicant. Mr. Dreckman replied that the applicant has provided unit and garden wall staggering and modification to the architecture of the structure. Mr. Gomez advised that in the conditions of approval there is a condition which would bring the project back to the Design Review Committee or City' staff if further design work is needed before the issuance of permits. Mr. Gary Mazur, 3400 Bradshaw Boulevard, Sacramento, California, representing; the applicant concurred with the staff report, but indicated he had several areas of concern. He indicated they did not wish to past up a six-foot wall which would surround the project as the north property line has a windrow of Eucalyptus trees that they grant to preserve. He asked that they be allowed to work with staff" to find an alternative solution. Mr. Mazur also requested that the requirement for an alternative energy system be stricken because their roof line is not compatible with solar access. r. Dreckman explained that an active solar system would have roof panels or sight use an alternate method. r Gomez explained that the trade off for higher density as per the Development Code Optional Standards is in compliance with the alternative energy resources. r. Mazur stated that there must be some alternative that they; can investigate. He also asked about the storm drain required on the southeast corner of the project at .Arrow Highway. He felt that the drain should be maintained by the public agency. On the transition area to the east, Mr. Mazur stated that the problem has been addressed by creating a landscape buffer zone between the wall and parking area. Chairman Stout asked what the typical distance is between units. r. Mazur replied it varies from C to 100 feet. r Dreo raan stated that the units are approximately 50 feet from the property lire. r. Gomez stated that in the interior, the distance is between 80 and 90 feet. He further stated` as a point of clarification they understand the s nsit vity with the windrows and they are looking for a. separations between the project and the existing windrows Chairman Stout asked if there are windrows to the north and; south on this parcel. r. Mazur replied there are. Commissioner McNiel asked how far removed are the trees from the property line. PLANNING COMMISSION INUT duly 11 1984 r. Mazur replied that the trees on the northern boundary are on the property line; on the south they are over the property line. Commissioner Barker asked what the alternative is to the block wall as this pp ro 'ect backs a to the Bear Gulch School. Mr. Mazur replied that they are thinking 'about a fence constructed of trick pilasters and good, or landscaping. Commissioner Barker stated that it is a school site, and if there is only ; landscaping, security is not being provided to the tenants. Further, if the wrong fencing material is used, it will: be decorated in an aesthetically unpleasant manner. Commissioner Barker further stated that access to the schoolprovided. must be Mr. Mazur replied that they will;work with the school, to provide access Commissioner Barker indicated his concern with mitigation of the transition between the project and the single family homes on the east Mr. Nazar replied that they can provide single story units adjacent to the single family homes but do not want to out down the density of the project He further stated that they would like to adjust the site plan to pick up the units they would drop by doing this Commissioner Chitiea asked if Mr.. Mazur intended to add another story or plano the units somewhere else on the site Sr Mazur indicated that would be very desirable as it would satisfy the problem adjacent to the single story homes and would provide mitigation along the property line 'there being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that a lot of changes have been talked about that are not of a similar mature and that will take a lot of work. He indicated that he would like this project,: to come back to the Commission and asked the applicant to agree to continue this because of the many problems. Commissioner Barker advised<that'if transition is important on the 1th Street Corridor, it is equally important here Commissioner McNiel stated that this applicant was provided with the potential for maximum density because of the optional standards and yet he appears to be reluctant to participate in the trade off. Further, that in dropping units from the end of the buildings, the reduction in density is not that great and would provide transition to the :single family homes adjacent to the project. e felt that there were more problems than he could approve at this time Commissioner Rempel stated that it bothered him that a halfhour ago the audience was filled with people who had almost the same reservations with the previous project as there are with this one. He indicated that this resolution says it is >compatible with the adjacent property and yet the other resolution indicated inconsistencies and this bothered him. PLANNING COMMISSION Ml 8 July 11 , 1984 Commissioner Rempel was pleased with the large open space in this project and the recreation area; however, he stated that much better planning must go into parking spaces so they do not take up as much space and suggested under grounding or stacking the parking. Commissioner Barker disagreed with Commissioner Rempel that there is inconsistency in the resolutions. Further, the previous applicant was asked to provide transition and that is not inconsistent. Commissioner Rempel stated this project is back yard to back yard and the other project was totally separated by a street, freeway, and office commercial structures. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Mazur if he would consider a brief continuance. Mr. Mazur replied that they would have a problem with continuing this item as it involved the prime rate and financing as well as the criteria that other agencies have. He indicated that if there is a negative decision, they will have to abide by it. Further, that the transition area suggested by the Commission is all right and asked if it would satisfy the concerns of the Commission. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Mazur if he would rather have the project denied and not have it continued. Mr. Dan Lewis, representing the applicant, advised they are purchasing the land from the owner who lives in Lebanon. He further advised because of the difficulty with communications due to the distances involved, they must know whether the project is approved or not approved. He indicated that they would not wish to purchase the land only to find their project is not approved, and were willing to do whatever is reasonable to make the project work. He stated that the suggestion of one story units and the block wall could be done and have also taken the time to do the setbacks in order to make this a good project. Co issioner= Barker stated if the Commission is to be consistent, these concerns must be addressed in a consistent matter. He felt that this should not go to staff because the scale of changes are too much to do. Further, there may be some confusion, but he did not remember Commissioner Chitiea suggesting the use of three-story units. City Attorney Hopson stated that this project could be conditioned for approval with the deletion of seven units to achieve the transition to the east of the project boundary and it would not give the decision-making power to anyone other than the Commission. Mr. Lewis asked if what the Commission is saying is that this can be approved for the 273 units. Commissioner Barker indicated that Commissioner Rempel was looking for some way of approving this without 'being abstract. Further, Commissioner Barker stated that he is still uncomfortable and he will listen to what other Commissioners have to say, but just to say that a certain amount of units will be removed from the east border is not concrete enough. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 July 11 , 1984 Commissioner Remp l suggested that language be proposed that within 120 feet east of the property line no units can be over one-story. Chairman Stout indicated he could not approve this project unless eight omits are reduced to one story, along with the last two units in the east/west direction; and some condition on to allow Design Review to leak at the density, the landscaping, the meandering gall treatment, and protection of the windrows. Mr. Lewis asked if in the drainage easement he is asking that it be privately Chairmen Stunt answered yea, that the City cannot maintain it. Commissioner Re pel stated that the Planning Commission can make, that recommendation; however, the City Council would be the authorizing body. Chairman Stout related that 'since the City does not have the moneys to maintain such drains, he will get the same answer from the City Council , Chairman Stout aged if fiir° Lewis +auld accept the cenditi.arr f reduction in units to one-story or suffer denial of the 'project. Mr. Lewis indicated that the conditions would be acceptable. Chairman Stout asked about the meandering block wall and landscaping. r Lewis replied he had no problem with the landscaping. Commissioner Barker asked if access to the Sear Gulch School is provided Lewis replied it is. m Chairman Stout moved approval of Resolution No. 8 with the condition to reduce eight; units from two story to one story, meandering wall treatment adjacent to the Eucalyptus windrows and landscaping, not necessarily a block wall Mr. Gomez asked if there will be an overall reduction in density to 262 units. Chairman Stout indicated there would be. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chi:tiea and carried unanimously. Commissioner Rempel indicated that Engineering Condition No. should have further provisions of acceptance by the school for the access. r. Rougeau replied that the pedestrian access will be approved by the school. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 julyr 11 , 1984 i F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12590 LEWIS A residential development of 215 dingle family* detached dwellings on 215 lots ranging from ,7 sq. ft. to 10,450 sq. ft. on 39.7 acres of land, generally located on the northeast cornea of Haven and Base Line ABN Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman an Stout stated that in the rendering, the roof material appears to be the but there is a recommendation to have high quality composition roofing. r. Hopson replied that some roofs are composition and some are tile. r Coleman stated that this was done to relieve the monotony. Commissioner Barker indicated he liked the monotony of the tile® Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r Cerny Bryan, representing Lewis Homes, explained about the possibility of a day ogre center and stated they have read and agreed with the conditions of approval. Chairman Stout asked if they are proposing a mix of roofs. Mrs Bryan replied that the 5,000 sq. ft. lot homes will have composition roofs and the 4,000 sq. ft. lot homes will have the roofs® He indicated that this is a marketing technique. Chairman Stout asked what the difference in cost is between the two roof types. r. Bryan replied :it is in the area of 00 per none., There was brief discussion regarding the slight variation in elevation trim', treatment and the importance of corner* elevation treatment. Commissioner Barker asked about the pedestrian acoessway and storm drain easement on the beer Creek Channel and whether that will be landscaped r Bryan replied that it will be landscaped and it is a medium high wall with a self closing Sate and canopy type trees Chairman Stout asked with respect to the windows on the cornea elevation lots if they have used a small pane treatment or something other than aluminum. r Bryan replied that they have; however such treatment would not be; compatible with the Me iter°r°anian flavor of these homes. Chairman Stout asked ire. Bryan if there was any problem with having to So to Design Review. r Bryn replied there would be no problem,. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 duly 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, that the modifications ication suggested in elevation styles 700, 733, 799 comeback to Design Review for approval, and that homes on 4,000 sq. ft. lots be of the roofs with a mix of the and composition roofs on 5,000 sq. ft. lot homes, G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 - KLUMPP - A request to operate a children's iTmnastio class (private school) in an existing industrial facility, lease space is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. , on 1 .9 acres in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea located of 9634 Turner Avenue APN 10-071- 3 Associate Planner, Ilan Coleman, reviewed the staff report Commissioner McNlel asked if the restriping of the parking lot would include the center section. MrColeman replied yea, that it would be between the two series of buildings. Chairman t ° t opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Klumpp, applicant, stated agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. Al "Tibbetts, ownors of the industrial Park, indicated if there are an questions regarding parking he would answer there "There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4 11 . R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL -MAP 8597 - LOZIER CORPORATION - A division of 37-75 acres within the General: Industrial/Ral,l served District (subarea into 2 parcels located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue between 9th street and Arrow -_ APF 9-1 - 1 Associate Civil Engineer, sfrintu Bose, reviewed the staff report. Chairman stout asked if Mr. Bose is suggesting that improvements be rude new. Mr. Bose replied 'negatively, that they should be made at the time that parcel; develops and can be done in conjunction with each other. Chairman stout opened the public' hearing I Mr. George Misr Mack, 214 S. Euclid, Ontario, consulting engineer, offered to answer any questions and stated that this is a large parcel which has been improved for some time, is vacant, and the applicant would like to put it to use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 July 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout asked if this is the old Otis Elevator facility. Mr. Mimr Mack replied it is® Commissioner McNiel asked what this facility will become. Mr. Mirm Mack replied he did not know. However, the applicant does motor home assembly and this could bring 400 jobs into the community. There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McN el., carried unanimously,; to adopt Resolution 6, approving Parcel Map 8497 and issuing a Negative Declaration. I. REVISIONS TO TRACT MAP 124 - A 4 RICAN NATIONAL request for phasing change of the previously approved condominium development of one lot on acres on east side of Vineyard Avenue; south of Foothill Boulevard - APN 2C32r4111. Associate Civil Engineer, Shintu Bose, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Shut stated that the way the lines on this map are drawn, it looks lice a surveyor's nightmare .and he assumed this is because it may be a condo project Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that what a l.ot of engineering firms do not understand is that when you have a single map condominium project,; the State department of Real Estate requires that before you close e escrow on e single unit, in any phase, you must have 50 percent of the condominiums in escrow. He indicated if you have a 200 unit phase, you must have 100 of them in escrow. He indicated further that this is a method to-make<the portion of the map manageable and the units 'saleable. Chairman Stoat opened the public nearing. Mr. Sant Striker, representing the applicant, appeared to answer any questions. There were none and Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved.. by Rermpel, seconded by Chiriea carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 4 7, approving revisions to Tract Map 12490. NEW BUSINESS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 1 - RR T R The develop rent of two 40,000 s . ft. office/warehouse structures on 18 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 16) generally located west of Archibald Avenue, south of 6th Street SRN 210 C 2 31 Senior Planner, Tim Needle, reviewed the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 July 11 , 1984 Chairman Stoat indicated he did not remember the street south of this project going all the way through to Archibald. He thought it bent and went down to 4th Street Mr. Rory earn replied that Chairman Stout is correct; however, the street was a ; backbone street and it was understood that other streets could be pert in. Further, the arrows on the Industrvial, Specific Plan show where other streets could be pert in. Mr. Rougeau stated that the sorb-area master Plan determined that the street should go to Hellman at that point. Chairman Stoat asked if the street does access ;to Archibald at that point and there should be provision for two of them. r Rougeau replied that is correct Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mrs. HenryReiter, the applicant, 2039 Vista Park, Newport Beach, California, explained what he envisioned 6th Street would become in future years and why he is proposing this building at this time. 3r Reiter stated that he does not expect" anyone to use the road to Hellman and that access will become; real problem. Further, one of the problems is the interior street width. In meeting with the Engineering Department, Mr. Reiter stated that interior street width is to be 44 feet and he felt that the Subarea 'Master Plan is poorly done. He asked that he be allowed to pat in a 74-foot width deed to the ultimate travel envisioned for the area. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reiter if he proposes to pert in the entire east/west street 4r Reiter replied yes, as well as one-half of the north/south street. Chairman Stout asked how long the spire at LaVine sheet is r Rorer eau replied it is 44 feet wide. Mr. Reiter stated that if the bats along this area get split out and someone wants to make a left turn, there= is no way they can legally do it. r Rorr eau gave the background on the street and proposed traffic indicating it was determined by the original Master Plan done by staff. He farther indicated that the spine street would not carry all of the traffic writ even with a full 180 oars a two-lane street world be appropriate. Ire. Rou eau stated that he told this applicant that rather than go through the General Plan Amendment process, if all the property owners gave their approval, he could go ahead with the street he proposes. Mr. Peedle stated that the Master Plan would have to be amended. Chairman Stout asked if they are talking abort the east west street. r Reiter replied no, they are talking abort the north/south street. r Rou eau stated it would 'only be Mr. Reiter's portion of it. Chairman Stoat asked how he proposed to get to his property r.. Reiter replied e felt it would be better to develop the back of the , property first Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reiter if anyone has objection to putting in the- street r. Reiter replied that the whole area is his 18 acre block. Mr. Rougeau Mated he would be putting in a foot aide street to provide for tiro-lam traffic. Further, the Engineering Department is recommending that the street be parceled. Chairman Stout stated it does not appear to be contiguous with the property line and what Mr. Reiter proposes- makes some sense. Commissioner` IcNiel stated that a Master Purr was requested for the entire 18' acne parcel and he does not recall seeing it. Mr. Reiter stated that his architect did a Master Plan but he is unsure of what will go in and it was: one of the requirements of Design Review that he had a problem with Commissioner McNiel stated he was able to appreciate that, however, the south portion of this parcel is small and difficult to deaf with. Mr. Reiter replied no, that he has matched, the Meyers driveways and has raised the street between 30, to 50 feet, and split that lot in half, and he is building the project across the street on a narrow piece. Commissioner MoNiel stated that the Commission would have liked to have seers it. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reiter if he has had an opportunity to review the staff report.> Ir. Reiter replied he did not. a Chairman Stout asked if the Design Review Committee recommendation for a 10 foot landscaped strip around the perimeter of the building is correct. r Gomez replied that it should be a -foot strip around the perimeter of the parcel and that a 10-foot strip around the building is correct. Commissioner Rermpel asked about some type of walkway around the building so that you don't always have to walk in the parking lot to get to the front of the building. He indicated he is not saying the full length across but something more than: an entry is heeded. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 duly 11 , 1984 i r. Reiter indicated that this will be a single, tenant building and if s foot sidewalk is pert in it will take away from the landscaping. He indicated putting in a sidewalk would be a lot cheapen than the landscaping. Commissioner arker commented on the treatment given to the two buildings and asked if there is compromise usage between building one. r. Reiter replied Commissioner Barker is correct and there will be some type of;"a rolling gate, fluted concrete and screen galls between the windows. Further, they will be using sandblasted concrete Commissioner McNiel asked about the concrete and whether it would be fluted. Mr. Reiter replied they are still proposing brick. commissioners McNiel and Barker replied they are not talking about the sand project they saw in 'Design Review. r Reiter replied that he will cone back. dr. Beedle clarified that what they are talking about are Conditions 1 , 2, and , in the Planning Division section of the Resolution, and Item 4 in the I Engineering ection. Commissioner McNiel felt that this should come back as a Consent Calendar item. Mr. Gomez asked ghat the Commission its focusing on. Commissioner Barker replied that the Design Review Committee had concerns and what has been presented this evening does not accurately reflect ghat the Design Review Committee said. He added that this gust either be a Consent Calendar item or go back to design Review. Commissioner Re p l stated that the texture treatment of the panels and the brick and the western elevation be clarified. He suggested that Mr. Reiter might use a metal spangle panel r. Reiter stated that would be More costly than glass. Commissioner Barber stated that the applicant indicated that he would provide the parcels so that later they could be, punched out to become an office building. Further, if the glass treatment is not put in at this time that simpl.y will not happen. He Felt further that if there is a specific design; then it can he tinkered with and he did not want this to be incompatible with the area., r. Reiter asked if what the Commission is saying is that they want glass on the building. He indicated that it could be on the upper portion but not on the lower portion; because of security reasons Commissioner Barker stated that he wanted glass all along the nest side and at least on the upper level. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16duly 11 , 1984 Chairman Stoat stated that if that is ghat they are they should be called that Mr. € routil accepted the point made by the Commission but cautioned that while', it is important to crake decisions on the types of things the Commission wants for Haven avenue, until the whole range is examined, the best choice may not be to look for specific technical solutions. He continued that the overlay may be very good but they need something to stay array from the procedural and focus on what would work better with a combination of solutions. He indicated from their standpoint they do not want to get looped into something that would preclude then from doing something else. Chairman Stout asked if the Commission did not have the same thing in tiranda. Mr. Kroutil 'replied that in Etiwanda there are actually two overlays and it compounds the ease of understanding. He indicated that the Commission grants to snake its position clean and staff may understand that but when you are dealing with the public or developers who do business in many different areas; it is more difficult to get the point across. He suggested that the guidelines be kept at what they want to do rather than hoar to do it. Chairman Stout replied that he would be reasonable. He indicated that he would like to see something as strong as ghat has been used in the past. Commissioner MoNlel stated that Haven avenue is dust as critical as anything in. the City and it needs to have established guidelines. He echoed Chairman Stout's re raks 4 Commissioner Chitlea indicated it has all been stated. Commissioner Barker stated there needs to be clear statement and emphasis to developers of what they can do so they don't waste their emery and money in presenting things that are not going to be acceptable to the City. Chairman Stout asked that some examples be included in the study to ahoy graphically what is wanted. r ro nti.l asked if in terms of: topic areas they need to address land use and architecture strongly and that site planning rest be dealt with. Chairman Stout replied there should be some theme to carry through along; Haven r4 Henry Reiter came forward and explained some of the existing problems that will have to be confronted ted with the Ashwill parcel and the proposed retail center. He indicated further that what is happening is that there are two- story industrial buildings with overhead doors and he is making proposals of one- and tiro-story buildings that will be, of research and development type. e felt than this should have been an industrial park, but now Haven is proposed for office use and the warehouse type buildings must be buffered and honer do you "dog that in order to hide the overhead doors. Further,; the developer across the street is being told, that this is an office area. Mr. Reiter 'felt there would be problems leasing in this area because them are; presently no magnets and you must, have other users in order to get PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 19 duly 11 , 1984 professional people. He asked that the economics be examined before a j decision is finally made r Bliss stated he does not believe in putting something up and then tearing it down. He indicated that Haven Avenue is a precious resource to the community. He felt that this area: is expanding and was happy" that the Commission is taking a 'hard look at it. Jeff Sceranka stated that the opportunity for Rancho Cucamonga is significant and the Commission saga tonight ghat the people who live in the area are concerned with. He indicated that if this area was a vacuum it would be different in terms of ghat they would like to do and; there should be a transition from these uses to something better. He further stated that along Haven there is opportunity that does not exist elsewhere in the City. Ontario he said, has ;followed the philosophy of allowing developers to come in and say, "we could like to build thief and they allow them to do so. Be indicated that the problem is that you must then have a huge redevelopment effort and that effort and coordination of uses in getting a project design spa that you have compatibility and consistency of design is tremendously difficult. Be stated that the City of Ontario will tyke a long time in cleaning up Holt Boulevard r> Sceranka observed that Ontario has created a hotel roar which is their focal point along with office buildings. r` cerenla stated that on Haven there is BS I adjacent to industrial park and the underpass and that is different than the other two concerns. Further,: there is a core established with the courthouse and civic center and the office complex underway by ' Barton Development. Be indicated that the cores which are established will generate different office uses. Going through those uses, however, bads him to object to ghat some of the developers such as Ashwill have said that there cannot be any commercial because that is not what anyone has ever said r Bcerenka stated that developers come to the Chamber of Commerce and say they don't understand ghat was granted and this must be addressed. Be felt that a corridor study would be one of the most significant the City has done. Notion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, to continue beyond the 11:00 p.m. deadline M. SIGN AMORTIZATION ION PROGRAM Senior Planner, Tim Be dle, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout indicated that he did not take option two to mean that the suns that are in minor violation would be deferred and that the major violations would be taken care of first. PLANNING IS I MINUTES 20 July 11 , 1984 Mr. Leiter stated that; he would put it on the upper story. r eedl.e stated that notices were sent out on this project and there may be some people in the audience who may wish to make comments. Chairman Stout opened the meeting to the audience. Mr. Dave Hall, 9620 Ileerbrdok, voiced some concern ;about the application of principle in that the ;Master Plan was-supposed to be s fixed ed document and now it is said to be flexible and subject to review. He indicated that at the time of the hearings on this area,, it appeared that such latitude did not exist for homeowners it this area. He indicated that the Christmas Rouse has bolstered the area and highlighted a character that was not apparent at the time of the hearing. r. ball also voiced concern with buffering of the industrial area with the existing residential hares, traffic on 6th Street, and what will be between this and 6th' Street. Chairman Stout replied that there aright be Master Ilan misconception. He indicated it is not a zoning document of any sort. The Ater Plan addressed two issues: traffic circulation and drainage and had nothing to do with what would be'planned. Mr. Null replied that his question regarding access has been answered. Chairman Stout closed the hearing as there were no further comments. Commissioner Rempel stated that the area to the north is crtitica,ll, and any developer will have to take into consideration adequate buffering for that residential property. He further indicated that somewhere along the line, the Commission would have to core to grips with criteria for development. Commissioner McNiel stated that a precedent has been set on 6th Street'with another project Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by 8empel, carried unanimously, that building design for the east, west, and south portions of this project come back. to Design Review for approval on the Consent Calendar and that Resolution o 8 68 be approved [lotion: Loved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to continue beyond the 11:00 p.m. greeting deadline 11 :00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11 : 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ES 17 July 11 , 1984 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. WINDROWS PARK CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dick al er, Senior Park Coordinator, reviewed the staff report.. Chairman Stout asked if there is some typo of fencing on the border of tract 12045. Mr. Mayer replied that there will be as it is a requirement of this development Chairman Stet asked if it is also required on the northern perimeter. Mrs Mayer replied affirmatively. , Commissioner Rempel stated the original plan did have a lake; however, because of concerns of liability by the school district, the lake was deleted. The consensus ofthe Commission was concurrence with the conceptual development plan for the Windrows Parr with Recommendation for Approval by the City Council Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried, to continue beyond the 11 00 p.m. deadline L. HAVEN AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES Senior Planner, Otto Kroutil, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stoat stated his strong feelings about this area., indicating he would like to see Raven Avenue between 4th' Street and Foothill an overlay district similar to the treatment given to Stiwanda'Avenue. Further, there should be a very strong policy statement of what the Commission expects Maven to be in the plans of the overall City. This, because he wants people developing along Raven to understand ghat is expected up front and that he does not see these alternatives being mutually exclusive. Chairman Stoat felt that the architecture should have guidelines. Chairman Stout was unsure that tangible floor area ratio is the answer but there must be some gray to let developers know that In office:/professional, commercial use is, ancillary. He felt that Haven should be, different from other areas, in the City and they rust do everything to encourage quality developments in the City. Commissioner Rempel felt that subareas 6 and. 7 "already do this and are overlays PLANNING COMMISSION IN ES 18 July 11 , 1984 Commissioner Barker stated that what they will be doing is taking option one and prioritising those signs which would be handled first. Chairman Stout stated that his ;personal feeling is that the signs must be taken care of in order to be equitable. Further, some people will take care of their signs voluntarily and perhaps the best way to approach this is to handle the worst violations first. Commissioner Re p l cited the portion of the ordinance written for historical signs such as the Sycamore Inn, Thomas Vineyard, and the Magic Lamp. Mr. Heedl.e explained that at the ,request of the applicant, signs of historical importance would come back to the Commission for special designation.; He indicated that the Commission could direct istaff as to whether they would wish to review these requests. Commissioner Harker asked ;that since the signs ordinance was written ;with places such as the Sycamore Inn and Thomas Vineyards in mind, what is the logic of their appearing before the Commission to say that they are something special.. Chairman Stout related that this determination has already been made. Ir. Beedle stated that the approach that can be used is to have a list made of those signs specifically designated as having historical significance. 'urther, it would also provide a vehicle for ethers who would like to have their signs considered for this designation. Commissioner Rempel asked how many additional. Planning Commission meetings it will take to hear these requests Chairman Stout p a.t t felt thane should be full compliance with the. sign _ ordinance of all nonconforming signs and; that the major violations be the first to be taken care of. additionally, a list should be prepared of those signs that are ofhistorical importance. Commissioner Rempel stated that he and fir. Sceranka, who sat on the Commission at the time the sign ordinance was approved, would be able to come up with a' list of those signs that should have historical designation. He indicated that this list would be given to the Code Enforcement Officer so they would not be bothered. Commissioner Re spel further stated that he does not see a difference between major or minor violations as they must all be asked to conform. He suggested that staff go through the List of nonconforming signs and take care of all of them. Air. Hopson stated that in deference to the statute, the Commission really should have some action somewhere that sags that this sign is nonconforming, but it is o. . because there should be some administrative actions to establish the exemptions. Chairman Stout asked that a list be prepared to be reviewed by the Commission on whether historic designation is given in order to avoid conflicts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21" July 11 , 1984 Mr. Beadle replied that a list will be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting of those signs that are eligible for historical designation. Following the preparation of that list, Mr. Beedle indicated that the community will be advised that the program has begun to ;abate the nonconforming signs The Commission concurred with option numbers one, to require fall compliance of all nonconforming sign according to the Sign Amortization Program with specified time periods for removal to be implemented. Mr. ceranka stated it is critical that the Planning Commission commit to the 100 percent enforcement of: the sign program. Further, that the Chamber of Commerce has been approached by marry of its members rho want to see conformance with the program and who are anxious to see the golden arches go dowry Mrs cer n a indicated that the Chamber of Commerce is 100 percent behind this program. Commissioner MoNiel eked if this report will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Beadle explained, that it will be taken to the Council as an information item. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by" ermpol, carried unanimously, to adorers. 1 :C p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. i Res otf ll rmittede dk o e epu Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA PLANNING C OMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 27, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7*.D5 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Rase Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, I California. Chairman Stout there led in the pledge of allegiance. I l City Clergy: Beverly Authel.et administered the oath of: office to Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel and Dennis Stout ROLL CALL PRESENT COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry t oNiel., ; Herman R repel and, DennisStout STAFF PRESENT: Tire Reedl.e, Senior Planner; Shi.ntu Rode, associate Civil. Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City attorney; Otto: Kroutil., Senior Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil. Engineer CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL CASE PERMIT 1-18 JAS A - The development ofa building contractor's office and yard with two buildings totaling 12,795 square feet on 3.5 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served category located at 9460 Lucas Ranch Road APN 210-013-02. S. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 - TACK TT - Located on the south aide of La Grande, crest of Amethyst Avenue APN 02 -C31 13, 14. C. TIME; EXTENSION FOR PARCEL CHAP 736 KOBACKER COMPANY Located on the southeast corner of Baker and Reron Boulevard. € otion: loved by Rempel,, seconded by McNi.el, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ASAP 8477 - STEPHENSON A division of .449 acres into 2 parcels in the Lwow Residential. District -44 du/ac) Located on the north side of Lomita drive between Hellman and Amethyst Avenues APN - 1 . Shirrtu Pose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel,, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8477, and issue a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS- REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIELa, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT:. ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Chairman Stout announced that the; following items would be'heard concurrently. . E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8506 R.J. INVESTMENTS - A division of 9.02E acres into one parcel: in the Medium Residential District' -14 du ao) located on the west side of Baker Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard APR 20717 and 207719. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -Cd R.J. INVESTMENTS the development of a 126 unit apartment complex or 9.03 acres ref land is the Medium Residential District (8-144 du/ac) located on the west side of Baker, south of Foothill Boulevard? - AP 4 + 7- 1- 7, 58, 07- 71-79. Dare Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Hardy Strozier, 3151 Airway,, Costa Mesa, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mrs Stro ier referred to a presentation book prepared by the applicant, which was presented earlier to the Commission, and stated that the project is proposed at 13.9 dwelling units per acne and is designed under the Optional ;Development Standards of the Development Code. He further advised that the proposed apartments are market rate and non-subsidized. Mr. Stonier quoted from a 1980 staff report which supported a change of zone for this site. In reference to the current staff report for this project,` Mr. Stonier stated that staff quoted the Development Code out of Planning Commission Minutes - June 27 1984 context in regards to consistency with the General Plan. He quoted objectives from page 29 of General Flan which he stated were more instructive to the Commission. He additionally quoted sections from the Development Code which referred to transition and stated that transition refers to areas, not uses as outlined in the staff report, which act as a buffer between two land uses of different intensity. He further stated that this project provides that transition. Mr. Stro ier , also stated that not one measurable problem is; identified with the project and accused staff of "boot straping" problems into the project with terms which he, chaired did a disservice to the Development Code. He again referred to the presentation book prepared by the applicant and stated that each concern expressed in the Development Code was addressed along with how the applicant proposes to mitigate each area. Wilma Brenner, 8631 Ramona venue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project. Ms. Brenner stated that the Commission should have concern for the future residents who could not afford to purchase a home. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project based on incompatibility, traffic, crime, school impacts, density and flooding; Cheri Soya, 8365 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Motts, 8355 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga a Harold Doyle, 8400 ilia Airopa, Rancho Cucamonga Ron McCleery, 8364 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Leon Schnieders, 8339 Edwin, Rancho Cucamonga E.H. Thomas, 8475 'Cherry Blossom Street, Rancho Cucamonga Lenten Goforth, 8423 Autumn Leaf Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Phil Perdue, 651 Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga Gilliam Gass, 4811 Canoga, Apartment M, Montclair Jeffrey Long, 8452 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Mark Rader 8957 Cedarwrood, Rancho Cucamonga Ginger Nehls, 8432 Autumn Leaf Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Additionally, a petition containing 52 names was presented to the Commission in opposition to the project. Mr. Stre i.er main addressed the Commission and stated for the record that he felt most comments raised by those in opposition to the project were discriminating and based on a distaste for the type of people who could occupy the project units;. He quoted a General, plan goal which stated that the City should seek to provide housing `opportunities for all. people. Mr. Stozier addressed the issue of access on Comet, and stated that this was a requirement placed on the project by the Fire District and Sheriff's Department. Additionally, he advised that this project would place approximately 40 cars at the intersection of Raker and Foothill at peak hours, and even without this project a traffic signal is warranted at this Location. ; He further stated` that he had nearer seen a` study which concluded that apartments generate; crime. On the issue of flooding, Mr. Stro ier advised that the project would be required to install, storm drains and flood control measures which would Planning Commission Minuted - - June 27, 1984 i alleviate flooding; problems for not only this site, but the surrounding area as well. In response to a question raised► he advised that R.J. Investments manages their own apartment units'. Commissioner Chitiea asked when the applicant proposes to convert the apartments to condominiums r. Strozier replied that, based on past practices, conversion would be five to 'seven years away There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner FcNiel stated that the General, Plan is a living document and subject to change. In reference to the 10 Planning Commission decision to rezone this property, he stated that mistakes were rude which are being lived with today. He furthers stated in light of the fact that apartments are needed and that the project design and site Galan meet the provisions of the Development Code and General Mari, he dial not feel it met';the intent of those documents and would have to deny the project. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission has been placing increasing emphasis on transition` of densities and compatibility of architecture which this project does not provide. He additionally stated that- a mix of uses already exists in the surrounding, area and could not mote for approval of this project Commissioner Rempel stated that he appreciated the concerns expressed by the citizens, however solutions could be reached on the access and circulation issues. He additionally stated that he would prefer to see open space where people could have recreational activities than to see small lot subdivisions with a house that covers 90 percent of the lot. Chairman Stout advised that the Planning Commission recently approved recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council which would amend the Development ent Code. One of the issues dealt with transition of densities and that the lower end should dominate the contiguous edges and that this project with 13.9 dwelling units does not meet that criteria:.. Another recommendation stated that when single family dwellings exist on one side, large bulky apartment type buildings should not be placed next to then; and that the architecture should be compatible with the single family dwellings; criteria which this project also does not meet. Chairman Stout additionally advised that the Planning Commission and City Council set policies which are carried as at odds wit h saw not hing �n the staf f report which �r out by the staff and p the direction provided by the Commission. Further, that there was no necessity on the part of the applicant to point out failings by the staff on policy issues since the staff does make policy issues. In reference to the 1980 Planning Commission decision to rezone this property, Chairman Stout pointed out that the City ;was Less than three years old and would like to think that the City has learned something since that time. Further, ` that because` certain findings and decisions were made in 1980, does not mean that Planning Commission Minutes -4 sane 27, 1984 those sage conditions exist today:. In respect to the environmental issued, he stated that the intermittent stream which exists on this parcel is one of the few running water streams remaining h the City and would not like to see it channeled into a pipe and dumped into the street. He suggested that this might be used in a design element. He additional,l.y suggested that a;. Environmental Impact Report might; be necessary which would focus at the least on traf fie. Further, that this project has merit in some other* location of the City, however, could not approve it at this site,; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Commission that it is to take action on two separate issues; the parcel map, and the site approval. Motion: Moved by. Stout, seconded by Barker to deny Parcel Map 8506. Motion failed Commissioner Rempel stated that there was no reason is deny the parcel map. Chairman Stout replied that the environmental ,issues have not been covered adequately to warrant approval.w Commissioner Barker stated that he had concerns with the wording in the Resolution which states that the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General flan and that the site is physically suitable for the proposed development g Hopson advised that the word development does not refer to a site specific p p _p development but is language which comes from the Cityrs ordinances which state that certain findings must be made. Commissioner Rempel stated that approval of the parcel reap to record this map as one parcel, requires that the storm drains and curbs and gutters must be installed and does no more Chairman Stout replied that the storm drainage requirement requires the elimination of the stream. Commissioner Rempel replied that the strew: Chairman Stout referred to comes from Red Hill Golf Course- and that if they didn't water so much, there wouldn't be a stream. Additionally, that people would probably 1, prefer to have that water removed from the site rather than have it stand stagnant. Commissioner Barker stated that if the direction was towards approval of the Parcel Map, he would suggest that the language be modified in the Resolution to read that the 'site is physically',suitabl.e For development" and the cords "the proposed": are eliminated. Motion: Moved by Rerpel, seeonded by McNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8506 with language modifications previously stated, and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Planning Commission MigratesJune 27, 1984 i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R t PEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t carried Chairmantreat and Commissioner Barker voted no for previously stated reasons. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to _ deny Development Review 84-08. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Planning Commission Recessed 9:20 - Planning Commission Reconvened G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADD PARCEL MAP 8583 - CARPENTER A division of 4.5 acres of band into 2 parcels in the General Industrial category (Subarea ' located at tire'"northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 9th Street - APN 209-033-12 Shinto Buse, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Bose stated that an amendment could be rude to page 2 of the City Engineer's Report, number 2' under Surety, which world include undergrounding of 12 KV limes along Hellman and 1 t . Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. i Steve Lucas, 1275 Elizabeth Circle, Upland, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Lucas Asked, the City's intent on the 12 KV lure requirements. Chairman Stout replied that it is a normal City policy on small parcels to require a lien agreement until a larger parcel develops to make it more economically feasible to underground the lines. r Lucas asked if other parcels in the area which do not have lien agreements would have to contribute to the under grounding at the time it is dram. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that if a lien agreement existed on a parcel, it would have to contribute. He further stated that the reason for a lien agreement in this particular case is that the benefit cost Planning Commission Minutes since 27, 1984 proportion on under grounding lines in the industrial area is doubtful and staff would l,ike to come back to the Commission with a policy review to be forwarded to the City Council which would arrive at a more equitable solution to this concept. A lien agreement i:s$ however, is standard condition at this time Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this property would contribute to the under roundin , others may not. Further, that this is a current requirement of all subdivisions in the City- and is consistent with City ordinances r Lucas stated that he agreed with fir. Rougeau in that this is not an equitable requirement. He additionally referred to page 5 of the City Engineer's deport and the requirements listed in conditions 11 and 12. He questioned the need to remove the concrete before paving and sated that this is the only material which holds together during flooding. Additionally, that the City is asking one wall property owner to take the grater from half the City and to pay for storm drains. He stated that if this is a necessary requirement, the applicant should be; given credit towards storm drain and other fees. He also requested that the improvements be keyed to development of each specific site and not required at one time. Paul Rogeau replied that the replacement of the concrete and the requirement that the improvements be done at one time are safety considerations. He advised that spot wi.denin s increase the turbulence of water and clause additional washouts during flooding* Further, that the concrete removal requirement is based on past experiences with others parts of Hellman which have washed out due to the concrete under the asphalt. Mr. Lucas stated than the major problem is that the property owners simply cannot pay for the improvements if one parcel wants to develop. Frank Giezowski, 18 Albright day, Upland, California, addressed ; the Commission in agreement with fir. Lucas. Mario fury, 719_ Dalton, Upland, California, also , agreed with Mr. ucas's statements regarding the lien agreement. He stated that the lien agreement is too opera and does not properly protect` the property owner. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the items addressed by Mr. Lucas are conditions which the Planning Commission does not have the authority to remove. He suggested that if these are of concern to the applicant, the matter should be directed to the City Council. Commissioner Barker stated that these conditions are the sage conditions imposed on any other piece of property in the City and agreed that the matter should be discussed by the Council. Planning Commission Minutes 7 dune 27, 1984 Commissioner Ma Niel agreed and further stated that he understood the applicant's position, however, the Commission would have to adhere to these conditions. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by iel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8583 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS, REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12365 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of 270 apartment units on 8 lots comprising 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway - APN 1077-091-01 , 02. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the size of the pool was no and asked for clarification of the adjacent trail. Mr. Coleman replied that he would have to defer the pool size to the applicant. In reference to the trail, he stated that it is an asphalt bicycle path which runs from Terra Vista Parkway through the site to Mountain View Drive. Additionally, the trail system is described in the Park Implementation Plan for Terra 'Vista. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gerry Bryan, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating the applicant's concurrence with the conditions of approval. Stan Bell, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission and advised that the pool size is approximately 800 square feet, plus the spa. Chairman Stout asked for clarification of thick butt shingles to be used on the project. Mr. Bell replied that thick butt shin lei are between a redwood shingle and redwood shake in thickness. Commissioner Stout referred to the lattice material used on the carports and suggested that an alternative material might be used which would require less maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 27, 1984 r4 Eell replied that he would be agreeableto work on an alternative material with City stafaf. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Ch,itiea, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentati Tract 12365 with direction to work with staff on a material other than lattice for the carport screening. 1 C CC Planning Commission Recessed 10. 1 - Planning Commission Reconvened NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 1 - AdA The da lupment of three 1 and 2-s,tory industrial park/office suites on ' .0 acres it , the Industrial Park category; (Subarea ), located on the west side of Haven n Avenue between 3th and 'nth Streets - ,APN {i -C -1 . Timm Seedy:, Senior planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barber stated that due to problems diwat d with this project, cane should be talon in the future not to bream apart pieces of property ;such as this one without a conceptual overview of what is going to tale place. Chairman Stout questioned the landscaping and asked if it was adequate. Rick Gomez, .City; Planner, rapped that staff would inspect the site and compare the landscaping to the approved plans. Bob Garrison, Mission Equity, representing the applicant, stated, that the applicant was in `agreement with the conditions and had worked` with staff to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Chairman Stout stated that he was pleased that the issues had all addressed and commended the 'applicant Motion: Moved by M Ni 1, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adapt the Resolution approving Development Review 4 1 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. on AYES: COMMISSIONERS; MCNIEL, STOUT, BARKER, CHI IEA HEMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS.* NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1984 DIRECTORtS REPORTS J. 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY _ LAND USE AMENDMENTS Senior Planner Otto Kroutil reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout explained that the Commission would not crake a decision on the densities at this meeting, but would select sites for staff to study farther and return to the Commission with alternatives and enda tions. The following sites were selected by the Commission: Area West side of Beryl, south of Hamilton Area West side of Beryl, feet north of 1th Street Area 9 torah aide of '1 th Street, between Amethyst and Archibald Area 11 :- North side of 1 th, east of Ramona Area 1 ;- North aide of 1 th Street, east of Hermosa The following sites were determined by the Commission to creed detailed and expanded environmental ntal. analysis and master plans prior to review of a project submittal.* Area 1 - North side of Highland, C, feet east of Ravers Area 1North aide of Highland, crest of Milliken A petition containing approximately 275 names was presented to the Commission protesting the density designations on these two sites. Chairman Stout advised that staff would notify all names on the petition when these items come before the Commission for review. Motion. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously parried, to continue_ past the 11 : C p.m. adjournment time. K. DESIGN REVIEW IBC I E Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Re pel suggested that the Building Industry Association and a few f the local developers be contacted for input. Chairman Stout recommended that criteria be established for consent calendar items and presented to the Commission for consideration Motion. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Harker, unanimously carried, t continue. Planning Commission Minutes -10- aurae 27, 19 L. TI AN A AREA DRAINAGE POLICIES Commissioner McNial suggested that alternative one be selected which would restrict development applications in the Etiwanda Specific Elan area until adoption of the drainage master plan Commissioner Re pel stated that this alternative is actually a moratorium and recommended the selection of alternative two, which would allow applications to be accepted subject to individual review. Chairman Stout stated that a combination of the two alternatives would be the best solution since alternative one would apply to new submittals, and alternative two would apply for those projects already approved Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried, to recommend to the City Council the selection of alternative one,; which would restrict development applications until adoption of the master plan of drainage for new submittals, and alternative two for projects already approved, which would allow applications to be accepted subject to individual review. Vote passed - . Commissioner 'Rempel voted no stating that only alternative two is, necessary. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Re pel advised that he would like to have the land uses for Terra Vista, Victoria and Etiwanda corrected on the General. Plan arid Development Code gaps which are located in the meeting coca. Risk Comet, City Planner, replied that staff would take a look;at the gaps to determine the beat method to designate the land uses for these areas Carry Bliss addressed the Commission urging special, thought and consideration for the Haven Avenue corridor. Jeff Sceranka commended the Commission for maintaining high quality development standards. He further stated that the philosophy behind the approval of the stropping centers on Haven en and Lemon was based; on the traffic generated from the college, the location of the freeway interchange and the surrounding higher density. Additionally, that it was envisioned that a. commercial core could then develop in this area He stated, however, that the; centers are not doing well because the density is not there ;yet and if the density' s altered due to the over-emphasis of concerns, the land uses will. be Planning Commission Minutes- 11 dune 27, 1984 minimized Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:55 p.m., Planning Commission Adjourned. Res otful '' u , Y F Secretary Planning Co=ission Minutes -1 _ ,June 27, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING June 13, 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman DennisStout called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7n00 p.m.. The meeting held at the Lions Perk Community Center, 9161 Base Lime Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: grid Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Remp 1, Dennis Stoat COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: tone STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: 'dim:J. S edle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, 'Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary, Paul R ugeau, Senior Civil EngineerANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rik Gomez, advised that ;,the Inland Empire Section of the American Planning Association will hold its awards banquet on June 21, 1984 at the Hungry Tiger Restaurant in Redlands and will confer its honorable mention award for the Cit 'a Development Code. Additionally, Jon Mikels was selected to receive the 1984 Award for Outstanding Contribution to Planning, an honor given to an individual who in not in the Planning profession. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the March 28, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Remnpel, seconded by Barker, carried to approve the Minutes of the April 25, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner McNiel abtairnd Motion: Moved by Mc Niel,, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the y 9, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moored by McNi.el, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT ;CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adept , the Consent Calendar. A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE ERMIT d -1 LEDERMANN Reapplication for design review of modifications to the architectural designs for a preschool to :be located can the northeast cornea* of Church and Turner APN 107771®0 > B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP` 10 . SSA - A custom lot subdivision of ten= acres of land into 15 lots located in the R 1 C, CC (Single Family Residential/20,000 square foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Read and haven Avenue - AP1 C1 111-1 Q PUBLIC HEARINGS C. HOYT LUMBER Consideration of a request to expand a non-conforming use and structure located at 7110 Archibald. City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report and showed slides of the existing commercial use. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing r. Rick Nelson, 7110 Archibald, the applicant, stated he was very interested in knowing hat he would be able to do with the rest of his lot and expressed agreement with the Planning findings a ether ants the public hear ing s closed , There being c�he p_ s Commissioner McNial stated there was a conflict in the Development Cade relative to neon-conforming use expansion and cited page 14, items C, C and P. Assistant City Attorney Hopson replied that there is no conflict as the last clause in C1 ;explains when and how an existing use can be e pan d$ that it is not as inconsistent as it at first appears, and, that G15 gives further explanation. Gomez stated that the verbiage was ad ded because the abatement schedule was eliminated. He furthers explained that the findings would have to be suet as sat forth in the Development Code on a case by case basis. Commissioner issioner Rempel explained during the General Plan hearings certain areas in the 'City were mentioned to be non-conforming uses areas in order that the General Plan would not have to be changed for each individual ;site. Further, it was done in this manner so that expansion of uses could be allowed. Planning Commission Minuted - dune 13, 1984 i Chairman Stout stated with ` respect to non-conforming uses, the Commission should discourage any expansion, but since this expansion would be to the rear of an existing structure and not really visible from the street, he thought if the Commission has the capability of bringing the front structure up to current City standards that may be the type of trade-off that would mama the non-conforming use able to be expanded. Chairman Stout felt that a master plan for the site would be excellent and provided some comments relative to blending in with the residential uses 'hear it as well as changing the roof to enhance it. Commissioner Rempel asked if Chairman Stout is referring to the new building or the old one Chairman Stout replied that he is referring to both and that what is needed is some type of landscaping and treatment Commissioner Rempel stated that there will: be another building between this one and the one proposed. Chairman Stout stated that he would rather have the architecture of the old and existing buildings upgraded rather than have the new structure brought down Commissioner Barker stated that he was a little uncomfortable with this but as long as there will be a waster plan specifically aimed at the architecture and landscaping, and it will conform to the surrounding area.., r Hopson stated that this item should be brought back with a specific proposal and findings. Motion: Moved by Rev el seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, that this piece of property be allowed within the non conforming: use category with consideration of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and their future review. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -05 - DAN A The establishment of a recreational vehicle storage yard on 2.4 acres of land in the Low Residential District generally located on the south side of Base Line, east of Hermosa Avenue' - APN 1077- 051 C. Senior Planner, Tim Needle, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Bar er asked where 45 feet would be on the map when measured from Base Line r Beedle pointed it out and clarified that the measurement should be taken 5 feet; from the ultimate fence line Planning Commission Minute June 13, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mrs. Leona Banns, 10191 Base Line, stated she has no argument with moving the recreational vehicles beak. However, she did not agree with the requirement to put up a block wall and requested that dense shrubs and ;landscaping be allowed 'instead if they are placed in front of a chain ling fence. Commissioner Barker stated that this was considered by the Design Review Committee, but because Base Lino is a Special Boulevard, a six-foot masonry wall is required' because of what presently exists in the study area. He indicated that compatibility is the intent as well as providing n total screen to the storage area to the south. Mr. Larry Donna, 7026 Amethyst, indicated that they were concerned with' Condition 2 on page 5 of the Standard Conditions which requires dedication of 27 feet of right-of-way and additionally requires her to pay for all improvements. Mr. Dana stated that the City",is asking his mother to ; install a drainage system and now the Engineering Department is asking for proof that it works. He indicated that the City Engineering Department approved the plans and asked if they don't know if it works, how are the Dannals to known if it works. r Gomez provided some background to this use and indicated that it was in existence prior to the City's incorporation, but was an illegal use which had not been approved by the County, allowed in the City through adoption of a Conditional_ Use Permit. He indicated that this would make it a legal conforming use. Further, that the Standard Conditions are what the City requires of anyone Hopson stated that the question was asked if the applicant does not go City have the; right t forward with the recreational vehicle ark door tip yard, take the dedication Mr. Donna asked if she applied for the Conditional Use Permit, does she theta have to make the dedication. r Hopson replied that if anyone applies to the City for something that the City has the pow er� to give or not give their consent to, as with a Tentative Tract Map, Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, or anything that is a discretionary request where a yes or no is iven, then the City can condition the yes an certain things., One of the legal rights of :the City is to get dedications of right-of-way as a condition or a "quid pro qua" as a trade-off for saying yea Mr. Al Minter, residing on La'V no in Rancho Cucamonga, indicated he stores his vehicle in Mrs. Danna1a yard and if she goes out of business, it will; mean that 10 vehicles will;end cap in driveways. Planning Commission Minute -4- dune 13, 1984 Steve Killion, Rancho Cucamonga resident, questioned whether the previous applicant or the Edison Company will also be required to put up a block wall. 1 Terry Harris, 10210 Base Line, stated the need for a recreational 'vehicle illl storage yard and indicated that surrounding residents must put up with the smell and flies from the adjoining property 'owner. Mr. William Dannadento, 7462 Topaz, felt the, ity'a requirements were a squeeze play inasmuch as a drainage system has been installed and there is now request for a block wall. He asked that the Edison ;Company also be required to :install and pay for a wall. ,; Don King 9375 Archibald, representing r. Steve louse property owner to the south, indicated he was not there to protest the issuance of e Conditional Use Permit t for the Danny property. He showed the Commission pictures of the fiund property and the drainage problems that exist, and requested that it be corrected. Further, that the staff recommendation dation is supported by Mr. Huss. Mrs. Dora McCreerey, 6896 Beryl, stated she was a life-long resident of this area and a problem with drainage dial not exist until Mr. Husa flattened his land. She provided pictures taken from the Danny property to the 'Euaa property and indicated that she would rather see plants than walls. She stated that she felt the City* was discriminating against a single woman. Mr. William Comstocko resident, ;felt the storage lot is needed in order to accommodate people who would otherwise be ticketed for storage of a recreational 'vehicle on their property;. Mrs. Linda Hirsch, resident, stated it was interesting that the City is requiring a block wall when they did not want one put in their tract in order to avoid a galled-city look r° Minter again spore indicating that the drainage plan was done by a registered civil engineer seer and had been approved by the City''a Engineering Division. Art MacKay, Alta Loma resident, stated that the ann 'a provide a desirable service to Rancho Cucamonga` and if their Conditional Use Permit i not approved, it would force RV owners to go ouaide of the City- for these services. r Prude Hetell, Red bill resident, was opposed to what the Commission was planning to do in requiring so much to be done. He felt the requirements might force Mrs.. 1 anna out of business. Where being no further comments, the public hearing was cloned. Commissioner Eemps l stated that he has some problems requiring some of the things included in the resolution in conjunction with the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. Planning o iss on Minutes - dune 13, 1984 Commissioner Rempel stated that the City will work with Mrs. Danna to establish payment; for any improvements over a period of time rather than requiring her to pay for them in a lump sure. Commissioner Remp l stated he would like the requirement for the block wall eliminated because there are other ways of screening such as the use of an ornamental iron fence or dense landscaping. Commissioner Remp l stated that if the drainage is not intentionally diverted to one area of the adjoining property there should not be a requirement for a new drainage system Commissioner ;Rempel asked that the requirement for the block wall be deleted with a lot of landscaping instead and he asked that the City assist Mrs. Danna with the cost of the road work that must be done through a reimbursement agreement or some other' process Commissioner Barker echoed the comments made by Commissioner Rempel. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission could use a whole bunch of modifications to the landscaping such as berms, dense planting and he appreciates this, but it does not address the high costs of the situation Commissioner Barker stated that he is not an expert on drainage and must- take Commissioner Rempel's word that if drainage is not specifically directed towards your neighbor, you are not accountable for it Rou eau Mated that since the street work is of primary concern, the City will .later on be looking to complete its improvement program which includes a ,fob for a minimal: amount of widening on Base Line at Hermosa and Ivy which must be done because of traffic conflicts. Rou eau explained that when the Commission gives their approval .to a project it does not have much choice on what conditions it gust require By . law, he stated, the package that cameo to the Commission is presented in such a stay that it complies in what the laws' requires. In the past, people have coordinated their-projects with those of the City in order to reduce casts on: the work to be done. In this case, Mr. Roueau stated that the street work would cost in the area of $10,000 for the full amount which would include sidewalks, curbs and gutters. He further' stated that it could be less, but granting approval would mean that full street improvements must' be made; however, it could be spread over;a period of time. r< Hobbs, City Engineer,; stated that it would not be a reimbursement agreement in the classic sense; it would be a participation or loan agreement and it is done in certain areas by the City Council. He indicated an attempt would be madeto negotiate this with the City Council. Planning Commission n Minutes - dune 13,, 1984 Commissioner Barker asked if this were to be done, would it be proper to cause the imposition with the recommendation to the City Council that long-term arrangements for payment be made. Mr. Hubbs replied it would be appropriate. Chairman Stout asked since this is in a residential area would a Conditional Use Permit be granted. Mr. Gomez replied that is correct. Chairman Stout asked if this were semantically called a temporary use, would these requirements have to be made. Mr. Gomez replied that this has been classified as a Conditional Use and not a temporary use. He explained the are time limitations between a Conditional Use and a temporary use. Commissioner MoNiel stated he does not have a Bret deal of problem with at has already been said, but asked what kind of precedent will be set by deviating from the wall requirement because this is a Special Boulevard. Mr. Gomez stated that the only thing that would be precedent setting would be the chain link fence because this is a Special Boulevard. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that the Commission is not a villanous body, nor a discriminatory body, and they are not trying to put a lady out of business. He indicated that it is absurd to state this. He indicated that the Commission tries to make decisions according to law and based on conditions, and to have people come in and throw spears is not appreciated and is offensive. Chairman Stout explained how this type of use was allowed with the adoption of' the General Plan and how previously it had not been allowed. Chairman Stout stated that if you arbitrarily start saying that someone does not have to do something he or there then the plans that you have set will not work out and are meaningless. Further, staff looked at at the law requires and simply stated that this is what it is, and no decisions had been made prior to coming in tonight. He indicated that based on what is required they can then see where any exceptions can be made. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-47 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4-05, with the deletion of the requirement for a masonry wall to be replaced with a combination of a solid wall and landscaping berms, etc., and that chain link on Baseline or where visible not be allowed; the deletion of Conditon No. 3; the words "right-of-way" in Condition No. 2 changed to "fence"; the word "paved" in Condition No. 3 changed to "surfaced"; and a recommendation to the City Council that they spread the cost of required improvements over a period of time. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 13, 1984 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. s CO p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S O ST. P T R/ST. FAUL CHURCH - A request to allow tie operation of a preschool in are existing 11 ,645 sq. ft building in conjunction with a church, located at the southeast corner of Banyan rid Beryl - APN 10 -; 1 1 Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, ; r°eviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Father Charles O'Connor, representing the church, appeared to answer questions from the d that the children be move d ro__ Chairman Steam awed how it �. proposed Cha a p p play yard to the school Father O'Connor replied that they will use an escort for the children and explained what the ratio of children to supervisors would be as required by State law. Further, Fatter "Connor volunteered that a peg or temporary fence, which could be reproved, could be used to bloat off the walkway from the parking areas. Commissioner ssioner Barker stated that in approving other preschools there has been a requirement for a visible barriers to shield the children from vehicles. There being no further comment, the public hearing closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. R approving Conditional U e Permit t 84-08, with the deletion of Condition No. 9 of the resolution, and a new condition requiring some type of; fe�ncing daring the hours of school operation. F . REVISIONS UP THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT In accordance with rtiole 10. , Section 65580 of the Ca 'i.fo i.a Covernm nt Code, a revision and update to the City Housing Element Senior Planner, Otto 'Rroutil, gave an overview of the Rousing Element and asked that before the staff presentation is made, consideration of special language e made for insertion to the Element that resulted from the 1 th Street Corridor Study Committee's recommendation regarding affordable housing. Associate Planner, Cart Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 13, 198 i Commissioner Hempel asked where the 7 percent of people referred to on page A55' of the report live. r. Johnston 'replied that those figures are from the 1980 Census. r. Kroutil, Senior Planner, replied that HUD's and the Bureau of Census definition of overcrowding is more than 1 .1 person per room and that would be a four person household living in a two bedroom dwelling. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r. Daryl Ni olai, 6245 Dakota, awed where HUD proposes to locate future housing Chairman Stout replied that this would be addressed shortly. Mr. Gomez stated that no new sites are contemplated and the,, Draft Housing Element Revision proposes no new sites. r. Ni dlai asked if there is any type of restriction in location. 1r. Gomez replied that is a point the Commission will covers There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stoat stated there is a policy statement that the Committee wants to ' have included in the Housing Element and it will bring the element into conformance with the recommendations made during the 1 th Street Corridor Study. Further, Chairman Stout indicated that the Committee is comprised of Mayor don 1' ikels, Councilmember Richard Bahl, Commissioner David Barker,; and himself, and resulted in the development of a policy recommendation that could limit Section 8 housing to its minimum limits with respect to subsidised housing within the City® Chairman Stout read the language: "While the "City recognizes the fact that certain policies regarding subsidized housing have been legislated by the State and Federal governments, it is the intent of the City to limit this type of housing to the minimum amounts required by the State and Federal governments", and asked that this language be included in the Housing Element. Commissioner Barker stated that this would be in keeping with what the City gust do in order to meet the minimum requirements, but no more than that. r Hopson stated ;the language should say that it is the intention of the City to comply with all minimum standards of the State and Federal government; rather than saying they will only comply with the minimum. Chairman Stout stated that is not what the Committee means. Rather, the City will only comply with the minimum standards Planning Commission Minutes - dune 13, 1984 Mr. Gomez stated ' that , the only caution he would have is that the City is required to do certain things and he mould not want to state a policy that would be in direct conflict with the State Commissioner , ciel stated he agreed with ;the intent of the policy statement but there is no reason to red flag it in order to draw undue attention to it Further, he agrees with; compliance only to the minimum required Commissioner Remp l stated that the policy statement could be put into the approving resolution and not into the dousing Element itself. Gomez stated that this would be preferable. r Hopson indicated placement of the statement in the resolution would be appropriate Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 8 -49, recommending approval:- of the Housing Element to the City Council which proud include,the policy statement in the Resolution Mr i olai asked where such housing will. be Located within the City. routil replied it is a part of the 19th Street Corridor Study and there will be nothing more to add Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gomez to explain where HUD housing Haight go. Mr. Gomez responded that this is governed by the General Plan and Development Code and the policy;' that the Commission is dealing; with is for the ovorconce ntration ofprojects which would have more than the 8 percent minimum so that the sage problem does not occur as the Woodhaven project on Lemon and Haven. Per. Hopson stated that if there is are already built apartment and someone applied for Section 8 housing money, or rental. subsidy money, and contracted every apartment unit in that already built apartment building, there mould be nothing the City could do about it. Gomez stated that the City does have the power to voice its concern and object to that but the Federal government is the overriding ;body and would make that approval. Chairman Stout asked for clarification on whether the City determines where those apartments will go. r. Gomez responded that the City gives the appropriate area for apartments but funding is determined by the Federal government. The City does not determine where they will go and It does have some input, but the Federal government can contract with anyone it 'wants to to constraint those apartments. Planning Commission ssion Minutes 1 - June 13, 1984 Mr. Gomez replied this is correct; however, under this President there does not appear to be any money for subsidized apartments Mr. Larry Bliss, local developer,, explained how the Lesny Development Company obtained its long tern financing for this project and indicated that what the City attorney has stated is correct.; He also advised of the difficulty f managing Section 8 housings Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by McNi 1, carried unanimously, to modify Resolution No. 9 to include the statement relative to subsidized housing and recommend approval of the Housing Element to the City Council . 1 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PARCEL MAP 5786 - CROWELL BROTHERS _ A division of 7.249 acres of load into 2 parcels in the Office Professional District located at the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian - APt I 207-031-38. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rou eau, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stoat asked that the specific division be outlined on the map. Mr. Hopson sated that if the developer wanted to enter into a ground lease , for the, parcel thus it would technically be a subdivision under California law. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing* r. Cary Clines, representing C/L Builders, stated his concurrence with all conditions of the reap. He indicated that the Exchange, which was approved through a Conditional Use Permit several years ago, is completely improved at this time. He indicated currently they have a proposed restaurant which would o on this site Chairman Stout asked what kind of restaurant it would be. Mr fines replied it is called Zaks and it would be like a; Michael J. Chairman Stout asked if this site can handle parking. Mr. Dines replied that this was fully developed several, years ago, and was; able to accommodate parking. Mrs. Linda Hirsch, resident on Colima Court, spoke for -14 other residents. She related the problems that have taken place since the Exchange Building was occupied and indicated that she and her neighbors have even proposed a block wall for which they would pay one-half the, cost. She indicated that this was refused by Mr. Crowell, and he offered to scrap them a home in Sunnymead instead. Mrs, Hirsch stated that this developer has nearer lived up to his commitments for landscaping, the drainage ditch, signs, and maintenance, and asked for assistance from the Commission Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 13, 1984 Chairman Stout asked where the children crossed through their lot. Mrs. Hirsch painted to this on the rep. Mr. Mitchell Hirsch pointed out that the only extensive landscaping in the back is oleanders and expressed concern because of their poisonous characteristics. There being no further comments, the public hearing was chased. " Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission does not have the original Conditions of Approval. r Beadle explained that the Commission is dealing only with the parcel map before them tonight. Commissioner Rempel stated that if he remembered correctly, there was supposed to be some type of retaining wall because; of the height differential between the residences and the Exchange Building, and e leer gall_ to prevent light from shining into the homes. Commissioner e el stated that the parcel map could be conditioned to have some type of barrier along the property line. He indicated that this would do two things: prevent people from going through the area and yet not be unattractive` from the homes. Commissioner Barger expressed concern with haw that would be handled. He asked if this would ate back through h Design Review or through staff. r eedle stated that if ;the condition is placed on the parcel, then the Engineering Division will make sure it will be completed. e indicated that the intent is to 'provide for adequate wall design and staff will assure that the condition is rude a part of the parcel map. Commissioner Barker asked that dense landscaping also be required as a means of sound attenuation Commissioner Barker stated that there should be a buffer for sound light, a retaining wall, and upgrading of landscaping that was expected originally. Further, the access across the adjoining properties Faust be protected ae that there is no further trespassing. Motion: slaved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. -50, with the additional condition that the parcel map shall be conditioned to require a barrier design at the south property boundary,, from the east to west on parcel 2, that is aesthetically compatible with both residences and the existing facility, and landscaping be improved to the point where it is an adequate barrier and will provide light and sound buffering to existing residences to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minuted 1 June 1 , 1984 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8568 - BARTON A division of 4.1 acres into 3 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on Utica Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue APN PC - 51P1 . Commissioner McNi. l excused himself from the Commission table because of a possible conflict of interest. Paul Rou eau,; Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r. games Barton, 8409 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga., explained the office building; and indicated the conditions were acceptable. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 51 , approving Parcel Map 8569 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Commissioner McNiel returned to the 'tables 10:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10. 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. I. 19TH STREET" CORRIDOR STUDY - ADMINISTRATIVE ND NTS City Planner, Rick Comet, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker stated following up on Item No. 12, Land Use Study on 19th Street Corridor, and recognizing the tidiness of the proposal, he asked that staff expand the study area and bring back a report. The area is to include that along Highland and above identified primarily to Haven and to an extension of Milliken and contain Neighborhood Commercial, Medium and Medium High as far as site specific. Mr. Comet Mated that staff has prepared, relative to the land use considerations, an analysis and plans' to bring this to the dune 27th greeting for consideration. Chairman Stout stated that he understands the new requirements and likes the language; however, at the time the Committee was studying this they discussed situations where they might' not wish' to give approval to a specific project due to the new conditions being inadequate to bring it into conformance and be enforceable Planning Commission Minutes -1 .June 13, 1984 r Gomez replied that his ndin that it wouldnot be withinh City's authority to place additional conditions on a'project. The Commission mould have to deny it Chairman ,Stout was concerned about projects that had;minor charges that might have to be denied and thus have to pay a new filing fee for very little work involved. Gomez explained the costs involved in filing due to notifications and the staff work involved and indicated that , Chairman Stout is asking for an expanded program that would not take into consideration those costs.; He indicated that in any expanded program, these costs must be absorbed. Chairman Stout asked if there was any way to isolator the notification fee and cover Just the cost of that Gomez indicated that staff would have to analyze that. Commissioner Remy el stated that there would be additional coats inasmuch as staff would have to go over the entire application Chairman Stout stated that;,this would not be the case if there were only a minor change;. Further, that they are doing it now and there is no charge for its Commissioner Barker stated that until the recent City Attorney's opinion, the Commission would add minor modifications to previously approved projects when they came before , the Commission for time extensions. Now the Commission is being told that they cannot impose these modifications such as the addition of a community trail because they are not enforceable and if the conditions are being changed they are, being changed without legal notifications. He stated . it is silly to have an applicant, o through the total cost when there is just' a minor upgrade involved. Commissioner Rempel stated that if this has to go back through Design Review all that staff work will have to be done and this is an ,additional crest and should be charged. . Gomez indicated that this can be left as it is and reviewed on a case by case basis because he doesn't think it is the intent of the Commission to provide a subsidy to some developers and have others pay the fees. Chairman Stout stated that was not the intent of the language that he proposed Gomez stated that chat this comes down to is a policy change and staff will write one up and bring it back for review by the Commission. Hopson stated that if there is concern by the Commission, staff can prepare a recommendation to the City Council relative to the fee structure that whore differences are minor there be some adjustment to the fees. Planning Commission Minutes 14 dune 1 , 1984 Mr. Gomez suggested that this might Include the costs of public hearing, publications and notifications. He indicated that he is trying to assist the Commission in isolating what the minor costs might be. Commissioner Rempel stated that he has some difficulty in saying it is just a simple, little change and he cited an example of a project that is controversial. He asked if the fact that it is brought back will make the project less controversial. Mr. Gomez stated that staff will review the Commission's concerns and bring back a recommendation. Commissioner Rempel commented on the expense of the City putting up a large sign for notification of a project each time. He felt that the City should have a specification that everyone should follow or alternatively, have many signs built with the finishing lettering to be applied by the developer. He felt that each applicant should be responsible for their own sign according to the specifications furnished to them. Sr. Gomez explained some of the problems that could occur if each applicant is responsible for their own sign. Commissioner Barker asked if the contractor would monitor the maintenance of the sign. Commissioner Rempel commented that the cost to the City would be more than the cost to the developer for the sign. Commissioner McMiel agreed with Commissioner Rempel on what the ultimate cost, of the sign will be. He felt that the specifications could be written in such a way that it would ensure compliance and uniformity. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like to have the developer build the sign but was concerned with who would monitor it. Mr. Gomez replied that the City would have better control if they have the sign built and monitor it. Commissioner Rempel stated that conformance should be relatively a simple matter because the staff has the authority to withhold approval of applications until they are complete. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was agreement with staff's recommendations on the study and that the sign portion be brought back after further study. Mr. Jim Rand, Kingston Street resident, wanted to be sure that the 19th Street Corridor will be expanded and brought back to the Commission at their June 2'nth meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 13, 1984 J. LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOP °T STANDARDS Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report.; Chairman Stoat stated that his personal preference is Option No. 3. Commissioner Barker stated that he has seen some colossal failures_lately in the -8 du ae range because it does not work. He indicated tht they are wall to'wall cement even with the skewed lot lines and the thud option in the most logical. The Planning Commission concurred that the third option is their choice. Larry Bliss, developer, asked that the Commission leave open the option for -8 because of some new housing types that are currently appearing in the Sari Clemente area. He indicated that the building community would like to see ; them here as well. r° Coleman stated the Commission's packet, specifically Exhibit G, is some example of what Mr. Bliss is talking about and if the Commission makes certain decisions, it will preclude some single family detached products. Chairman Shirt stated that the six projects that he has seen that are similar are dismal failures as far as he is concerned. He indicated farther, there is no way to legislate superior design. Mrs. Bliss further explained the new concept of design to the Commission relative to units in the 8-8 unit category. Chairman Stout eked what kind of common open space it has and what the density is. Bliss explained this to Chairman Stoat. Chairman man Stout stated . that if some types of regulations can be written that can allow that type of process and screen out: all of the other undesirable products, it would be all right. , Gomez replied that Mr. Stout might want staff to develop language or some type of review if option three is the preference that would allow flexibility so that they can deal with designs like K & P, which was encouraging because it slowed itself to blend with the traditional values of. single family detached. Chairman Stout stated that he personally died not like, that design. Commissioner McNiel asked that Mr. Gomez develop such language Chairman Stout and Commissioner Barker Mated that staff can tray. ,I Planning Commission Minutes 1 Jane 13, 1984 The concensus of the Commission is to have staff provide additional: language providing flexibility for superior design in conjunction with the combination of options one and two. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue past the 11:00 p.m. deadline.. K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Lloyd Hobbs, 'City Engineer, reviewed the stuff report. Chairman Stout asked that the Banyan crossing be added to the Alta Loma channel road r Hubbs replied that it can be added to the long-rare program. Commissioner Rempel asked if traffic signals are scheduled on the basis of , priority. Be asked that a signal for Base Lire at Beryl, and 1th Street at Sapphire be given a higher priority because of their need. Mr. Bubbs replied this list was extensivelyrevised; however, because 1 th Street is a state highway, the state will determine when it should be signalized. Be indicated that the priority listings are done on an annual basis and the City receives matching funds.. Further, that the City does have funds for Baseline and Hermosa this year. Commissioner MoNiel asked about 9th and Vineyard Paul Ro¢eau explained how ,the signal was acquired at this location and hoer'; the state prioritizes the need for signals. He indicated that priorities can be changed based on the number of accidents and increased traffic. Commissioner Rempel felt that item No. 10 in the traffic signal priority list be moved rap to the No. 5 position. Commissioner Rempel stated that: the Base Line and Hermosa signal.; is not a critical traffic spot r. Rou ea .. replied that staff can make another request to the state to reschedule these signals. Commissioner Rempel stated in the area of beautification, Archibald Avenue between th and "nth Street should be added to the list. Be indicated this> would not be costly but should be, listed Commissioner Barker stated- that if the City can do it, he would be in agreement with Commissioner Rempel Planning Commission Minutes 17- dune 13, 1984 Hubbs replied that this would be a nominal east, Motion: moved by Rempel., seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. , recommending approval of the Capital Improvements Program to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11i; 0 p.m. deadline L. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING; PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY ON STREET STANDARDS City Engineer, Lloyd H bbs, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker stated that a lot of time had been spent during the Development,pment, Code hearings regarding street standards and the fact that there , should be no distinction between those of private and`public streets however, it does not appear in the Low Medium development standards or in the discussion on street standards Mr. Nubbs replied that it would be appropriate in the Development Code. There was brief discussion on the applicability of standards to theLow-Medium , density areas r u eau stated that the Commission was considering the gated communities in the 4 or 2 per unit category. Commissioner Barker stated that the private roads were also being used in the 6-8 unit per acre categories. r Reu eau replied that is correct as they were using private roads to gain more density. Mrs Hubbs stated that referred to a section in the Development Cade that made a distinction on setbacks on public and private streets Commissioner Barker asked if that has been removed. r Hubbs replied that would be a pant of the previous item. Mr. Doe King, consulting engineer, asked if setbacks from the curb have been established. Further, the development community would not have problems Vfith adhering to City standards. However, from the pint of view of the person designing the streets;, canoe rights-of-way have been established, it would restrict innovation in design Planning Commission Minutes 1 - June 13, 1984 'I L I, i King stated that if there are things that the City does not want, this should be set down in the standards as staff has very good graphics and they can state that this will not be ap cved indicated that this would eliminate developers coming` in with things that the City does not like and mould curb repeats Chairman Stout suited that design is one of the Issues but there is another consideration and that is one of private streets. He indicated that a year down the road they might fall apart and because the subdivision is one of leer density, they can't be repaired because of the costs involved. r. King stated that in lieu of established rights-of-way even for a private street, if it is going to be an air rights condominium, for example, and the front yard is desired, he requested that the Commission establish the setbacks for the ;front yard without hampering the design possibilities. r. Hobbs stated that "policy direction the Commission provided the last ,time regarding setbacks is consistent with Mr. i 's comments. He indicated that they just wanted to have a uniform place to start. Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the policy on strut standards AD40URNMENT Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Barker, carried_unanimously, to adjourn. 11:30 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Reap if srbm `tted R e fa but ecretar3r Planning Commission Minutes -1 dime 13, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 23, 194 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 Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Sale Lime Road Rancho Cucamonga, California. " Chairman Stout'them led In the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT* David Barker, Larry McN el., Herman Remp 1, Dennis: Stoat COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Reedle, Senior Planner; Darr Coleman, Associate oiate Planner; Prank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; ;Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City ttor re ; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he would like to clarify a statement which he made at a previous meeting e advised that there is a time limit on the approval of parcel maps as well as on tentative tract Via. However, either time limit is waived when the developer desires to extend the time limit. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 1173 RICAN NATIONAL Reapplication for, caign Review of modification ' to the architectural product for 9 condominiums on 8.5 acres of land :located on the northwest corner of Arrow and Vineyard, R. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N C - S AR A -- The development ofa 3,691 snare foot elementary school and two temporary trailers on 3 4 acres located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard APN 03--2441 C9. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11 R BOROUG development of townhouse units on 40 acres of "land located on the east aide of; Archibald, south of Church , Street APN 77-- 1 , 1 77 1 and 1077-631-03. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1,2171 - ST PH NSON A custom lot subdivision of air lots on 3.3 acres of land in the 'fiery Low yt District, located at the northwest corner of Kinsman Avenue and" Whirlaway Street APN 11 D6-07 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4-11 C FTH The development of an 80,332 are foot mini-storage facility on 3.56 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea located near the southwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue APN D C 4 . Commissioner Barker requested that Item "B", Sharma, be removed for discussion R l used b �Se�iel nan�:rot�a1; carried, t o adopt Motion: Moved b erg aeon � p t the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. . S. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C SHAR TA Commissioner Barker stated that 'there were a number of items of concern when the project ent first came before the Commission ssion which resulted in conditions being placed on this project; however, these conditions and requirements have apparently been ignored by the applicant. He asked Dana Coleman,; Associate Planner, if the trailers have been removed Mr. Coleman replied that had been removed last week. Commissioner Barker asked if there were other item in violation of the conditions of approval &. Mr. Coleman replied that on his last visit to the site some landscaping was not completes and a chain link fence across a portion of: the parking lot had, been extended Chairman Stuart asked Mr. Sharma to come forward. He asked Mr. Sharma if his intentions are to restore this facility with the same type of architecture or if he was planning to change that concepts Mr. Sharma replied that he has recently employed Andrea 11arma ian to work on plans and a decision on the architecture has not been made at this time. Chairman Stoat, asked if 6-months would be a realistic time in which to complete these plena and submit them to the City. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1984 4 r. Sharma replied that it would. r Coleman stated that if the Commission did grant a 6-month extension the applicant would have to occupy the temporary trailers within6-months or have building permits issued Motion: Moved by;Parker, seconded by Stout, to deny to time extension request for Conditional Use Permit 0 Motion failed. Motion: Moved by R mpol, seconded by Model, to approve the time extension. Commissioner c Ni l advised; the applicant that the commitments and agreements made should be followed through 'because the Commission's deadlock nova is for that reason. Honors filed. Tod. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if an affirmative action cannot be taken by the Commission the Conditional Use Permit for this project proceeds until it;expires on the ,date first established. Chairman Stout asked when this project expires r. Coleman stated that based upon Mr. opso n's statement, the Conditional Use Permit expired on May 10, 1984. PUBLIC HEARINGS P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A rasid rntial development of 225 single family lots on 147.16 acres of land in the Very Lowe Residential district ,located on the` oast side of Haven Avenue, south of the Hillside Flood Channel, and north of Hillside Rod APN' 01 121-1 . Rick Cortez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. ; Commissioner Barker stated that many of the letters, received from homeowners within the existing Deer Creole project contained statements that promises were made to them by the developer that the one acre concept of the existing tract would carry through the entire development. No asked Mr. Hopson if the Commission is in a position to enforce those promises made; by the developer. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that while this may be a civil wrong which ` could result In litigation between the homeowners; and the developer as to breached promised, the Commission is not in a position to make a determination as to who made promises to whom. Further,' that it is not part of the material to be consideredbefore the, Commission, their responsibility is to determine if a tentative tract is in compliance with existing codes, ordinances and General Plan designations. Planning Commission Minutes 3- May 23, 1984 Commissioner Barker advised that, based on this direction from counsel, the public comments would be beat directed to the Commission on whether mitigating factors are 'present which would not rake this project compatible with the: existing surroundings Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vairin, 9524 19th Street,; Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating their concurrence: with the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Stout referred to Mr. ai.rin's letter to the Leer Creek homeowners dated April 1 , 1984 and stated that reference had been made to the unit size an 2900-3900 square feet, yet Mr. Vairin grade reference to 2500 square foot units. He asked Mr. Vairin what would be the minimum unit size. r. Vairin replied that determinations on unit sizes are premature at this. time, as the units have not fret been designed. He advised that the 2900 square foot figure evolved from a unit which the, applicant had recentlya completed design on and is proposing to construct. Chairman Stout asked what the applicant's position would be on a set minimum pp square footage for residential. units Ir. Vairin replied that the current CC P'a for Deer Creek contain a minimum 1800 square foot; minimum. He advised that architectural plans had not been developed for the full phase and would like to have an opportunity to discuss this minimum with the owner. Further that the developerM plans to build some of the horses existent in the current tract which are within the 19 tl CC square foot range, and this minimum would prohibit hire from doing this. Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant had worked with the Deer Creek homeowners on the placement of equestrian trails. r Vairin replied that the applicant worked with the Trails Committee on the equestrian trails; and intends to retain the same trails concept in the new phases. Commissioner Barker asked if a parks credit had been given' for 'the trails. Ted Hopson stated that a determination had been made several years ago that private trails that are not accessible to the public at large would receive 50 percent parka credit Commissioner Barker stated that in light of the fact that the applicant is not requesting park credit, would it be safe to assure that the applicant 'mould not object to a condition being made that no park credit be given r. Vairin replied that the applicant would agree to this Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 23, 1984 I The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the tract based upon incompatibilities with the existing development and expressing concerns with property values, and that the developer might sell : this property. Additionally, three conditions were recommended by homeowners: (1 the name "Beer Creek" net be used for the new phase; (2) a greenbelt be provided to separate the two phases; and (d) that the north/south streets be cul-de-sac streets. David Britton 10920 Beachwood Drive Rancho Cucamonga Donna Card 10915 Hillside - Ranches Cucamonga Caney Oakland 1 761 Hillside "Rancho Cucamonga Ken Aldridge; - 10938 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Joyce Juliana - 10781 Hillside Rancho Cucamonga Richard Smith 5481 Valinda - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Bal krishnan ` 10856 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Barbara Bala rishnan - 10856 Hillside Rancho Cucamonga Patricia Berens, 10918 Hillside !- Rancho Cucamonga Ralph Daigle 5235 Mesada - Rancho Cucamonga Genevieve MacDowell - 10518 Peach TreeRancho Cucamonga Bata Cle rnon - 5675 Canastil Rancho Cucamonga Bill Howard 10721 Hillside Rancho Cucamonga Jeri Lee 10923 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Weldon Sewell - 18521 Apple Lane ' Rancho Cucamonga The following individuals addressed the Commission in support of the project based upon the reputation of the developer to build ghat was termed "quality" homes, the feeling the new project would be detrimental to their property; values, and Mated that a one-acre lot is toes expensive to 'maintain} Anne Calinsky* 5468 Valinda Rancho Cucamonga Brune Wilcox 10802 Hillside Rancho Cucamonga Br. Hed peth 10565 Hillside _ Rancho Cucamonga r i.r kossi:an 10688 Beachwood - Rancho Cucamonga Br. Pis s 10876 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga "There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' request that the new ,phase not be called by the rare Beer Creek and asked if the Commission has this right. "Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he did not believe under the Subdivision Map Act that the Commission has the right to say what a development can or cannot be caked Commissioner Barker stated that many of the homeowners expressed concern that the developer of Beer Creek might sell this property and the homeowners had suggested that the developer post bonds for a quality development. He asked for Mr. Heopson's comment. Planning Commission Minutes 5 y 23, 1984 Mrs. Hopson applied that the City cannot prohibit a developer from selling his property. He advised that bonds can be required for items such as off-site improvements but that: a quality development cannot be bonded for but can be assured through the Cityts design review process Chairman Stout stated that he could not accept this; development if there was not a minimum square footage set on the unit size .and suggested 2500 square feetm Commissioner Hempel suggested that Language be added to the Conditions of Approval which requires that the new tract be architecturally compatible with the existing tract so that compatibility will be assured when the specific designs go before the Design Review o ittee. `fed Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Commission not only has the power to condition this project to be submitted to the Design Review Committee, but also the power to require it to come before the full Commission. Commissioner Barber stated that he would like the property owners be notified when the project comes before the Commission for design review. Commissioner Hempel advised that'design review items are not generally handled as; public hearings and requiring this project to be handled as such may be setting a precedent. He suggested that a language could be added to the conditions which would require notices to be sent to property owners within the existing' Deer Creek trust Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' concern that the lot widths would limit the house designs. He suggested that a randomly selected lot be dropped from each of the four northern levels to allow the flexibility to provide lot widths of 140 feet. Chairman Stout referred to the homeowners' suggestion of requiring all of the streets in the net phase to be cu l-de-sac sac streets and advised that this would place too much traffic on haven Avenue. He stated that even; with the increased density of this tract adding an extra street would allow a balance of traffic that would charnel some of the traffic ants Haven that normally would have gone onto Hillside He furthers stated that eliminating atin the circulation pattern would unduly be placing a burden to the residents of the new tract who are not present to voice their opinions. Commissioner c iel advised that requiring cul-de-sac streets would also present a problem with emergency vehicle access. Chairman Stout referred to the issue of the greenbelt suggested by the homeowners and stated than he did not feel that the two tracts should b separated. Further, that the quality of the existing tract would` be forced higher than if it was allowed to be mated off# He advised that through careful scrutiny and the i_ty�s Design Review process, the tracts can be made into one contiguous project Planning Commission Minutes - y 23, 1984 Chairman Stout reiterated the conditions suggested by the Commission to set C square feet as a minimum unit size, requiring public noticing of design review, and lot removal and asked the applicant if he would like to comment. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, stated that the developer stands on his record to build quality homes and that normal: design review procedures required by the City would assure well designed homes; therefore, did not see; the necessity to notice homeowners when the prdjeot comes before the Commission for design review. He did also express concern with establisin Q square feet as a minimum unit size. He advised that this would be in conflict with the CC&Rls for the existing tract which will also be used for the proposed tract. He stated that the minimum unit size stipulated in the CC R's is 1800 square feet. He added ;that some of the homes within Deer Creek are 1950 square feet and that setting the unit size minimum 'at 2500 square feet world make those units non conforming and would require an amendment to the CC 's» Further, that he dial not 'believe that setting a minimum unit- size was a provision allowed by the Subdivision Map Act. He additionally expressed` concern with the condition to drop a lot from each of the four northern tiers and stated that lot lines could be adjusted without removing hots. Commissioner Re rpel. Mated that he did not see why the CC R's would have to be amended because the Commission was not requiring that the minimum unit size go below the 1800 square feet first required. Additionally, he advised that it world be in the developer's best interest to loose four .bats in an effort to crake the development nt work with the existing" tract* Commissioner Barker ,stated that the 2500 square foot minimum was a compromise down from the 2900 square foot the applicant had originally referred to and that the intent was to assure that smaller hares would not be built. Regarding the loan of four lots,; he responded that this was the only solution available to provide variable lot widths. Chairman Stoat stated that the conditions would be the Cit 's assurance that the proposed tract is compatible with the existing tract to the south. Motion:' Moved by Barker, seconded by Rertpel- carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12650 with additional conditions requiring: 1) the submittal of precise designs, architecture and plot plans; to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits; ') notification of each property owner within the existing Deer Creek development of the date the project will be reviewed by the Commission; ( ) all future residential units be a minimum of 2500 square feet; and, removal of one lot in each of the four northern tiers to provide a random number of lots with a minimum lot width of 140 feet. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, R MPE , MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Planning Commission Minutes 7 1984 r 4 - Planning Commission Recessed a - Planning Commission Reconvened G. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND LEWIS HOMES - A public hearing regarding certain aspects of development rights pertaining to the 'Terra Vista Planned Community. City Manager Lauren Wasserman reviewed the ;staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved � y 4 y 1Remp el ,seconded b cNi,el, carried, to recommend that the development agreement proceed to the City Council. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 SATES' (AS WILL/HA KINS) - The development of two office/industrial buildings totaling 29,184 square feet on 2 acres of Land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ) located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and th- Street - APN 209- 411- 1 Frank preck an, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and; presented st ,ff's recommendation for denial of the project Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. Chris Bates, Irvine, California, applicant, stated that prior to submittal of this project to the City he purchased a copy of the current tint nd trial Specific Plan and had atte ped to follow the guidelines established in that, dodu en . He questioned condition one of the Resolution which stated that the project'; dial not conform to the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that Section 17.0 of the Development Code sup reed s the requirements specified in the Industrial Specific Plan Mr. Hats stated that he was not informed by City staff that there were other reference documents other than the Industrial Specific Plan on which to base guidelines for development of a project. Further, that the Resolution specifically states that the project is inconsistent with the intent and objectives of the Industrial Plan and asked for an explanation. Planning Commission ission Minutes May 23, 1984 Mr Hopson advised that staff does not take findings and ' explained that Section 17$0 .0 C F of the Development Code establishes findings that teat be met in order for the Commission to approve a project. Charles Doskow, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the statement in the staff report under the facts for finding is that the project is inconsistent with the Industrial Specific Plan. The applicant's question, he stated, is gust what aspect of the project is inconsistent r`. Hopson replied that development standards east within the Development Code which are required prig to Commission approval. Gene Ashwill;, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the parcel is 300 feet by 300 feet and is a difficult site to work with. He advised that the intent of the building design was to provide transitional uses from commercial to service professional uses catering to the industrial area. He asked how the; issue of an office and administrative project in a campus lice setting would be :addressed when the back half of the project faces a warehouse ' distribution u`se e stated that he Felt the; proposed use Mould be a good transitional use for this property in this it has a. different problem than other properties that front on Haven Avenue Chairman Stout Mated that apparently the applicant views the property differently than the City does and that in order for its to be developed as envisioned by the applicant a zone change to commercial would be necessary. He further stated that when he views the layout of this project as proposed it looks lie a shopping center. fr. Ashwill replied that the configuration may loots like a shopping center to some, but when the depth ratio of the buildings and parking is considered the project is not proposed as a shopping center. Chairman Stout stated a guarantee could not be Lade that this applicant would always own this piece of property and that the glass store front lends itself to commercial uses and that people who are looking for office professional spaces would not be drawn to this type of center. Commissioner llempel stated that a disservice had been done in not stating in the lndistural Specific Plan that the intent of the office park category s to have 30 percent service commercial and the rest developed in offices. Further, that the City can't allow the service commercial ancillary uses to tape over the office designation Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 23, 1984 1r. Ashwil.l stated that this presents a problem to the brokers who represent this property as service commercial and that he did not see how office projects could be forced on an applicant when the area will not support more offices. Tie- additionally stated that guidance was not given by the City as to the intent and objectives for the industrial area the interpretation does not exist in the Industrial Specific Plan. r" Hopson replied that under the Industrial Park category for Subarea '6 of the Industrial Plan states that the land is reserved for industrial firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment. Mr. Ashwill stated that he did not think the average man on the sheet would interpret the Industrial. Specific plan in this way and suggested that a problem exists in the Plan's language. Chairman Stout advised that the City is currently undergoing a study of the; Haven Avenue corridor to see if problems do exist There were no further comments, p therefore the lic 'hea ring was cl osed. Commissioner Hempel stated that a lot of work gent into the development of the Industrial Specific Plan, and no doubt there are areas which need to have the language tightened up. He advised that the CityP's intent was that projects located< along Haven Avenue would be offices with their warehouses and plants located` in the back and the other permitted rases would be ancillary to an office park. Further,' that it was never Intended that nothing but commercial would be located along'- Haven Avenue. Additionally, the configuration of this project lends itself to commercial uses. He advised that this project could have been designed with an office building`' located in the front and the other commercial buildings in the back. Commissioner Harker suggested that copies of the Haven Avenue Corridor Stud; be made available to brokers and invester°s with 'an Interest in property located along Haven Commissioner McNiel advised that the Cit °'s position on Haven Avenue is very rigid and that the approach to Haven Avenue has always been well defined He stated that when' the applicant left the Design Review Committee meeting they had a good .idea of what was expected of a. project on Haven avenue, so this should be of no surprise this evening. Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission's position that, the design of this project Is not consistent with the function or appearance of the Subarea in which is located is documented within the language of the Industrial, Specific Plan. Additionally, that it is not the function of the Planning Commission to indicate how a project is to be designed, but through their comments grade this evening; help the applicant redesign his project. He advised that the Commission has a professional staff at the City to more specifically guide the applicant Planning Commission Minutes 10 Pd, 1984 Motion:; Moved by 'Barber, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution to deny the project AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, R I P L STOUT NOES* COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE DIRECTORtS REPORTS I. SASE LINE MEDIAN DESIGN Dan Coleman,; Associate Planner, reviewed the staff's recommendation for the Base Line Median Design. Mr. Coleman advised that the recommended construction drawings indicate 15 gallon Goldenrain trees planted 20 feet on center, with underplantings of Oleander and Natal Plum shrubs. Additionally, he advised that the median design is proposed to include stamped concrete in a pattern resembling alluvial granite stone. Further, he stated that a shrub spray dread irrigation system is proposed; however, it was st ff's recommendation that soil moisture tensiometers be included to adequately controls watering. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried to approve staff's recommendation by Minute action OLD BUSINESS' J. CARYN DEVELOPMENT (COUNTY PROJECT) Tim Reedle, 'Senior Planner, presented an overview of the Caryn development project proposed within the City'a sphere of influence north of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan, between Milliken and Rochester Avenue. Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission and commended staff and Commission for their input into the project. Motion. Moved by Rear of seconded by Barker, carried to concur with et ff a a recommendations to the County and that the project proceed. Planning Commission Minutes 11- Mey 23 a 1984 PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to have a" review conducted of the Cit f a grading requirements, specifically in the areas where grades are to 5 percent. He advised that he grad like to see a Commission policy reflected in a Resolution to reduce grades in those areas.; Neff Seeranka, Executive Director of the Clamber of Commerce addressed the Commission iaaion and asked that one Commission Member be appointed to serve on the Haan Avarua Corridor Committee. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Barker, seconded by McN al, carried, to adjourn. 11;: 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned R tf 'l au ittad R' a , Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- 3, 1984 MINUTES CITY GP RANCHO CUCA O GA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 9, 14 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting; of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :CC p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line .Road Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then lad in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Borman R mpal, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Addle Juarez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tien Beedle, Seniors Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; ;Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary, Paul' Rou oa.u, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Shut stinted he had received a letter of resignation from Planning Commissioner, Addle Juarez, effective May 4, 1984 and has forwarded the letter to`Mayor Jon Mike . Chairman Stout asked that a Commendation Resolution be prepared for Commissioner Juarez. The Commission concurred and staff' was directed to propane n resolution. MINUTES Motion: Moved by Ro npol, seconded by Mo Tiol, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the April 11 , 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission [mutes 1 May 9,' 1984 i i CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Barker asked that Item A to :removed for discussion. Chairman Stout requested that Item R also be removed for discussion. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by cNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Items P C and D of the Consent Calendar. R. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11 a -1 - LEWIS I HOMES Reapplication for design review of 27 single family homes on 17.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the east aide of'. Ctiwanda south of Summit Avenue. C. DESIGN REVIEW 'FOR TRACT PLAZA BUILDERS - Reapplication for design review of 19 single fa it _homes on 1C adrea of lard in the Very Low Residential District located on; the west; aide of Sapphire at Jennet Street. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 96 - LA DCO - A custom, lot residential subdivision of 22.4 acres of lard located on the southwest corner of Hermosa. and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low_(VL) District APN 0117 -1 , 17. A. ` DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACTS 9441; & 1160 - CRI AR - Reapplication for design review of'84 single family homes on 47.8 sores of land in the Very Lour Residential District located on the south side of Wilson, east of Archibald. Commissioner Barker asked if the developer" was present. r Pete Peterson, representing CriamarA Development, replied that he was present. Commissioner Barker asked if the CC&R 1 a for these tracts will include lud the keeping of horses r Peterson replied that; they will file C &Rfa that will include this provision of keeping and maintaining horses. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. - 1 and approve Item A of ;the Consent Calendar. E. TIME `I N ION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - NRRVA - A total.- development of 08 condominiums and R single family d e.11in s on 65 acres generally located on the south side of Wilson,; east of Haven Avenue, in the Lora Medium District LPN 11-191-07 Planning Commission Minuted 2 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that at the time it was approved by the Planning Commission, the General Plan did not contemplate Banyan continuing all the way through to the Etiwanda area; and, it is his understanding that the County's Foothill Communities Plan does plan for an extension of Banyan across the barrier that would subsequently align with Summit in the Etiwanda area. Chairman Stout further stated some type of stub should be provided at that portion of Banyan ® Commissioner Barker stated his concurrence and asked if Mr. Rougeau would have any problem with this. Mr. Rougeau replied there will not be a problem. Chairman Stout asked if flagging this would be appropriate action to take. Mr. Rougeau replied it would be. Mrs. Bruce Ann Rahn, 9939 LaVine, stated she has a problem with density in the area as there are 11 homes for sale and she would like to see the area downzoned. Chairman Stout explained what steps the developer has taken and the meetings which were held with the people of the Deer Creek subdivision to the north. Commissioner Rempel explained the amenities of this development, its; parks and open space areas. He indicated there were many meetings with Chaffey College in order to satisfy their concerns regarding the development and that this project will not be an apartment complex. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MoNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-68A, approving the time extension for Tentative Tract 11550. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 147 - R. C. LAND COMPANY - A K�vvision of 111 .4 acres of land into 2 parcels, in Victoria Planned Community located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenues - AP N 227-081-06. (Continued from April 25, 1984 meeting.) G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12433 - K & B - The lopment of 180 single family detached units on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Planned Community designated Medium (4-14 du/ac) and Medium High Residential ( 14-24 du/ac) , generally located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - AP N 227-081-06. (Continued from April 25, 1984 meeting.) Chairman Stout advised that since Items F and G are related, they would be handled at one time. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 9, 1984 City Planner, Rick Gomez, asked that Item F be continued to the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission n meeting to allow staff enough time to complete their analysis of the proposed parcel map. Mr. Gomez stated that Item C had been continued from the last, Planning Commission meeting because of a conflict between the applicant, K & B, and the property`' owner, the William Lyon Company. Mr. Gomez indicated that the William Lyon Company had stated the two firms have not core to an agreement and; the William Lyon Company has asked that this be taken off of future Planning Commission calendars. Further, it would be staff'staff's recommendation that in order to take action in regard to the property owners' request and, also meet the legal requirements of ,State law regarding the tentative crap processing time limits, than the Commission take action to deny this in order to eliminate any potential problems. Chairman Stoat asked if the continuance of Item P was at the request of. the . applicant Gomez replied that the Engineering Division is asking for the extension of time for Item Chairman Stout asked if the applicant is it agreement with the continuance for Item F. Mrs Comet replied it is his understanding he is. Chairman , tort requested an opinion ; from the City Attorney regarding the necessity of consent of the lard owner in Item C for the approval of the tentative tract and the consequences of appealing the tentative tract approval. Mrs.. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that Item C involves a tentative tract crap which Involves certain ' constraints on the Planning' Commission. State law' imposes a requirement that decision making bodies act within a certain time period to approve or deny a tentative tract. Mr. Hopson stated that this was continued from the last Planning Commission ,meeting because staff thought there had been an engineering mistake which might explain the conflict between the laird owner and the developer and was not settled within the past two weeks. r° Hopson indicated that the Commission cannot approve "Tentative Tract 12344 in the face of the fact that the land owner protests covering land on which he does not want that tract approved. Mr. Hopson stated that rather than running into the time concern_ of continuing 'Tract 12344, the Commission should deny the tract which would be without prejudice to the land owner and the developer working out their differences and coming backs to the Commission in a modified form. He further; indicated that the Commission could see by the difference in the kinds of development approval sought that Item F can easily be continued, while Item G should be denied. Planning Commission on Minutes 4 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company for; R. C. nand Company, stated he would answer any questions. Chairman Stout asked if it is his wish to continue Item F to May 24, 1984. Mr. Ford replied that he would like to acre it continued to some indefinite time. Chairman Stout advised that if the problems are worked out, this item could be brought back. There being no further comments, the public hearing s closed. Commissioner'Barker asked ghat an indefinite period of time is. Mr. Hopson stated that with regard to Item F, R. C. Land Company has that right and that he would have a problem continuing this for an indefinite period of time because it does: not satisfy the public c action and public hearing requirements imposed on the City. Further?, it can't be ` continued indefinitely, but it can be withdrawn and then republished at a later date* He indicated that there would be no problem with withdrawing the item from the Planning Commission calendars and then republishing and repostin . Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Ford 'relative to Item G if be had indicated that the tract map did corer land owned by the "i lliam Egon €ompan d; that there was no agreement with the tentative tract map being proposed that covered the odd acres. r Ford replied than they have no agreement with K & B to purchase the property or to develop it in any way. Ire Hopson asked ; if they like resat is being proposed for their land and if they waist it Mr. Ford replied that they do not like it nor want it. Mr. Hopson stated his recommendation is to withdraw Item F and deny Item G. He indicated that Item F could be read ertised and brought back at the applicant's request Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rerpel, carried unanimously, to withdraw' Item F from consideration at the request of the applicant and brought back with the requirement for readvertising at a later date. Motion: Moved by Hempel, ;seconded by Barker,, carried unanimously;, to deny Item G based on the City Attorn yts opinion and Mr. Ford's remarks that the tentative tract snap is inconsistent with the ownership of the land and the owner's request not to process the tract map Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 9, 1984 r ENVIRONMENTAL ASUSSMENT; D TENTATIVE TRACT 12544 LYt - A residential tract subdivision donsieti.n of 870 lots on 154 acres of land in the Planned Community, located south of Highland Avenue, great of Milliken Avenue, north of the Pacific Electric railroad, and east of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 0 - 11 , 12, 13, and (Continued from April 25, 1984 meeting.) City Planner, Ruck Gomez, asked that the Commission consider a request for a; specific workshop so that staff can present an analysis of the issues that were brought forward at the last public hearing, such as greenways, pasaeos, trails, etc. , on the Victoria Planned Community. Fur°ther, other topics could also be included in the workshop if the Planning Commission desired. fir. Gomez suggested that the date of May 30 was available for a workshop if the Commission wished to hold it in this room Commissioner Rempel stated that be thought a workshop to be a good` idea and several other items could be tied in at the same time Commissioner Barker stated that he would like discussion on the Victoria Planned Community to include the trails, drainage and expectations of the a. sa.on as -to ere �t going, concepts, po licies and trends of Planning Commission � the whole Planned ' Community's presentation to date, and clarification of the issues Involved. Commissioner Barker indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting he 'stated that some of the language in the plan may be ambiguous. Further, through a meeting of, this sort the, Commission can give clear direction to staff and the developer. Chairman Stout stated he would like this workshop on the specific project to be a general review of how victoria is working out. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gomez if it is the intent of staff to coven this or a specific project. [fir. Gomez replied it was intended to cover this specific project and the specific .issues relative to this project as outlined by the Commission at their last meeting Chairman Stout stated that the trails should e addressed as Commissioner Rempel earlier stated as well as the philosophy of the plan and how it does or does not meet that philosophy. Further, design or other related issues, yards, streets and whether Victoria Parkway creeds to be modified without a trail. He indicated that this particular project has ,design problems and grading problems Commissioner Remp l stated that on the issue of yards, whenever you have a slope of over 1- , it becomes necessary to orient streets to the north and south rather than from the east and: crest and this is one factor with lot separation. Commissioner Rempel stated further* that passeos, parkways lot configuration, street` configuration, and the way the back yards and the streets are ,ending up should be discussed. He indicated he wanted as' much open, space as possible Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that he was not involved in the actual; discussion of Victoria` when they brought the project in but if the Commission feels that there are critical areas they should be looked at during this workshop. Further, any ambiguous language must be addressed. r. Gomez asked what specific areas Mr. Stout was interested in regarding the tentative tract. 1 Chairman Stout replied that if there were major discussions in the Design Review or Development Review Committees, he would like to know what these issues were. Commissioner MeNiel asked if Mr. Stout secondarily wanted to discuss the entire project as well. Chairman Stout replied that at the workshop he would like to discuss the specific project itself and secondly, he would like to discuss the entire ' Planned Community at a later date. Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission should indicate to staff that they, want another review date. Commissioner Remp l offered a suggestion to, the William Lyon Company that they bring the slides that were shown to the Commission at the time of the Victoria hearing so that the nester Commissioners could see the sane thing. r# Gomez asked if the applicant Mould agree to a continuance to May 30." e indicated that the request Mould be followed up by a letter. Chairman Stout stated relative to Tract 12544, the public hearing is open. Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, indicated he would answer questions Chairman Stoat asked if Mr., Ford Mould consent to a continuance to May 30, 1984 for a workshop study session. r Ford asked if theworkshop could be scheduled sooner. Chairman Stout replied he did not think anything less than that would be realistic Ford stated there would be a problem with that date inasmuch as the regional manager and himself Mould be attending a Pacific Coast Builders Conference Chairman Stout replied the Commission will trot to accommodate their schedule' as: best they can. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 9 1984 i i r . Gomez stated if the Commission wants to set the workshop for the 5th of June, staff would work out the location. There being no further comments, the public hearing s closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, t tentatively continue this item to dune 5, 1984 for s workshop. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-07 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH A request to operate a church in an existing ,000 square foot building on 4.39 acres of lead in the General Industrial category (Subarea 4), located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - (Willows Professional Center) APN C -171 1 * Associate Planner, frsrr Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if when this particular center was proposed there was d master plea for parking ki on ;the unused portion of the land. Further, that he is curious as to why there is a parking problem because originally there were enough spaces to cover and with the restriction of hours, is it an indication that there are not enough parking spades during the days Chairman man Stout asked ifthis proposal is a more intense use than what was originally proposed d for this eerrter. r4 Coleman replied it is. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. r Clark Hamill, the Engineer for the Baptist Church, was present to answer questions. Chairman Stout asked if he understood and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Mrs. Hamill replied affirmatively. There being no further comments, the public; hearing was closed. Commissioner Pempel felt this to be a goad use in the f°aci.li.ty.' Commission Barker was absent during discussion and vote. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by 'McNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 4 4 approving Conditional' Use Permit 07 Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 9, 1984 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ; ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 7 - AJA - , The de�xeI pment of two 51 ,250 s , ft. industrial park office suites on 8.18 acres of land in the industrial park zone (Subarea ) located on the crest side of Haven Avenue between 6th & 7th Streets APN 20 -2 1- 7 through 20. Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report and showed slides of the proposed project. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant was not yet present. r Jeff" Scerank , executive director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, advised that the Chamber has not fret on this project and that he was speaking as a former Planning Commissioner. He spoke of the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan, problems the City is having along Archibald with specifically designed structures which tend to drag commercial uses, and chat specific support really is relative to professional uses. He indicated that if designs such as are proposed for this project are permitted along Havens it will dilute the character of office professional along this corridor. Further, there are no assurances that as tenants change, the use will remain the same. There being no further comments, the public hearing`'eras closed r. James Barton Mated: that the applicants were delayed but would be here. The commission postponed further discussion on this item pending arrival of the applicant and 'gent on to the next agenda item. K. GENERAL PLAN MEDIAN ISLAND POLICIES City Planner Rick Gomez, and City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs, ;presented the staff report and shored slides illustrating some of the problems with street widths and median island requirements. Mr. Hubhs explained that the city Council requested input from the Commission on the use of median islands along Base Line Road, west of Haven to the City limits; Archibald Avenue; grow Route; and Rochester Avenue. He Indicated that medians are designated along Hagen, Milliken, Victoria Parkway, 6th Street and 4th Street. Chairman Stoat stated that this is not a public hearing but asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Jim Barton stated he can understand median islands on north/south streets but they create :problems on east/west streets as their present additional structure and drainage problems Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1984 r. Jeff Sceranka stated the Chamber of Commerce discussed median islands approximately three months ago and had a lot of input from the merchants. The consensus of the merchants is that they have gone this long without median islands so it was not extremely important, and additionally were concerned about installation of medians on Base Dine because of passible access problems There being no further comments, Chairman Stout closed the comment portion. Commissioner Rempel stated originally the Commission granted the median islands because of problems with left turning and traffic congestion. He indicated that if merchants say they are unaware of the possibility of medians, the fault lies with the developers and the merchants themselves for not checking. Commissioner Hempel stated that there would not be as much a problem on Base Line with trucks turning as there would be on Arrow because of street' widths. He felt that there are areas which would not benefit from medians because;of the sheet width' but felt that some type of short median;should be provided to permit left- turns Chairman Stoat stated that if medians were put in at the time of building, it world eliminate the problem Commissioner empel stated that there was such a requirement but it does not totally eliminate the problem. Commissioner McNiel stated that there are some placed where a left turn should be designed in so that there is controlled chaos rather than uncontrolled chaos and there are at least one-half dozen locations where >a median would apply for safety reasons. Chairman Stout stated that the median on Archibald north of Arrow is dangerous because you always see people running into its Commissioner Hempel stated that one of the problems there is that people try to get from the service station and that the median on the south end sticks fare into the'intersection. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Hubbs where there are partial: medians for safety` reasons o are they really practical.a r Hubbs replied that they are and they also provide character to the intersection; Chairman Stout asked if medians are sometimes included on streets that don't require them r'. Hubbs replied that he did not believe so because most are required on secondary or highway streets Planning Commission Minuted 10 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated he agreed with Commissioner Rempel that there are some streets which should have partial medians because of safety reasons. The Commission concurred Chairman Stout indicated that the Commission would make its recommendations known on the individual streets. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried ;unanimously, to have the requirement for medians removed on Rase Line crest of Hagen. Chairman Stoat asked for a motion on Archibald Avenue. Commissioner McNi l asked Mr. Hubbs if a study could be madeintersections which may require medians to be brought back to the Commission. Mr fiubbs replied that the problem is interpreting ghat is required on a' particular street. He thought it more desirable to deal with this on a project by project basis. Commissioner Rempel stated that any time there is a major route that carries traffic through the City as Archibald does with its configuration and number of driveways, there is a serious problem. He felt there would be difficulty in placing a median in Archibald although several years ago he had; voted to put medians there. Further, there would be a problem with any street that is 72 feet curb to curb, and Archibald, except where there are safety requirements, should be exempted from medians.- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to remove the requirement on Archibald for its entire length except where required for safety reasons. Motion: ; Moored by Rempel, seconded by McNi 1, carried unanimously, to delete the requirement for median islands from Arrow Route. There was discussion on Rochester Avenue north of Foothill... Mr. Rou eau stated that there is a street master plan which requires the street to be 72 feet wide north of Baseline and may require four lanes. Commissioner Rempel stated that north of there, the Commission should look towards eliminating truck traffic. Further, it may be valuable to have a divider. Rou eau replied that it will be a -lane collector and they are proposing to upgrade it to a 4-lane rend north of Highland. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would really like: to have Rochester pulled off of this to see what the design is really going to be. He felt that truck traffic' should be 'prohibited on Rochester north of Foothill. Planning o issi n Minutes 11 May 9, 1984 Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to delete the median requirement ment on Rochester south of Foothill except where indicated for safety reasons. Commissioner Hempel stated that since they are deleting median islands the length of entire streets, the «Commission should also authorize staff to install medians wherever necessary for safety reasons: Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to so authorize. Mr. Gomez stated, that staff could also devise a policy which could be incorporated in the General Flan regarding medians for safety reasons. m 7 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened The Planning Commission went back to Item Environmental Assessment and Development Review 84-07 AJAR Chairman Stout stated that the staff report had previously been presented and the public hearing previously opened Mr. Richard Stanton, the applicant, explained the design of the project as an office park with spades for professionals such as attorneys, accountants, etc. He described the building design, landscape treatment, and the fact that, they are seeking to transition this project with the industrial users off of Raven and the complex at Foothill and Havers in an attempt to create affordable office space Mr. Stenton :stated that he, has `'provided enough landscaping and has tried to buffer the dock high buildings that have high truck traffic and warehousing. Mr. Bob Garrison with Mission Equity, the project manager, presented four photographs for the Commission to review of various other store front type office/professional buildings for comparison purposes. There being no further comments, the public hearing was classed. Commissioner e iel asked whether parking is recessed in photograph No. 3. Mrs Garrison replied that the property is lower than street level and they would have an even lower level of parking; in this project to conceal as much as possible the cars from passing view. He indicated that they Irish to create a campus-like atmosphere Planning Commission Minutes 12May 9, 1 V Commissioner' 1cNiel stated that from the renderings that are being shown, this project looks like a commercial center. He asked what the percentage of landscaping is Mr. Stenton replied that it is between 18-20 percent in the front of the single stories. He indicated that they have created a boutique-like effect and they will have restrictions as to who they will rent to to as well as a sign program. Further, there would not be any use of neon lights. Commissioner McNiel stated that if the landscapingis as extensive as the applicants say it will be, the project will be difficult to see in the first place. Further, that it would appear, that the buildings are well screened and they have accomplished what subarea a requires Commissioner ;Barker stated that the quality or attractiveness of the project is not the question but rather compatibility with the Industrial Specific Plan is. He indicated that he agrees with Mr. Scerana and he is not sure the applicant can enforce precisely the type of clientele it wishes to use; the buildings. Furthers, the concept is that of a boutique and will attract commercial uses and end up being exactly what the Commission does not want to have in the area. Commissioner Rem el stated'- that Commissioner Ranker his stated it quite well. Further, the appearance of the structure plus the design tell that this is a commercial establishment and he has the same problem. Chairman Stout stated that they are trying to discourage ; strip commercial on Darren to the point where it 'will be eliminated. He indicated that the problem with this project is that while' it is an excellent design, it would set a precedent that the Commission does not want to set for other developers who might came in with a similar design that are not as beautiful as this. Chairman Stout stated that 'since this looks like a commercial center it will be an attraction for persons to come in. He further stated :that this is fine design and he would lore to have it elsewhere in the City, but not on Haven. Commissioner Hempel stated that he would argue Chairman Stout's point in ;that anywhere that a group of buildings are as stretched out as this;project is, it could take a major type of store ground it. He further stated that this would net work with the amount of square footage that it is taking and that the second floor; office area, is indicative of a commercial center. Commissioner Rempel stated that the shops are ancillary to the other spaces in this building. Motion* Moved by Barker, seconded by Re fuel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 4 denying Development Review 07. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 9, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that some time ago there was a project which required referral; to the Historical Committee. Further, on May 3, 1984, the ;Committee acted on a request to have the Cherbak residence heated at 10009 Hillside declared` suitable for historical designation. The Committee determined that this residence is not suitable for this designation and Chairman Stout indicated that the Planning Commission should, by minute action, accept their findings Motion: Moved by Rem el seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to acknowledge that the Cherbak house was unsuitable for historical designation and could not cloud Tract 12588. Chairman Stout stated with respect to the Design Review Committee and the resignation of Commissioner Juarez, it will be necessary to make some charges Because of scheduling problems, he suggested that staff ;give consideration to holding the Design Review meetings at another time. Gomez replied that the Commission may want to have a subcommittee to greet within the next 30 days to discuss this and make some determination so that staff" can develop a program and bring this tacky to the entire Commission. Commissioners Barker and Stout volunteered to act as a subcommittee. Chairman Stout asked that Mr. Comet be a part of the subcommittee. Commissioner Barker stated that he is the ,actual member of the Design Review Committee and that 'Commissioner Rem el is the alternate but the change could occur on duly 1 ADJOURNMENT Lotions. Moved by Rem el, seconded by Barber, carried unanimously, to adjourn. urn 9: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Red 'ul subm' itted, i ko u y Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 9, 1984 CITY GP RANCHO CUCA ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Teeth April 25, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Sale Lire Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge to the Flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ASSENT: Addle Juarez, Larry McNiel STAFF" PRESENT: Tire Beadle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, ; Associate Planner; Frank rec an, Assistant Planner; Pick Gomez, City Planner ; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney* Lloyd Nubbs, City* Engineer* Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Po eau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENT Pick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the staff recently- had been made aware of property ownership`problems associated with the projects scheduled as items 'IN" and "I" on tonight's agenda ' hioh would necessitate continuance to a future Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that the Commission might consider moving these ;items to the first opening during public hearings. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7350 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Located on the southwest corner of 6th and Utica. Streets. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G5 - PC NAN - The de to ment of an industrial building totaling 36,916 square feet on2.26 acres of land' in the General: Industrial area (Subarea 1 located on the ids f Hyssop Drive south o th Sheet portion of APN' west side o �y 9- 59. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adopt the consent ; calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8547 - R.C. LAND COMPANY - A division of 111 .4 sores of, land into R pascals in Victoria Planned Community located on the north side of Base Line between Milliken and Rochester Avenues APN 7-0 C . 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12r - K & 1l The development of 180 single family detached units on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Planned 'Community designated Medium ( -1 duns.) and Medium-High Residential ( 1 duke) , generally located at the northeast currier of Rase Line Road and 'Milliken Avenue - APN 227-081-o6. II I Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried, to continue Parcel Map 8547 and Tentative Tract 12433 to the May 9, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be hard concurrently. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AMENDMENT 5 7 ARCHIN L-ASSOCIATES - A Development Districts Amendment from Medium R sid ntial ( -1 du/a to Low-Medium Residential duf for .5 acres of land d located on Archibald Avenue, south of Victoria. APN 20 1d1-15. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT 12532 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES The development of 111 zero lot lire hones on 14.5 acres in, the Low Medium Residential District, located between Archibald and Ramona t Monte Vista Street APN 2-1 1 05, 06, 15, 16. (Continued d from April 11 18 meeting.) Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mike Hemley, addressed the Commission advising that the applicant had not yet arrived` at the meeting. He asked if the public hearing i could be continued to a later time in the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - April. 25, 1984 t was the consensus, of the Commission to postpone the public hearing for these items until later in the agenda Chairman Stout advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VAR A tC - BLANCO A request to reduce the required rear yard setbacks to allow the development of a 41 ,181 square foot self-storage warehouse facility on 1 .96 acres of land in the CC (General Commercial) District, 'located at the southeast corner of Helms and Hampshire APN 208-2 1 7. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 22 LANCO The e lopm nt of a 41 , 181 square foot self storage warehouse facility on 1 .96 acres of land in the GC (General Commercial)` District, located at the southeast corner of Helms and Hampshire APN 203-2 1 7. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jack Gall, representing Blanco, addressed the Commission stating the applicant's concurrence with the 'staff f report and resolutions. Chairman Shut asked Mr. Gall how access mould be obtained to maintain the landscaping at the southeast property line. Mr. Call, replied that a gate would be provided to allow access.. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if he would object to a condition being placed on the CUP to require the maintenance of this landscaping. r. Call replied than he had no objections as this was the intent of the applicant. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 83 C . Motion: Moved by Rearpel, seconded by Barker, carried, to issue d Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution; approving Conditional Use Permit 3-22 with an, added condition to require maintenance of the landscape buffer at the southeast property line. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT m 2 HARP - A request to maintain a 3 -RCC bird a i ry at 9110 Carraari Court in the 11VL11 District - APN 208-7 1-1 . Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 25, 1984 Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Lyndon Harp, 9110 Carrari Court, applicant, addressed the Commission urging approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Harp advised that his birds are kept for genetic studies. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit based upon noise, appearance of the aviary, and odors: Terry Apel - 9111 Hidden Farm Road Rancho Cucamonga Tony Apels - 9111 Hidden Farm Road Rancho Cucamonga Albert Distefano - 9126 Carrari Court Rancho Cucamonga Frank Kovacevis - 9154 Carrari Court Rancho Cucamonga Pat Brenner - Rancho Cucamonga Joe Davis - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that this project has a long history of complaints over the course of several years. Further, that he was also able to hear the birds in Mr. Harp's avairy at his home and understood the problems faced by the adjacent property owners, therefore could not vote in favor of the permit. Commissioner Rempel stated that the number of birds is the problem and that, probably no one would have complained if there weren't so many. He further stated that if the avairy had been a block enclosed structure it would have retained the noise much better. Chairman Stout stated that when the Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit process during review of the Development Code, it established the maximum limit of 25 birds as a reasonable number allowable before the necessity of a Conditional Use Permit. He advised that criteria was then developed requiring the Commission's review of a Conditional Use Permit application to determine compatibility with the surrounding area on a case-by-case basis and to establish further conditions regarding allowable amounts. However, he could not approve this permit because 300-400 is not a reasonable amount of birds to have in a residential area and that the use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried, to deny Conditional Use Permit 83-22. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES* COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 25, 1984 a 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Continu ibald Associates Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing. Randy Roa , representing Archibald Associates, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant had met with members of the City planning; staff and had submitted a revised site plan which he felt addressed the concerns of the Commission at their previous greeting of April 11m Tom Bradford; Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission expressing concerns with additional traffic on Ramona Larry Lewis, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission expressing concerns with the proposed stoat drain system, as well as runoff being channeled down Ramona avenue. Lew Shriner, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission stating that the zero lot line homes were not compatible with surrounding single family; residences. Where were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that a goad faith effort had been rude by the developer of this project to mitigate the concerns expressed at the last greeting. However, he stated, he was still not comfortable with the access situation. He pointed out that the access head been changed from Ramona to Archibald to appease the adjacent residents, however, Archibald is a heavily traveled street and was not comfortable with forcing the traffic from this project entirely onto Archibald. Commissioner Hempel stated that he shared these same concerns, however lining the street rip with Monte Vista would deter a lot of the traffic in the lower half of the development. He suggested that the City Council could ask the Sheriff's Department to patrol Ramona a little more to slow down the traffic on that street Chairman Stout stated that it would be easy to make the: popular decision to close off the access at Ramona,; however, there are 111 families to consider who will be living in this development and are not here to present their points of view. He suggested that lots 1-9 be constructed in Phase 1 He additionally expressed concern that there was nothing in the Resolution which: referred to the revised site plan in the areas of setbacks and street locations and suggested that language be added Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried;, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Districts Amendment 83-07. AYE COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS:NERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL Motion: Moved by ,Stout, seconded by Pempel;, to adopt the Resolution approving; Tentative Tract 12532 with ;the added condition that ;the approval was for the revised site plans regarding setbacks and street locations, and that lots 1-9 be constructed in Phase I of the development. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, PE PEA. NOES- COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, MCNIEL Commissioner Barber stated he voted in favor of the Development Districts Amendment because he had no problems with a down-zone; however, could not vote in favor of the tract because there r r additional problems he felt should have been mitigated. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .AND TENTATIVE "TRACT 12544 ® LYON A residential tract subdivision consisting of 870 lots on 154 acres of land in the Planned Community zone a portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located south of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Avenue, north of the Pacific Electric Railroad, and east of the Deer Greek Channel - APN 202-211 , 12 13, and 34. Prank Dreckman, .Assistant Planner, reviewers the staff report. Commissioner Pemp l asked if Planning Division condition 2 requires every lot to have a wall. r. Dreckman replied that the intent was that garden walls would be required around each lot in the 4,00 to 4,500 square foot lot neighborhoods. Commissioner Hempel stated that he had concerns with requiring all of those lots being divided and surrounded by galls« He pointed out that this does not provide much open space. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes' - April 25, 1984 Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, addressed the Commission stating that he had understood that the park phasing plain was being required t be submitted to the City Council within 90 days, but apparently staff is it now requiring that it be approved within 90 days. He asked if this would require" a public hearing. [fir;. Gomez replied that there were no hearings required for Terra Vista, therefore assumed that a public hearing would not be required. Chairman Stout stated that he felt that 90 days would be a reasonable condition. r. Ford expressed the applicant's concern with Enginnering condition n number which required an irrevocable offer of dedication of right-of-way for the, realignment of Highland Avenue at the time of development of lot 853.> e stated that the problem is that the applicant does not know at this time what the possible realignment might be. He expressed further concern regarding Engineering Conditions 7 A and B and asked that bands be posted for the required street improvements. r Rou eau replied that normally the condition is wended to include the posting of surety 'bonds and that this language could be added. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that the Commission is continually addressing the need for open spade and could not agree that each of the lots in the 4,000 to 4,500 square foot lot area be divided by Malls. He additionally stated that the bicycle lames provided on this snap are in conflict with the approved ed Victoria Planned Community Text and need to be brought into conformance. Carlos Alba, representing Hall and ',Foreman, the engineers for the tract, addressed the issue of the bicycle trails stating that the trails had been altered for security reasons. Commissioner Remp l replied that the Victoria Plain was adopted with specific guidelines for trails and that the tract needs to be designed in conformance with that text Commissioner Barker referred to Planning Division conditions 3 and 4 and asked for clarification of lot 853. r. Dreckman replied that more specifically lot 853 was located at southwest corner of Milliken and Highland. Commissioner`Barker stated that this should be clarified in the Resolution. Commissioner Remp l stated that there were so many inconsistencies between this tract and the adopted text that he felt that it should be continued and the applicant directed to address the areas of inconsistency. Planning Commission Minutes 7® April 25, 1984 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, carried, to continue- Tentative Tract 12544 to the May , 1984 Planning Commission agenda. 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 1 p.m. ;Planning Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR' REPORTS K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4 DAMS - The development of a 20,000 square foot medical building on 1 .07 acres of land in the Industrial Park= category (Subarea located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Street APN P 1-3d1 1 ® Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stoat asked for public comment. Leonard`' Santos, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission expressing his concern with the Engineering conditions which required shared access with the adjacent parcel.. He stated that allowing a 20 acre to place ingress and egress on a one acre parcel places an undue hardship on the smaller parcel. He pointed out that this is a medical building and that access will be used by emergency vehicles. s. Dorn Stephenson, representing Lusk Development, the adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission concur ring with the applicant's re quest nest to remove the shared access requirement. `I There were no farther public comments. Commissioner Barker asked the applicant if the colored elevation boards had been brought to the meeting for the Commission's review. Mr. Santos replied that he did not realize that the boards had not been submitted@ Commissioner Barker stated that this was a concern and the Resolution should be farther conditioned to require the submitting of colored elevations for approval by the Planning o ission prior to they issuance of building permits. Commissioner Rempel stated, that he could see where them aright be problems with shared access for this parcel and the adjacent parcel and would be in favor ofdeleting that requirement. He pointed out that the 20 acre parcel would still have two points of access to Raven Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1984 I Motion., Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel-, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution 'approving Development t Review 4 with the deletion of the shared "access condition and an added condition requiring submittal of the sample of exterior materials for approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building materials AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPRL, STOUT ROES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUARE , MCNIEL L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - LINCOLN The developm nt ofthree warehouse distribution buildings totaling 463,210 square foot on 22.09 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea located at the northwest corner of Rochester :Avenue and dth Street - APN 229-111-08, 09. Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked for public input, Sill Shubi.n, representing Lincoln Properties, addressed the Commission concerning the drill track easement required under the conditions of approval. Fir. Sbubiin stated that this is not a condition which the railroad company would accept until someone desires use of that access. Paul Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the rail access is provided for in certain subareas by the Industrial Specific Plan and that it would not be right to allow this property to develop without a rail easement so that future properties mould not,be able to connect with the main rail litre. Chairman Stout explained to the applicant that the City would have to crake rail connection provisions for the property to the north. He pointed out that if provisions are not made, a northerly property owner; may need that rail access but be unable to obtain it from this property owner. Mr. Shubin asked if there would be a means to ;enters into an off or of dedication similar to throe required for street improvements granting this applicant some relief :in paying for 150 feet of track which the properties to the north would also be using. Mr. Rougeau suggested that the language could be adjusted to require an irrevocable reservation for, a rail easement so that the northerly properties could connect with future lead or drill tracks. Motion. Moored by Rerpel, seconded by Barker, carried, ,to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review , Lincoln, with an additional condition requiring an irrevocable reservation for rail easement providing access for the northerly properties. Planning Commission Minutes, - April 25, 1984 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS* NONE ABSENT: ? ISSI NERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PMENT REVIEW 5 6 - COCA COLA The dev►dlopm nt of two (2) warehouse additions totaling 26, 1 square feet on .10 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) category located at the northwest est corner of-6th Street and Utica Avenue PN P 11 16. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comments. No one addressed this item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, _seconded by Barker, carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Reviews 8 6, Coca Cola AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: C OMM I SSI N RS: JUARE , MCNIEL DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. STREET STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, and Rick Gomez, City Planner, presented the report tee the Commission. teat c�zdtrx rec ommendations ndations and suggested that Chai rman Stout refer red t the street S the density range be broken down further to include two or less dwelling units a to ll. ed b -4 dwellingunits er acre. He additionally per act p � suggested that the garage setback should ' e established at lS feet so that enough space is provided on the driveway apron to allow the parking of two cars without parking on the sidewalk. Commissioner Rempel suggested that staff take a closer look at driveway widths He additionally suggested that some means of ` alternative parking should be explored in higher density areas, even If it means losing a lot. Commissioner Parker stated that he would like to farther explore the policy issues when this item doges back before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes _1 - April 25, 1984 The Commission was it concurrence with staff Is suggested areas in reed of., review regarding private streets and directed staff to prepare policy resolutions and amendments to the Development Cade. These are to be presented to the Commission at the next available Planning Commission meeting. C.- BUILDING USE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN -; TA-VENAVNU Tim Needle, Senior Planner, presented an overview of recent problems associated with proposed and existing building design characteristics and use requirements. Mr. Beedle advised the Commission that these guidelines would be further studied by staff and a report would be presented to the ca i ai n at a later date The report was received by the Planning Commission with direction to staff to proceed with the study. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Barton addressed the Commission regarding Haven Avenue. He stated that Haven Avenue will be a gateways to the City* and that standards and policies need to be established Rik Stenton addressed the Commission reiterating Mr. Barton*s comment and stilted that setback and landscaping standards along Archibald also need clarification. Chairman Stout directed staff to prepare design guidelines for architecture and define ghat the Ci.ty°s definition of office/business park development. He suggested that this preparation be completed and presented as soon as possible. Chairman Stout also stated that there is a definite hole in the density range of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre as they relate to single family detached units in Development Code and needs to be re-examined. Comet replied that this would require a special meeting and staff could prepare this for the Planning Commission's re iew as soon as passible. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moored by Rep el., seconded byr_Barker, carried, to adjourn. 11 :35 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned Planning Commission minutes -11 April P , 1984 Resp otfu ysumttd Ri DeputySecretary Planning Commission Minutes 1 April r 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 11 , 194 Chairman Rennie Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Pak Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho ;Cucamonga. He then lad in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addis Juarez; Larry M Niel, Merman ' Hempel, Tennis Smut COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Beadle, Senior Planner, Shinto Base, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; 'Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rdug a , Senior Civil Engineer. Commissioner Juarez left the meeting at : C p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, 'City Planner, advised that the 19th Street 'Corridor Committee, comprised of Mayor Jon Mikels, Councilman Dick Dahl, Planning Commissioner Dennis Strut, and Planning Commissioner Vice Chairman David Barker, would meat can April 12 in the Lion'a Park Community Canter at 7. C p.m. Mr. Gomez; further announced that staff would recommend that Consent Calendar Items E & P be pulled for discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Barker requested that Items A, B, and T be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Motion: Moved by Ramp 1, seconded by Mc i 1, carried unanimously, that Item C of the Consent Calendar be adopted C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW �4 C CAB IC - The da ► lopment of a 120,000 square font warehouse distribution building on .1, acres of land in the General Industrial category (subarea 11 ) located on the southwest corner of 7th :Strut and Cleveland Avenue - APN 09 411-Cd.C9, 1o» A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11781 - ROBERTS CROUP total residential development of 76 condominium on 6.4acres of lard in the Medium Residential 14 du/cc) District located on the "west aide of Hermosa, approximately 330 feet north of 1 th Street APN 202-171-29 38. Commissioner Barker asked the City Attorney what repercussions would result if the Planning Commission acted to approve, deny, or approve with modifications, the time extensions on the Consent Calendar. r. Dougherty, City Attorney, replied that the bases issue is whether the Planning Commission desires to have the Development Code apply` in part or in total for the tentative maps that are being considered for extension at this meeting r. Dougherty stated that Development Code section 17.02.020, subsection C-7, has a grandfathering clause which`allows the property ;under a tentative ma t develop under the ordinance in effect at the time of tentative map approval, assuming that it occurs within the time limit permitted within the life of the tentative map. He further stated that if the map expired, the new Development Code would apply and would govern any approval of the new map on the property. r. Dougherty stated that the question raised is whether the City, in granting an extension to a previously approved tentative map, can add new or revised conditions and was taken up in El Patio vs the Permanent Rent Control Board in Santa Monica. Mr. Dougherty further stated that the Court of Appe al 'held that the City could not, as a condition of extension, add any new conditions to the previously approved tentative and the Court ordered that the final map be approved without; the conditions that the Santa Monica Planning Commission attempted to adds Mr. Dougherty stated that this lints the cities' ability in flexibility of action. He further stated that if an extension is granted to Item A, and assuming that the builder builds within the time period in effect at the time of the tentative,` the old ordinance would control. Additionally, if the Commission denies the extension and the map expires, the new Development Code, and other regulations on the:, new map would control. Commissioner Barker stated that the subject report indicates that this tentative was reviewed for conformity with the new Development Code and dtaff9, indicated that in the areas of energy conservation, recreational amenities, interior and aide setbacks, :and landscaping, it is not in conformance with the new Development Code» He indicated that the question very simply; is do we Commission ion den it and make the es the o h all the conflicts or do y acce pt t this err. a p d present a plan which would d ill have to comp bads and red p de veloper awa re he p . conform orr with the Development Code. Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 11, 1984 Chairman Stoat stated that he has concern with this 'specific project because he and others are ,serving on the 1th Street corridor study and the possibility exists that in the` near future there may be a change in the General Plana for this area. He indicated that it is surrounded by single family dwellings and the piece across the street may be lots density and his concerns are primarily those centered on a change to the General Plan for this area Gar. Tom Winfield, attorney with Brown, Winfield, and Can oneri, representing the Roberts Group, stated that the El Patio case as it is being couched is somewhat unique. further, that the final map was approved with conditions attached and thereafter the property owner objected to complying with the conditions which were imposed. r Winfield stated that the grandfathering provisions of the Development Code were a legislative determination by the Council so that people with tentative tract map approval:, who were moving forward in a reasonable course of conduct, would not be caught short and have the rug pulled out from under them. He indicated that this is exactly the position that his clients find themselves ' in if the extension is denied. Further, that another tentative map has been emended for this single development and if this one is denied, it would create many problems for his client. Be indicated that berth parcels are owned by the same party who will be developing it as a single project. This is not a situation,; he said, where the developer has bought a' piece of land for speculation, has sat back doing nothing g on the property, and is asking for an extension at the last minute. He indicated that the economy has been such where development has been infeasible f° stated that if the City Attorney is asked ghat position the �9r Winfield sty 4 _ Commission is in, he mould state that you could condition the map; with the client's participation and agreement but he did not know how the El Patio case would affect this. He also cited other recent Supreme Court rulings. Mr. Winfield felt that energy considerations could be mat by his client if they are allowed to merge forward and indicated that while they may not install energy saving water heaters in the development, they would install the plumbing for solar heating and would greet the energy requirements with regard" to the swimming pool Commissioner Barker stated that there is a" rumor that Mr. Winfield is working on are alternative plan. Mr. Winfield replied that it may be a rumor, but he has`no understanding of this. Chairman Shut stated that every if the applicant were, to consent to the additional conditions, the El Patio case is saying that they do not have to conform. Planning Commission Minutes April 11 , 1984 r. Winfield stated that in El Patio there had not been any discussion and it was approved whereas, ; tonight there was discussion < and agreement that the conditions would be adhered to. He indicated that there is nothing that says a development cannot be approved with conditions. r. Dougherty stated that El Patio dial involve s tentative p and the order of the court was that a find, yap be approved or processed, for approval. Further, the authority for extension comes from Government Code, Subsection 45. and is pant of the Subdivision Map Act and the basic time period governing the; life of the map is found in that section. r. Dougherty stated that the City has the option of adding 12 months unto that basic time and additional extensions not to exceed 3 years. In effect, map' given every possible extension can last as long as 6 years. Mr. Dougherty stated that the legislature limited the time spa that if future changes are rude in development codes, the cities could apply the new lair. He indicted that the El Patio case stated that the discretionary extensions up to throe or four years is simply' than discretionary with the Council or with the Commission. He stated that the Commission ;has the discretion of making these' determinations and; his belief is that regardless of the developer 's agreement to the conditions, the Commission lacks poorer to add more conditions whether the developer* agrees to it or not, and the Commission would be taking can good , faith ghat the developer is saying without any hold at all that the conditions would be complied with. Mr. Winfield stated that the staff report indicates that the conditions may be optional, r. Rick Comet, City Planner, explained the mandatory and optional standard provisions of the development Code as they relate to density and design considerations. Mr. Winfield; stated that the real issue here;, is not whether the City is imposing additional conditions, but whether the grandfathering provisions of the development Code apply :and whether they might have d right to waive a " portion or the City world have the right to change the Development Code and limit, modify or extend the development Code and go through the proper legislative process Motion: Moved by Parker, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 4-2 , denying a time extension for Tentative Tract No. 11781 - Roberts Group. Commissioner McNiel dissented;, indicating that this is a negotiable situation and he felt that the axe fell quickly, thereby doing unnecessary damage. P. TIME EXTENSION OR TENTATIVE TRACT 1026 - LOWY DEVELOPMENT - A total residential development of 27 single f pmi y uni.td, 1 ;patio hones and 202 townhouse units on 57.7 acres of land located between Haven and Hermosa, approximately 660 feet south of Wilson - APN P -1 1-1 , 13, 14, 02, 63 , and 69. Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 11 1984 Commissioner :Barker stated that he was not on the Planning Commission at the time and he did not totally agree with this development, not in quality, but in quantity. He asked if the bats to the south, east and wrest are owned by different property owners. Dan Coleman, associate Planner, replied that they are owned by ,different property owners. Commissioner ,Barker asked if there are tracts there. Ir. Coleman replied that there are not; it is vacant land. Commissioner Barker stated that this is another item where staff has indicated that there could be additional conditions with the approval of the applicant. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted this to go through without energy provisions. Chairman Stout stilted that if solar is the only complaint, he would go along with it Furgther, this project basically conforms to what they are trying to do in that area and will not affect the way the project looks. Commissioner Barker stated that nothing can be done about the streets which are private so they will have to be done with the same good faith as with the others. Chairman Stout indicated that it waasn't, designed to draw traffic through. h. Chairman Stout asked if the 'applicant was present. Mr. Rudy Mowry, the applicant, said that he has no objections to the conditions. MotionMoved by Stout, seconded by Rempel., carried unanimously,asly, to adopt Resolution No. G , approving a time extension for Tentative Tract 10826. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11893 - Clb BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of 17.2 acres of land into 35 lots in the 11VL1' District, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street LPN 1 - 11- 1 . Commissioner Barker stated that again they would be granting this to conform to the new 'standards and the lot sizes here are 21,500 as ;opposed to the required 22,500 and the minimum lot depth of 150 feet is short approximately 15' feet in lots 13 and 21. Chairman Stout asked whether there was language in the Code that would deal with compatibility* of surrounding structures. r Gomez replied that there is a reference to materials. _ Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 11 1984 Chairman Stout stated he would like It noted that this particular area has ors with the roofs fs and he would not warm to see composition roofs put in this area Motion: Moved by Rempol, seconded by Barber, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82- -A granting a time extension for tentative truant 118 E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT " DEER CREEK - The development of 23 single Family detached homes on existing one-half acre lots in the " L" District on Bennet Street, Turquoise Avenue, and Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia Avenue E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9589 - LAS PAL AS (DEER CREEK) The development f 15 family heaves in the Low Residential. District, located north of Red Hill Country Club Drive and crest of the Flood Control. Channel - APN 07- 0-8' through 18 and 32 through 35. Commissioner Barker indicated that there was a memorandum from Curt Johnston to Rick Gomez with regard to standard conditions r. Gomez stated that when the staff reports were being prepared for the Consent Calendar the requirements were immediately marked to be consistent with the rowath Management Ordinance. However, these two tracts were approved pries to the G.M.O. and were marked in error, and staff asked that the conditions requiring certifications of adequate a aci.ty r om the school , and water districts be removed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. 4-27, approving Design Review for Tract 9540, with a_ modification to the conditions of approval as indicated. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt, Resolution No. 2 , approving Design Review: for Tract 9589, with modifications to the conditions of approval as indicated. PUBLIC HEARINGS G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AMENDMENT 84- 1 RICK D - A Development District Amendment from Medium Residential. -1 dul ac) to La Tedium Residential ( du1s ac) for 16.3 acres of land located on the south side of Arnow Highway, north ;side of 9tb Street, , between Baker Avenue and Madrone Avenue - A N 2 7-2 1 2 and 07, 207-1 2 D1 through 7 R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12621 - RI OD - A, residential d vel. pment of dupl d es ( d units ern 7® acres of Land in the Medium Residential district (Low-Medium pending) located can the south side of Arrow between Madrone and. Baker - APR 207 2 1 7. Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 11 1984 Associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff reports. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Gerald Tust, of the engineering firm f MOGutchan Company, Inc. , representing the applicant, indicated that they accept the conditions as proposed Commissioner MaNiel stated that at Design Review there had been discussion of a test lot and asked what its disposition was. r Johnston replied the Design Review Committee felt that a tot lest would be inappropriate in this particular development and asked that a picnic area be added instead Motion: Moved by McNi.el, seconded by Parker, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution Its, ri g approving Development Districts Amendment No. 4-01 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Motion: Mewed by McNiel, seconded by Rea pel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. approving in Tentative Tract No. 12621 and issuing a Negative Declaration. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _01WEST The, development of a coin operated oar wash on .45 acres of land in the General Commercial district located on the southeast carrier of Foothill and Helms - AP - 1 4 a Darn Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report d stated that a letter was received from the Woolworth Garden Center opposing this conditional use permit. Chairman Stout asked with respect to the new Development Code, ghat the minimum size of parcels are as compared to the size of this project. Mr. Coleman replied that it is 40,000 'sq. ft. with the exception of when it is a part of a shopping center. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Chris West, 518 1 th Street,; Huntington Peach, the applicant, stated that he has the same desires that were expressed by the Design Review Committee to build only a positive facility for the City and is building only state-of-the- art car washes. Mr. West stated that 90 percent of staffs comments are easily fixed and that they have gone through extensive landscaping and will iwnstall wrought iron and have worked can the complex design and architecture. Further, that he felt the problem with Woolworth could be salved through a screen gall of additional landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 11 , 1984 Chairman Stoat asked Mr. West if he has ever built a oar wash on a- one-half acre piece of property litre this before. Mr. Guest replied that the smallest car h has been 13,000 square feet and they have redesigned the storage room to provide more space. Further, that they anticipate washing between 3,000 and 3,500 oars per month and over that period of time traffic usually works itself out. r. Brian Harden, manager of the Woolworth north Carden Center,, read the letter he had provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forrest Perry, 9180 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that there is a security problem there and a safety problem with the traffic light and felt that the car wash should not be allowed Guest stated that when he originally got involved in this particular .site it was his understanding that the propety was zoned for this type of operation. In the meantime, however, he stated, the Development Code was adopted and the gees changed. He indicated that when Woolworth got into the center it was zoned for his type of use and a two story office/commercial building was proposed which would have parking problems r. hest stated that with regard to the street light, oars have had the ability to get in and out of the shopping center and he does not see hoer it would create any more problem than a left tort lane Where being no farther comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rerpel stated that he world have a problem with approving this Grind of use on Foothill Boulevard. He expressed concern over the height of the car gash and the area which would be used on the west aide of the oar gash where they would be detailing their cars with the rags and papers that right be left in opera view. Commissioner Barker stated that this is a very nice building in the wrong location. Commissioner ytoNiel stated that when this came to the Design Review Committee, the Committee struggled with it because of its location. He indicated that Mrs West has gorse along y in trying to achieve what is desired for Foothill.. Boulevard. Further, the Commission must provide the type of services that are needed in a City the size of Rancho Cucamonga it order for it to functions Commissioner McNiel felt that this project could be made to work. Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been a lot of discussion on the type` of businesses that: would be compatible on Foothill Boulevard and what had been planned for that area He felt that a ear wash is not ghat is wanted on Foothill Boulevard and he hoped that Mr. Ferry; will do something to enhance his store Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 11 1984 Commissioner Juarez felt that the design of the car wsh is nice but she did not grant to see it located on Foothill Boulevard Chairman an Stoat stated that Mr. West has dons a lot to have the car wash fit on that corner but Foothill is a Special Boulevard and eventually the City rants to make that ;street more attractive. Chairman Stout stated that :the basic problem is that piece is ton small: for what is proposed and they; are trying to mitigate it through design and landscaping. Chairman Stout did not feel it fit on that corner. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, _carried, to adopt Resolution No. 84-31 , denying Conditional Use Permit 4 1 - West. Commissioner MnNidl dissented for his stated reasons. 8: 15 p.m., The Planning Commission recessed. 3s 30 p.rota The Planning Commission ssion reconvened. 8:30 P.m. Commissioner Juarez left the meeting due to a family emergency J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES Th development of 1 ' 1 zero last limo homes s n 14.5 acres in the Low- Medium Residential District, located between Archibald and Ramona at Manta Vista Street APN 02-1 1 0 , 06, 15, 16._ Chairman Stout stated= that the Development District Amendment had not been advertised and this item would be continued, but that testimony would be taken tonight if there were comments. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r Handy P a , 801 Park Canter Drive, Santa Ara, reviewed the project relating to the recreation area as well as the lot sizes. He also explained all changes that were made in order to incorporate the 5 additional acres into their development and felt they now have a plan which would satisfy the existing homeowners and comply with the ity's standards as well. Mr. Poag stated his concern with the staff" ;report regarding setbacks. Mr,. ,Aram Bas enia ,, project architect, addressed the concerns expressed in the staff report and described the architecture and patio homes concept. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April. 11 1984 Bruce Fenstermaker, Ramona Avenue resident, staged he is one of the; original homeowners there. He felt that the developer has done a good job but was concerned about the increased traffic can Ramona Avenue. Chairman-- Stout stated that the Commission has concerns regarding the traffic as well. r. Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, indicated that d traffic study has been done by the traffic engineering consultant who was on the City's list o authorized consultants and staff consulted with him on the study. Chairman Stout asked Mr.. Rou eau if staff is satisfied that they are accurate. r. Rougeau replied that the engineering stuff was satisfied Chairman Stout stated that ass lay person, he has no way of knowing whether the study is' accurate or not. He indicated that the study was done because Ramona is a collector street designed for a certain volume oftraffic h means it has a certain width which is wider than the average street. He indicated tht it dead ends at 19th Street which outs its capacity down a considerable amount but all of these things gust be token into consideration. r Fenster maker indicated some variations in street width at the railroad tracks and a flooding problem that occurs there. Another concern expressed was that of cars parking along Ramona as they might block the street. He asked if the 9 lots along Ramona could be constructed first. Chairman Stout asked if there is any scheduled plan for the widening of the grade crossing Mr. Ron eau replied that the City is trying to eliminate the railroad track but whether or not they are successful, will not be known for approximately a. year or more He stated that if the City is not successful, it will become a public project and the tracks will be ;widened out. Further, that one feature of this project is that the grater does jam up at the crossing and a condition was added to provide additional storm drains on Ramona. Mrs. Jayne Grint, 9927 Mignonette indicated that the developer has been very good in working with the neighborhood but the street situation is severe. She indicated further' that; if the street is widened, it will be used as a major thoroughfare and that traffic from the apartments dumps into Ramona. With the irregular street, it becomes a tight squeeze for two traffic lames. She suggested a stop sign at Archibald and again looking at the entire area Mr. Lou Shriner, 6944 Berkshire, commented on; the water drainage problem, potential school crowding, and the railroad tracks. Mr. Tom Radford, 6041 Ramona, commented on the two neighborhood meetings held with Pacer Homes the applicant, stating that they sere good,; but felt' that there are still problems with flooding, density and traffic. Mr. Dennis Stout felt that traffic was a problem that; gust be resolved. Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 11, 1984 Mr. Poag stated that he is aware of the concern about drainage but his eni.neer has assured hire that improvements will be made with the construction of the project. r. J. P. Kapp, project engineer, indicated that story drains for 25 year capacity wri.11, be installed and this will out down on the water north of the tract. Chairman Stoat asked the applicant if he has a ball. park Figure on the offsite improvements that are required to be peat in. Mr. Kapp replied that construction on the storm drain alone is expected to be C,000 Mr. Kapp stated that there were a few items he mould like,to discuss relative to the Conditions of Approval. Mrs. Kapp requested tht Condition L4 be allowed to be shown on the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer rather than the way it is shown on the Conditions of Approval.,_ Mr. Rougeau stated that this has to do with the difference of right-of-way d he does not see a problem with making this accommodation. Mr. Kapp stated there was an additional condition requesting additional easement for utilities in excess of the right-of-way and felt it, was probably unnecessary. Mr. Rougeau replied it is very likely necessary because when you have 50 feet of right-of-dray and a sidewalk it becomes very clattered. Further, that the additional easement does not affect the design of t the project but it means a lot to the property owner not to have their front yard dug up if work rust be doe on the utilities He indicated that there is usually about 1 ; feet' from the curb to the property line. Mr.a Kapp stated that the last .item is item 8 under the Engineering Section of the Resolution relative to pavement taper. He indicated that it would put a; burden on his client` for something that he does not he control of. He indicated that they do not have any way to guarantee the acquisition. Mr. Rougeau replied that a condition of that type is almost impossible to impose and if the right-of-way cannot be obtained, the City must provide the taper within the project itself. However, ter. Rougeau stated, it is felt that are attempt should be made by the applicant to procure it for the betterment of traffic services. Mr. Dougherty stated that the Subdivision Map Act has been amended to take care of the problem where the property line required acquisition outside of the tract boundary. He indicated that the Subdivision Map Act does allot the imposition of a condition of this sort and if the developer cannot acquire the property within the necessary time frame, the City* has the option of waiving` the condition or acquiring .t by eminent domain with the developer paying the cost. He indicated that in a situation of this sort, the City only lends its support in the acquisition proceedings. Planning Commission on Minutes 11 April 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout asked if this condition could also be made in the alternative. Ir. Dougherty replied that he did not know if the City would do that. Chairman Stout stated that we do want to made sure there is a taper. r« Rou eau stated that: the alternative would produce what the "City wants and what is needed. Mr. Archie Wilson, 7074 Ramona, property owner at the low end of this tract, asked about the diagonal drain on the northwest cornea of his property and who had planned it as it is; shown. Mr. Roueau replied that two ways have been proposed to do it and to take it to the east side ofthe street which would require uair e less of Mr. ils n' property. Further, his records show that ghat is part of Mr. i.lson's front ; yard is really a part of the right-of-way. « Wilson stated that the proposal of the developer is that it out across the corner and should not come across his property, and that no one: has said anything; about the problem of ingress and egress there. He also asked why they allow a storm drain or catch basin on the corner of the two properties in the process of being developed. Chairman Stout stated that he did not know if the City could burden the property owners along Archibald with the storm water when it is not associated with their project. Commissioner Rempol suggested that since a determination on this project cannot be made tonight, that discussion take place between the applicant and the Engineering Department relative to some of these problems and prior to the next meeting. Chairman Stout stated that the right-of-way should be researched and located. r« Rougeau replied that he was sure this could be done. Ir assenian asked about another condition on page 3, item 7 of the Resolution relative to side on garages. He explained that plans -3, because of their floor plans, would be unable to accommodate this requirement. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed« Commissioner Barker stated that several things can be discussed between now and when this returns to the Commission. He indicated he sat, on the Design Review Committee when this project was reviewed and expressed concern on the variance, or; lack of it, in setbacks and this is one of the reasons that a streetscape has been provided for the Commission's review tonight. Commissioner Barker stinted that he now sees what he ;was afraid he right see; that is, a lot ofcement, crowded look, lack of warmth, and lack of Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 11 , 1984 variable lot widths. Commissioner Barter felt there should be some variable lot width and he stated he would be unable to support this project as presented. Chairman Stout stated that each and every space should have a spot to party cuff the street and off the sidewalks and this design does not allow for it. Commissioner McNiel stated he would reserve his comments until the item is again before the Commission. Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, April 25, 1984. :45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10®CC p.m. The Planning ng Commission reconvened. K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-04 R W S'T - A request to locate a caretaker's quarters of 801 square feet in conjunction with a light industrial storage facility located on the south side of 9th Street on both the east and west sides of Flower Road ( 755 Flower Road). This site is located in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan area APN209- 013-42. Assistant Planner, Nanny Fong, reviewed the staff report Chairman Shut opened the public-hearing Mr: Mark Vo ki.nk 1403 N. Lowell Avenue, Santa Ana, advised the Commission that it would be better to phase this project rather than do the entire area. He described the security that would be provided in this project and the changes to the floor plan. There e being no fu thrr$ comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barger, seconded by McNi.el., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 33 approving Conditional. Use Permit 4 C4. L. REVIEW OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PUD W 11 -- 1 CAR N DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Approxi.m tel,y' 8 t1-residential units at the northwest corner of Milliken and Highland in the Cit 's sphere of influence. Senior Planner, "Tim Snedle reviewed ,the staff report stating that much more staff time will be required before comments could be made and requested two weeks time to alloy staff to study this in depth. He recommended that this item be brought back tentatively on Monday, April, 30, 1984 for action by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minuted 13 April. 11 , 1984 ADJOURNMENT Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried nanimou ly, to adjourn. 10: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. II Res eat 1 itted, lcl epd y Secretary 'j Planning nin o lesion Minutes 14 April 11 , 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Larch 28, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the regulars meeting of Atha City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 e CC p.m. The meeting s held at Liana Park;, Community Center, 9161 Bade Line cad, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Strut then led in the pledge to the flog. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry McNiel, Yuman Hempel, DennisStout C OMM ISSIONERS ABSENT Nand STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Frank Drell an Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Hougeau, Senior r Civil Engineer; Michael V irin, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that two additional items would be added to this evening's agenda; Item F, a discussion of the Ca yn project proposed at the northeast corner of Milliken & Highland within the C ty's sphere of influence; and Item C an appeal of Temporary Use Permit 84-12 for a carnival at the United Methodist Church on the corner of Church h Street and Archibald Avenue. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the February , 1984 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TENTATIVE TRACT 1 237 AND 12237 1 WOODLAND PACIFIC Reapplication for eai rr Review of 36 single family homes on 55.95 acres of lard in the 'fiery Low; Residential District Located on the east aide of Hermosa, north of Hillside R. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11`79 1NL INS LISS A custom lot subdivision of 47 lots on 15>.9 acres in the Low Residential District (2- du/ac) located on the east side of Amethyst between Highland and Lemon APN 10 2- 61--0 and 1062-571-04. Motion: Moved by McNi.el, seconded by Hempel, ;unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12 R _ The 33 development of 432 semi-attached manufactured homes on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Community Plan, designated Medium and Medium-High Residential, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - A portion of APN 227-061-06$ , Michael Vairin, Senior, Planner, advised that stiff" was seeking continuance o this project to a liter date. He explained that the applicant had : made revisions to the project and submitted them to the Planning Division at the early pert of the week. Further, these revisions would alter the description of the project, thus necessitating readvertisement, and additionally rind require Design Review Committee ittee review prior to resubmission to the full: Planning Commission. t was the consensus of the 'Planning Commission that this item be removed from the agenda, to be read° ertided and rescheduled at a later ;date," D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12588 OMNI BUILDERS A' total development and subdivision of 12 acresinto 22 lets, comprising single family units in the Very Low (less than "2 du/ c) district, generally located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road APN 201-0 - Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed ed the staff report Chairman Stott opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 , March 23;, 1984 Tour Davis, 9 1 Business Center; Drive, represented the applicant and advised that the applicant had concerns regarding the cul-de-sac street; light required on page 5 of the Standard Conditions and requested elimination of that condition. Additionally*, the applicant requested an explanation of the 0-foot; dedication required' on Hermosa. He pointed out that this was also a condition of Parcel Pap 8007 and granted clarification that this- could not require two separate offers of dedication totaling C feet. Mr. Davis also questioned the need' for review of the rock dwelling by the Historical Commission and asked for discussion concerning he westerly cul-de-sac street if Tract 10047 is never built Janine Tibbets, 7957 Gardenia, Ranchos Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project Vic Cherbak, 9820 Cinch. Ping Dane, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission; in support ofthe project and additionally stated that he did not believe the rock dwelling in question is old enough to be considered a landmark by the Historical Commission. Allan Tibbets, 7957 Gardenia, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project. There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pe reel stated that this project is an example of what happens when one project is submitted with a half" cul-de-sac, like the one proposed for Tentative Tract 100 7, and the adjacent owner has not given his consent to the design. He further stated that it forces a certain criteria on adjacent properties and that those property carers should be consulted. This is the reason, he explained, that he has requested in the past that when projects are brought before the Commission for review that the surrounding properties are also shown on the gaps, Chairman Stout addressed the issue of the cul-de-sac and asked if an agreement could be entered into which would release this applicant from the street improvements if Tentative Tract 10047 is not constructed. Paul Pou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that a condition could be placed on the project which would require a lien agreement that would contain a release without construction of the cul-de-sac street improvements should Tentative Tract expire in December, of 1984. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if this would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1984 i Cary Sanderson, engineer for the applicant, expressed concern regarding the construction of an exterior gall which would have to be torn down and be redesigned if the adjacent tract expires r° Comet pointed out that a temporary mall might be a better solution than building a permanent galls Commissioner Rempel suggested that the area of the cul-de-sac bulb could be temporarily constructed until such time as the situation with Tentative Tract 10047 is resolved as to whether it will or will not be constructed. Mr. Sanderson agreed to the lien agreement condition; Commissioner cNiel referred to the -foot offer of dedication on Hermosa and asked if this condition had been duplicated. . Comet replied that the; language could' be clarified on this condition to read "any needed" dedication rather than the 0-f oot dedication stated it condition 2 of the Resolution. Commissioner Parker referred to the removal of the street light condition. requested by the applicant and asked if this condition would then be deleted. Commissioner Rempel replied thatthis condition should be deleted. Teti Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Planning ,i ision condition and asked if the intent was that building permits not be issued for parcel number one or lot number one until the issue of the atone;cottage preservation is addressed. Mr. Comet replied that the intent was that building permits not be issued for lot number one and stated that this should be changed on the Resolution. Mr. Hopson asked the Commission ghat their intent was regarding the Historic Preservation Commission's review of the stone cottage. Chairman Stout suggested that language be added that would require the Historic Commission to report back to the Commission within 90 days on the merits of whether or not the cottage should be preserved. : Motion: ored3Rem el" seconded �e " unanimously carried, to adopt t the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12588 with the deletion of the condition requiring a street light at cul-de-sac "A", a condition requiring a' lien agreement for street work connecting' Tentative Tracts 12588 and 10047, review of the stone cottage by the Historic Preservation Commission within 90 days, and language clarification proposed to Planning Division conditions and 9. Planning Commission Minutes rich 28, 1984 `'' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RF PR , MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A -ENT : COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- : 1 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. SITE APPROVAL - ARROW PART - Located on Arrow Route, between Vineyard; Avenue and Hellman A nna . Dick Mayer, Park Planner, presented the park plan for Arrow Park. Commissioner Rempel expressed concern with the dead-end ;streets coming into the park area and asked Paul Rougeau if something should be done at this stags in the psrk's planning to provide ul-de-sacs. r Rougeau replied that the reducedcul-de-sac standards which have been developed for dead-end streets where the land use had changed would b . appropriate especially on the streets to the north to provide turning radios for cars. It was ;the consensus of the Commission to approve the park plea and that it now be presented to the City Council F. ARYN COMPANY - A proposed residential; development at northeast corner of liken and Highland within the City'o sphere of influence. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, presented the Commission' with` s written report on the Caryn Development Company. The report was received with direction t staff to present the item at the Planning o ission meeting of April 11 , 1984. G. APPEAL OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 12 - UNITED METHODIST CHURCH CARNIVAL Commission McNi l abstained due to conflict of interest and stepped down from the podium. Planning Commission Minutes 5- March 28, 1984 Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that the Planning Division had received an appeal of the Temporary use Permit for a carnival at the United Methodist Church located at Church Street and Archibald Avenue. Chairman Stout asked if the persons appealing the use were contacted regarding tonight's meeting. r. Gomez replied that he had contacted Mrs® Satterfield, who appealed the use, and had been informed that she could be unable to attend tonight's meeting. Chairman Stout opened the hearing. Glen Larson pastor of the 'United Methodist Church, addressed the Commission stating that the Church had always attempted to be a goad neighbor and that the carnival provides funds to improve the church property. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by adjacent 'property owners in support of the carnival. He advised that the nosiest rides had been proved to the Archibald side of the, site and small children's rides and a 'slide were the only rides remaining near Jadeite. Further, that the Sheriff Department had approved the traffic flow; and that a uniformed security guard had; been employed to ensure the :safety of not only those -attending the carnival but the adjacent area as well. There were no further comments, therefore the hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant had mitigated the concerns expressed in the appeal in the areas of noise and security., However, Commissioner Hempel suggested that the generators be surrounded with plywood to help buffer the noise Chairman Stout referred to the issue of parking and" the suggested posting of Ord Parking" signs in front of the church property and asked the applicant if this was a feasible solution The applicant replied that this posting would severly impact the carnival parking. It was the consensus of the; Commission that the posting of "No Parking" signs in front of the church property would cause undue hardship, Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried, to deny the appeal based upon the mitigation measures taken by the applicant to meet the intent of the Development Code AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL NO Sr COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN; COMMISSIONERS: MCNIFL -carried- Planning Commission Minutes 6March 28, 1984 Commissioner McNiel returned.: to the podium. Prior to adjournment the Planning ommi ion presented a commendation resolution to Michael Vairin for his years of service to the City. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNi 1, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. p.m. - Planning om iedi n Adjourned epe dully tte Ric e , Deputy Secretary MINUTES CITY CP RANCHO CUCA ONCA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 14, 1984 Chairman DennisStoat celled the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order t 7:00 p.m. The meeting washeld at: Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Pace Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Dennis Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. RILL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:: David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempe , Dennis Stout C OMM ISSICN R ASSENT. None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner, Tim Peedle, Senior Planner; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Paul.; Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planners, reminded the Commission of the Forthcoming meeting on March 15 of the subcommittee appointed ' by the City Council to review the 19th Street corridor study. ter. Gomez indicated the Committee would meet at the Alta LomaSchool on Amethyst Sheet at 7:CC p.m. The purpose of the meeting, he said, is to review the General Plan hand use policy `along the corridor. MINUTES Motion: Moved by R m ofr seconded IcN�eI � carried unanimously,yr to approve the minutes of the January 11 , 1984 meeting. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Remppl, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the Januarys 25, 1984 meeting. Motion: graved by Rempel., seconded by t cNiel., carried unanimously, to approve the February 22, 1984 minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -01_A OLYMPUS PACIFIC request, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from ff to Low-Medium Residential - 1ac) on 4.36 acres of Ind, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13. (Continued from February S, 1984 meeting.) Senior Planner, Tim Peedle, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan'; Kiel , representing Olympus Pacific, indicated he supported the staff alternative of Low-Medium on the site which would bring it in line with the; property to the north for townhuzne type development of the 10 acres involved there and to also provide a buffer to the single family homes to the east Chairman Stout asked if the whole 1 -acre parcel is under Olympus Pacific ownership. Mr. Kiely replied that it is. Mrs. Christine Wilson, 6749 Cambridge, awed if the Planning Commission had seen the parcel indicating that two homes presently` being built nett to the parcel have a valuation of approximately $175,000 and the existing hones in the area are valued around $100,000. She asked what the ,price range will be cf" the Olympus Pacific project and whether it would be comparable. She also asked if there will be a strict code for the building exteriors because of resident disappointment with the apartments on 19th Street- Chairman Stunt asked what option the residents would prefer in this request. Ms. Wilson replied that she would prefer the low density. Chairman Stout explained the very extensive review process of the Cite and stated that when the Fredricks Croup apartments were approved, it was early in the City°s life and the review process did not exist at that time. He also explained the time lag between its; approval, and when it was built and indicated that the Commission would look for compatibility with the surrounding area : Mrs. Wilson stated that she fears something might' happen similar to ghat happened to the Brock Homes adjacent to the Jensen homes. Chairman Stout indicated that the Jensen project had been improperly graded which led to problems with the adjacent property. Mr. Bob Matley, 10215 Ping, was concerned with the price range of the units and indicated that their preference would be low density He also expressed concern that the architectural style be compatible with the surrounding area. , Planning Commission Minuted 2 March 14, 1984 Chairman Stout again pointed out the three options available. Mr. Matley again stated their preference Mould be lour density. Mr. Gene Carline, 101 Victoria, indicated he had spoken with many people in his area and their fear is higher density and lower quality. He also indicated the people with whom he spoke would prefer loci density. Sr Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, stated in their neighborhood meeting they wanted to Deep the density the same as existing density because they were unaware of the third options. He indicated that had they known about the third option, they would want to keep it loss. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Kiely to address the issue of price range and size. r iely replied that they would be of a condo type and explained the placement of the units indicated that they would rase from 1,CCC-1 , CC, set. ft in size and would be compatible with the single family homes to the east. Further, that design review requirements are that they essentially will e similar to those of the area. He indicated that the units will have extensive landscaping;in however, it was premature to estimate ghat the price range of the; units will be, but felt they will probably be in the $100,000 range Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Juarez asked if the owner of parcel, 14 had been notified. r Ceedle replied that he had tried notifying her but she does not have a telephone, and he advised that this has been advertised and notices sent; however, if the Planning Commission desires to take the option and go with the recommendation for logs density, it must be readvertised. Chairman Stout stated that although three options are available, if the First option is to deny the change to office professional, and the third captions, addresses the recommendation for the corner parcel, and all three are steadied then only the large parcel advances and the Commission cannot sake a change on all three tonight. He indicated that there are certain legal requirements that must be followed Commissioner, McNiel stated he would be interested in i.ely's position on a designation of low density. Mr. holy indicated that would not be feasible and they would have to reevaluate their position as they would not be able to put in single family units for ghat they paid for the site Commissioner Barker stated that Office/Professional is not logical: and high density is not compatible in this area. Commissioner Rempel stated that Commissioner Barker has expressed his opinion as well although he might have a problem going totally to; lost density because of trying to work out a street pattern and because of the work that needs to be done; on the Hermosa intersection. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 14, 1984 Commissioner Rempel felt that a solution 'could be worked out however,, with the 1 th Street corridor study beginning tomorrows, he asked that this item be tied into that study. Further, that there; should be units per acre which would be in the lows medium rather than lows density range which would provide a mixture of single famil and possibly zero lot lire or duplex units. Chairman Stout did not feel that this property should have the office professional designation and perhaps should carry a residential designation in the lows range. Further, that all three parcels should be Braked together as this would not work by itself because of the street pattern problems. Chairman Stout indicated if the third resolution is approved and the applicant came in with a project that is in a 4-5 du ac range, he might at that time say that them should, be a stipulation that it be no higher than 5 because the area surrounding this project is in the same range and this would not be out of the realm of possibility. Chairman Stout stated be would recommend that the resolution of denial be approved and that all three properties be studied along with the l th Street corridor with a stipulation ;placed on this °property that it must be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood Commissioner Mc Niel stated he is not inclined to agree that this area has been misdesignated as office professional. He felt that a nice office professional complex would work and is reasonable and be did not feel it should be j discounted. Further, Commissioner MoNiel did not agree with the medium high density; range and it bothered him that this office, professional designation would go by the wayside. He indicated although it does ,not match the local neighborhood, it is not out of place, ;and might be needed dons the road. Commissioner Rempel stated with that philosophy* you would be asking the owner of the property to hold are to it for 5 to 20 years, and that is not reasonable. Commissioner McNiel replied if this is changed, the General Plana may as well be thrown out the window. Commissioner Re ap l stated that is not what he is saying, although the General.. Plum could undergo some changes. He indicated that along with the office professional, designation, asses such as a restaurant could go in as well as a. gas station and that it could go in through the CUP process He indicated that there is no guarantee that only asses such. as ;a professional ;office or restaurant would be guaranteed Commissioner Juarez voiced concern that since the recommendation would affect all three parcels, would it be fair to act on thus since one of the property owners is not present because notification was not received. Chairman Stout indicated that this would be readvertised and theme would be re notification for surrounding property owners Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 14, 1984 Notion* Moved by Barker, seconded by SoNiel, carried unanimously, to decry the applicant's request for a change from office professional to low medium density Commissioner Rempel asked if before the net vote is taken, the applicant coin.d have an opportunity to withdraw his request. Further, rather than take action on a motion for the whole site this could be tabled until the 19th Street study ;is completed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to adopt Resolution No. 3 in order to look at all three parcels; reddvertise, and come up with some residential designation in the low range. Commissioners Juarez, MoN el and Rempel voted no, and the motion was defeated. Commissioner Harker stated that it will be in the neighborhood of three months' before the study will be completed and a, recommendation could be made at that time Mr. Gomez started that the Council has directed that. the study be completed within 60 days and therm are approximately 30 days left. Motion. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Juarez, carried, to table further decision on this item ;until the 1 th Street corridor study is completed` and recommendations have been made. Chairman Stout voted no. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL, BEAN AMENDMENT 4 01 ACACIA - A request to amend the General 'flan Land Use Ilan from Office to Medium-Nigh Residential (1i du/ad) on 3.58 acres of land. located on the west side of Archibald, north of Ease Leine Road AN -11- . (Continued from February ;d, 1984 meeting.) Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the property to the crest is the site of the senior housing project. Mr. Eeedle replied that it is. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Alan Weirick, 2500 E. Colorado Blvd. , Pasadena, California, stated a letter was provided to the Commission showing seven other areas not including the Hermosa, site which he is presently developing in the City. He felt all six of those sites are special office professional locations. He indicated further that five of the sites are vacant office professional designations, plus one which already has an office community established. Mr. Weirick did " not feel that this particular office/professional use is needed at this location Planning o iassion Minutes 5 March 14, 1984 r Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, indicated that the homeowners on Mignonette, Teak, Cambridge and Elmhurst want, to keep it the same Jayne Crint, 9927 Mignonette, stated she agrees with the committee as this is office professional and she does not see a need for residential when this area is landlocked with commercial. She felt it should be kept the same r Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeite, stated it should be kept office/professional... "There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that the last time he expressed concern that with the senior citizen overlay district being placed here; because of the amenities it provided and access into the shopping center, the intention is to provide services through office professional to the east. Commissioner Barker stated that this designation should be left alone 'I Chairman Stout stated with respect to the senior citizen overlay district the density is high but is mitigated by the fact that persons living there do not have children and in some instances automobiles Because of this , there was bonus transfer in order to subsidize and keep lower rents and he felt that the office ;professional designation in this area is important and should remain ;I the same. Commissioner, Rempel stated he echoed a lot of Commissioner Stout's comments. He dial not feel that putting in more high density in this area; would be. compatible and felt that the office/professional designation should remain. Commissioner Juarez stated that the designation should not be changed. Commissioner McNiel agreed Motion: Moved by Barber, seconded by MaNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 to deny the requested change. C. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12588 OMNI BUILDERS total development and a subdivision of 12 acres into 22 lots, comprising 22 singlefamily units in the VL (Very Low District Less than 2 du "ao) , generally looted on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN 0 - 83 . City Planner;, Rick Gomez, requested that this item be continued to the March 28', 1984 Planning Commission meeting' Chairman Stout opened the public hearing The applicant, Omni Builders, indicated that ' they are not apposed to the continuance. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion, Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously to continue this item to the March 28, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 14, 1984 1 "1 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT •-0 - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABORASSOCIATION - A request to locate a 7 0 q. ft. (12 acre site in the I'M" District,,—located on the north aide of Arrow Highway, crest of the Cucamonga Creek" Channel, 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 207-211-01 . Associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report and shoved slides of the site to the Planning Commission. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant could build a: permanent structure for their operation here. r. Johnston replied that this could be justified as a condominium since it is in a residential area., however, they would have to bring the street improvements in and up to standards and it is unknown whether that would be feasible. Chairman Stout indicated that this would then be just a replacement in kind and size, r. Johnston -replied that is correct {Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Nor. Al Friezen, 1355 _ Stanford, Upland, the applicant, indicated :he is in agreement with the Conditional Use Permit. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel steed that the Conditional Use Permit and the trailer is much more satisfactory than trying to get a permanent facility. Further, the whole site will, have to be demolished in the not too distant future because it is not compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner McNiel thanked the applicant for the use of the kitchen facilities for some of the pancake breakfasts sponsored by Little League. Chairman Stout stated this Conditional: Use Permit should be approved for a two year period and asked that the applicant came into the City offices six months prior to the expiration of the CUP if an extension is required. Mr. Frio en asked if the Conditional Use Permit is issued two years from the date of this meeting or the placement of the trailer. r. Gomez replied it is two years from this date Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No, 4, issuing Conditional Use Permit No. .; Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 14, 1984 E. DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOUSING AND 'TECHNICAL APPENDIX ELEMENT OF THE URN PAL PLAN The distribution of the Draft dousing Element and Technical appendix for future Commission consideration. This material will be forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required, by California State Housing law. Review by the Commission will be made following U D comments. Tim Beedle, Seniors Planner reviewed aed the staff report, stating that,a copy of the Housing Element has been forwarded to the State for; the 0-d ye review, period. ' Further, that the :heaving process on the Housing Element will begin the griddle of June. Chairman Stout stated that many cities' Housing Elements cage dire at about the, same time and asked Mr. Beadle if it's possible that the State will yak for an extension. Further, will the City have a time problem Ir. Beadle replied that the schedule is close but we are within striking distance and Rancho Cucamonga will be one of the first to complete the proce Commissioner Per pel asked how this will be incorporated into the General Plan r Beedl.e replied that copies will be made available of the Housing Element but once the hearing process is completed, it will be incorporated into the General `Plan, and will match the format Chairman Stout asked for comments from the audience Mrs. Jayne Grint asked that the Commission explain the Housing Element for; thecae in the audience. She further asked if the hearing` process will be an open public uearinge Chairman Stout explained how the State through the legislature has established what comprises a General Plan. r . Beadle elaborated that the policies adopted by the City stem from State law. He explained the public hearing process and how it will be open to the public for comment. Chairman Stout stated it is becoming increasingly difficult to comply :with State imposed regulations relative to the General Plan There was discussion on the importance of ,public participation in the hearing_ process. r. Melvin Bond, Cucamonga resident, asked if the labor carp will be torn down in future years and whether they would be grade to move if the City no longer wants thew it their present ;location. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1984 Commissioner Rempel replied that the City cannot make them move. Further, the reason the labor camp will move is because there no longer is viable agriculture in this area. i r.- Larry Lewis indicated that there will be a meeting tomorrow ;night and felt that, a crossing guard is needed at the intersection of 1 th Street and I Hermosa. He farther indicated that there are no speed limits posted on Hermosa and people- drive 55 mph on it. ADJOURNMENT Lotion: Moved by McNiel., seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. p.m. The Planning om ission adjourned. Redp tfo ,eta fitted rr. e lrpnt Secretary Planning ommission Minutes 9 March 14, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO C `CA ONG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 22, 1 d Chairman Bennis Stout called the regular meeting f the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at rCC p.m. The meeting held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. i ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT,: David Barker, ,Addie Juarez, Larry i c i l., Herman Rempel, Dennis Stoat COMMISSIONERS ABSENT, Nome STAFF PRESENT, Tier Beedle, Senior Planner; Linde Daniels, Assistant Planner; Freak Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rcrr eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Bernier Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that the Commissioners would be leaving for the Planning Commissioners Institute in Sara Diego on Wednesday, February 29 and would be returning on Friday, larch 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 BC ARD A revision to a previously approved' Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of Cod Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the "VL" District, located on the northeast causer of Archibald and Wilson Avenues APN 0 R 1 C 1 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11541 LEWISresidential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the rr Lrr District located between Etiwanda and East Avenues, south of Summit Avenue APN 1 1 CP through 4, 06 through 09, 26 and 4 . Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Commissioner ssioner Parker stated that he was overjoyed with the vast improvement in the design for CUP 2-1 PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP d NR TE N A division of 571 acres into 1 parcels in the General Commercial (GC) district located t the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and 'Haven Avenue APN 1 774N 1 1 and 03. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d - 7 HRL TE ON The development of Phase I of the Virginia Dane Winery Business Center, consisting of office, banking and, restaurant rased comprising 2 buildings and n theme tower on 13.1 acres` of land in the General Commercial district located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue APN 1 77- 401 1 and 03. i Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that Resolution -79, Planning Division condition #8 of the original inal Resolution of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, be modified to require a parcel map or lot'- merger to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for subsequent phase; construction t was additionally recommended that Resolution 7 A approving Phase I, Planning Division condition 4, be amended to require that the roofing material be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Stoat opened the ,public :rearing. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Commissioner 4 cNiel stated that he realized the applicant has gone through a lot to get this project off the ground, but have come up,with a fine project which everyone could be proud of Edgard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that additional wording b added to standard condition #5 of the City Engineer's report approving the Parcel Map which would require the CC&R1s to d reviewed and approved by the City: Attorneys office and recorded concurrently� with the map Commissioner Rerpel stated his appreciation to the applicant for thi r efforts, in developing this project Planning o ission Minutes -2- February 22, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that the Virginia 'Dar Winery is a site that 'most residents f: the City desired to see preserved, however the City presently dues not have the funds to completesuch an endeavor. He commended the applicant for developing a project which would not only benefit their means but do something for the City as well. Motion: Moved by Reel, seconded by MoNiel, unanimously ar4ri d, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8303 with additional wording added to the Standard Condition fora #5 which would require the CC&Rls to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorneys office. Motion: Moved by Barger, seconded by Remp 1, unanimously carried, to adapt the Resolution approving Phi.se I of Conditional Use Permit 7 with the additional language to Planning Division condition 4 to require review and approval of the roofing material by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, Resolution 79, the original Resolution approving CUP 3 07, was amended to require recordation tin of the map or lot meager prior to subsequent phase construction. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d 1 - 84 LUMBER A revision ion to a previously approved ` CUP for the development of a 31 ,200 square foot building for d Lumber on 2.55 acres of land in the Industrial Perk category (Subarea ), located on the goat aide of Haven Avenue, south of 8th Street APi 0991 Michael " air n, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff additionally recommended that language be included in the Resolution which would state that the original conditions approving the Conditional Use Permit are still in effect, as well as the new conditions proposed at this time. Chairman Stout opened the public h aring. John Rickey, representing 84 Lumber, addressed the Planning Commission urging approval of the revision. Led Vora Valt onb rg, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of the property ,to the rear of this project, addressed the Commission expressing concern over what the extension of Acacia Street would do to his property. He explained that his company, fi t, intends to develop this property in the future. Paul. Ro goad, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the l P circulation plan had been studied with this application and it had been determined mind that the street would definitely be needed in the future for circulation. However, the only place left the street at this time is along the KVL property lane, which would require approximately 30 feet of dedication from KVL. Dave definer, owner of an adjacent muffler shop, stated that if the street does go in as proposed it worded eliminate his business. Planning Commission Minute -3- February 22, 1984 I i Michael `Vairin advised that the street is only conceptual at this time and may be marry years or ;never implemented. He explained that it is simplyplanned for in the Industrial Specific Plea in case the heed arises in the future. . Commissioner R mp l stated that the maps that coma before the Commission should shrew the effects on surrounding properties, such as the impact that the proposed d Acadia street is going to have on the properties.. Motion: Moved by R m al., seconded by M Ni 1, 'unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution approving the revision :to Conditional Use Permit 83-17 with the language proposed by staff which would clarify that the conditions of the j original Resolution are still In effect along with the conditions of the new Resolution adopted at this time AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, M NIRL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT 1252 - LI HT E The development of 5 single family homes on 9.55 acres of land in the 11LI1 District du aa) , located on the north side of Lemon Avenue, 00 feet east of Archibald Avenue - ARN 0 R51 - . Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing George Lightner, Lightner Development, 1365 W. Foothill, Suite 6, Upland California, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the findings of the Resolution with the exception of one item, which he deferred to 'Mrs. Guerra to address Darr Guerra, of Derbisb, Guerra and Associates, 124 S. a " Street, Ste. 1 Ontario,, California, addressed the Commission referring to Engineering Condition #2 of the Resolution and asked ;Mr. Roug du if he was aware of are agreement with the property owner to the 'south of the channel which did not require the participation of that property owner in the Assessment District, but allowed him to do restoration works on the channel. Mr. Rou eau replied that he dial recall this discussion, however, the previous project submitted on this site had a condition ition which required building its portion of the channel. Further, idea ' of doing restoration work on the channel proud be just as expensive as building the channel. He advised that the condition as it stands is the in the ty's best interest and would prefer Planning Commission Minutes - February 22, 1984 to coma back to the Commission with an alternate condition n at a later date If the Assessment i trbict is not finalized d and this particular condition becomes a problem. Mrs. Guerra suggested that wording could be added to the Resolution n which would allow an alternate method to be approved by the City Engineer, which would; eliminate the, return of the ;project to the Planning Commission. Chairman Stout asked which method would be preferrable to the applicant. Mrs. Lightner° responded that he would prefer to complete work on the basin. Mr ougeau stated that the language in the condition couldbe modified d to include alternate work on the Alta Loma Basin subject to 'review and approval_ by the City Engineer. Chairman Stout asked if this modification would be acceptible to the applicant. icant r Lightner tner, responded that it would be acc ptibl . Chairman ma Stoat closed the public hearing. n Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously uslyr carried, to adopt the Resolution with the modification to the Engineering conditions to include language to allow alternate nat work on the basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, JUARR , R I P L, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- New Business S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT R VI w SUPRA COTE The construction of a 29,000q. fta warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing plant on 16 acne of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea S) located at 11200 Arrow A N d- 51-1 . Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed d the staff report. Chairman Stout asked If anyone would like to address this item.. There were no comments. Commissioner Ni ll stated that the applicant was very cooperative dorm Design Review in iaccepting the Committee's recommendations and felt that they Planning is i n Minutes - February 22, 1984 would be pleased with the project. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNi.el, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving DR and :the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS- REMPEL, MC IEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNB ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -e rfr°i.ed I 7: C Planning Commission Recessed : C Planning n Commission ssion Reconvened lrectors Re ortd H. DRAFT HOUSING HOUSING DATA Tim Peelle, Senior Planner, and Linda Daniels, Assistant Planner, reviewed ed the staff report. Stiff indicated that the intent was to provide the Commissioners with the technical data this evening and was not seeking direction from the Commission at this time. They advised that the remaining sections of the Housing Element would be presented to the Commission in Hamra for their review nd comment before being forwarded to the City Council. Public Comments Chairman Stout referred to a letter received regarding the Kaufman and Broad project from dim Banks and the Citizens Advisory Committee and advised that he would like staff to draft a response on behalf of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Remp l stated, that the response should explain the Design Review system and the steps a project great go through ;before it gets to the Planning Commission. Rick Gomez, City Planner, suggested the possibility :of a workshop between the Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and staff could be set-up to explain this process It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to draft a letter ofresponse to the Citizens Advisory Committee. Planning nin Commission Minutes February PP, 1984 Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission regarding the intersection ;of Hermosa and, 1 th and asked how the residents would go about having a stop sign installed at that intersection. He explained that this is a school crossing and children are experiencing problems getting across i th. Raul Roueau, Senior Civil Enianeer, replied that he was not aware of a problem at this intersection, however, no that he had been alerted he would refer the situation to the ity, traffic department. He, advised that if the traffic department does see a need for further study, it will be reviewed by the traffic committee which is composed of representatives from each school Parent/Teachers Association, sheriff 's department, school districts, engineering staff, and the Southern California Automobile Club, Commissioner Remp 1, suggested that Mr. Lewis follow-up this discussion with a letter to the City Engineering Division outlining the residents' concerns and request for a stop sign. Commissioner Re rp l stated that he would like to make a motion that would require staff" to provide the Commission with an overview of adjacent areas in their review of all future development proposals that involve access to other properties Motion was seconded by Barker, unanimously carried. Ad�caurrrrent Motion: Moved by Rerpel, seconded by Medial, unanimously carried, to adjourn. dr 0 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned Rey at fully a fitted, �ick�l o,fepu Secretary r t Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 22, 1984 MI N U TE' CITY CP RANCHO CL CAMO GA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING i February 8, 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7r00 p.m. He then led in the pledge to the flags ROLL CALF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addle Juarez, Larry McNiel, Herman Rev el, Dennis tout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner, Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; ; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Commissioner Barker arrived at r 3 P.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Remp l asked for discussion on Item C of the Consent Calendar indicating that instead of bringing this item back after a 12 month extension, months be added to the extension imum of 18 months. Mr. Roue eau, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there would be no problem with the full extension. Lotion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Items A, E and Ll of the Consent Calendar. A. TRACT 9321 C/L BUILDERS Request for approval of a new architectural product ;type, located west of Sapphire and Highland, on Carol Avenue. E. TIME EXTENSION - PARCEL MAP 6636 - BUTLER - Located on the west aide of LLellmara, south of 9th Street. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT RE 'IE" - 3 MESSENGER - The de elopment of a 201 ,000 a . ft. warehouse/distribution building on 9.9 acres of land it the 'General Industrial category (Subarea R) located north of Arrow and east of Elm Avenue Parcels 2 & 3 of Parcel Map 7244. Motion. Moved by Rempel, ascended by Juarez, 'carried unanimously, to, adopt Item C of the Consent Calendar with an amendment to the Resolution of Approval granting an 1 month time extension rather than a 12-Month extension and advising the applicant that this is the last time extension. C. TIME T N ION - PARCEL CHAP o 1 4 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT Located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue. PUBLIC HEARINGS R. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01A AND DEVELOPMENT' DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84 C2 CL PI PACIFIC _ A rearrest to amend the General. Plan Land Use Map from Office to Low Medium Residential du/an) and a Development District Maur from OP to L , all on 4.36 acres faceted on the northeast corner of 1 th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 02 1 1-1 o (Continued from meeting of January 25, 1984). F. GENERAL PLAN; AMENDMENT d 01P LINCOLN PROPERTIES A request to amend The General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium-High Residential 1 2 dd a.rr), on 3.67 acres located on the northwest cornea of 1 th Street t and Archibald Avenues APN 2 t2 101 21 .. (Continued from meeting of January 25, ) C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-oic - ACACIA - A request to amend the General_ Plan Land Use Map from Office to I di Hi h Residential. ("14 2 du/ad) on 3.58 acres located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 500 feat north of Rase Line - APB 201 1 1- . (Continued from meeting of January;25, 1984) . Chairman Stout indicated that these items would be heard by the Commission collectively and at the previous meeting of January 25, 1984 there was a decision that they be 'continued to this meeting in order to determine if the individual projects would join together to fund a Citywide marketing study for Office Professional uses. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that each applicant nt had been contacted to see if they wished to participate in this study and its funding on an equal share basis. He Indicated the ,applicants do net wish to, participate as they felt no new information would be collected and a study would further delay their projects. r. Gomez indicated he had provided a memo to the Commission advising them staff would prepare a site specific analysis; on these three locations if directed to do so by the Commission which <would be returned to the Commission on March 14, 1984. In the meantime, Mr. Gomez stated, Lincoln Properties had withdrawn their request for the General. Plan amendment at 1 to and Archibald which would leave only items A and C to be returned to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 8, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if any; action is required on the withdrawal of Lincoln' Properties r. Gomez responded that none is required. Chairman Stout asked if the study,to be done on General Plan Amendments 84-01A and 4 - 1C would to on their individual merits. Mr. Gomez replied that is correct. rEdward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, recommended that the public ; hearing be opened tonight on the two remaining items to avoid readvertisina.. Chairman ;stout asked if there was any reason that these items should not be readvertised Ir. Hopson replied none, other than that of expense Chairman stoat asked the representatives of Olympus Pacific if they have an understanding of what the action of the Commission is with regard to the continuance They replied affirmatively. There was no representative present for GPA 8 1'C Acacia. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gomez to explain to the audience what will happen with respect to the four week continuance on these items. Nor..- Gomez explained that all the alternatives will be considered along with individual requests and the receipt of public testimony. Further, that each of the general plan amendments would be examined to see if they are justified. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing ,on Items E and G of the agenda, explained what will occur, and that these items are continued to the, March 14 greeting e advised that if there are individuals who` will be unable to attend the March 14 meeting, they can address their comments to the Commission and send then to the City, offices for inclusion in the staff report and record There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel to continue items g and G to the March 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Rempel stated that before he seconds the motion, he wished to make some comments. He indicated that there is d possibility that the amendment on 1 th and Hermosa has some merit and that if it is considered for the; General Plan Amendment, the applicant and audience should be aware of the concern for the area which will cause it to be evaluated on that basis. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 8, 1984 Further, he felt .that the area on Archibald above the Alpha Sets shopping center did not lend itself to change and one of the purposes of the Study should be to look - t office space in the future. He indicated that this are lends itself to office f i spice in the future. Additionally, that there is housing in between two commercial developments t that location and he felt the applicant would have to have some very good excuses in order for him to change his mind. Commissioner Rempel seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously to continue Items E and G to the March 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12601 - MORRIS & S ARL S 'The de el.opmerrt-of26 single family detached homes on 4.5 cores of land in the Low Medium (L District generally located on the wrest side of Turner Avenue at Palo Alto Street AP1 1077 1 . I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8298 - MORRIS & SANS The division of 9.22 acres of land :into two parcels within the Lowy Medium (I. District generally located on the west side' of Turner at 'P to Alto Street - APN 1 77 1°- . Senior Planner, Michael Vair,in, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout opened the public bearing. The applicant was not present. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated the sample board of roofing material was unacceptable to him and requested the roofing material be varied in texture. r. Vai yin replied there is a condition that the roofing material be examined and approved< by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Stout stated the roof line is something that is shaved by everyone and should be varied for shadowy lanes and pattern. r. Vairin stated staff has been finding much more success in taking away the tract look through use of color and patterns change in the roofmaterial and this area has been the focus of Design Review. Commissioner Remp l stated there is a 120 pound roofing material that can be used rather than the 90 pound shake. He felt the condition should be modified to state that heavy duty shake will be used. r$. Vairin read the condition and stated stiff is in the process of revising the standard conditions so they can be more specific. Planning om rission Minutes -4- February , 1 Motion. Loved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-14 and issue a Negative Declaration with a modification of the condition to require heavy shingle roofing material subject to the Planning Division's approval. Notion: Moved b ; Rempel, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. -15 approving Parcel Map 829 and " issue a Negative Declaration i I J. TENTATIVE TRACT 119 1 1 - ; - - CRC ELL - A revision to the Tentative Tract Map to a 3 lot subdivision for condominium purposes for 150 dwellings on 10.69 acres of land located at the southeast cornea of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue APN 209 091 11 . Senior Planner, Michael Vairi.n, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked for a definition of condominiums and townhouses Assistant City Attorney Hopson explained that in a condominium the resident owns the air space and all the owners in common o the lard and bearing walls of the structures, whereas in a townhome the resident owns the land upon which the townhome site, and; instead of all the owners owning the streets+ and outside bearing walls, the Homeowners Association would own the common areas such as recreation buildings. From the outside, they would look alike, the difference is in hoer the ownership interest is described. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r. Cary Rims., representing C/L Builders, explained 'why they Irish to change this subdivision from townhouses to condominiums, indicating that Southern California Edison had changed their rulings on how utilities for new construction of this type would be hooked up, which now requires individual meters on each townhome. Further, this would add more to the cost of construction and pint them outside of the price range for the product. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by t cN el., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 3 13PA, revising Tentative Tract 11915 1 . K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8345 - SSRO AMUSEMENT COMPANY - divi ion of 40.35 acres`into P parcels in the Medium High Residential.; and Office/Pr^ofesional districts located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway APN 08-341-01-0 . Paul Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Planning` Commission Minutes 5- February d,' 1984 Commissioner per pel asked if there is any proposal to have Civic Center Drive continue across Deer Creekn r. Rougean replied there is none at this time and, it is not shown on the master playa. Further they dial not knew whether Center or Citric Center Drive should be continued or whether they are necessary. Commissioner Juarez asked if the City has a master plan on this particular parcel so the Commission can see where it will go. r ou eau replied the master plan of streets is as contained in the General Plan and there is nothing smaller than.. that. Further, they looked at the streets at Arrow Route and Turner and found they contained multiple it dwelling units at the corners He indicated the mature of the subdivision is such that it would not be desirable to have a street run into the the property because it would be of -quite higher density. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Avant, representing ,Arnold Anderson and himself, stated he was open for any questions and has tried to work in developing the improvements as required in the. City's criteria. Chairman Stout asked what Mr. Avant anticipates mould develop first.' Avant replied it would be the project on the left. Further, apartments might lend themselves very well to the farther development of commercial along Haven. Chairman Stout asked if there was any possible discussion on the odd piece between this development and peer^. Creed. Avant replied there is none as they are not interested in that property nor do they have any control over it. Further, it seems to be well maintained. Chairman Stout stated his _concern that once Parcel Map 8345 is developed, there will be a barrier between this and , the odd parcel which will made it difficult to develop r. Avant replied they runt speculate that there are gays to develop the property and enough property there to give proper access Avant asked if 45 feet is required as setback off of Arrow because 50 feet is checked off on his conditions of approval. ou eau replied the condition of approval is for 50 feet of right-of-way on Arrow and the 45 feet is for setback from the face of the curb. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1984` Mr. Avant asked about the surety agreement that must be executed prior to recording the reap and whether the property could be split between two parcels. He indicated the tentative map will require different zoning which could prove to be a technical; problem for there later on in trying to develop one parcel rather than going ahead with both parcels. Further, if the apartments go in first, their may want to develop Raven Avenue, and without set criteria for the approaches on Haven for parcel 1 , which is Haven, and parcel 2, which is Arrow and Civic Center Drive, and asked if this would be a problem for the City . Attorney. Mr. Rou eau replied there would be no problem in splitting the lien agreement between the parcels but there might be a slight misunderstanding on chat it would cover. Mr. 'Hopson stated a condition of approval is improvements must be built prior to; building ,permits being pulled on each of the pieces. If building permits were pulled on parcel: , the offsite improvements on parcel 1 would not be required. r. Rou eau 'explained the lien agreement and the surety are really two different things and cover different 'items so he did not see any problems. Commissioner Rempel stated that on the piece along Arrow Highway, if they develop parcel 2, there will be an offset chunk on parcel 1 which mould not be advantageous to the City. r. Avant replied that it could; be encompassed and his concern is the two par cols not be tied up. Further, that piece could be included in parcel 1 , and he agreed with Commissioner R mpel, Chairman Stout asked if clarification is needed in the Resolution. r. Avant stated he was talking about the legal burden of separatingm a h to to later time and the median on Haven and not tieing the two together. Mr. Hopson stated as long as the City Engineer is satisfied with the improvements he and the applicant can work them out. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner McNiel asked if the median is being extracted and being attached to parcel 1 or was the discussion on the frontage along Ravers Avenue.- Mr., Rou eau Mated that the discussion was on the lien agreement in that he did not leant the two parcels wedded together. Further, that the timing on the median island will be determined by other factors and was close to being put in since' they are looking at the entire east side of Haven Avenue. Mr.; Rougeau explained that Lien agreements say that each piece of property has to put up its share of the coney so regardless of the stage of development, the money would have to be put up when the City declares it must be put up. Planning Commission Minutes - February d,` 1984 Mr. Hopson stated that the City always works with the applicant if it is necessary to 'subordinate the lien agreements so that the applicant can obtain financing without a cloud on the development they want to finance and allows them to use their property in the meantime. Commissioner Rempol stated that the City must make sure that the areas he is concerned with are tied in when the two properties are split and that ;good access is maintained to parcel 2 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unani.mousl.y, to adopt Resolution on No. 84-16 approving Parcel. Map 8345. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 AL IS - The conversion of an existing gas service station into a self-service station and rig-mar et in the General Commercial District Located at _ 8166 Foothill Boulevard ,ARN 2 7-112 17. Senior Planner, Michael Vair�in, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout asked what the proposed circulation plan is once you get to the parcel from the driveway to Foothill. He asked if you would have to exit off of Red Hill. Country Club Drive "airin explained what driveway world be closed and pointed out the other which world be ripen._ 'nrther, that it would be difficult to exit onto 'oothil.l Chairman Stout stated that the only thing that bothers trim about that is the people who want to go left onto Foothill Mr* Vai:rin replied that they would have the physical harrier of a median` island or the driveway closed entirely. Chairman Stoat indicated that he wants to eliminate some conflicts that may occur Mr;. Ro : eau stated that the 'beat thing to do is concentrate the turns at as few places as possible and in the present condition a left-turn is possible at both the driveways on Foothill as wellas led Hill Country Club Drive. He indicated that the Foothill driveway should be abased and people 'encouraged to use ,Red Hill Country Club Drive, which in ,itself is not great, but would reduce the movements from three to two Commissioner Stout stated he ranted to; make the intersection as safe as possible Planning Commission Minutes- -8- February d, 1984 r. Rou eau stated that if a proposal comes in from the owner, of the property at Grove and Foothill they could eliminate that Intersection completely. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mrs. Elizabeth Calvis,: stated that she was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Chairman Stout asked if Mrs. Calvis understood the conditions. Mrs. Calvis replied that she did. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel asked ghat the appropriate sign is for the station. Mr. Vairin replied that as there are two street frontages there could be a monument sign facing each street frontage which roust include pricing as well as identification of the station. Further, there can e an ancillary sign on the canopy, as well as on the structure itsejlf . Chairman Stout asked if a median island is required in front of this property in conformance with the General Plan and whether the City is doing anything to be sure they conform. Mr.. Rou eau replied that the City is working with CalTrahs on an acceptable design and such a median would have to be installed one mile at a time which would begin at Vineyard to Archibald. Mr. Rougeau stated that a lien agreement for the median island will be required. Chairman Stout asked if this is being done Mrs. Rougeau replied it would be an appropriate condition on a project like this. Commissioner Rempel stated that; he would have ;the sane discussion that he had with the Arco center at malachite and Foothill because this is an even worse situation. He further stated that with the possible 'increase of traffic there is no ways to stack traffic if the need arises. Commissioner Rempel stated another problem in converting gas stations to food stores because there mould be nothing to prevent a food store from wanting to also Pump gas and no way for the Commission to say no if this is approved. .m. Commissioner Barker arrived. Commissioner MoNiel stated he sees nothing wrong with this and .thinks it will be an improvement Further, that a condition exists at Red Rill that aside from a change altogether, Mould do little. Commissioner Juarez felt the project is a good one. Planning Commission Minutes February* 8,' 1984 Commissioner Barker stated he would not comment because he was not present during the public hearing. Chairman Stout stated ;that there should be a lien agreement for the median island at Foothill. Commissioner, Rempel *stated traffic will come out and make a left turn and there are enough problems now. Further, another signal is needed at-this area which would have to be ;coordinated with the one at Crave. Commissioner Rempel stated the rarely reason the applicant is changing this is for additional income wbi:eh will rears additional traffic. Chairman Stout asked with respect to the driveway on Foothill, is it wide enough for in and out traffic. Mr. Rougeau replied it is. He indicated that this one could have a pattern of in only ; n Foothill. Chairman Stout sta ted that would be al l right or that the outbound half~ of the _ driveway be rude for right turns only to discourage left-hand turns. r Hou eau stated that inbound only would be preferable. Chairman Stoat stated this should be conditioned as an entrance only which should leaser conflicts until a light is ®installed at Red Hill Country Club Drive Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded b3 Me Niel, carried, to adapt Resolution d 17 approving l evlopment Review 83-42 and issuing a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Rempol voted no for his previously stated reasons. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Suarez, carried unanimously, to adjourn. p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. e ct f submitted: id1s lbepu y Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 1 February 8, 1984 CITY RANCHO C CA ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January , '1984 Chairman Dennis Stott called the Regular Meeting tin the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to orders; at 7 a CC The meeting was held at Liars Park Community Center, 9161 Hale Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stoat then led in the pledge to the flag. PCCL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Banker, A die Juarez, Larry MoNiel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stow COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Pick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Harker, carried, to approve the Minutes of the December 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Juarez and McNiel abstained from vote as they did not attend` that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW ARCHITECTURAL, :PRODUCT TYPE FOR TRICT 12320 EPA WEST PARTNERSHIP - 116 condominium nium units located on the southwest corner of Archibald and Victoria, venue - APN 0 181 07. Chairman Stout asked the reason for the requested charge to this project. Pick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the project had been sold to another firm when was requesting a change ,to the architectural package for the tract. Motion: Moved by Re el, seconded by MoNiel, unanimously carried,red to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 A ACT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NL OLYMPUS PACIFIC - A request to amend the General Plea Lead Use Map from office to Low Medium Residential ( du/ad) and e development went district amendment to change the Development lopment Districts trict p from OP to LMk, all on 4.36 acres of land located on the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue APN G 1 1 1 . C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT rk-G 1, R LINGGLN PROPERTIES A request to amend the General Plea Lead Use Map from Office to Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ o) on 3.67 acres located on the northwest corner of 1 th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN G 1G 1- 1. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-01 G ACACIA - A request to amend the General al Pl n Lead Use Chap from Office to C edium-High Residential (14-24 du/a on 3.58 acres located on the wrest side of Archibald Avenue, approximately atel CT feet north of: Base Line APN` 0113. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the stiff report stating that these item would be handled concurrently b ' the Commission. Mr. Gomez advised that the purpose of the hearing this evening was to seek direction from the Planning Commission as to whether an independent market demand study should be conducted to determine the demands for office/professional uses in the City in conjunction with the General Plan Amendments. He provided the Commission with either the option of employing a private consultant to conduct the market demand study on d city-wide basis, or having staff prepare a' study for just the GPAks on a site specific basis. He additionally advised that the cost of the market study conducted by the consultant would be shared by the applicants. Mr. Gomez furthers advised that a study conducted by a private consultant would require approximately eight weeks nd a study conducted b staff would require approximately four weeks, which would therefore necessitate the continuance of these items accordingly. Chairman Stoat asked if a decision would be made on the specific projects this evening Gomez replied that staff was not seeking a decision by the Commission on any one of the projects at this time, but was seeking direction as to which of the above options they would prefer. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a staff analysis had not been prepared on a project-by-project basis on which the Commission could approve the projects. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1984 Chairman Stout maned the public hearing to comments regarding Item ;"B", Olympus Pacific. He asked each of the applicant's their preference as to the type of market study to be conducted. Don Kiely, representing Olympus Pacific, addressed the Commission stating ;that his preference would be for approval of the project at this time; however, would have to recommend an in-staff site specific study be conducted. He advised that Olympus had already conducted market demand studies of the rffice/professional uses in Rancho Cucamonga and died not feel that any new information would be generated by an additional study. Further, that the time element involved would also be a concern. ; Mr. Kiely also stated that if this location was a good site for offices, Olympus would[ build offices gore, however, his opinion was that this particular location is not a good site for office rases and that a residential use would be more compatible with the surrounding rases. He additionally stated than this project was proposed at top low of a density to qualify for RCR financing and is not proposed as apartments, but owner-occupied units. The following individuals addressed the Planning Commission opposing this project based upon concerns regarding overcrowding of schools, increased crime, impacts on; traffic and city services, and expressed concerns that this project may be a HUD financed apartment complex. Larry Lewis - 6739 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Randy Warmdall - 7037 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Rube - 10253 Lavine - Ranehd Cucamonga Jim Covac - 6739 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Jay Tranel.l 10244 Ring Ranchos Cucamonga Ruth Parker - 70 Filkins Rancho Cucamonga Steve Mating - Victoria Street - Rancher Cucamonga Kent Wilson - 9790 Archibald - Rancho Cucamonga Fred Cott' - 6729 Hermosa - Rancho Cucamonga Warne Douglas 10123 *inch Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga Lois MoKern 10 Lavine Rancho Cucamonga Jennie Moon 10253 Lavine - Rancho Cucamonga a Manny Politia - 10010 Monte'Vista - Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Halden - 6938 Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga P.K. Higgins - Car°rar i - Rancho Cucamonga Jana Crint - 9927 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Walt Pappas 9800 Base Line - Rancho Cucamonga; Christine Wilson - 6749 Cambridge - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Liubbert - 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Judy Vidorsic - 6017 Burgandy Rancho Cucamonga Barbara De alo - 6768 Elmhurst - Rancho Cucamonga argil Carlson - 334 Hawthorne Street - Rancho Cucamonga Don Floyd - 9833 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Dennis Stout - Ramona Avenue Rancho Cucamonga ( o relation to Chairman Stout) Rath Carlisle - 10152 Victoria Rancho Cucamonga Rill Watkins - 6749 Teak star - Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -3 January 25, 1984 One gentlemen, Mr. Lundgren , spoke in support of the projectstating that single family residences were not affordable to some people and that multiple family homes would be the only way they could afford a home. Further, that the desires of the entire City should be takers into consideration, not the opinions of a few people Chairman Stout closed the public hearing for Item "B" Olympus, and opened the hearing to Item 11 11, Lincoln r operti a. Chairman Stout asked the applicant his preference to the two suggested options. Walter Ingalls, representing Lincoln Properties, addressed the Commission stating that market studies had been performed on this, particular site by Cushman and Wakefield efie d .nd could not see the need for further outside study. He suggested >that the Commission direct staff to prepare the study at the four week time frame. Mr.. Ingalls explained that Lincoln not only builds their projects, but also manages them and that this project would not be HUD financed. ed The following individuals addressed the Commission opposing Item C, Lincoln Properties, voicing concerns of impacts on schools, additional traffic generation, "impacts on streets and city services, and _ low income housing units Joe Hanna 671 jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Christine Wilson 6749 Cambridge Rancho Cucamonga P.K. Higgins. arrari Street - Rancho Cucamonga Margie Hanna 715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga jim Rizzo 1 Burgandy Rancho Cucamonga Kathy Belden . 6938 Teak stay - Rancho Cucamonga Randy Warmdall - 7037 Filkins - Rancho Cucamonga Ted ubbert 6735 Berkshire Rancho :Cucamonga Jane Grint 9927 Mignonette Rancho Cucamonga Rill Watkins 6749 "beak Way Rancho Cucamonga Sol Mendelson - 6790 Hellman Rancho Cucamonga .. �, , Lary Lewis 79 Cambridge�de Rancho Cucamonga 9m - Planning Commission Recessed 9 Plannin g Commission Reconv ened Chairman Stout opened the public hearing regarding Item I'D", Acacia. Chairman Stout asked the applicant his preference eference regarding the study. Rick Snyder, representing Acacia, addressed the Commission stating a desire to work with staff and the Commission to resolve any issues at hand. Alan Weird k, representing Acacia, addressed the Commission stating he would be willing to work with both stiff and the Commission ' n this issue. He advised that a market demand study had been conducted by Acacia which disclosed that tors much available office spade presently exists in Ranch Planning o issibn Minutes January 25, 19 Cucamonga. Further, Acacia would not pant to build anything that the citizens did not want and would be grilling to 'work with the residents on the development of this project The following individuals addressed the Commission in apposition to Item I'D", Acacia, voicing concerns of impacts on the City generated her high density projects, impacts on schools,: increased crime, inadequate park lands, increased traffic generation, and impacts on City services. Larry Lewis 6739 Cartridge - Rancho Cucamonga Chris Filson - 6749 Cambridge Rancho Cucamonga Ken Wilson 6749 Cambridge Rancho Cucamonga Jim Rizzo 6001 ur andy Rancho Cucamonga P.K. Higgins - Carrari - Rancho Cucamonga Ted Rubbert 6735 Berkshire - Rancho Cucamonga Joe Hanna 6715 Jadeite - Rancho Cucamonga Bill Root - 6939 'Teak Way - Rancho Cucamonga Chairman Start closed the public hearing. Commissioner Juarez asked if sufficient acreage exists in the General Plan for office/professional uses. Firs. Comet replied that approximately i of the City is designated for office/professional office/professional uses, including the industrial areas of the City, and the Terra Vista and Victoria Planned_'Communities. Commissioner McNiel stated that the issue before the Commission this evening was not the approval of the individual projects, but a determination on whether there is too much area designated for office/professional uses in the City or not enough. He advised the audience that their concerns had been heard by the Commission, however, they Faust deal with the issue at (rand. Further, he could not see how a determination of this nature could be made without a study being conducted :to see what impacts this decision would have on the City in the future and recommended that a market analysis be conducted. Commission Barker agreed that a third party should be hired to prepare an analysis which would "determine if a'mistake had been made when the General Plan was adopted by designating either' too much or not enough office/professional space in the City. He additionally stated that he had difficulty with a project presented as a , "down one" when shifting g from an office professional uses to one proposing 292 apartment units. Commissioner Rem el stated that office professional uses should be near; residential areas, especially uses such as medical, insurance, and attorneys' offices. He pointed out that people would then not have to travel all the way to Foothill and Haven for these types of services, which is what will happen if the office/professional designations are removed. He further stated that these sites are viable office/prwofessional, designations and did not see the need to employ a consultant to research the need as it is apparent that the creed is there Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 25, 1984 Commission Juarez agreed that the designations should be retained and could not see the need for the developers to spend the money to hire d consultant. Chairman Stout stated there were few people around who advocate low density as much as he does; however, there is a practical need to have uses other than residential in a city. He` stated that he desired to have a more specific proposal directed on -these three projects on which to base a 'decision. Additionally, his decision world not only ;have to be based on his ,feelings, but also ghat as beat for the entire City. He requested that an analysis be conducted, which would not necessarily have to be dome by a consultant, with recommendations as to what the appropriate designation should be on each of these parcels. Further, that the concerns stated this evening should be given high priority in the preparation of the analysis. He recommended that the item be continued to allow time for the preparation of the analyaaa Commissioner Rempel stated that its response to the comments regarding the;:par situation, the City does not presently have the ends to purchase land in the developed areas for park sites. He advised that the City Council, mould be placing a bond issue on the ballot in the near future and that a 90 acre'park site as proposed on, Base Line, east of Haven. Commissioner Rempel additionally stated that in order for, the intersection of 1 th and Hermosa to be improved, development will have to occur to finance these improvements. Motion; Moved by Rempel that these item be continued to March 14 with direction to staff to prepare an analysis on these three sites along with recommendations dation as to the appropriate designations. Motion died for ladle of second. Mr. Gomez asked if Commissioner Rempel was requesting an analysis on a site specific basis and not an overview analysis of the entire City. Commissioner expel replied that the study area should be bounded by Haven west to the City Limits and study sites that are now designated offi.ce/professional Mr. Gomez responded that four weeks may not be sufficient time to prepare an analysis of this magnitude and would be reluctant to commit staffs resources in that length of; time. that with s site spe cific Attorney, stated p Edward Hopson, Assistant sty, y analysis the Commission could not have the benef°i.t of a study determining the future or present need fear off ice/professiona m designations n the City because staff does not have the resources to conduct such a study. Commissioner Barker stated that if the study is dome on a site specific basis, the ability to make long-range decisions would not exist and each site would have to be dealt with individually. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 25, 1984 Commissioner Rempel replied that there are not that many office/pry fe sional uses left in the City. Additionally, to clarify his motion the study would include those sites on Base Line, north and there are not that many vacant sites that remain. ain Chairman Stout stated that it is evident in the near future that time and resources will have to be budgeted to lock at this issue; however, it seems that time and resources are just not available at this time. Mr. Gomez stated that staff would have to program a. change of this magnitude with other large land use changes and 'budget the time and resources to look at the entire General Plan, which would more than likely not occur before one to two years. Commissioner ssioner i l stated that as long as the office/professional designated sites are not marketable there will be requests to change the designations to those which are marketable. Further, that he could not see hots a sound decision could be made on ` three pieces of property when the future of the entire community is of concern and did not feel that a decision' should be made when the Commission is ill eguiped to crake that decision. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission si.on would not be functioning as long-range planners if a look at the future needs is not analyzed. Mrs. Gomez pointed out that it takes certain professional expertise to conduct a study of this nature and currently the City does not employ' a staff member who possesses that expertise. Additionally, the funding could not be borne by the City at this time, which is the reason 'staff recommended that a consultant be hired at d cost to be shared by the applicants. Commissioner Rempel stated that ;from Haven west to the City Limits, and Base Litre north to the City Limits there are only three others vacant sites besides the projects before the Commission tonight with office/professional designations He stated that it would not be difficult to see that there would be a need for the office/profess onal uses in these areas in the future and that a consultant would not doge up with any others decision;. Commissioner Juarez asked Mr. Gomez if thousands of dollars were not spent in the hiring of a consultant to prepare the General Plan. r° Gomez replied that a consultant had been hired by the City to consider land use planning; however, the expertise of a marketing consultant was not employed. Chairman Strut asked if Mr. Gomez meant that at no time was information prepared, which reflected just crow much office ce/professi.onal space the City would need Mr . Gomez replied that this was correct. Planning Commission Minutes - January 25, 1984 Motion Moved by Rempel, seconded by Juarez,, that these three projects be studied and reviewed on n site specific basis. Chairman Stout asked if this motion would recommend review of these sites without the benefit of a market tudyr Commissioner Hempel replied that this was correct. Motion failed Lotion: Moved d by Barker, seconded by MaNiel, that a third party be employed, yed, t a cost to be shared by the developers, to oond et a study to give an overview l i of demand and future demand for office/professional uses in the City. Motion passed with Juarez and Hempel voting no. Chairman Stout pointed; out that an agreement would have to be entered . into between the developers to share the cost of this study. Commission Barker stated that if the developers do not enters into an agreement, he world then recommend that the sites retain , the office/professional designations. agreement Faith the applicants �. td the Mr. Gomez stated that staff would coordinate and the City Attorney as noon as possible Chairman Stout asked the applicants is if they were agreeable to this decision. Mr. Ingalls, Lincoln Properties, stated that his client did not accept the decision. Mr.. Kiely, Olympus mpus Pacific, stated that his acceptance would be contingent upon the contents of the agreement. Mr. t eir*i.ok, Acacia, stated that he would accept, the decision. Mrs. Gomez suggested that the public hearing for these items be continued to the February 8, 1984 meeting to ;allot staff time to work with the applicants and the City Attorney on the drafting, of a agreement. At that meeting staff would eaeitheretr request cont inuance of eight weeks to allow time for a consultant to prepare a city-wide study, or if no agreement bet ween r the a continuance of four r� applic ants could be reached, the request woul d be fo_ rd specific study without market demand sae to ale staff to pare p site p study. This would just be d land use analysis of each specific site Hopson suggested that the motion be made among the three Commissioners voting -in favor of Commissioner Bar ker' motion to redind that motion to clarify the intentions Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by MoNiel, carried, to recind the motion. Planning Commission Minutes January , 1984 I Motion* Moved by Stout, seconded by MoNiel, carried to continue Items R, C, and 11 to the February , 1984 meeting to determine if a consensus has been reached among the three applicants as to the preparation of a market study. If no consensus has been reached by that meeting, appropriate action would be taken at that time to continue the items for four weeks with direction to staff to prepare a site specific study. In that event, the Commission would then crake a decision on each of the projects in four weeks. If a. consensus is reached among the applicants, on February 8 the Commission would recommend continuance for eight weeks to allow a consultant time to prepare a broad based study, afters which the Commission would then make a decision on each of the sites AYES; ISSUERS STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JUARE , RE PE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: `NE carried 10:45 Planning Commission Recessed 11 d - Planning Commission Reconvened Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue past the 11 : 0 p.m. adjournment time., E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE` °TRA T 12390 - AMERICAN NATIONAL The development of 121 condominium units on 6.1 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential ;District (`14- du/ac) located on the east side of Vineyard, South of Foothi.11, AP - 1-11 . Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that condition 2 of the Resolution under Planning Division be revised to state that permanent easement rather than a letter of acceptance be required for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner. Additionally staff recommended that item 1 be amended to include revisions to the end elevations and the addition of treatment such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof treatment. It was also recommended that the upper story elevations be provided with architectural treatments such as corner4 windows, pop-out windows, or shadowy boxes to create a shadow line. Staff further recommended an additional Engineering condition to require the applicant, to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining property o the east prior to the issuance of any permit for development. Chairman Stout opened the public; hearing Planning Commission Minute -9 January 25, 1984 Martha Schrwidders representing American National, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant agreed with the findings of the staff report and resolution. Commissioner Rer pel asked the applicant if the wall at the back of the carports at the north and south property line was solid or ;open. Ms. Schnieders replied that the backs of the carports are open. She advised that your would be able to view the trees and landscaping from the drive through. Further, that the trees were needed to screen the view and buffer the project. Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant expressed concern with the hip roof treatment recommended by the Design Review Committee and asked if that concern had been resolved s chniede s replied that it was her impression after that meeting that Design Review Committee members would visit the project that displayed the hip roof treatment and had received the Design Review Committee's acceptance of the lower roof element; on the drive sides and on all: of the buildings at the front of the project would have the rawer roof element at each end. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was classed. Paul R lwgead, Senior Civil Engineer, recommended that ,Standard Condition L-1 be eliminated from the Standard Conditions form as it is no longer a necessary requirement Motion: Mowed by Rempel, seconded by Modiel, unanimously carried., to issue d Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12490 with the following amendments to the Planning Division conditions: the requirement for a permanent easement for secondary access from the adjacent property owner; condition 2 of the Resolution ender Planning Division is to be revised` to state that permanent easement rather than a letter of acceptance be required for secondary emergency access from the adjacent property owner; condition 1 amended to include revisions to the end elevations and additional treatments such as horizontal siding, false windows or hip roof, and the upper story elevations be provided with architectural treatments such as corner windows, pop out windows, or the selective use of shadowy bones to create a shadowy line. Additionally, an additional condition is ;to be added to the Engineering Division conditions to require the applicant to acquire a private drainage easement through the adjoining property to the east prior to the issuance of any permit for development AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RR EL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUARE , STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: ISSI RRS DONE -carried- Planning o ission Minutes 1 January 25, 1984 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12577 - PILGRIMS - A custom lot residential subdivision of 16 lots on 4.24 acres of land in the Ir ►e District ( - drrlao) , located on the south side of 1 th Street, wet of Hellman Avenue A N GCS-C 1 03 and 52. Cart Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout referred to Lot 9, which is 14,900 s . ft. , and asked if the lot is designed to be split after the channel is constructed. r Johnston replied that the lot is not designed to be split because there is a storm drain easement on the property d that the lot is not'wide enough to split Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joel Cooper , representing Pilgrims Enterprises, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant has tried to conform to the Cit 's requirements and felt that the project would 'help solve a lot of drainage problems in; the area. Sol Mendelson, addressed the Commission stating that his concern was mainly the drainage situation, but felt that this concern had adequately been addressed Mrs. Mendelson addressed the Commission, advising that she trains horsed and asked if a Mock wall could be constructed along lots 3 and 9 adjoining the Mendelson property and advised that there would be problems with dirt from her arena r . Cooper replied that the ,approval before the Commission this evening is for the layout of the project and that the actual involvement of the design issue would be addressed at a later date. Bernice Recally, 68 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that it was her understanding that a tract could not be constructed until the channel, was completed and awed if this was correct. r. Hopson replied that there is a condition on the 'tract which requires that the applicant bond for the channel construction Chairman Stout explained that the applicant must comply with the conditions: which are imposed' on his tract prior to filing for a final tract crap which is approved by the City Council; however, the approvals tonight is for the tentative rn Mrs. Becally stated that she was not in favor of the tract and felt it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Planning Commission Nitrates 11- January 25, 1984 Motion* Moved by McNiel, seconded by Parker, unanimously carried to;adopt the Resolution pproving Tentative Tract 12577 nd the issuance of a Negative AYES® COMMISSIONERS: 1SNIS , BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS:: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Motion: I otion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Parker, unanimously carried, to continue past the adjournment time for consideration f the following item. New Sind G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3 SARMA IAN The d relopment of 13 industrial buildings totaling 123,540 . ft. on 8 acres f land it the GeneralIndustrial/Rail Served category (Subarea 5) located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Center Avenue - APN 1-- 7. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the stiff report. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that an additional item should b checked off on the Standard Conditions Form L-2 to require 14 additional feet f dedication on 6th Street There were no further comments on this item. Motion: Moved by MoNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adapt the Resolution approving Development Review 3'- 40 with an amendment to the Standard Conditions form to require 14 additional feet of dedication on 6th Street. AYES: COMMISSIONERS:RS: M NI L, PARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES., COMMISSIONERS NONE AS«SPNT r COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by R rpel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -1 January 5, 1984 11:40: p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned i i Rey fully, Uzi 'e Secretary Planning Comi i Minutes -13 January 25, 1984 I N U I E S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION E "I C January 11 , '1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Commission to orders at 7 p.m He then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Add'ie Juarez;, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Shidtu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan Coleman, Planning Associate; Rick Comet, City Planner, Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorneys Jon Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Carat Johnston, Associate Planner; Paul Rouge au, Senior Civil Engineers CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Remp l requested whenever an item is submitted for design change, the previous design be included in the agenda packet so the Commission will have some means for comparison. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously,y to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPE FOR TRACT 12414 A-M COMPANY Ninety-two detached single family units located on the Tooth side of Mignonette Avenue, west of Purl APN PC -C P-71 . H. TENTATIVE TRACT 12.237 1JCCUL HU PACIFIC Reapplication for design; review of 20 single family homed on 55-95 acres of land in the Very Lour Residential district located on the east side of Hermosa,a, north of Hillside C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d 1 LEDERMANN The development of" an 11 ,311 square foot preschool facility on 2.98 acres of land in the Lour Residential district located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Turner Avenue - APN 107 -P° 1-C o PUBLIC HEARINGS j D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12433 - The elopmernt of 450 single family manufactured homes on 45 acres of land within the Victoria Community Plan, designated Medium andMedium-High Residential, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue a portion of APN P 0 7-- . (Continued from 12/14/83 meeting) . Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. He advised this item, which was continued from the December 14, 1983 neeti.` , has again been requested continuance by the applicant. Mr. Gomez asked the Commission to discuss the need for a continuance with the applicant prior to ,staff giving the report 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Re npel stepped down from the Commission table dune to a.' possible conflict of interest. r Clyde Larne represerntirn K & R, the applicant, asked the Commission for a continuance to the last meeting in march in order to submit a major revision of their plan which would incorporate a product change. He indicated , that they needed the extra time to do the work. Chairman Stout asked what the product chan e would be. r Larne replied- it Mould be something stick built of the single family detached category. Commissioner Barker awed if this item would then come back for review by the Design Review Committee. r Gomez replied affirmatively. Commissioner Barker asked if there is an advantage to going ahead with the continuance rather than nixing the project. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that the applicant would not have to pay another fee Chairman Storm asked the applicant if they would e opposed to a multiple' family concept. Mrs Larne replied they do not feel high density is appropriate in this area. Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant is talking about a change to the product as well as the site plain. Planning Commission Minutes January 11 , 1984 SrLane replied the size of the lots would; be different, the open space would be similar and would be increased at Base Line and Milliken and; there would be three neighborhoods as opposed to the two in the original plan, but the entrance would remain the same Chairman Stout asked Mr. Hopson what the legal procedure is in this case. Mr. I Hopson replied the Commission his no legal right to postpone this item and could make a decision on the project tonight; or the Commission could postpone the pubic hearing as the applicant requested to March 28, 1984. He indicated the decision is up to the Commission. Chairman Stout asked , if the public hearing rust be held on the request for continuance. Commissioner McNiel stated he saw no reason for not granting a continuance. Commissioner Barker stated under the conditions of changing the product, project and site, he felt that a continuance is fine if it fits in with the original plan and concerns of the, Commission. Chairman Stout stated he would hate to see More time invested that does not address some of his concerns as he felt there has been no guidance on what he feels some of the problems are. Commissioner Mc Niel stated it is his feeling that the only reason the applicant is requesting a continuance is because he has an ample supply of guidance. Chairman Stout stated one of his concerns has not been addressed. Commissioner Barker Muted ;if the Commission were to stems the project, the ' applicant t world not have any additional guidance either. r. Gomez stated if there is a point which the Commission wishes to discuss, now is the time. Hopson advised the Commission that there is no reason the, public hearing should not be opened in order for the Commission to give guidance. Chairman Stoat indicated that is what he would life to 'do and asked for a continuance to allow the applicant to make revisions. He indicated if anyone in the audience wished to make comments they would have the opportunity to do Soy Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Where being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout s r u fated one of h�.a problems with the applicant's request st p e is r.t_ pp _ q is of the single family detached nature. He indicated that this particular Planning Commission Minutes January 11 1984 corner was selected and divided into two densities, one being somewhat higher than the other with the idea that the mixture in this area with the single family detached right lower the density. Chairman ,Stout stated_ be is not in favor ener ll r ' of increasing density; however, in this instance he felt that in keeping with he City's plan there should be some type of multiple family units that are clustered in some way to alloy open space rather than have the homes spread out as single family detached. He felt this would be more in keeping with what the Victoria flare had in mind :for that area. Commissioner Barker stated he could ;see Chairman Stout's point. He stated that he has expressed his concerns regarding open apace and amenities to through the Design Review process. He suggested mitigation through variety of heights and additional open space to allow children to play. He indicated that single family detached homes are selling and it ;;is not his lam of business to know what is marketable and ghat is not. However, if variety i no longer wanted, the Commission reeds to know what is wanted by the public in order to conform to the living document statement in the General plain. Commissioner; i. l stated he had gone to K & B's other project in Pomona and felt it; to be pretty mice. He indicated there are people interested in laving in this kind of situation. However, one of the things sacrificed in such a project is the open space. His understanding, Commissioner MoNiel stated, is that the people moving into the project were not these initially anticipated and he did not know whether everyone unarms to live in an apartment type situation. He felt that one entrance and exit; which would not increase traffic would be ideal. Commissioner Juarez stated she linked the open spare Chairman Start stated these are some of the kinds of things the Commission i looking for and he did not grant to send the applicant bark without voicing the concerns. Motion:< Moved by nil, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to continue this steno to the March 28, 1984 meeting with the understanding that there will be a major product change. 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Rempel returned t ' the Commission table. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONEAli d 0 (TENTATIVE TRACT 1 ) - T UA _ A change in zone from iu Density Residential ` d 1 du/a to Lava edium residential ( - du a ) for a total development and subdivision of 16.5 acres; into 123 lots, comprising 122 zero lot line units generally located on the south side of Arrow i hwa , between Turner Avenue and Center Avenue ; A209-091-10. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 11;, 1984 City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked why it is necessary to change the zoning when the I applicant is requesting down zoning. i r Gomez replied it is because the standards in the new .lopm nt Code vary with regard to open space requirements an other regulations in different development districts, and this must be dais for consistency with the Development Coda Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant stated his agreement with the recommendation and indicated h did not Irish to address the Commission. There being no further comments, the public hearing i was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. 01 , recommending Zane Cyange 83-08 and issuing a Negative Declaration. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d - C A request for a fitness center to bo located at 1101 Arrow Highway, Suite H, within the Cucamonga Business Pare located on ;;the southwest corner of Arrow and Archibald (Subarea of the Industrial Area Specific Plan). Associate Planner Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if the 35 parking spaces required in the staff report are additional after normal daylight hours. r Johnston- replied staff mast locale at the site not only at this time, but for what will happen in the future. He indicated that the parking may demand all designated spots and staff can only ay that 21 spaces are required during the day and 35 after hours, in order to be safe. Commissioner McNiel asked hors marry suites are leased. r Johnston'replied almost all are. Chairman Stout opened deed thepublic hearing. Linda. Ginger, applicant, stated the owner of the buildings, Henry Reiter, said during business hours she could use the parking which is available across the street because that complex is less than one-half rented. Further, Mr. Renter has indicated he Mould' soundproof the gall on the other side. Planning Commission Minutes January 11 Chairman Stout asked if Ms. Unger understood the implications of Condition under the Planning Division relative to selling the business and the new owner having to core back to the Planning Commission. Unger replied she did Chairman Stout stated if Ms. Unger' business increased significantly, that ton, could trigger having to come before the Commission. Mr. Hopson stated.-Condition 4 limits the class size to 25 students. s Unger asked that this be changed to alloy 30 students since there is so much parking available across the street Chairman Stout asked hew marry people she can hold in the class people Ung er replied C1 eo le can be accommodated. r. Gomez stated the Commission must loom at the class seas with regard to the parking allowed.; Further, they are trying to be conservative and is the reason the recommendation was made There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Barker asked if it is possible to write some language in the Resolution which is dependent upon the drop out rate of the enrollees. Cyr. Gomez replied it is easier to do it as proposed by staff rather than to have it keyed to :the number of the people who attend ;class Mr. Hopson explained how it would be difficult if it were done on the number o people who attend. Additionally, if the parking; becomes an issue because of class size it becomes a code enforcement dispute between the applicant and the City. He indicated it :is a lot- easier to set a maximum size Commissioner Pempel stated that a better* solution, since this is a Conditional Use Permit, is if the owners comes to ;the Commission and says the applicant is taking too many parking spaces. This would allow revision to the conditions throws the CUP process. Furher, the parking across the street is almost totally vacant most of the time He indicated he understood the limit of 25 people but felt it should be based on cooperation of the owner who could ask for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. , Commissioner McNiel stated he has difficulty with what Commissioner Hempel has proposed. He asked what would happen if the applicant gets into a rift with the owner and stated that it is easier to enforce by stating a member. Further, that the applicant, has asked that the number in class be increased to C. Mr. Comet stated giving the discretion to regulate the number of parkin spaces to the owner tees it out of the Commission's hands. He felt that the discretion should be inept by the;Commission. Planning Commission Minutes- o January 11 , 1984 �: ., a BarkerCommissioner he would le o lnoroa8o the class size to 10 with limiting of' hours between - . He asked if there would have to be any change to item 5 Chairman Stout indicated there would not have to be any but that 'ter hours perhaps the class size should be limited to 50 Motion: moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 83-23 through adoption of Resolution No. 2 with a change to increase class size from 25 to 30. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT d -21 - EN AGAPE Proposed 1530 sq. ftaddition toy expand the offices and classrooms for an existing church located at 101 19th Street - APN 2 2-0 1 1. n Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman atom opened the public hearing. rMike Johnson, representing the applicant, Indicated they were in agreement with the condition of this request. Further, the leadership of the church does not at this time have full understanding regarding the dedication on 1 th. He asked for discussion on the ;existing trailer stating it is necessary, it stay until the classrooms are completed and requested an extension for; it He stated the curb` and gutter requirement would add a coat of >appro i tel 2 ,000 and asked that this be delayed also. He further requested the drainage be alloyed to complete at the time the storm drain is completed on 1th Street. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Johnson understood the requirement for a master plan of the site r Johnson replied he understood and asked if they would have to apply for a new conditional use permit. Chairman Stout replied that when they talk abort additional entitlements to the property each 'as building another building, it would have to be done prior to its construction and is not a part of this Conditional Use Permit Darr Coleman and fir. Upson , explained the Development Code provisions ns to Mr. Johnson regarding the property zoning. r Johnson stated they need the additional room because of theirs Pea ho t Program and the additional conditions would harper them. Chairman Stout asked the applicant if a 2 aonth extension would be a reasonable amount of time for the extension of its use on the property. Planning o iessi n Minutes January 11 1984 Mr. Johnson replied they would like it for that period of time. r. Rougeau explained to the Commission that the storm drain channel is scheduled for next year and that a construction tion easement-must be gotten from the church property that is about 150 in wealth e indicated that: after the, construction the easement would be reduced and .it is ,just a technique to get the needed easement for construction purposes. 'there being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Cyr. Gomez stated' that the Commission aright consider an extension of 1 , months after; occupancy, with an additional 12 months after that, not to exceed 24 months after the Mate of final occupancy. He indicated this is the maximum that the Planning Commission has;granted in the past.' Commissioner'Mc Niel asked about the status ofthe adjacent propery which would ultimately be multiple family. Mrs. Gomez replied it is in the Design Review process and must come before the Commission Commissioner McNiel. asked if it will be built in the next two years or the net 20 years. Mr. Comes stated they will finish the process but he had no way of knowing when it will be built Mr ou eau stated there will be a large City project to improve the channel which will involve work on Beryl . He indicated it may be preferable to encourage the applicant to work with this project for a solid time frame and a condition for a lien agreement can be placed to coincide with this construction. Mr. Rougeau felt this would be preferable to waiting for the multiple family development to occurs ; Commissioner Rempol felt the trailer permit should be extended for a 1 - m nth period, but that it should be gone within a -year period after ;occupancy. Further, on the roadwork, he stated in order to have the channel work, the curb and gutter rust be tied in. He indicated the applicant would get a better price with the City's contract than he would with the development of the other tract Chairman Stout asked that there be additional language so that if there is any additional entitlement, it will requite the work of a master plan. Commissioner Rempel explained the master plan is not something' that cannot be changed, but rather, it will provide a conceptual plan for future building. Commissioner McNiel stated it should provide some organization and real goals Planning Commission Minutes - January 11 , 1984 i, Motion Moved by Hempel, card b McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution 5 - 3, modifying the Conditions to allow the trailers to remain for 12 months after occupancy, add curb and gutter to be done in conjunction with construction of the storm drain and that obligation to secure dby either bond r lien agreement to the satisfation of the City Engineer; and that a master playa of the church site be provided. S r p.m.* Planning i ion recessed 8: 10 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8250 - DAONCORPORATION - A division of 9.65 acres into parcels of land within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plea located on the east side of Raven Avenue, Grath side of Civic Center Drive APN 2 -3 3 and 11 Related Item DR 83-33 (Item I'M" M. 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVI W 53 33 SALTER The development of a 34,754 sq. ft. commercial complex on 3.3 acres of land in the -2 (Commercial) zDarya, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Stout asked if the concerns of the Design Review Committee had been discussed with the applicant. Gomez replied they have been discussed with the project manager, architect, and the applicant. r. Jack Corrigan representing the Dadra Corporation, addressed the drive off of Ravers Avenue. He explained both of the out lots are restaurant rant; sites and when they dedicated to Raven Avenue, they did provide enough land for a aright turn lama. Their plan is that since the restaurants will be for dinner use, the circulation would not be during peak hours of traffic. He indicated to the north of that, the Civic Canter facilities will be built along with the Lai and Justice Center, and there may be a pint in time where e traffic will back rap. He indicated further another reason why they requested the other driveway is to protect the integrity of the satire business park. He felt that the office proposal is more acceptable to what in going on across` the street and is what they should be doing. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. r James Barton, applicant, felt that the driveway part go .in on Haven. He indicated the use of that corner is 'totally different from that of a shopping canter, and raffia personnel, restaurant patrons, and visitors should not have to go through a shopping center in order to have access. He felt the driveway should be done according to land use. Planning o i nion Minutes January 11 1984 There being no further comments, the public hearing was chased Commissioner Rer p l stetted if you really look at the driveway issue, this is good area to have an additional driveway. He felt eventually problems will be created by forcing traffic onto Civic Center Drive. Further, since they will not be able ;to make left turns onto Hagen, he did not feel it would affect traffic. Commissioner cNid inked what the distance of the driveway requested will b from Civic Center Drive. Commissioner Rerarp l replied_ it will be approximately 340 feet. Mr. Corrigan stated it will be Lane-eighth of a mile r* Rou eau stated it will be abase to 350 feet. He explained the problems that would be ere ted by leaving the driveway in that position by the adthbound traffic wanting to get to he left turn lane on Arrow which would b at Civic Center Drive. He; further stated it would create serious congestion on Haven because motorists will have to weave across 'three lanes. Chairman Stout stated these problems had also been discussed at 6th Street and. Haven Commissioner fie iel stated consideration swat be given to the amount of traffic that will be carried on Curie Center Drive. 1r Rrau eau ,stated there will be a right tarn only driveway between Foothill and Civic Cuter Drive. Further, there will be another driveway for the City Hall and County complex within the one-half* mile distance. Commissioner MoNiel asked if it is correct that if the driveway went in, there would have to be access provided through the median; Commissioner Remp l stated the rendering shows another out about 150 feet from Hasten at Civic Center Drive and he felt this is ludicrous. He felt the night turn should be permitted unto Haven. Mr. Cori, an stated the one on Hasten its back 383 feet and the Lather one is 17 feet back and should be a right in and right out. Chairman Stunt asked how people will be restricted from making a left hand turn eaten though it is proposed to be;a right in right out. Commissioner Barker Meted he dial not like the access so close to the Civic Center corner . Mr. Corrigan felt that if it is posted, it would prevent people from making illegal turns Planning Commission Minuted 10- January 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout asked if a traffic light is scheduled for that driveway. Mrs. Rougeau replied there is. Chairman Stout stated his inclination is not to pert a driveway in and marl all traffic through a controlled signal. Further, provisions ions have been made for an extra wide driveway and he did not think there should be smother driveway that chose to Haven on Civic Center Drive Motion: Moved by R mp 1, seconded by McNiel, carried to adopt Resolution 8 4-0 4, approving Parcel Map 8250 with are amendment ;for a curb cart 300 feet south of Civic Center Drive, with adjoining n parcel numbers and 3 subject t the approval of the City Council. Chairman Stout voted no on this motion. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated if the motion was approved with the exception of the recommended change in the motion, implicit it in that is that the inconsistent ; provisions currently recommended be changed, specifically' item 4, relating to vehicular Ingress, nd egress rights on Havers which will have to be modified in the final version to except as allowed at that one particular site. Commissioner Rempel stated that his intent in the previous motion is that this be modified. Comer stated that on the parcel map thane is a mote ,that fiat wide; access road is to b relocated. Mr. Corrigan xplain d that the existing road is a temporary rr and access into the shopping center off of Civic Center Drive will not be relocated and the only thing that they have drama is change, the radius of that road to coincide it i this parcel crap. He further stated that he was unaware f how the requirement for the mead as shown on the parcel reap care to be. Rougeau stated that the reference is to an interior road. Mr. Hopson stated because of the confusion with ;the roads, the previous motion could be reconsidered. Motion: Moved by R mp l to recall the previous motion and amend it b aligning the commercial drive approach h with the dividing line between parcel and 5. Commissioner McNiel seconded the motion and it carried. Chairman Stet voted no on this motion. Chairman Stout asked the applicant for Item M to come= forward. Planning Commission Minutes January 11 , 1984 tr. Dan Salter, the applicant, stated that the conditions for this item"r at with his approval . Mr. Salter stated further that today he had brought in some revised elevations and this was one of the items to be reevaluated. He asked that these be approved concurrently with approval of the Development Review. r . Gomez indicated that staff had; reviewed the elevations and they are satisfied that they can be approved r Jack Corrigan stated that this project is consistent with the master &Res for the industrial park Motion: Moved by Rempal, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution 07, approving Development Review 33 33 and issue a Negative' lwcaration,-with the corrected elevations and removal of Condition 4. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 32 INTER METRO INDUSTRIES c RP RA"TI N - A division of 8.82 acres into F. parcels within the Indust *ial ,Specific Plan (Subarea 3) located on the south side of Arrow �» APB � d 1 2 S and S . Highway, betwee n Hellmanand Helms � s Related Item - DR 3-3 (Item 11011.) 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - INTRRMETRS The development of d 29,700 s . ft. industrial building addition on' * 2 acres of land in the General Industrial, category (Subarea 3) , located on the south side of Arrow Route between Hallman Avenue and Helms Avenue AN 20022- 1. Pahl R u eau;, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report dealing with the Parcel Map and Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report dealing with the Development Review. Chairman stoat opened the public hearing The applicant, Doug Deant stated his agreement with the Conditions of Approval. "Thera being no further comments, the public hearing was closed - Motions Moored by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. 4 9 approving Development Review 83-34 and issuing a Negative Declarations Chairman Stout asked if anything could be done to screen the roof equipment. Commissioner MaNiel asked if the equipment could be painted in a more subdued color to hide the equipment Planning Commission Minutes 12- January 11 , 1984 The applicant stated they would repaint the equipment in a neutral color. 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. J. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACTS 1Q64 and 12.364-1 - LE.WIS B_OMES - Located on the south side of Base Line, east of Dear Creek Channel. A change of design from 71 lots to 72 lots for single family detached homes. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the requested revisions will affect the stub along B Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will not. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Gerry Bryan, representing Lewis B s oa,= stated that they are in agreement with all conditions. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83-84A, revising Tracts 12364 and 12364-1 . K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 84-01 - An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Title 1-7 of the Municipal Code, amending Section 17.08./040-B and 17.08.040C to require a Conditional Use Permit for single family detached dwellings less than 900 sq. ft. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission approves this Resolution, it would affect a small home, for example, in the North Town area, or in old Alta Loma between Base Line and La Vine, if there were a fire which destroyed them and they had to be rebuilt. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 11 , 1984 Mr. Comet replied that if the damage is more than a certain amount it would have to be reconstructed through the CUP process. if it were less, it could be restored Commissioner Barger asked if the Commission had gotta through this in the Development Review process; Commission Hempel- stated that this is a little different case than that. He asked what the charge for the Conditional Use Permit would be and indicated the lengthy process that someone would have to enter in orders to rebuild an existing home of less than 900 sq. ft. if this Resolution is adopted. r. Gomez explained the percentage listed in the Development Cede ,that addresses itself to such situations. r. Hopson stated there is also a building crude requirement that must be satisfied Commissioner Hempel stated it bothers hire that someone would have to go through'a Conditional Use Permit process in order to rebuild. He also cited, the smaller lot size areas within the "City, here many senior citizens live and indicated that the City should not be burdening theft with the extra cast of obtaining a CUP. Chairman Stout stated this item had been referred to the Commission by the City Council for the purpose of saying yes or no. r. Gomez stated the Commission is following the legal process for Development Code amendment. Commissioner Hempel recommended the Commission send this to the City Council, with provisions for rebuilding damaged homes in existing reas City Attorney Hopson eared if that is for than to have some other process rather than a Conditional Use Permit in carder to rebuild. Chairman Stout stated this is one way to get non-conforming uses into conformance with City Gode. Commissioner Rempel stated if you warped under disaster conditions it could be a 'very costly thing to obtain both in tarns of time and money. He felt that some other means, other than a CUP, should be examined. Chairman Stout stated if the Council wishes, they can rake some provisions for emergencies. 1r. Comet stated there are provisions for this under the non-conforming use section of the Development Code. He indicated that,you can look to the Code for hardship provisions Planning Commission Minutes 4- January 11 , 1984 r Henry Reiter asked if as a landlord one of his buildings burns down, would he have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Gomez replied he would not, since his is a commercial use, and that particular thing is not considered non-conforming. Commissioner ark r stated the Commission should let the Council know that they have looked at the ordinance, it :appears that the language fulfills their concerns, and request that they allow some latitude for an emergency situation. Mr. Gomez stated in the rase of total destruction, the ordinance does not address the issue Commissioner Remp l ";raised. Commissioner Nil stated he is inclined to agreewith Commissioner Rempel. He felt that some provision is needed if a building is 'razed and new construction must take place. Gomez stated in an emergency situation, an appeal can be madeto the City Council to eliminate the fee attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Rempel asked what happens if there is an earthquake, would the victims have to get on the ;public hearing enda in order r to obtain the help' they would need in an emergency. Mr* Hopson stated they would have to get their plans appraised in any case, and that in :itself would take time Commissioner R mp l stated before they have their playas approved, they would have to ,fat a CUP Commissioner Juarez stated her agreement with Commissioner Rempel. Commissioner Rempel stated he is not ready to take a change; he is merely asking that Council look at this r. Comet stated this will be addressed in the staff report that goes to Council along with the minutes of this meeting. Chairman Stout stated if Commissioner Rempel wants this change in the Resolution, he will probatory vote against it; otherwise, it is all right. Commissioner Hempel stated in Section 1 of the Resolution, the Commission can state that they believe that furnishing a CUP requirement can be deleted b ' staff if this condition would create a hardship. r Comet asked the City Attorney if it is possible for the Council to exclude requirements for certain types of units other than, those approved already and those existing throughout the Cite Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 11 , 1984 Mr. Hopson replied he did not see why you could not accept perpetuation on of certain non-conforming uses He indicated that this is dune now in; the signs in the City where ,there are certain non-conforming uses. Mr. Hopson stated Commissioner issi oner Rempol wants section 2 of the Resolution considered by the City ,Council as to whether such relief should' be included in the Development Code. Motion: Moved by iie p 1, seconded by McNiel, carried, to address the concerns relative to emergency provisions in obtaining a Conditional ;Use permit as stated, changing section P to include this provision and adding section 3 Chairman Stout voted no on this motion. L. TIME T N ION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 R. H. ASSOCIATES residential subdivision o ores of land into custo m lots _is�.on 1 "� located south and east of Hedhill. Country Club Drive, south of Calls or°a or APN 07-1 1-37 and - 1C Continued` from 1 / 3' meeting) . Associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report and presented slides of the property to the Commission. Chairman Stout asked if the Development Code specifies that this area be zoned commercial. fir. Johnston replied the commercial Mane was the interpretation that was made when the Development Districts Map was approved. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Mrs. William Beverly, representing P. H. Associates, stated that the project was designed to :maintain the existing topography to have a natural setting o single family homes. He indicated that when they acquired the property' they were unaware of any access problems. , Further,' since the hearing here these concerns were voiced, at the direction of the ;Commission, they met with the landowner and had several telephone conversations with the conclusion that access is not feasible without destroying the conceptof the hillside. He indicated that this is still what they prefer and asked that the extension be approved Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. He stated a letter had been received from a Mr . Hendrickson. There were no further comments, so the public hearing s closed Commissioner MoNiel, asked if the people directly south of this project had been contacted. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 11 , 1984 i 3r Beverly replied that MoNay Realty had been contacted. Commissioner Rempel stated there is a problem and the drawings provided dry not solve it. Further, there would have to be large outs and fill and he failed to see hoer access alternative native one will have high fill without the existing road having It also Commissioner Rey pel stated there is no way to guarantee access except through another piece of pr9oper°tym Chairman Stout stated according to the Development Code that landlocked parcel cel is commercial and he was unable to see gaining access either through a. residential area, either through this'tract or Red Rill for a commercial area. Further, he did not see why the o ieion should hold up a decision for any persons involved who did not see fit to appear at the public hearing. He indicated that as fir as he knows, there is no one asking for access. Mrs. Gary Jackson, representing R. R. Associates, stated that the property in question that needs the access also owns 40 percent of the property that fronts on Foothill, and there apparently is some legal battle going on. Motion:' Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried to grant a 1 month time extension to March 15, 1985, and adopting Resolution No. 4 . Commissioner Remp l voted no on this motion. NEW BUSINESS R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RF FR The level opr ent of a 5,652act. ft. office building on 1/2 acres of lard in the General Industrial category (Subarea to be located on the southwest corner of Archibald and Arrow - APN209-201-30. Associate Planner, Dare Coleman, reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant late this afternoon dropped off a new site plan with a 7,200p ft. office building instead. Further, that the increase in size' would have no effect on elevations, but the change had not been shown to the Design Review Committee. Mrs.. Coleman stated the Design Review Committee had recommended approval of the original submittal but had not had the opportunity to review the new submittal r Coleman stated, based on the new a mittal, this item could be continued in order to bring forth a recommendation from the Design Review Committee. Planning omission Minutes -1 - January 11 , 1984 Chairman Stott asked if based on the new ., of the building, setbacks are precluded. r.. Coleman replied that it dial not, as the applicant has 9 feet used 13 feet on the crest and south sides, respectively. Further, that the applicant could reduce the area more and prat it on the street frontage. r Coleman stated that all the street frontage e has been fully improved with intensive landscaping and mounding installed. Commissioner Barber stated he is confused on the setback r Coleman explained originally a setback of feet from Arrow and the building was proposed Commissioner Barker asked what it was in the original building. r. Coleman replied that it was approximately 49 feet. Commissioner Barter asked how much is ;required Mr. Coleman replied the required setback is 32 feet Chairman Stott asked how much closer this building is than the original. Mr;. Coleman replied that it,is 7 feet. Mr. Henry Reiter, the applicant, explained the setback requirements as set forth in the General Plan. Further, he indicated that some of the setbacks_ along Archibald are minimums, he had always met the requirements, and this is the first time he deviated from a staff request, and yet had met the requirements of the General Platt. Mr. Reiter stated he has more than the required setback needed in the parkin area, and he took advantage of this based on reciprocal parking rights and although the building is increased, there is sufficient parting. Commissioner Barker stated that his concern is that the change in project size had not gone through the Design Review Committee. He explained the preparation that goes; into the review of a. project by the members of the Committee. Further, that 'bringing something in that had that been reviewed slaws the process down, and is resented by him because it takes another 10 1 minutes of discussion at the Commission level r. Reiter stated that it seemed like a logical move to mate. Commissioner Barter® stated that it was - from his perspective. Mr. Reiter* stated that the item could be continued Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 11 , 1984 Chairman Stout explained the Commission is expected to make some intelligent decision on the project when it had not been reviewed. Further, a determination also has to be made on whether there has been a significant I change when the Commission is not adequately prepared to give a decision. r. Coleman indicated this item could be; postponed to the next meeting in January, in order to give staff time to do are analysis on it. Chairman Stout asked ;if the Design Review members wished to look at this project. Commissioner Barker stated the building design is adequate as long as staff: states that it meats all the elements required in the past. Commissioner McNiel added the design rust not be significantly altered, either. Further, because of its size, the appearance of the building will change Chairman Steen indicated Mr. Reiter is talking about the minimum setbacks but the project he saw is set back about 40 feet. _ r» Reiter stated that the project is not the one he submitted r. Coleman;, stated, for clarification, that during Design Review, the applicant brought in a new plan that proposed a 32.8 foot setback. The original plane showed 40 feet but what was reviewed by the Design Review Committee was 32.8 and was; accepted. He indicated the 'Committee asked the applicant to givemore landscaping to the project and what the applicant brought ht in today is the secured change to the project during the review of it. Commissioner Reapel stated the Design Review Committees accepted the -foot setback but were going to try to talk Mr. Reiter into pushing it back. Chairman Stout stated he did not understand how it could be accepted and then brought up for discussion. r Gomez explained what had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee as a setback of 32 feet; that there were areas behind the structure that had options to recess the building into that area after discussion by the Commission if they felt it to be warranted for increasing setbacks. Further, r Reiter has taken it upon himself to make that change and incorporate more buildings into that area. He indicated that the setback has not been charged. Commissioner Barker stated this has taken the Commission approximately C C minutes to rake this decision, and it could have been done in another manner. Mr. Reiter asked the Chairman what his feelings are on the 32 feet. Chairman Stoat replied that he did not know, and was unable to make are intelligent decision tonight on such short notice. Planning Commission Minutes_ 1 January 11 , 1984 Commissioner Rempel stated that the Resolution of Approval es no mention of that item being changed to 32 feet. Commissioner Re rpel felt this is a part of tonight's agenda. He stated the building and setbacks are identical to what has been shown on the plan. 'urther, it was intended that this be discussed by Design Review at tonight's ht's greeting r. Gomez stated the reduction shown at tonight's greeting given to staff b the applicant is the first time that the 8 foot setback was shown and is why it was not included in the Commission's agenda packet. Commissioner McNiel stated he hoped Mr.. Reiter was able to see the Commission's position as they were not here to create an adversary position. He indicated the Commission has some misinformation and new information rhi h is very confusing. Reiter apologized because he thought he had ;submitted 'a 82- ° nt setback. Commissioner McNiel stated the Commission makes long standing decisions and has to make them based on the best facts they have. r. Reiter stated he knows that. He indicated he grade a quick decision, but felt that increasing the building would net create a large problem. Commissioner McNiel asked if the building could be moved back and still achieve the parking. Mr. Coleman replied it would not affect it at all. Mr. Gomez stated the numbers for parking spades are well within the City; requirement. Further, from the discussion that has taken place tonight, he was not sure how much more detailed staff could be if this item were to be continued r. Reiter asked that there be conformity in landscaping and that the General Flan be followed. Chairman Stout indicated Mr. Reiter* may not ; consider this to be a major change, but it is, and it creates problems in that ; the Commission takes the projects that come before them seriously. r;. Reiter stated than:he understood Motion: Moved by Rerpel, seconded by Juarez, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 8 -C8 approving Development Reiter No. 8 2 , issuing a Negative Declaration with an increase in the original building size and no additional setback. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 11 , 1984 P. APPEAL OF PARCEL MAP 6051 - TRAILS - An appeal concerning bridle trail locations within a subdivision of 3 lots located on the north side of a.rn arnita Drive, east of Vineyard and Avenue. Assrneite Planxner, Darn Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if the Commission had received a letter today from the applicant, Mr. Nelson, and whether they had a chance to review it. Chairman Stout stated ;to City Attorney Hopson,n, this appears to be a Planning issue somewhat,, but also a legal issue and he asked if Mr. Hopson n mould provide some legal advice. r. Hopson stated what the appellants of the Equestrian AdvisoryCommittee decision are asking is for easements across three lots that their, or the general public could use. if the City were to require the owners of Parcel Map 6051 to provide an easement for a trail, the City would be in effect acquiring the eae ernt and the right to use it.; The City would then take the obligation atiorn to maintain because there is a quantitative difference in the three easements which run between the owners of the lots in Parcel Map 6051 which benefit and burden only those three lots and easements which benefit the City at large and adjacent property owners r. Hopson stated that the Commission could recommend that the City condemn the land around the perimeter of these lets to be used by any member of the general-public which would team that the City pays and bears the liability of maintenance for the easement. Further, Mr. Hopson stated that one does not see that the City has any legal power to require the legal owners of Parcel Map 51 to relinquish their property for the property owners adjacent to the parcel map. Additionally, Mr. Hopson does not believe the City has any legal right to acquire for free what the appellants are requesting, because what they are requesting is of a much broader scope than what one anticipated they are requesting. r Hopson referred to the applicant's letter where on page four it states that the City could issue a declaration that a bridle trail is for use by the public and access cannot be denied. Mr. Hopson stated that this is true, but the City would have to pay for it because you don't do it for free. Chairman Stout asked if anyone wished to speak. Mrs. Sandra Suhr, 8900 Wilson Avenue, stated she finds the City tt rney's position inconsistent with that of the General Plan. She further stated she did not understand it; when` she thought the purpose of bridle' trails was t provide a safe way to get around` the street and indicated that the owner, r. Nelson, had asked for a deviation because this 7 acre lot was divided without trails prier to the i.ty 's incorporation. She stated that there is not any way* in which to connect the trails even if they took the third option it the staff report Planning Commission Minutes 21 January 11 , 1984 1r Mike Nicolai, 8900 Wilson, stated he echoed what Ms. Suhr said, because when the 7 acre development;subdivided, it was open. Further, that when they lured there, and rode their horses, they never anticipated it would grow the way it did and the County never provided for it. Mr. Nico ai stated that when this parcel is developed, they; will be landlocked and if what the City Attorney says is true, there will not be an easement along the Sievers property either. Mr. 4 icol i started this violates the spirit of what the City is all about Mrs. Nelson, owner of parcel Map 6051 , stated they are not talking about a 7 acre parcel, they are talking about n 2 acre parcel. Further, that the two people who spoke have shown concern that their property will be landlocked from the north, whereas his property lies to the south, and access from their property t c joss his ro ert would lead them directly to the street, and his trail could not help in keeping the horses from the street. 1r Nelson stated that none of the property owners have offered to participate with their} own land in sharing the bridle trail and have not volunteered to give one incur. Mr. Nelson stated his agreement with the City Attorney and if the Commission goes with the Equestrian ommitteers comments, he could be satisfied. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Nelson if he intends to live on this property. r Nelson replied that he does intend to. Chairman Stout asked if anyone in his family is an equestrian-type person and, if it interested him. Mr. Nelson indicated that it did not interest him Ms. Suhr stated in reply to not offering one inch of property, there is no way for them to connect. Further, the Fppeaon'a directly to the north could add a trail, but for then, Ms. gdhr stated, it would be totally private. Further, they could be willing to put in a trail all along the perimeter, but it would be private Commissioner are erg asked if the CC&R1s for the area surrounding prohibit equestrian use. Chairman Stout stated he hives in a Mark III home and people in his tract allow others to ride in that tract; however, legally, the easements are for tract owners only. It`Is open to the public only because the owners allot it Chairman Stout indicated if the City requires that the property owner turn over his .land for the easements, they could have to purchase the land and the City is not in a position to do that r`. Hopson stated if it is a community trail, them the City roust also maintain it. Planning Commis,sion Minutes January 11 , 1984 After brief discussion, Mr. Coleman stated Mr. Nelson agrees to Option Am r. Nicolai stated they are willing to negotiate an easement that could be used by adjacent properties. Further, that ter. Book, his neighbor, is also willing to negotiate with her. Nelson. He indicated this may cause a hardship for ter. Nelson in defying the start of his construction, and they did not want to impose this ':hardship on him. He indicated they are willing to dedicate necessary easements to ensure that some trail might be installed Mrs. Nelson stated the Nicolails property now infringes on theirs, by about feet, and it would be difficult for the Meyer* property to dedicate any easements that would appreciably help because they could not give up their driveway or garage. r Coleman stated the Nelssn"s development on the parcel map has been on hold since the appeal was filed I Commissioner McNiel stated he was empathetic towards the horse owners, but he s not 'about to assume on behalf of the City the maintenance and purchase of; these easements. Further, in the analysis it stated that easements should be obtained whenever logical and feasible, and he questions whether in this instance it is feasible. Commissioner € a i.el stated in all probability the problem has been aggravated by an adversary situation and the Commission is not in the business of counseling these kinds of things. Further, if he were to state a position, he would say he agrees with the Equestrian Committee's recommendation. Commissioner Juarez stated agreement should be reached between the property owners Commissioner Barker stated he agrees,, but does not think that should negate the people on the north from finding access. Further, on the south, only one owner could get out, and that is very unfortunate, but this is not anything that the City wants to take on. Commissioner Barker stated this must be worked: out through negotiation of the property owners. Commissioner Hempel stated he agrees that ;the residents should work this out among themselves and from the tome expressed tonight, there may be a more conciliatory approach r. Ne lson Mated if they are villa.ng to participate through costa for the cul-de-sac, he will work with there He stated the cost would be minimal on their part and they should be willing to share it. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to deny the appeal and ask the property owners to work together or this. Planning Commission Minutes January 11 , 1984 Motion Moved by Remp la ascended by McNiel, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 :00 p.m. meeting time. Q. PROGRAM TO REVISE HOUSING ELEMENT Senior Planner, Tim Beadle, reviewed the staff report, informing the Commission the time schedule necessary in order to forward the element t the California eparAtment of Housing andCommunity Development. R. CIVIC CENTER C OMM ITTEE SELECTION S. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised the Commission of an existing vae rn the Civic .Center Selection Committee. Further, it is time to shift the makeup eup of the Design Review Committee. He indicated Commissioner McNiel would now take. over Commissioner Barker's' position on the Design Review Committee for the next 1 month period, with Commissioner Juarez l o serving. Chairman man Storm asked who had previously served on the Architect Selection Committee for the Civic Center. Mrs. Gomez replied that hi t+ r°icall , two members of the Commission have served' on the Committee the Chairman' and another Commissioner. Commissioner Barker nominated Commissioner Rempel to serve along with the Chairman on the Civic Center Committee. The nomination was unanimously approved by the Commission. h alternate n the `Barker would act as the Chairman Stout statedCommissioner_ De n Review Committee. There being no further items, it was moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. ADJOURNMENT 11'r "1 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. red. Re e t y submitted, "o,k ome ,bap y ecrtary Planning Commission i nute RR January 11 , 1984