No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jan-Jun 1986 CITY OF CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION I ITS Regul ar Meeti ng June 25, 198 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at .Cd p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161, Base Ling Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Dennis Stout, David Barker, Suzanne Chiti a, Larry McNiel , Herman Rompol ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner-, Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Alan Warran, Associate Planner, Nino Putri no, Assistant Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; di Benedetti , Assistant Park Planners Ralph Manson, Deputy City Attorney CONSENT CALENDAR At RESOLUTION OF DENTAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT o a res� en r a so 1 vi sr on an esi n 'Fe—view o singe family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium esidential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 foot east of Archibald Avenue 01- S -21, 22. Continued ;from May 28, 1986 meeting). B. BERYL PARK - WEST EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL ASTER PLAN - Continued from.. Uu-n—elIT-1986—m—ee-ting. Chairman Stout removed Item B for dscussion. - Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to approve the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12991 - Shelbourne. B. BERYL PARK - EST EXTENSION CONCEPTUALMASTER PLAN Jim Benedetti , Assistant Park planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Harker reiterated his concerns regarding difficulty getting into and but of the park with the present traffic configuration. He pointed out that the way the parking lot is laid out, vehicles could enter, turn and park with any smooth access or egress« Commissioner Rempel stated he thought the lands should be one-way rather than doubl e-way. Barker agreed,- and expressed his concerns with left hand turns made by vehicles leaving the park onto Carnelian Street Commissioner Chi ti ea pointed out than the problem is magnified due of the fact that it is going to be an active park with the soccer field activity. Commissioner Rempel stated that perhaps the answer to the problem was to utilize the space occupied by one of the houses north of the park., Commissioner Stout stated with the freeway offs at that location, it was going to have to be a signalized intersection at the ramp. He believed it would have to be a' double signalized Intersection. Commissioner Rempel felt that the stacking of vehicles trying to enter and exit was the problem, even with traffic signals installed. Commissioner Stout stated that this item was on the agenda for recommendation to the City ounci l e felt the recommendation should be that the traffic configuration was unacceptable as presented. Commissioner Barker concurred that the traffic configuration as presented still had some major safety problems. He suggested looking into other alternatives to the entry lanes, and particularly to the left turn exit lane onto Carnelian. Commissioner Rempel moved to deny, or not make any recommendation to the City Council . it was his opinion; that a revised traffic configuration be brought back. Commissioner Stout suggested simply making a statement that the present configuration was unacceptable because ;of likely traffic conflicts and problems. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to forward Beryl parkWest Extension Conceptual Master'plan to the City Council with a recommendation that the present configuration was unacceptable due to likely traffic conflicts. Planning Commission Minutes dune 25, 1986 Brad Buller summarized , that staff would forward the Commission's concerns to Council, who would take the recommendation of the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission into consideration. PUBLIC HEARINGS a C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANDTENTATIVE TRACT 12911 - LEC eve en cu o o f v ion on acres o Tar in the Very Low Residential District, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Wilson venue APN 201-111-11. Howard Fields presented the staff report-® Chairman Stout opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else cared to address the Commission on this issue. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea expressed concern :over the letter included as an attachment to the staff report from the orborist who thought most of the trees should be removed and the staff report indicated the windrows would be preserved. Commissioner Barker asked what was the definition of "most" . Howard Fields reported that out of an identifiable 49 trees, 29 were slated for removal and the remainder would be preserved. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12911. Motion carried by the following vote: YES: COMMISSIONERS; C ITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: C E ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C -carried C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -09 - LDS CHURCH - The request to amend the opprove do one l em a o ng the installation of four 35 foot high and two 50 foot high light fixtures for the northerly softball and soccer fields located at 6829 Eti; ran a Avenue, north of Victoria Street APN 227-6-65 and 23. Staff report given by ncy Fong, Associate Planner. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 25, 1986 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. David Long, 13021 Vista, ti wvanda, representing the applicant, stated that; they had made a great effort to minimize the impact on the l neighbors by contacting everyone within the zone of influence to inform them of their proposal . He felt that the residents seemed to be more concerned with the noise level than with the lighting, and stated that they would not be using public address systems. r. Long wanted to clarify that the times they proposed to use the field was Thursday and Saturday nights, not Thursday and Friday nights Commissioner Barker; asked if there were instruments available such as parabolic reflectors, lisoidls, or shutters to cut light off in order to control the spill r. Schl othower stated such instruments were not available for this type of fighting. The beam spread for the lights they were using had; a device to l i i t the amount of spillover. o issionr Barker asked if there was any way to shutter that off. r. Schl otho er replied that to his knowledge there was none presently available Commissioner arker inquired as to the effect of vertical impact. r, Schlothower replied. that from a distance you would see the glow of light and it would light up in that area... He furthers stated that the primary concern from a design criteria was the ground level so that the players could see. The windrows would provide some shielding for the residents of adjoining property. Jim rost, Etiwanda resident, submitted a petition of those neighbors who had serious concerns about the project. He stated his opposition to the project and said there was no assessment made regarding the additional and'cumulative impacts of noise, traffic, and visual impacts of lights. Bobby Pederson, 6771 Etiwanda Avenue, stated that her concern was not the lighting, but the noise factor after dark. She further commented that the removal of the two rows of Eucalyptus windbreak that surrounded the church property ould increase the noise factor from the activities conducted at the church. Linda Harris, 13044 Victoria, Etiwanda, stated her concerns about the project which included not only the noise, but light pollution. David Long emphasized the need for the proposed recreation facility and reiterated that they had received great support from the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes 4 dune 25, 1986 There being no further comments, Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Chairman Barker stated his concern with the spillover, and wanted assurance that the lamps would be shielded to minimize the spillover. e felt that without the P.A. system and with the size of grouping proposed, the noise may not be a major impact. Commissioner Rempel stated he was concerned with the noise and ,yelling generated by the spectators. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated the would like additional information on what kind of noise is generated by this type:of activity and the number of spectators Commissioner McNiel stated that reasonable lighting is needed to play the game safely. With respect to the lights, he stated that the higher the light the less problem t becomes. Co i ssi oner McNiel supported the project and its benefit to the community. Chairman Stout stated that the City had brae a philosophical decision to live with churches and schools in residential areas He stated that the issue was how much activity should be allowed, and felt that not allowing a P.A, system was a reasonable restriction and should be included in the Resolution Chairman Stout stated that changing Daylight Savings time back to the beginning of April may reduce the problem in regard to light Commissioner Rempel was concerned with night activities associated with a church, stating that 'people living adjacent to schools expect the athletic field to be used at night, but not residents living next to churches. Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested limiting the hours of night games in which case the lights out not do their that much good. Commissioner Barker agreed it would not do them any good. i e d Commissionerc 1 state that limiting the hours would not allow them to play baseball . Brad Buller stated that if the Commission would like to obtain additional information on the noise, a noise study could be generated to determine the impact it would have on the residential units surrounding the property. With respect to the lighting, Mr. Buller suggested an evaluation of the height of the poles and the amount of light being spread, and whether the number of poles could be reduced wi t the use of higher poles, e added, however, that increased height .could have a Planning Commission Minutes - m dune 25, 1986 greater visual ;impact on some of the residents, He added that direction was needed from the Commission as to days and hours of use so it could be included in the Resolution. Commissioner Stout suggested noise and light generated by other projects should be looked into in order to reduce the cumulative impact. Brad Buller reiterated that a noise study could help the Commission to make a better decision on what conditions might be imposed on the project. He also wanted to clarify forte Commission and the audience that tree , vegetation or shrubs do not mitigate noise. Chairman Stout asked staff if this item could be reviewed again in a couple of weeks. Brad Buller replied that if a noise and light study were required, staff believed more than a. couple weeks would be required. Commissioner Barker asked if it needed to be continued to a date specifics City 'Attorne, Hanson stated that since it was a public hearing item, it would have to be continued to a date specific, and further stated he assumed with that motion that the Commission was also directing staff to bring back a Resolution of poal with Conditions at that time. Brad Buller recommended that the item be continued to the duly 2rd meeting. Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing and for the purpose of continuance. He further er;suggested with regard to gathering"information with respect to other offending users in the area, that staff contact school boards to inform them of the problem and solicit possible solutions from them. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue Conditional Use Permit 84-09 to the July 2 , 1986 greeting. :CPlanning Commission Recessed 8:25 p.m. _ Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes - - June 2 , 1986 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13275 - CLAYTON CUSSTRG-TUAV en o acres of-ra-nU-1-n--IFe-Re-di-u-m---ffl-g-H-ResidentiaI District (14-24 du/ac) into a three lot residential subdivision for the development of a 290 unit multi-family condominium complex, Phase II of the Master Plan of Development for 9UO+ condominium units, located on the north side of Highland Avenue, 1200 feet east of Haven, Avenue - APN 202- 271-02, 03. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He added that if the Commission concurred with statements that were generated by the Design Review Committee with respect to provision for open space in Phase 111, staff suggested a possible condition to Phase 11, such as an amendment to the Master Plan that would call for a major open space area, a minimum of 7,000 sq. ft. , immediately into Phase III, and that amendment could be filed prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Barker clarified the issue of density and land use had already been dealt with and resolved by the City Council , and the job of the Planning Commission now was to make sure that we could get the best product possible and address the issues of transitions of density, product types, variety of unit design, etc. He congratulated the developer for being a competent and professional group who had worked well within those parameters. Chairman 1tout echoed Commissioner Barker's comments that the job of the Commission was to review the project within the density parameters that were given to the Commission by the City Council . He then opened the public hearing. Mary Murdock, Director of Development at Lanson Development South, 881 Dover Drive, Newport each, California, gave an overview of Phase II of the Lynn haven Master Plan described as Clayton Crossing. Commissioner Barker asked Ms. Murdock if staff had mentioned the possibility of a condition of an amendment to the Master Plan to guarantee open space in Phase 111. Ms. Murdock replied they had, and asked how that would work. Brad'Buller, City Planner, stated that prior to issuance of any building permits or any building on this property, that the Master Plan could be revised by amendment and brought before the Commission for their review and approval . This project then would be conditioned on the condition that the Master Plan be amended to reflect the addition of open space, the square footage to be determined by staff working with the applicant and brought back to the Commission with a recommendation for adequate outdoor area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 25, 1986 Commissioner Chi ti ea questioned Condition No. 7, which requires outdoor storage for all units be provided such as carport lockers or storage closets adjacent to patios, and stated that the Commission had not been very pleased with carport lockers. s. Murdock replied that C all storage units provided would be in above-storage units in garages, and only C of the storage would be provided by the carports Chairman Stout stated that there was a comment at the Design Review stage that enough attention had not been plated on the actual design of the carports, and the suggestion was made that this issue; be referred back to e Design Review required in the architecture Committee, with respect to a b to the carporsd that slight hars s. Murdock said she understood this. There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barker suggested` that the Commission address the issue of garages and carports as a separate item, and the impact -that it would have on this project could be handled inDesign Review. Commissioner Chi ti ea expressed concern over the carport locker situation and felt it should be addressed Commissioner McNiel explained the open space tradeoff occurred as a result of a large open space being traded off for an elaborate water feature, and that there was opera space on one side, and the balance of open space was going to be picked up on the other side.' Commissioner Chiflea asked if the language:; on the amendment to the Master Plan should be dealt with in the Resolution. Chairman Stout said it would be included in the Resolution. Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson stated that there were two Resolutions and recommended two separate motions. He further stated the Resolution for Design Review would d be the appropriate place to add Condition 17 requiring an amendment` to the Master Plan specifying a major open spade area: Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution approving Desi gn Review for Tentative Tract 13275 with the addition of Condition 17, "An amendment to the Lynnhaven Master Plan specifying a major open space area alone the gr'eenway spine within the western portion of Phase III shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for Clayton Crossing. The open spade area should primarily be devoted to an open lawn area". Motion carried by the following vote Planning Commission Minutes -8- dune 25, 1986 YES: COMMISSIONERS: PEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, GHITIEA, STOUT ES COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Moved by Re pel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the - Resolution vesting Tentative Tract 13275. ti oh carried b the following vote AYES: BARKER, RE PEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E -tarried E. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 964 m GOLDEN A division of acres an rn o ce i e Low Residential District located at the northeast corner of Hillside Read and Moonstone Avenue - APN I 1-251 elated Sale. Variance -01 G. VARIANCE 86-01 GOLDEN request ;to reduce the minimum lot depth ro ee d eet on a proposed 20,195 square foot parcel in the Very Lower Residential District (up to 2 dd ac located at the northeast corner of Hillside and Moonstone - APN 10 1- S-G . Related File: Parcel Map 9646. Chairman Stout announced that Items E and G woulde heard concurrently, but indicated that Item G would be determined first because the Variance would have an effect on the conditions, if any, of, the Parcel Map. Howard Fields presented the staff report on the Variance. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Irwin Golden, applicant, presented two concerns to the Commission. He objected to the equestrian trail requirement imposed on his property, and also was also concerned with the need to do any lot grading in the absence of any plan to build and rove dirt. He felt the need for grading wouldbe determined by the building plans of the new owner an should be considered for approval at that time. Mrs. Golden, wife of the applicant, expressed her concern about the environment being disturbed by the equestrian trail requirement and the premature grading of the land. Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 25, 1986 Commissioner Chi ti ea asked Mrs. Golden if she was aware that the trail that was being proposed was a community trail and would be maintained the City; Mrs. Golden replied that all of the trails are littered and not being properly maintained Commissioner Stout explained that there were different types of trails in the City, most of which were` not owned by the 'City; but by the homeowners. e assured her that the trail that was being proposed was mandated by the General Plan and would be maintained by the City just as if it were a street. He also pointed out that d proposal for funding was 'before the City Council for d trails implementation plan to deal with the maintenance of trails. Andrew of tavary, Civil Engineer for the applicant, 1000 Quail Street, Newport Beach, California, requested clarification of the Master Plan horse trail being proposed Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barker asked if removal of trees was required. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer,, stated no and indicated that Condition '#2 in the Parcel Map Resolution imposed by the Building and Safety Department refers to grading some s ales along the south property line of Parcel 1 to divert drainage from Parcel 1 off the other two parcels, and may require removal of some trees. Commissioner Barker requested that it be made record that there was no intention of removing trees Barre Hanson felt that perhaps the sal es could be graded to minimize the removal of trees, and that the condition could be modified. Brad Buller suggested adding a statement to the condition that might reflect that a' detailed site survey showing exact tree locations be provided with the plans of the drainage sale so that we ; could avoid removal of trees unnecessarily. Commissioner Barker again emphasized the avoidance of removal of those trees. Motion: Moved by Barker,; seconded by Chit ea unanimously carried, that the Variance be granted and that Findings be generated. Ralph Hanson asked if that would be a direction to Staff to bring; back a Resolution with Findings on the Variance Chairman Stout said yes Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 25, 198 Ralph anson pointed out based on the case of Topaan a Canyon that when there is a Variance there rust not, only be the ultimate conclusions of fact, which is set forth in numbers I through S of the Resolution, but there must be a logical tie in with facts generated by the hearing that support these ultimate conclusions. Brad Buller stated that staff would work on the Resolution. Ralph Hanson stated that approval of the Variance subject to bringing back a Resolution would allow the Commission to proceed on the Parcel Map Resolution. Motion: Moved b, , Re pel , seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9649 with the deletion of Condition 2 relative to grading. Motion carded by the fol I owi ng vote: AYES : COMMISSIONERS: PELF MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: E ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout suggested that Items I and J would be relatively short compared with H, and asked if anyone objected to taking I and J out of order. Hearing no objections, Chairman Stout proceeded with Item I on the Agenda. NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL SSES T AND DEVELOPMENTREVIEW -07 - ARIL L - The eve rip en o o ce u� nos o a r n square eet on 4.24 acres' of ,l and in the Industrial Park District Subarea located at the northeast corner of Raven Avenue and 6th Street - APN - IIS. ino' Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if there were conditions that required that the architecture must be compatible with Phase I. Mr. Puti no indicated that the Resolution conditioned that the architecture for Phase 11 must go through the Design Review process and that it should be compatible with the design and materials of Phase I. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes I cane 25, 1986 it Charles McLaughlin, owner of Arical Properties, wanted to clarify the language of Planning Condition #4 of the Resolution with respect to landscaping, pedestrian facilities and signage. His ;concern was that the conceptual landscaping plan they had submitted was consistent with the requirements for the Haven Avenue Overlay District as referred to in the Condition. Chairman Stout stated that it was. r. McLaughlin asked for clarification of the language with respect Engineering Condition #2 of the `Resolution regarding the reciprocal driveway agreement. He introduced the revised language that was worked out between Joe Stofa of the Engineering ear ant, and the Engineer for the project and stated that he would like this' language incorporate into the Resolution. He was also concerned that the language referring to the undergrounding of utilities along 6th Street did not make provision for reimbursement of one-half` the cost 'by the property owner to the south Barr ye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that language o' l d be added to that Condition to clarify that point. There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 0 , with modifications to Engineering Condition #2 to include revised language relative ' o the reciprocal driveway easement, and the addition of language clarifying the reimbursement agreement for the undergrounding of utilities along 6th Street. Motion carried by the fol 1 owi ng vote YES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIE , MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed -10:0 .. - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission inut s -1 June 25, 1986 J ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-09 - LEASON PDMM"SMUATM----Mi--&e—v-elo—pm—en-t—of-a Ya— -s-te—r-PTa—n-To-r—a--35--acre T—ndu-st-r-i-aT—Fak`-—a-rnd the first phase consisting of two light industrial buildings totaling 63,474 square feet on 4.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) located between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Avenue and between 6th Street and 4th Street - APN 229-261-58, 59. Related Project: Parcel Map 9896 - Continued from June 11, 1986 meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that this item had been continued from the last meeting at which time the Commission indicated that staff was to work with the applicant on the architectural detailing of the building itself and the architectural elements that abut and surround the building. He reported that some changes had been made to the elevations of the building, and that the developer was introducing a sandblasted finish around the entire building on all four sides as opposed to the smooth finish originally proposed. Metal roof screening had been accented and made part of the building massing, and was architecturally integrated into the building at the entry'. The f ree- standing walls will be a minimum of 14 inches in depth which addressed the issue of massing. Chairman Stout stated that he had agreed to meet with the applicant to discuss the architectural issues, and that meeting did in fact take place. Brad Buller additionally commented that there was, a condition that a set of design guidelines for the entire park, and elements being looked at tonight, if found favorable, would be included into those design guidelines. The applicant has indicated that they intend to get them back to staff within two weeks, so that should be back to the Commission at the July 23rd meeting. Judy Mc Castle, Construction Manager for the Bixby Ranch Company introduced Richard Clark, Director of Design for Leason Pomeroy, who gave a slide presentation which depicted the design thought that went into this product, and also showed some buildings that were built along the same lines. Commissioner Chitiea asked how texture and pattern of walkways was going to be addressed. Richard Clark stated that colored concrete and a rough finish as opposed to a smooth finish would be used, and that the pedestrian plazas were part of the transition into the building and therefore integrated into the architecture. Commissioner Chi tiea stated that the project was significantly improved over what was seen initially. Planning Commission Minutes -13- dune ;25, 1986 Chairman Stout commented that he was more comfortable with ",the project and felt it was going to be an interesting and innovative addition to the City and one which would set the tone for others types of;projects of this nature. Motion: Moved by Rerrrpel seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review C-Cg. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES. COMMISSIONERS: RF P L, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: RCN ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: C -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED H. REVISIONS TO THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN Alan Warren, Associate Planner, reviewed some of the significant changes to the Industrial Specific Plan. a Brad Buller, City Planner, added 'that a meeting was held with the City Attorney, additional staff members, and an attorney representing, one of the property owners- regarding the Development Agreement and expects to have that back the second meeting in dull. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tim Beedle, A.H. Reiter Development, 9650 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, complimented the staff the excellent job they did on the revisions, and stated that he felt it represented the thoughts of both. the Commission and the City Council in terms of implementing the development practice. Mr. Beedle requested that the Commission consider the area south of Foothill Boulevard between I-IS and Ftiwanda Avenue for future oo eroibl designation; it is currently shown as Industrial Park Mr. Beedle felt the median designation along Eti wa nda_ Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route was unnecessary for buffering purposes and in conflict with the intent to delete the median aloe Etiwnda, ;and suggested that it be dropped. Mr. Beedle suggested that the Fourth Street Median be deleted from Table 11-4 to make it consistent with Figure It per the street classification. Mr. Beedle commented that on page 11-46 a proposed fire station is shown on a building site, and suggested the Commission deferring the matter to the Fire District as it is no longer relevant at that site, Mr. Beedle suggestedthat the definition of Office Research & Design be modified as it tended to lend' a character of manufacturing use as it presently read. Mr. Reedle commented that under Subarea 7, Special Conditions, there was;a mote referring to a detention facility being located next to Planning Comission Minutes -14- dune 25, 1986 the County courts, He pointed out that there was no such allowed use under Subarea 7, although it was called out as an appropriate use under Subareas 1, S, 9, 10 and 11. Mr. Beedle showed slides of some of the holdings his firm had in the Industrial; Specific Flan area ;to indicate by it was important that they have a chance to review the revisions and express their concerns. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, agreed with Tim Beedle's comment regarding the detention facility and suggested amending the Plan to allow the detention facility in Subarea 7. As Economic Director of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Barton stated that the Chamber had worked together with staff and the City specifically with the latest changes and were very happy with the revisions to the Industrial Specific plan. Mr. Barton stated that the Economic Development Committee made copies of the reports available to all the landowners, and that concerned members of the community as well as the brokerage industry had sat i n with the Committee. He added that the Committee had spent time with Schlosser Forge and that situation was being solved by the Development Agreement. He felt that everyone was going to be extremely happy with the outcome of the Industrial Specific plan, and that it was rare that a Planning Commission could make such a major change that received such support out of the community. Larry Nelson, 3151 Airwayvenue, Costa Mesa, granted to endorse the recommendation to change the land use along 1-15. He also wanted to clarify that paragraph I on page "-3 of the staff report should read Subareas 8 and '14 rather than Subareas g and 14. Dave Net laff, Vice President of Operations of the Tanner Company, expressed concern that their business was 'going to be zoned out of existence. He was also concerned about screening from the Freeway being required as it ;represented screening 42 acres. Brad Buller stated that the Tanner Company would be grandfather°ed in with the use as it exists now. Alan Warren stated in regard to Mr. needle's comment on 4th Street, the, had been in contact with Ontario and there had been no decision as of this date' as to howl to approach the subject of median islands. It was staff's recominendation, therefore, to 'keep the median islands on 4th Street until such time as they heard from Ontario. Chairman Stout expressed his concern regarding the detention facility which he stated was originally intended to serve a multi-use courthouse, which does not exist. Since it appears there will be no Municipal Court, the majority of the prisoners in that detention facility would need to be transported. He stated that in his opinion, a detention facility was not needed unless there was going to be s Municipal Court. He further stated that the County could pet the detention facilitywherever they pl eased, regardless of the Ci t 's Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes 15 dune 25, 1986 Brad Buller stated that since that was the case, he felt it would be appropriate to delete all reference to the detention facility. Chairman Stout commented with respect to the issue of the 1-15 Corridor, that he felt strongly that there should be some reference to the fact that an Overlay District be done in the future, and he agreed with the expansion of the Subareas. Chairman Stout further stated that staff had done an excellent job on the Industrial Specific Plan and it was a great document. With respect to Tim Beedle's concerns as stated in his letter to the Commission, Chairman Stout felt that the issue of a possible Commercial designation in Subarea 7 should be referred to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study Cominittee to determine whether a Commercial designation would be appropriate. Chairman Stout stated the the median on Etiwanda was basically his idea and upon further consideration, felt it should be deleted. With respect to the ambiguity on the 4'th Street median, he felt a decision should be made upon receiving the courtesy of a response from the City of Ontario. Chairman Stout felt the fire station issue should be referred to the Foothill Fire District. Chairman Stout stated the Research and Development issue was on the City Council agenda for July 2nd for clarification. Tim needle asked what the timing would be on that particular to Brad Buller responded that it would depend on what transpired at the City Council before that question could be answered. Chairman Stout suggested that under Subarea 7, Special Considerations, a statement be added a detention facility may be appropriate if municial court facilities are provided at the Law and Justice Center. Brab Buller asked if there were modifications that needed to come back to the Commission. Chairman Stout replied no, and made the motion. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, that the Industrial Specific Plan be forwarded to the City Council with the revisions as discussed by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Otto Kroutil wanted to express his thanks to Allen Warren for the excellent job he did on the revisions to the Industrial Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 25, 1986 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. TRAILS Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the report and requested Commission discussion and comment on the outline presented.. He also requested the name of someone from the Planning Commission to serve on that Committee. Commissioner Barker stated the logical choice would be Commissioner Chitiea. Chairman Stow expressed a :concern that the scope of work include standards for maintenance of those trails for individual home owners by Ordinance and that these standards be enforceable. Brad Buller assured the Commission that the whole area would be looked at including the local feeders, and what could be done with them i anything, and all the pros and cons would be laid out before bringing it to the Planning Commission and the Council . Chairman Stout stated he especially wanted enforcement. Commissioner Mc Niel commented on the fact that a lot of the people who border on the trails don't use the trails, and those that do use the trails pit the litter behind somebody else's house. Commissioner Barker agreed that some major problems did exist. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that. since Chairman Stout had some strong feelings on the subject, perhaps he would like to serve on the Committee. Chairman Stout replied that the assignment would be made after' it was approved ' COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Stout' announced that it was time to make changes in the Design Review Co i tee and recommended that Commissioner Barker be the alternate, with Commissioner McNiel and Commissioner Rempel being assigned to Residential/Institutional and Commissioner Chitiea and himself being assigned% to Commercial/Industrial . There being no opposition to this reco endation, the assignments were made accordingly. Planning Commission: Minutes -1 June 25, 1986 ADJOURNMENT motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to ANIL adjourn. 11. U p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. ;Dnepnuty ese Bally submitted, rad 8u er Secretary Planning ;Commission Minutes -18- dune 25, 198 CITY OF RANCHO; CUC ONCA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1986 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :OO p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base ',Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman tout then e i n C led . the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Herman R ` pel , Dennis Stout ABSENT; Larry MoNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bull er, City Planner; Can Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Bl ane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer; Barr ye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; 'Janice Reynolds, ds, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that at their dune 18th meeting, the City Council would be hearing the appeal of the Uniform Sign Program for the Virginia Bare Winery project. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - STERPA - A total development of con mums an ng a am y we n-ngs on 65 acres of land generally located on the south side of Wilson, east of Haven Avenue, in the Lour Medium District - APN 201-19 -0 . Commissioner Barker requested the removal of Item A for discussion. He was concerned with compatibility with the surrounding area and questioned whether the mitigation measures were adequate. He was additionally concerned that the tract does not meet the energy conservation section of the Development Code. Chairman Stout advised that a letter was received from Patricia Barona, an adjacent property owner, which indicated that she could not attend this evening's meeting; however, expressed similar concerns as those of Commissioner Barker. Chairman Stout was concerned with the circulation and pointed out that there may be problems due to the extension of Banyan and Wilson Avenues across the City as a result of both the Etiwanda and Foothills pl ans. Commissioner Rempel was concerned that the applicant was not in attendance to present his statement. Motion: Moved by Barker,: seconded by Chitiea to deny the time extension for Tentative Tract 11550. AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CNITIEA, ;STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Commissioner Rempel stated he voted No because he felt the developer should have to opportunity to present his case. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - AJA The dgVMpRR 6f ffiree esearc an`d_ Development/Office ui ngs taling DC,000 square feet on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) located at the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street - AP 96178. Clancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented ;the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing David goon, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He objected to the driveway restrictions, and proposed that the entrance be restricted to cars only and require all trucks to enter on Buffalo and exit on the southwest at firth Street There were no further comments, therefore the public head g was closed* Commissioner Rempel stated that as long left turns- could not be made, he felt comfortable with allowing the additional exit on 6th Street as requested b the applicant. Commissioner Chi ti ea felt that as long as the truck traffic remained behind the buildings and away from the cars as suggested by the applicant, it would e a better solution and would be safer than potential conflicts with auto traffic in the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes - - dune 11, 18 Doti on: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to i ssue a Negati ve Decl arati on and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use permit 86-06, with Engineering Condition 2 relative to driveways being deleted. Motion carried by the following; vote: AYES.; COMMISSIONERS REMPELBARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 86-0 - CITY OF propose o amen ec ion per an ng o Temporary uses of the Development Code of the Cite of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance No. 211. Bruce Cook, Associate planner, presented the staff report. hai man Stout opened the public hearing Jerry Linton, representing Citation Homes, asked that off-street parking for model home complexes be determined by staff review and not prohibited altogether. He felt the condition needed clarification. He additionally suggested that the condition regarding on-site lighting should pertain only if on-site lighting was proposed. He pointed out that many projects do not have exterior lighting. He addressed condition h-2 and suggested that the finding indicate if the location of the model home is in proximity to, rather than adjacent to, a primary circulation route. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker asked the intent of the condition relative to on-site lighting. Brad Buller City Planner, advised that the intent was that if lighting was i t would e met the condition; t therefore, staff would accept r proposed, � � cept M . Linton's suggested amendment to condition B-f to reflect if the lighting was proposed. Chairman Stout asked staff to comment on Mr. Linton's suggested amendment to condition h-2 relative to circulation. Mr. Buller concurred with the suggestion to include "in proximity to" with regard to a primary circulation route. Chairman Stout suggested that the Resolution language reflect that the location of a model home office is such that it has sufficient access to a primary circulation route, which could be a collector, secondary, or Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 11, 18 arterial . This would insure that any additional traffic generated as a result of the model complex would not have a significant impact. Commissioner Barker was concerned with the original language hi dh was stricken from Condition 0 He felt than the eliminated language removed the emphasis on the use of the structure and placed the emphasis on the location. Dan Coleman, Senior Manner, concurred and suggested that the language remain as originally written. Chairman Stout wanted some type of language to restrict this temporary use to situations where a considerable investment has been made in landscaping. e felt that the models should be completely landscaped and some interior amenities added. r. Buller stated that rather that add language which might later prove to be inappropriate, he would suggest continuing this item until later in the agenda to allow staff to develop appropriate language. By consensus of the Commission, Item C was continued until later in the agenda Da ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL; USE PERMIT 86-08 - ALHAMBRA . - The es a s men of a upr n company n an existing ui ng w th a lease, 'space of 2,184 square feet on 0.960 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ), located at 8755 Flower Road - APN 09'-013-04 . Debra Meier, Assistant planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Darker asked how the condition relative to objectionable odor Raoul ; be measured and enforced; Can Coleman, Senior Planner, replied that if the City received a complaint, staff would contact the Air Quality;Management District, which has the proper equipment and expertise to measure that type of situation. If there proved to be a problem, the Conditional Use Permit would be brought back before the Commission for modification to the Conditions or revocation. Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing. Jack Sol 1 , representing the applicant, adi red that there ,are "seven other shops owned by Alhambra Reprograhi cs and to date no complaints relative to unpleasant odors had been received. He concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there were any by-product -or waste material that would have to be removed from the site. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 11, 1986 Mr. Soll replied that there would not and further stated that the ammonia would be brought to the site in cylinder drums. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel did not feel there would be a problem with this use. Commissioner Barker stated that he could support the project since this is ConditionalUse Permit which could be brought back before the Commission if there are problems or complaints. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that her concern was that chemicals would; be put into the air causing air pollution. However, ; since this would not be the case with this project, and since it is a Conditional Use Permit, she could support the request. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-08. Motion carried by the following 'vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIE carried E. MODIFICATIONS OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CITY OF RANCHO proposil t6 amefia thi Divelopment C-od6--t-o---4-Vge4-dii—,a-p-ar-5-e-nT eve"Eo�' t standards and to require enclosed garages for all multi-family construction. Other similar modifications may also be considered. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, ,supported the staff' s recommendations that the parking standards be made the same for condominiums and apartments by raising the parking' requirements for apartments. He addressed the issue of carports versus garages and stated that garages are not some sort of instant design solution. They offer possibilities as well as drawbacks. He felt the present system of controls which rewires that the use of carports be subject to Design Review should be expanded and that the submittal requirements should be increased so that the Design Review Committee would have the necessary materials to fully evaluate the impact of whatever parking solution is proposed, Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 11, 1986 Karen Angona, Westland Venture, was concerned that the cost of apartment dwellings would be increased if garages become mandatory; which would take away the affordability of those units. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in walking some of the recently approved projects, she found that there is a problem with the carports which were designed to be attractive from the street. She saw a problem primarily in designing the location of either carports or garages. She agreed that the standards for apartments and condominiums should be the same. Commissioner em el stated that carports could be an effective use under the proper conditions. He stated that simply putting doors on garages would not prevent cares from parking in a development. Commissioner Barker stated that there is no simple solution which provides all the answers. He felt that requiring only garages would have a tremendous impact on design and a more constricted feeling might be, created. He concurred that there should be no difference in the standards for apartments and condominiums and would like to see garages and that sort of a storage facility urged. He was concerned that under the Optional Standards we reward a closed compacted feeling by giving more density. He wanted to find a way to encourage garages and to have the flexibility to use some common sense and take a look at a total overall design rather than dictate in all cases garages are required. Chairman Stout was not concerned with placing garages on every unit and stated that it makes an aesthetic appearing site plan for the public's benefit, and destroys it for the people who live in the complex.- He was concerned that the design standards placed on carports is inadequate. He felt that there has been no attempt by the developers to make carports architecturally match the apartment buildings. ' He stated that the carports need' to be architecturally the same quality as the structure itself. He felt that the standards for both apartments and condominiums should be the same; however, felt that the type of unit should be examined to determine the number of spaces required. He agreed with Commissioner Barker's comments relative to the Optional Standards and stated that simply because someone is building at a higher density at the Optional Standard range it should not automatically trigger the garage requirement, since it compounds the 'higher density and makes the whole project look worse r. Kroutil advised that the Commission has the option in the current provisions to give carports as much of a design emphasis as the rest ,of the project. He suggested that staff development amended language to the Development Code to clarify this intent. He asked for the Commission's direction with regard to number of spaces. He stated that the current standards vary based on the size and type of unit; however, the number of covered spaces remain constant. He suggested that the number` of visitor spaces should also be studied.. :and advised this this is really a question of Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 11, 1986 what kind of amenities the City wants to provide for the people that live is a project. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff conduct further study with regard to the current standards for 'both resident and visitor parking. Chairman Stout requested that when this is brought back for Commission consideration, the issue; be discussed with regard to the actual building construction between attached units as he had heard a number of complaints from residents with regard to noise attenuation. He suggested that Jerry Grant, the Cit ' s Building Official , explain to the Commission what the standards are ;now and what types of alternatives are available. He additionally requested that Mr. Grant's report relative to sprinkler systems be brought back at the same time. 8: G p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ;MAP 9896 - BIXBY DEVELOPMENT/LEAS N 'I divisiOn-b-f--35--s-c-re—s-o—f-Ta—nd into 13 parses OUR e Industrial PaFk Development District, Subarea 12, located between 4th and 6th Streets and between' Milliken and Pittsburgh Avenues - APR 9- 61- 5N and 59. Related project: DR 86-09. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-09 - LEASCN POMEROY ASSOCIATES :: e eve oiinen o a as er an' or a acre` n us rya Park amd--the first phase consisting of two light industrial buildings totaling 63,474 square feet on 4.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 1 located between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Avenue and between 6th Street and 4th Street - APR' 9- 61- , 59. Related Project:: Parcel Map 9896. Nancy Fong, Associte Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing Phil Cruzy, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He asked for clarification of street improvement conditions. He advised that discussions had taken place with City staff and it was agreed that Bixby Development would provide street lights on the first phase parcels only and that as the other parcels were developed, the street lights could be installed at that time; conduit would be provided' to those sites now and develop the streetscape in front of the Phase I buildings, Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 11, 1986 arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this was the intent of the condition as written: Mr. Cruzy asked that the language be clarified relative to the monument sign. He felt that the condition was ambiguous. Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that the language as now written sounds like four monument signs that are exactly alike on all four corners are required. The intent was that there was to be a gateway on 4th and Milliken and the lesser monument signs were to have a similar type of design to them, but not to have the same intent or purpose. r. Cru y asked for the criteria to be used for the acoustical report and what type of compliance would be required. Ms. Fong advised that staff would supply the applicant with the submittal requirements which detail how the report is to be addressed. She further advised that the General Plan and Industrial Specific plan contain noise standards which 'must be achieved in the development of a project. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the use of the name "Bixby/Rancho Cucamonga Business Park" and advised that it would lead to confusion since the name is "Rancho Cucamonga. Business Park" already exists. Judy McCaslin, representing the applicant, advised that the center would be called "Bixby Business Park - Rancho Cucamonga". There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the site plan works but she was unconfortabl e with the architecture; and design of the project. She felt the building needed more design work and could not approve it as currently presented. Commissioner Barker was concerned with the landscape plan as presented. He agreed that the building needed more work. He suggested that a consistent theme be used throughout. Commissioner Rempel was not concerned with the architecture. He felt that the landscaping surrounding the complex was well done and would add to the overall project Chairman Stout stated that he was not concerned with the master plan or site plan and felt it would work since its in an Industrial Park zone. He was concerned with the architecture. He felt that the project needed fine tuning and was particularly concerned along the area of 4th Street. He suggested that the project go back to the Design Review Committee for modifications, i ;I Planning Commission Minutes - - June 11, 1986 it p Commissioner Rempel suggested that "broom finished concrete" be deleted from the conditions. He advised that almost all sidewalk and pedestrian crossings are broom finished; therefore, this would, not be a special treatment. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chiiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution: approving Parcel Map 9896, with an amendment to delete "broom finished concrete" from the conditions, and clarification of the language with regard to the monument sighs. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER,; CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT OE : COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and. Development Review 86-09 to the Planning Commission meeting of dune 25, 1.986. The project is to be placed on the next available Design Review calendar for further modifications. Chairman Stout advised that the Commission would reopen the public hearing for the following item. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 86-0 - CITY OF Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the following amendments to the condition H: "All model home lots shall be fully landscaped including but not limited to permanent underground irrigation system, specimen size trees, and the use of shrubbery, ground cover and lawn in a combination to provide a pleasing and aesthetic environment compatible with the surrounding established nei ghborhood. The following to be added to the end of condition 4: "At a minimum, the Planning Commission shall determine that the proposed site is developed consistent with the landscaping requirements per the section above modified." Barker advised that 'i n addition to this modification, the language should be as originally written for ;Condition 0. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , to adopt, the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 86-02 to the City Council with above recommended amendments. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes - 9June 11, 1986 AYES. COMMISSIONERS BANKER, PEMP'EL, EHITIEA, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL_ carried NEW BUSINESS H. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86 - HAYES - A consistency determinations between the 66 1 ors or Tht&iffi P611c1es and a proposal to expand the Cub Tavern located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - "APN 07- 71-7 ' Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Don Hayes, applicant, gave an overview of the request. Chairman Stout explained to the applicant the intent of the Foothill Interim Policies Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the driveway and felt it would need to e improved and stated that the items the applicant wished to install would not comply with the Interim Policies. He could not support the request. Commissioner Ehitiea stated that she appreciated when anyone in the Gity wants to improve their property. If the applicant constructs a fence in order to serve alcoholic beverages outside, she felt it should be considered an expansion of the use. She felt that this request could not be considered consistent with the Foothill Interim Policies Motion: Moved by _Ehitiea, ;seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to determine Preliminary Review 86-33 inconsistent with the Foothill Interim Policies. I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 8 -8 - EIEH - A consistency determination between the too 1 o r1 or Interim "T-oTicies and a proposed 10-Bay Auto Service Center totaling 6,400 square feet, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, across from San Bernardino Road - APN 01-101-17. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.. Chairman Stout invited public comment. I r 1 n r California,.der y, E c,., 1�17 Redwood, Ontario, a1 o d, gave an of the request. Planning Commission Minutes _10 June 11, 1986 'I Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that this was too intensive a use adjacent to single family residences. ` She was concerned with the noise generated by the project and stated that she could net support the request, as one which is consistent with the Foothill Interim Policies. Commissioner Barker stated that he had serious concerns with compatibility and would agree that the request is not consistent with the ; Foothill Interim Policies. Commissioner Rempel agreed and was also concerned with the impacts outdoor storage would have on adjacent properties. Chairman Stout stated that this type of use really belongs in a light industrial pare and, suggested that the applicant look into that type of location. He felt the intensity of the use was too great in this location. Motion: Moved by ;.Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to determine Pr l i`ni ary Review 85-8 inconsistent with the Foothill Interim orri dor Pol i ci es: NEW BUSINESS J. BERYL PARK - WEST EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Jim Benedetti , Assistant Park Planner, presented the staff report, ; Commissioner Ramer was concerned that only one entrance was proposed for this park. He stated that there is a major traffic problem at Beryl Park East during the soccer programs, r. Benedetti stated that there are constraints with the site since there is a proposed freeway on ramp to the south. Staff had discussed the situation with the Engineering Division and had agreed on one entrance to the north which would align with Hamilton Street. i Commissioner Barker :asked if the parking for this park was equal to that provided for Beryl Park East, r enedi tti replied that there are 80 existing parking spaces at Beryl Park East and 97 proposed for this park. Commissioner Barker was concerned that Beryl Park East was difficult to get in and out of with BD spaces, he questioned how this would work at this park. He was additionally concerned with the traffic impact on Carnelian Street. He recommended that something be done to mitigate the amount of traffic. He saw some major traffic problems with this particular parking lot and felt that a ecel aration lane should be considered. He stated that he was uncomfortable with this proposal and additional consideration should be given to this design. Planning Commission Minutes - - June °11, 1986 i Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there is no room to have second driveway due to the closeness of the freeway on ramp; however, the suggestion of a deceleration lane might have some merit. He further stated that another factor is that there is no room on Beryl for overflow parking on the street: Commissioner Rempel agreed that the driveway design needed further work. He stated that when the freeway goes in this design will - really become a hazard. He was additionally concerned with the left turns coming out of the park: Mr. Rougeau advised that there would be a lot of delay in the: parking lot when people are attempting to exit. He stated that one advantage to this design is that it does have a long driveway before you get to any parking or internal ei rcul ati on. Commissioner Banker asked if there were any way to split the driveway with some sort of a greenbelt as a divider. Mr. Rougeau stated that Metropolitan Water District has a 100 foot easement in the driveway location, but felt that an agreement could be reached to widen out the drive enough to get two exit lanes for right and left turns. Commissioner Re pel stated that the same safety standards should be required of this project as any other project in the City. He reiterated his concern with the left turn lane. Commissioner Chi ti ea was concerned with the location of the play equipment. She asked if this area was shaded. Mr. Benedetti replied that it was shaded. Brad Buller, City planner, rei tered that taff's direction was to go back and look at some analysis with the driveway regarding stacking and amount of cars that could go in and out of the driveway` safely; the possibility of a decel arati on lane; and, the inclusion of at least two exit lanes, possibly one right turn only. Chairman Stout stated that the issue was the site was given to the City for free because it can't be used for anything else. The Commission' s concern is making the driveway as safe a ; it can possibly be designed. I K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM lane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout requested that staff check the figures listed for items Bfi and B , Base Line and Archibald avenue beautification, respectively. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - dune 11, 1986 r Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Program to the City Council . C OMM I SIGN BUSINESS Commissioner Barker requested that Design Review Committee rotations be placed n the dune 25, I986 Planning Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion. Moved by Rmpl , seconded by Chiia, unanimously carried, t adjourn 10: C p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary i i h i Planning Commission i nut+ s -13- June II, 1986 _ I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 28, 1986 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 a Lens Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. He then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT. David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel ABSENT., Dennis Stout STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer- Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney; Barbara Kral1 , _Assistant Civil Engineer- Debra Meier, Assistant Planner,; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Lisa Ni'ninger, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the first meeting of the Foothill Boulevard Ad Hoc Committee would be held on Tuesday, June 3rd. He advised that this Committee would begin setting the ground work for the Process to ever approximately eleven months to 'completion of the plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion* Moved by Remel , seconded by McNiel , carried, to approve the Minutes of April 23, 1986 as submitted. Vice-Chairman Barker did not attend that meeting, therefore abstained from vote. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW( FOR TENTATIVE';TRACT 11626 - ALTA LO A ESTATES - A review of Bail of 8 Mg e- i y de a-cffe-d-bomes within a custom lot residential subdivision of 82 lots on 86.53 acres in the Very Low Residential District, located on the north side of Almond at Beryl Strut. - APN 1061-411- 3, 1061-451-0, 1061-171-01. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A residential div6l opmen sing ami y o s on 147. 16 acres off land in the Very Low (VL) District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Hillside Flood Channel and north of Hillside Road - APN 201- 1-16. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - GLENFED -' The Design Review of eTevation§_iihd­Plot pan for a rcor e rae o lots on 16. 8 acres in the Low Residential District ( -4 dd ac), located south of 19th Street between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek Flood Channel - APN 20 -211-21. DESIGN REVIEW FOR; AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED - Design review o new elevations rdp acing previous approve eva -ions ' for , 172 single family lots on 34 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4- B dwelling units per acre) located at the end of lgth Street, south o Highland. 0. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 AND 12237-2 - RANGEVIEW - The egn eve of- building e evUon arr P o Pans for 12 lots throughout the two recorded tracts (12237 & 12237-2) in the Very Low Density Residential District, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside. E. TIME EXTENSION TIME FOR PARCEL MAP 5786 - C/L, INC. - A request for ex ens7ono fime or Parcel , oca e a e south side of Base Line Road, east side of Carnelian Avenue - APN 07-031-28. Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ;REVIEW 6- - SAMPSON - The development- d wnnous rya inns o a Ong square feet on 1.01 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located at the northwest corner of Cottage and Acacia Streets - APN 2 g-192-19 20. G. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-05 - CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS - A- reques o aiTow a 5,460 square oo ffiitil canopy a l o o an existing manufacturing building located' at 9133 Center Street H. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE; TRACT L resi en i s ac su v on o acres n o , oa e on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, south of Highland Avenue - APN 02-2 1-13� 38. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 28, 1986 1 RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT` 12991 E N - A o a res ential subdivision an gn eve ew o singlefamiTy lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 5CC feet east of Archibald - APN 201- 52-21, 22. (Continued from May 14, 1986 meeting. ) Vice-Chairman Barker reproved items C and I for discussion. Commissioner Chitiea requested item H be removed for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel unanimously carried, to adopt the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff recommended two additional conditions to the Resolution of approval for this tract.- One condition would require a soils study prior to issuance of building permits and the other would require submittal of accurate plans showing existing, and proposed fences and walls along the western property boundary. J.C. Cstic, ` representing the applicant, concurred with those additions. Motion: Moved by Mac i el , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tentative Tract 12952, with the additional conditions requiring a soils study prior to issuance of building permits and submittal of plans showing existing and proposed fences and walls along the western property boundary: N. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT Commissioner Chitiea asked for clarification that the Resolution included ramps with the sidewalk connections from the street level to the greenbelt areas. Brad Boller, City Planner, advised that this was a condition of approval . Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded ,by Mc Niel , unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13058. 1 RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT Vice-Chairman Barker advised that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter for the applicant of this project requesting that the item be continued to the Planning Commission ion meeting of June 25, 1986, in order to resolve concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 28, 1986 Motion:onMoved by Chi ti oa, seconded by Mc i el , unanimously carried, to Conti nue eonsi derati on of the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 1991 to the dune 25, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0 A - BAR A IAA - A re ues o amen an ap o enera an ro ow Medium Density Residential ( -8 d /a ) to Neighborhood Commercial for acres of land located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda - AP 7 111-1C, 24, 259 and 26. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EII AN A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 86-01 BARMAKIAN iwan a Specific Plan Land Use Map from r5w (Community Service) and "LMr (Lour Medium Density Residential ) to NC; (Neighborhood Commercial ) for 9.4 ages of land located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda - APN 227-111-10, 24, 25,' 6. Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report Vice Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.: Andrew Barmaian, applicant, gave an overview of the project. He additionally stated that he would work with staff to resolve issues and mitigate concerns and felt this project would be one of which the City would be proud. Laurence Williams, 1796 Base Line Road,; Etiwanda, opposed the project. He felt there was no reason to change the designation for that area. Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, stated that he was a member of the Committee who worked on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and gave an overview of the review process relative to commercial; uses at this corner. He advised that all of the residents of Etiwanda would not grant to in ;any way jeopardize the Etiwanda Specific plan. If this proposal jeopardizes the plan, they would oppose it. Mr. Banks Mated that the five Etiwanda residents who serve on the Citizens Advisory Commission had met with Mr. Barma iao to review the shopping center puns and had presented hire with a list of concerns. He explained that these residents were not serving in the capacity of Commissioners, merely Etiwanda residents. , One concern was that possibly` the 5 acre commercial site could not be developed into as nice and economically 'secure center ,as the one Mr. Barmaian proposed on 10 acres. Commissioner McNiel stated that he saw no relationship between the number of acres in a site and the quality of its development. He stated that the Etiwanda residents fought hard and dil igenty with respect to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He stated that this project flies in the fate of everything those residents stood for at that time. Further, this project transed compromise and is a typical commercial development with slightly different Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 28, 1986 architecture. He saw nothing different that would do anything for the Etiwanda Community t other than creat e another er shopping pp g center like every other shopping center. Mr. Banks stated that one thing that crosssed the minds of the residents was that Mr. Barmakian is obviously trying hard to make this rural and all the other things required by the Etiwanda Plan,.' He did not have a definite viewpoint he was trying to get across, merely offer background on the 'issue. Further, that one concern is that while Mr. Harmakian was trying to make this center fit Etiwanda, there is a likelihood that another center could go in not far from this proposed one which might not fit that criteria. There were no further comments, therefore the public hewing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that one concern during the Etiwanda Specific Plan process was traffic which would be generated by a full commercial center. He felt the size of this center would definitely increase traffic in the area. He explained that the community service area was considered to be "mom and pop" type stores; and shops that would service the locality of the low density in Etiwanda. He thought that this plan before the Commission is intended to service a greater area. He further stated that the Planning Commission would not approve a center which wouldn't be in keeping with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and which would not provide a lot more amenities than this proposal now before the Commission. Commissioner McNi l didn't see any advantage in the approval of this project in light of the fact that the City worked long and Bard on the Etiwanda Specific Plan an in his view, this is a complete reversal of what was established at that time. In the long run, if this project is approved, he felt similar projects would be coming before the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that a great deal of time had been spent on developing a plan for the Etiwanda area which took concerns voiced by the residents of Etiwanda into consideration. She strongly opposed the project. Vice-Chairman Harker stated that a tremendous number of hours had been spent on public hearings for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and that something was established. To amend these plans would require that the project would have to be an improvement of the status quo, which this plan is not. He Mated that the issue here is land use and General Plan Amendments` cannot be conditioned on design commitments. He was concerned with traffic impacts and was adamantly opposed to the project. Motion, Moved by McHiel , seconded by Chitiea, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 6-02A to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote; Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 28, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried Motion: Moved by Repel , seconded by McNi el , to recommend denial of Eti wanda Specific Plan Amendment 6®01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, DARKER NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT': COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 191 - LEWIS HOMES _ The o a eve opmen o a rest enti su i vi ion acres f n e Medium Residential District ( -1 du/ac) within the Terra. Vista Planned Community into 80 lots, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista parkway and Church Street - APN 1077-091- 5.', Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. John Melcher,, representing Lewis Horses, concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion Moved by McNi e1 , seconded by Chi ti ea, to issue a Negative 'Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13191. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried La ENVIRONMENTAL, .ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9916 - FIND - A division of .33 acres into 2 parcels in the o _ u a eve opment District, located on the west side of Dakota Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue APN 201-771-35. Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes - - May 28, 1986 Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9916. Motion carried by the following vote, AYES: - COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARER, CHITIEA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried M. ENVIRONiENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 - 1 - MAST - The eve op en o a as er an or a acre 16dustrial—PPR nd the first phase of construction consisting of a 58,00 square foot mini- storage facility with a caretaker' s residence on 2.95 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN 9-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended an amendment to Phase I condition 3 to reflect that the Rochester entrance driveway is to be a minimum 55 feet in width Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson proposed an amendment to Engineering condition 4 to reflect that approval is conditioned on approval of Parcel Map 9998., Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing Bill Snell , representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea commended the applicant on the progress made on the site plan and commented that it had cone a long ways Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi iea, 'to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 5- 1 with amendments to reflect the driveway ;entrance on Rochester Avenue is to be a minimum of 55 feet, and approval of the Conditional Use Permit to b conditioned on the approval of Parcel Map 9998. Motion - carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 28, 1986 M AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP ggg _ MASI - A division of 31. 15 acres into parses or condominium purposes wi hin Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN P g- 11-1 19, 21, 26, 27, 28. Brrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Vice-Chai man Barker opened the public hearing. Bill Snell , representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,. MotionMoved by Chi i ea, seconded by Mc `i el , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment- and Parcel Map 9998. Motion carried; by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried OLD BUSINESS O,, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11549-1 - BLAIR _ Design Review of oatpri n s and-- e eva f ons dr an approve -tract for residential subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low District (less than dwel l i n units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of Eti wanda, south of Summit - APN 5-1 1-20. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chi ti ea recalled that during Design Review Committee, the addition of a bay window to elevation 2332-C was discussed. Mr. Meer replied that he recalled this discussion and suggested that the condition be added to the Resolution} Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 28, 1986 1 Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comments. There were no comments from the public. i Motion- Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to adopt the Resolution ppproing the Design Review for Tentative Tract 11549-1 with an added condition requiring a bay window on the front of Elevation ' -C. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHI'TIEA, REMP L, BARKER, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried P. REVISIONS TO AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA MEADOWS SOUTH A revision o e '. approve rea Devel open an -to reduce thi number of single family lots and increase the acreage of the greenbelt trail system for the Victoria Vineyards South Village, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Milliken and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad - AP 7- OB1-S. Vice-Chairman Barker advised that the Commission was in receipt of a letter from the applicant of this item requesting its removal from the agenda. Motion. Moved by Repel , seconded by McNi el ,` unanimously carried, to remove Revision to Area Development Plan for Victoria Meadows South from the agenda, ' NEW BUSINESS Q. DESIGN REVIEW 8 -10 - MILLER - The development of one office building of 20469 square e an tree industrial buildigns totaling 71,732 square feet within an approved Industrial Center on 18.42 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea S), located at the northwest corner of 9th Street. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report:. Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment. Steve Muller, representing the applicant, presented color samples to the Commission. He referred to Condition two of the Resolution relative to the silos used by Inspiron. He advised that the applicant hoped to be under construction by August of this year, prior to the vacation of the site by the Ispiron Corporation and did not know how this condition could be accomplished. He additionally referred to Condition three and thought that the interior or exterior revisions had already been looked at.. Planning Commission Minutes - - .May 28, 196 F Commissioner Chitiea advised that this last item was discussed at Design Review due to concerns of roof equipment screening and the internal redesign of the facility. Vice-Chairman Barker asked staff to: respond to the applicant's concern with j condition two. M . Meier stated that the concern with the silos is that I nspi ron's lease i up in June and at this time it is unclear as to whether they will be vacating the premises or extending their lease. If Inspiron stays, it was staff' s recommendation that the silos be completely screened. If Inspircn vacates the site, staff recommended the silos be`removed. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant would be required t post bonds and execute an agreement for the removal of the silos. Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Reel , to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review d - . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA REMPEL., BARKER, MCNIELe ROES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried R. DESIGN REVIEW FOR 5009 BRAMBLE -:Proposal to construct a 7,600 ;square foot sing a amf rein enoe on a one-half acre lot in the Very Low District located at the southeast corner of Ringstem Drive and Bramble Court - AP O1-4B4-O . John Meyer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Howard Jones, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Where were no further public comments. Commissioner McNi el explained that the Design Review Committee had referred this project to the full' Planning Commission due to its size and unique architecture. He advised that the project had been reviewed by the Homeowner's' Association of the area in which it is located and had been granted approval . Commissioner Chi`tiea thought the architecture appeared somewhat institutional but felt the home would not create an impact on the community as a whole since it was located within a gated community. Vice-Chairman Barker asked for clarification of staf' s direction. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 28, 1986 I Mr. Meyer explained that the house would still have to meet Code requirements by reducing the peak height 3 1/2 feet. If the Commission determined the architecture acceptable, the applicant should be directed to apply for a Minor Exception. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to approve the architecture with a 3 1/2 foot reduction in peak height and direction to the applicant to proceed with a Minor Exception, Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried S. APPEAL VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM SIGN John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.. Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comments. Glen Gel 1 atl , Bissell Architects, gave an overview of the: project'project's sign Program, He presented slides of sign programs of various centers, ;` Commissioner Chi ti ea disagreed that si gnage consistency throughout the project would be bland and felt that cast aluminium would be elegant. She indicated that Bank of America would not be asked to remove their logo and would still have identification, as would any other major tenant. She felt the consistency could tie the project together and make a statement if done elegantly. Her preference was to use logos for the element of color and difference. Commissioner McNiel commented that the one thing the slides did was to show what signage can do to a nice project as opposed to what it can do for a project. He felt the original sign program should be used. Vice-Chairman Barker asked for direction regarding the food court area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the maximum area of 65 be used the signs for the trellis in the food court area. Motion: Moved by Chiiea, seconded by McNiel , to to approve the use of Optima letter style regardless of the established trademark letter style of the tenant except for corporate logos, aluminum with external illumination,umi nati on , an the signs for the trellis and food court areas to be a maximum GS of the store front/arcade opening. Notion carried by the following vote: i Planning Commission Minutes -lt May 28, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT carried T. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 - APPEAL - GOLDEN WEST - An appeal of a Condition o p5F6VaT re40 H n un ergr6un i ng of- e i sting overhead utilities fronting the project, located at the northeast; corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN 09-171- 0, 36, 449, 50, 51, & 52. Brrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Mr. Hanson read the following condition into the record as an amendment to condition 2 o the conditions of approval : "The existing overhead utilities along Hellman Avenue shall oe placed underground from the first existing pole south of 7th Street to the first existing pole north of the project limits prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement for one-half of the cost of undergroundi ng from future developments as they occur on the opposite side of the street. Vice-Chairman Barber invited public comment. Bruce MacDonald representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He stated that the utility undergrounding placed a financial burden on this applicant and felt that undergrounding in this case had no merit® He proposed the relocation of four power pole lines in conjunction with Hellman Avenue= Street improvements. He felt that the undergrounds ng policy was too harsh financially and appeared to have no "history of consistency at the Planning Commission design approval level There were no further public comments. Commissioner McNi el stated that in his four years on this Commission he had seen it cone a long gray with respect to policy and consistency. He further stated that what is being asked of this applicant is without question no greater than what has been required of any other applicant. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that the Commission has been consistent in the' undergrounding policy* Motion Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNi el to deny Development Review 85- , Golden West. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA MCNIL, BARKER, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 28, 1986 10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed: 0: 10 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT A request I or review of site p ah and-Wilding-arc ure o o s , 37, & 38 in an approved residential subdivision of 15.7 acres in the Low Residential District ( -4 du/ac), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, ;south of Calle ; eran APN 07- 1-1 thru 23 and 0/- 41-1 thru 1 , Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Pete Val beda, 199 South Monte Vista, San Dimas, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the architecture. George Townsend, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the grading issue and presented a model of the lots for the Commission' s review. Commissioner McNiel stated that he was familiar with this piece of property and understood its difficult situation„ This did not appear :to be radical at all compared to some of the homes that exist in that area now. This looks like it could be developed into something quite nice. He suggested the possibility of decks. He concurred with the applicant's use of cross-lot drainage. Commissioner Rempel stated that this is a difficult site and felt the applicant had cone a long dray. He felt the excavations could be moderated to a' degree. Commissioner Chi ti a stated that this is what the Commission was looking for in the culmination of the two policies. She felt this would be an attractive project as well as one which was not detrimental to the topography. Brad Buller City Planner, asked for clarification of usable rear ,yard or side yard space as to whether the Commission desired to keep it at a minimum. Commissioner McNiel did not believe there would be a problem since they would generate enough ground and probably as amenities would put in decks. Vice-Chairman Barker stated he would rather see the deck than the retaining wall as far as lot 37 goes. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 28, 1986 Commissioner Re pel stated that until the house is built, the Commission could not determine what the owner would want to do and felt this should cone in at a later date, Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there was no retaining wall on lot 37 and the hill should slip in the future, would the City have any liability. Commissioner Rempel stated that he didn' t think there would be a problem with the hill slipping. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that he would be very hesitant to recommend individual radi ng of lots and cautioned the applicant that future submittals should be in groups. Motion. moved by McNi e , seconded by Rempel , to adopt_ the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tentative Tract 1005. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES. COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, ;R , CITIEA, BARER DUES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried DIRECTOR' S REPORT V. THE GATEWAY MASTER PLAN (BR 85- 1) - A request from the developer to p g resew e conce ua design-for n or ase II development. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment. _ Tim Beedle, 965 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if a percentage o shared parking was going to be acceptable by policy to the City, the Chamber of Commerce Economic Committee would like to provide input for that decision. As a developer, he commended the applicant for looking into the future. He cautioned the staff to check their statistics on shared parking and check areas that have tried shared parking, Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the City has been cautious in the past. which is why so few parking agreements exist. He asked Mr. Barton if his intent was that the Economic 'Development Committee should be notified when proposal is submitted to the City. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May ' B, 1986 Mr. Barton replied that if there was anything the Chamber Committee could do to help the City, he would like to be notified. ' `here were no further public comments. Vice-Chairman Barker admitted to being paranoid on the issue of shared parking. He stated that Mr. Barton's suggestion was a very good one, and would like staff to provide the Commission with a report on the success and failure of shared parking in other communities. Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood what the applicant was trying to accomplish, out it is a very difficult situation. He stated that he had been in both situations where shared parking worked and where it didn't, and felt it was simply a roll of the dice. r. Beedl e advised that the applicant has entered into 'a 65 year lease with the Morman Church, which prohibits bars from being leased space within the complex. He offered to provide the Commission with a copy of that lease. He further stated that the 20 percent figure was one which the applicant felt would work in this situation. He advised that it is to the benefit of the property owner to make sure the parking works, since he will lose tenants i parking becomes a problem. He offered to work on the numbers with staff and come bock to the= Commission with a report. Commissioner cN`iel stated that some research needs to be done in order for the Commission to see exactly what they are dealing with and how it will work Commissioner Chiia appreciated what the applicant is trying to do and stated it could work, but if it doesn't there could be a very big problem and retrofitting parking is never easy. She was concerned that the parking intensity would overlap with office uses during certain tines of the day and concurred that further research needed to be done. Vice-Chairman Barker° was concerned that the entrance to the atrium and courtyard De designed to prevent a windtunnel; effect and still use glass to allow visual impact.. He asked if there were any other comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated that it should be wide enough to get the view corridor without' looking like a 'hallway. I Vice-Chairman Barker asked for comments regarding the concept of intensifying the office use and providing a parking structure. Commissioner McNiel stated that he appreciated what the applicant was doing and felt they had both possibilities 'covered and thought it was a good idea. Commissioner Rempel stated that the City ;needs to keeps its options open and not make the same mistakes as Orange County, Planning Co mission Minutes -15- May 28, 18 Co issioner Chitiea stated that if the parking study indicates that there is a problem, it might be possible to modify the parking structure to still meet the intent. Brad Buller, City Planner, Mated he understood the Commission to have concern with shared parking, but some willingness to consider whatever facts or studies either the applicant or staff can generate. Vice-Chairman Barker stated that basically, the Commission is not willing to make a decision on this matter without further information. Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time for consideration of the 'following item W. POLICY FOR UNDERGROUND NG OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment. Bruce MacDonald, representing Golden West, asked if this was the first written formal policy adopted by the City. Mr. Hanson replied that utility and rgroundi n was a long-standing policy of the Planning Commission and that this Resolution would -state that policy in written form. Maylan Sampson,: Rancho Cucamonga property owner,; was concerned with this policy. He asked what happens to the money which is collected as in-lied foes. He asked for discussion regarding what happens in the case of alleys. He suggested that a Letter of Intent right be ,used similar to landscape medians. Mr. Sampson additionally asked for clarification of hardship with regard to this policy. Richard Eeurestein, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 100, was concerned with adoption of this policy and felt it was an unfair hardship in certain cases. He suggested a' benefit assessment district so that the entire community bears the cost of undergrounding. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, addressed Mr. Sampson's question regarding in-lieu fees and advised that an agreement would be used in long tear situations. In other cases if there is indication- that the undergroundsng will be near term in that other development will occur nearby, the actual fee payment would be more appropriate. He advised that the fees collected would be placed in an interest bearing account. Vice-Chairman Barker asked for discussion regardingalleys. Planning Commission Minutes -16-; ay 28, 1986 Commissioner Chitiea advised that this topic was discussed at the previous meeting and a consensus was reached that alleys would be included in the undergrounding policy. She further stated that she would like to see undergrounding in every part of the City and realized that it would not happen soon. Further, that an assessment district would have to be established by the City Council . She pointed out that the Planning Commission was setting policy; and the City Council would have to determine hew to implement it. Vice-Chairman Barker asked for a discussion regarding the alternatives provided, i Commissioner Chi ti ea selected Alternative 1, fee to the center of the street. Commissioner Rempel selected Alternative 4, maximum fee length of 20 percent. 1 Commissioner M Ni el stated that Alternative 1 would probably cause the least grief in error of calculation. He agreed ;with Alternative 1. Consensus of the Commission to select Alternative 1 the ioriginal proposal . Mr. Hanson asked for direction regarding the 66 KV undergrounding al ternati ves. The consensus of the Commission was to select alternative 2, to underground all lines. I i The consensus of the Commission was to include alleys, railroad rights-of-way, etc. in the undergrounding policy. Staff was directed to include the above direction in the policy for undergrounding. Motion Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment for di scus i n of the following item: X. HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS Laura Psomas, Landscape Architect, presented the staff report., Scott Shannon of Randolph Hublic and Associates gave an overview of the design features. Commissioner Chitiea stated that at Design Review it was discussed that a flowering deciduous tree right be used which would be different and give very distinct appearance and be a trademark of this particular area. She further stated that the silk floss was tree was suggested. s. Psomas stated that staff would be willing to consider the use of the silk Boss tree. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 28, 1986 Brad Buller, City planner, stated that staff would support to the City Council either the use of the Silk tree or Liquid Amber tree. He suggested that staff further study the two varieties and talk to experts in the area. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the Liquid Amber was a beautiful tree however, she associated it more with Rase' Line`Avenue and the city of Upland. r. Shannon advised that staff was not particularly looking for tree species at this point, but groped to gain the Commission's approval of the overall concept design. Commissioner Barker was concerned that the hardscape be designed so that it would not be a collector of debris. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the 50/50 use of hardscape and landscape. He did ;not feel that the Commission should be worried with saving dollars on' the maintenance costs since the developers in the area would be paying for it through assessments. He felt the median landscaping should at least be equal to what the City requires developers to install in their projects. He advised that the Chamber Economic Development Committee responded to the design concept in a memorandum and that the report did not address the Committee's concern regarding lighting. He suggested that the trees be smaller and easy to see through at the intersections. Further, the deciduous and evergreen trees should be mixed to avoid bare spots in the 1 andseapi ng. He also suggested that some lawn area should; be used in the medians. John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, supported the design concept at presented. He felt the use of alternating tree patterns with the long runs o deciduous trees between intersections and the evergreen trees at the intersections was appropriate and advocated the use of Liquid Amber trees. He was additionally concerned with the width of the maintenance walkway around the median: Brad Buller, City planner, advised that the City Engineer requested 2 1 feet of accessabl a ,area for maintenance. 'Tim Beedle, representing Reiter Development, was also concerned with the ratio of hardscape to landscape. Richard Fuerstein, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked that attention be given to the angle of the berm from the curb. He pointed out that if it were too severe, carts would have a tendency to roll over if forced onto the median. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 28, 1986 4 Commissioner pempel supported the use of some lawn area as opposed to using strictly ground cover. He felt that ground cover and low shrubs would require more maintenance than the use of turf in the median. He liked the Silk Floss tree. He was also concerned with the 2 and foot maintenance pathway and felt it would increase the hardscape area.. Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed that some turf should be provided in the median landscaping and that that wide walkway proposed was excessive. She supported the use of rockseape as opposed to stamped concrete. She preferred the use of parkway lighting with up-lighting particularly at the accent trees. She liked the Silk Floss trees and supported the use of evergreens at the intersections. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would prefer a gradual transition in the median from Ontario to Rancho Cucamonga and did not feel it should be a drastic change. He thought Ontario had done a nice job on their median design. Commissioner peel stated that the lights in the center of the street could have a pleasing visual effect. Laura Psomas stated that while that lighting would be attractive at night, she asked that the Commission consider its appearance during the doer. She pointed out that there would be a predominant visual impact of the poles and any tree placed in the median would be reduced in visual impact with the use of the lighting standards Vice-Chairman Barker asked for discussion regarding the placement of trees. The Commission favored interspersing the trees. Brad huller, City Planner, stated that the variety of spacing and clumping of trees would have some constraints due to the width of the parkway. Staff was directed to incorporate th e items �n the Haven avenue Median Design g, Concept for review at a future Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment for consideration of the following item COMMISSION BUSINESS Y. TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report..: Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986 Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that she was also interested in having the City Attorney explore some method "or enforcing access to trails and asked that this be included in the Plan, Mr. Coleman advised that enforcement was addressed in the Plan. The Commission directed staff to forward a trails implementation plan to the j City Council for consideration as part of the 1986-87 budget process. ADJOUNRMENT Motion: Moved by Pempel, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1 . Planning Commission Adjourned. Re idly sub . d, /B�r ul lrer Cuter Secretary Planning Commission Minutes May 28,, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 1 , 198 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 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL. CALL COMMISSIONERS; PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitie , Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Barrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Engineer; Dino' Putrino, Assistant Planner, Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Stout announced that Barbara Kral l of the Engineering Division had been selected as the May City Employee of the Month.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Remp 1 , seconded by Chit ea, carried, to approve the Minutes of March 26, 198 ' as presented, Consent Calendar A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10 - ASSAD A custom lot su v s on acres o an n t o s oca e n the Verb Low; Deni ty Resi dnnti al Di strict l es than del l i g uni is per acre) a the sou ccarner of Maven and Ili l side _ APt 01 113 S , B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS - located on the north side of asp n oa , re o as venae - 7-131- 9. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11997 - 'NORD IC - Design Review of footprints and eva i dns for an approveid Tentative Tract of a 19 residential lot subdivision on 9.75 acres of land in the Very Low District located at the southeast corner of Hillside and Beryl; - APH 101-61-01. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84- - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - e eve oilmen roe ware Dose s r� on ui I di ngs o a f n 10 square feet on 22.09 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Zone (Subarea 9) located at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and 8th Street -_ AP 9-11:1-08, 09. E. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 171 - STEPHENSON - A custom let su vt t on o s d s on acres of an r e' Very Lew QVL District, located at the northwest corner of Klusman Avenue and Whila ay .Street APN 511-0 -07 F. PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE IN TERRA VISTA C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 991 - SHELBOURNE - A 'total residential-subdivision an ;design review d i ng e family Tots on B. acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, SO feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 01- - 1 . (Continued from April 23, 1986 meeting, ) H. APPROVAL OF BASE LINE ROAD AND 19TH STREET BEAUTIFICATION CONCEPTS Commissioner Barker requested that Items C and E be removed for discussion. Chairman Stout requested that Item O be removed for discussion. Motion: Moved by Rem el , :seconded by Chi'tiea, unanimously carried, to adopt all other items on the Consent Calendar. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11997 - NORDIC Commissioner Barker stated that the streetscape treatment for this tract was discussed at great length by the Design Review Committee, but he did not see a condition addressing the concern in the Resolution. Gary Mitchell , 950 Business Center Drive, representing the applicant, stated that the return walls or fences had been discussed at the Design Review meeting and it was agreed that this item would be brought back to the Committee for review. He concurred with all conditions of the Resolution. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tract 11997 with an added condition requiring the return walls/fences to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes: - - May 1 , 1986 i E. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1171 - STEPHENSON Commissioner Barker was concerned with the equestrian trail easements for this tract and requested that staff prepare a letter informing the applicant that the tract is located within the Equestrian Overlay District which requires the keeping of horses, and that CCR's shall not prohibit the keeping of animals. Motion- Motion; Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving the final time extension for Tentative Tract. 12171, with the taff' s direction as stated above. O. ENVIRONMENTAL: ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 991 - SHELBOURNE Chairman Stout advised that the Commission was in receipt of a' letter from the property owner stating that the above applicant no longer had the authority to process this tract. He asked for counsel ' s direction. Ralph Hansom, Deputy City Attorney, advised that it would be necessary for the Planning Commission to continue consideration of this item until such time a the City Attorne, ' s office clarified the issue. Motion.` Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract` 1991 to the dune 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. I PUBLIC HEARINGS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11 - SCHL _ A 21 custom o suo 1v1s1on on . acres o an In ne ow esi enti District ( -4 du/ac ) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del Pr do - API O$- 1- , 04. (Continued from April 9, 1986 nesting. ) Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker commented that Jerry Nilson, the project' s engineer, was most cooperative and pleasant to work with., Motion: Moved b Barker, seconded b '. y y C ea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114. Motion carried by the following vote. Planning Co mmission issi n o Minutes to s May 14 198 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, RE PEL STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried J. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-14 - VFW - A meeting hall serving 050h5lic a erages n an exis Ong ading with a lease space of 500 square feet on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea ) Category, located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 20i9-031-74. (Continued from April 23, 1985 meeting' Dino Putrind, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Chief Lloyd Almond, Foothill Fire District, stated that it was the Fire District's position that it was not in the hest interest in the life and safety of citizens to allow'-, the VFW to continue its use of the building due to noncompliance of conditions. Susan Wolfe, Foothill Fire District, advised that the Fire District has not received a ;fire alarm plan and the; system has not been installed, despite assurances by the VFW that they intend to comply with the condition as required Chairman Stout stated that at the last hearing the; applicant indicated that they had been supplied with insufficient information relative to the type of plan required by the Fire District. Ms. Wolfe replied that the Fire District mailed a -certified_ letter to Matt Hogue, Commander of VFW Post 8680, on September 5, 1985. A copy of the letter was provided to the Commission for their review. Ms. Wolfe pointed out that this letter contained the fire alarm requirement found in the fire code. Gene Barnes, representing the VFW, .stated that they received the letter from the Fire District, but were not sure what needed to be included in the plan. Further, that the VFW was willing to comply with conditions of approval but needed further information regarding the alarm plan. He indicated that one of the members was an electrician and he had purchased the alarm equipment. Commissioner Rempel stated that any alarm company would be able to draw up the required plans and suggested that the applicant should contact one of them, not simply use an electrician who is unfamiliar with fire code ;requirements. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 14, 1986 Chief Almond, Foothill Fire District, stated that the Fire District had been in contact several times with the VFW and had informed them what the plans must contain in order to meet the conditions of approval . Each time, the VFW had assured the Fire District that they fully intended to provide the plan as required. He further stated that Commissioner Rempel was correct in that any fire alarm company would be able to draw the plans specified, which had been suggested to the applicant. However, the Fire District could not endorse any one company and the Fire District was not in the business of drawing up fire rd system plans. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker did not think the use should be allowed to continue until it meets the Fire District' s conditions of approval . He suggested that a new condition be added to cease operations with a fixed date for compliance of conditions. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with granting a continuance because of the safety factor for people using the building. She could not support a continuance to allow operations and stated that the applicant had been given an opportunity since the last meeting to comply, but they did; not elect to do so. She felt it was necessary for the building to be brought up to Fire District standards before any further use would be allowed; therefore, was in favor of revoking the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Rempel asked if the applicant brought the building by to 'code, could they reapply for a Conditional Use Permit. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the applicant could reapply for a Conditional Use Permit once all conditions have been met, Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to revoke Conditional Use Permit D - 4 L4 VFW Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITICA, RFMPEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMBISSIOENRS MCNIEL carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 36-0 - AJA The eve opmdn o one 1-story c 7co 1; Ing o a Ong , square feet, two I-story Research & Development/Office buildings totaling D,!94O square feet and two I-story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 28,228 square feet on 7.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of; Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401-01 (Related File: DR D - 4S) Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 14, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-45 - AJA - The eve opmen otwo ode buildings totaling square ee and two 1- story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 38,228 'square feet on .09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea h), and the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of ";Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401- 1. (Previously Submitted as Conditional Use Permit -O ) Nancy Fong,; Associate Planner, advised that Item K, Environmental -Assessment and Conditional Use Permit -0 , Aja, was being removed for consideration b the applicant. She then gave :the staff ,report for Environmental Assessment and Development Review 5-4 , Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tom Utman, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He asked that the angles of the southeast corners of buildings C & O be squared off because 'it imposed a hardship with regards to a tenant who warts a',small office. He pointed out that the doors in the rear would have to be changed t facilitate a small industrial or small office tenant. Commissioner Rempel stated that squaring off the angles on the southeast corner of building U did not affect anything. The ones in the middle do affect traffic visibility. He was concerned that cars -would be but in the middle of the "T" intersection before' they could cross. Commissioner Chatiea asked if landscape planters had been added: to the interior service area of building B. Gilbert Aja, applicant, responded that landscape had been added. He responded to Commissioner empel"s concerti regarding the corners between building C & C relative to traffic hazards. He indicated that typically these buildings are done with 90 degree angle corners and with 26 feet of drive with 7 feet of landscaping there would be sufficient space to avoid problems. He did not fuel it would be a problem from a safety point of view. There were no further comments, therefore the public ';hearing was closed* Commissioner Chi ti ea appreciated the applicant's willingness to come to the recently held workshop and bringing revised plans. She felt the project had core a long way from its original design. She thought that the applicant' s proposal to square off the angle of the southeast corner of building D made sense* however, felt Commission Repel had a valid point regarding the interior buildings from a safety standpoint. _ Commissioner Rempel stated there are several traffic hazards .associated with squaring the building ;angles, especially the hazard of a person stepping out the marl door into traffic.: He suggested that di agbnal i ng the buildings off gives a second alternative to bring the man door out on the angle. He proposed that those two corners be angled cuff. Planning Commission Minutes - - May 14, 1986 Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-45, with the elimination of Planning Division Condition 7 requiring the flairing out of landscaping of building D and the requirement for diagonal cutoffs on the two buildings at the driveway. Motion carried iby the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried 8:00 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:10 - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission: L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13059 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY tract subdivision of -15:9- a-cres with Planned Community (Low Medium Residential - 4-8 dwelling units per acre) into 137 lots located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad and east of Deer Creek Channel - AN 202-211-13, 38. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13057 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A reSidential ---tract --su-5-M-0-s-Ton of_2Z_"55___acr,es withi"n , the Victwr­ia Planned Community (Low-Medium Residential - 4-8 dwelling units per acre) into 147 lots, located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and the Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-211-13, 38. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13058 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - K-- rds—id(intial---trict-s--u-WiVii1on o acres Othin--th-e Victoria Planned Community (Medium Residential - 4-14 dwelling units per acre) into 201 lots, located on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, south of Highland Avenue - APN 202-211-13, 38. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13060 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY N- r-e-"iential tra-ct sun djM Planned Community (low Residential , 2-4 dwelling units per acre) into 86 lots, located at the northwest corner of Mil lilken and the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 202-211-13, 38. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner reviewed the staff reports. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 14, 1986 Chairman Stout road a memorandum from City Council member Richard Dahl to the Commission, in which he expressed a concern with minimum lot sizes and the amenities provided for this project. He ten opened the public hearing. Jim Bailey, William Lyon Company, responded in part to Counci1member Dahl ' s memorandum by stating that the requirement for a Homeowners' Association and the related dues would eliminate a lot of people who could otherwise afford to buy a new home. Mr. Bailey outlined the changes to the proposed site plans. He expressed concerned with the condition' of approval requiring an agreement with Southern pacific Railroad for slope planting and maintenance within their easement prier to recordation of the reap. He stated that the agreement 'might take some time in obtaining, and requested that it be obtained on behalf of the City and that the applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of the slope planting and irrigation system until the agreement was obtained. Mr. Bailey also requested a modification to Planning Division Condition 1 on all tracts to require the greenbelt trail areas as well ' as Groves park improvements to be completed prior to the occupancy of the first unit within the tract, as opposed to the recordation as required in Resolution. Dan Coleman Senior planner, advised that it was staff's understanding that the William Lyon Company intends to sell these four tracts once grading has been accomplished and the street improvements installed. He asked how the City would require the William Lyon Company to install the; greenbelt improvements as a condition of these maps when the maps may be acquired by another developer. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the condition would follow the map and would be the requirement of whoever owns the snap. Mr. Dailey assured that the improvements would be done. He further indicated that he would be posting bonds for these improvements and if they were not done, the bonds could be called. Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the homes would be single or two story. Mr. Bailey stated that.. the homes would be both one and two story. Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there would be a wall . M . Bailey responded that it would be an open wrought iron wall . Chairman Stout asked Mr. Bailey if he would consent .to a continuance of these items until Councilman Dahl brings his request before the City Council . Mr. Bailey did not consent to the continuance. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 14, 198 Commissioner Barker stated that if access can still be allowed 'to passeos and greenbelts, favorable consi derati on should be given to that design modification. He questioned the arguement that streets coming down into cul- de-sacs opens that as a neighborhood view or to the view of the total project. He felt that the back-on lots should be given some consideration if it opens up the view to the community as a whole. Commissioner Rempel agreed and further stated that the only 'view a cul-de-sac opens up is for cars driving through the project. He considered the modification to back houses on the lot gave a lot more people the benefit of looking into the park and thought it was a good idea. He liked the concept and the fact that paths lead down to passeo and through park and school area. Chairman Stout explained that side on cul-de-sacs were not necessarily for views from the interior, but designed to open up neighborhoods to relieve them of large walls. In this instance the concept as presented would be for the neighborhood to look out and this is not what was envisioned at the time the policy was created. He would have been more in favor of the side-on cul-de- sac situation if the passeo was at grade since it would be more inviting to go into, but at 20 feet below grade it couldn't be seen anyway. For that reason he thought there was some advantage to perserving the view on those lots and as long as there is access to the passeos, he concurred with this change. He added he would not like to see this made into a general rule because of this special situation. He felt to tie phasing of the project to occupancy seemed appropriate. He recalled that there are some grading problems with respect to Highland which were discussed during Design Review and indicated that condition 11, which referred to a grade differential of no greater than 12 feet, should not apply to the slope from Highland down to the first tier of lots adjacent to Highland. He asked if the Commission was in favor of waiting until after Council makes a decision as to Councilman Dahl 's request, or proceed with these tracts. He advised that in order to not approve these tracts after these problems have been worked out, the Commission would have to find that they are not in conformance with Victoria Specific Plan and did not think they could make those findings, because they basically are in conformance. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the grading on Highland. Regarding side-ons and passeos, she stated the entrances as shown could be very interesting and inviting to pedestrians, provided wrought iron open type fencing is put in and would be willing to approve this modification. She was concerned that ramps be provided so that strollers and wheel chairs would have access. Commissioner Barker asked the width of the proposed access, Mr. Bailey indicated that the width would be a minimum 30 feet. Mr. Barker asked how much of that would be open view. Mr. Bailey replied that it would clear that the greenbelt is there. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 14, 1986 Commissioner Rempel suggested that the trees Grp near street snould be held back and that the possibility of some type<of monument should be explored. Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested the use of texturi zed or possi bi bl y colored textured concrete to draw attention* Mr. Bailey stated that he: had ' no problem with textured concrete, however, color begins to fade and look bad after a while and'would not like 'to have to use colored concrete Commissioner Chi i ea suggested that the applicant come up with something appropriate to the satisfaction of the City Planner. She also agreed with Chairman Stout' s remarks with respect to continuance" of this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. She fe'l t that i t now meets the i ntent of the Victoria Plan and did not feel it appropriate to hold up processing of these tracts Motion,- Moved by Rempel , seconded by.Chi tiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 1059 with an amendment to require the greebelt trail areas and Groves Park improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within the tract, slope improvements; prior to occupancy of the first unit, maintenance of slope planting and irrigation systems by the applicant until a signed license/agreement is obtained from Southern Pacific Railroad on behalf of the City. Motion carried by the following vote AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT ROES. COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL -carried Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Rempel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13057 with an amendment to require the greebel t trail areas and Groves Park improvements- to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within the tract, and a modification to Planning Division condition 11 to exclude the slope from Highland down to the first tier of lots adjacent to Highland. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CBITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT COMMISSIONERS:TOESOE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: tIEL -carried Planning Co ission MinuteslO� May , 1986 Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 135 to the June 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. A Resolution is to be prepared consistent with ;the above modification, with the inclusion of a; condition relative to wrought iron fencing. Motion: Moved b artier, seconded b h3 _ Rem el to i �' � y p � seas a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessme nt and Tentative Tract 13060 with an amendment to require the greebel t trail areas and Groves' Park improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within the tract, ; slope improvements prior to occupancy of the first unit, maintenance of slope planting and irrigation systems by the applicant until a signed license/agreement is obtained from-Southern Pacific Railroad on behalf of the City. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, PEMPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Commissioner barker commented that he had a rather strong personal feelings about the sizes of lots. The Planning Commission is given specific guidelines within which it works and the action taken by the Commission tonight were taken because they do meet the criteria established by the rules, regulations and laws of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 (REVISED) - LEWIS HOMES I'lle o a eve opmen o a resi en i s subdivision of 16.6 acres-in-the Low Medium Residential District -D dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community into 103 lots, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, east. of Spruce Avenue - APN 1077-091-03. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the elevations had been modified to differentiate them from the other tract. ". Mr. Cook replied that the elevations were the same and had not been modified. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John M lcher, Lewis Homes, concurred with the conditions of approval and gave: an overview ;of the revision. He addressed Commissioner Chi ti ea's question b ' stating that a Chemed architecture would be used in Tract 12802 and there would be two or three variations to each floor plan but they would all be Tudor. He explained that some architectural changes would be made ' from project to project. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Chairman Stout asked: if the applicant would agree to a continuance per Councilman Dahl `s request. Mr. Mel cher-replied that he would not. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative declaration and adopt the Resolution approving the revision to Tentative Tract. 12802. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, RE PEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCN EL -carried; Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12835 (REVISED ) - OVERSEAS - amp y resi en a eve omen cor-prising condominium uni s bn 9.52 acres of land in the Medium 'Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located east of Vineyard, 600 feet north of Arrows Highway APN 208-251-05. In addition, applicant has requested a Tree Removal permit to remove the northerly windrow. Beard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the City has a pot i y regarding garage requirements on condominium; projects. Brad Buller replied that the City Council had directed staff to look at the issue of whether ;there should be requirements for garages as opposed to open carports. He advised that staff would be bringing a proposed ordinance before the Commission in the hear future Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Paul Nstberg, repesenting the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . He asked for clarification of the wall requirement along Vineyard Avenue. Oar Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that Condition 6 of the Resolution stated that bermi ng, noise attenuation walls, and dense landscaping could be used which would be subject to the City Planner's review and approval . Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there would be any variation in the grim or any other aspect of the project with regard to the color palette. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 14, 1986 Mr. We tberg replied that there would not be any color variation. Chairman Stout stated that in some of the larger projects the Commission had not required different color palettes but some subtle shade changes so that all of the buildings did not have the appearance of being the same color. He asked if this would be acceptable. Mr. Westberg replied that he would be agreeable to this color variation. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would be agreeable to increase the carport wooden fascia from 8 inches to 12. Mr. Westberg replied that he would agree, Ed Peterson, representing the applicant, addresssed the issue o undergrounding utilities. He pointed out that this is the last project along this area of Vineyard Avenue to be developed and that all other projects had been developed prior to this policy and. had not been conditioned to ;place utilities underground. e requested .the cond�t gion b e deleted to be;consistent with the developments along that p g streetm if under grounding was to be required b h g g y the Commission, he requested that at only the telecommunication cables be placed underground since they are the main source of visual pollution. He additionally requested deletion of the decel arati ors lane requirement on the east side of Vineyard Avenue. John Holt, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that a residential area at this oil location might be subject to noise from the airport and suggested the Commission take this into consideration. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she had re re ed the last time the Commission made a decision ` to al l owr only the unergroundi ng of 12 kv lines. She preferred to see everything under 66 kv be placed underground. She asked for staff¢s input relative to the decel arti on lane. Paul hdugeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that it appeared from the Edison Company that the only way to accommodate the lines on the;pole which currently' is within the area for the pocket lane, would be to add another pole along Vineyard. With this under consideration, he felt that it might be best to eliminate the deoleration lane; however, this should be subject to further study by a traffic engineer and be to the approval City Engineer. Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed with increase on the carport fascia and the color variation. Commissioner Rempel suggested that all tel ecommunication lines be undergrounded, all 12 kv lines could remain until there is a :reasonable section to underground but that all conduit and requirements of Southern California Edison Company shall be installed to receive the 12 kv lines. He Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 14, 1986 advised that this puts the undergrounding there, but the lines wouldn't actually be dropped until such time as a reasonable amount of section could be done. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff would not know what size conduit to require and that the Edison Company had advised staff that they did not want to provide information relative to undergroundi rig until it was ready to take pl ace. He felt there might be some problem obtaining the size of the conduit." Commissioner Rempel suggested that a Southern California Edison representative speak to this issue before the Commission. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adapt the Resolution approving the revision to Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 15, with the right turn pocket in Vineyard Avenue to be referred to the City Engineer. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIE , BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS': NONE ABSENT:' COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 791 - HAHN TENANT INTERIORS, INC. o acres bf_land into 3' 5PEOS foroond-offiniumpurposes within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side of ' th Street, nest of Vineyard Avenue - APN 07- 71-5 , 54 and 55. Barbara Kral l , Assistant 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 Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7912. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL, ENITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS; MCNEL carried Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 14, 1986 1 OLD BUSINESS S. TERRA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #1 - Review of revised elevations Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. John Mel Cher, representing Lewis Homes, gave an overview of the project. It was the consensus of the Commission to forward comments to the School District that, while 'they 'realized this was merely a courtesy review, they found the design unacceptable and not to the design standards of Terra Vista. Commissioner Barker stated :that since this is an issue that will come before' the Commission again, he would lie more information on the State" s design criteria and standards; for temporary classroom structures. NEW BUSINESS; T. APPEAL CE A CONDITION CE APPROVAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-05 request o a ow , square-foot me a canopy ion E6 an existing 'manufacturing building located at 91 Center Street I Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Larry Boyd, representing the applicant, requested deletion of staff" s condition requiring a 4-foot high screen wall along the 7th Street frontage.; He advised that oleanders, chain link fencing and irrigation had been installed approximately nine months ago and felt this type of screening would be more appropriate since graffiti is a problem in that area. He pointed out that the Industrial Specific: Plan allows oleanders for screening purposes`. There were no further comments. Commi ssi over Rmpel felt this request was reasonable given the uses surrounding the site. Motion: ,Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel , =unanimously carried,; to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the May 28th Planning Commission Consent Calendar.; Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 14, 196 i U. PRELIMINARY REVIEW - - A consistency determination between a _FCothill Cor-r-1-dar InEirim Policies and` a commercial office building located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Turner Avenue APN 08- -30. Dino Pdtrinp, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Sonny Cascarenas ;gave an overview of the project. Commissioner Barker felt that the project was consistent with the the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and should' continue processing. He felt that some changes might occur through the Design Review process; however, they were of a minor nature. Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that with a little massaging at the Design Review level , the project would be an asset to the area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the project was consistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and should continue processing. # ak ak DIRECTOR'S REPORTS V. POLICY FOR UNDEROROUNDI C OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES Darrye Hanson, Senior Civil' Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Shut asked that staff clarify the issue of reimbursement for developed versus undeveloped property when this item comes back before the; Commission. Staff presented three alternates regarding the underrounding of lines of less that 66 kv and asked for the Commission's choice. It was the consensus of the Commission that Alternate 2 was the most appropriate which required all lines to be undergrounded or in-lieu fees paid' except for 66 kv or larger electrical lines. Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the requirement for undergrounding of corner properties, particularly in majors intersections such as Carnelian, Haven, Base Line and Foothill . He felt that this would be to the benefit of the entire City and would be inappropriate to require a developer to bear the cost alone. Mr. Hanson stated that the Commission would have the latitude to consider special cases such as this. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 14, 1986 Chairman Stout suggested that some of the Public Utilities fund may have to be set aside for these special instances. He suggested that staff include language to allow an applicant to apply for something similar to a variance whereby they could demonstrate hardship. Staff asked for the Commission on the appropriateness of requiring undergrounding in areas other than street frontages, such as alleys, railroad rights-of-way, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission that these areas be included in the undergrounding requirement. Chairman Stout asked staff to research what control the City has and what authority the Utility Companies have to put up poles and wires anywhere they want to. With this direction given, staff was to prepare further amendments to the utility undergrounding policy. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue discussion of the Policy for Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities to the May 28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adjourn. 11: 15 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Res ally sub d, Bra 11 r D IDutv � ecr,.tary )eputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 14, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 23, 198 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :UC p.m. The meeting ;was held at Liens Park. Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel , Herman Rerpel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT. Brad BBl1er City Planner; Oars Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Ralph Hansen, Assistant City Engineer; Barre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Cave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; John. Meyer, Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced tentative schedule had been established for the May 1 th field tour. He advised that this schedule would be available soon to the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rempel requested a modification to paragraph O, page 13, of the February 12, 1986 Minutes to reflect that there are various drainage methods which could be used. Motion: Moved by Rempl , seconded by Mc Niel , carried, to approve the February 1 , 1986 Minutes as amended. I I CONSENT CALENDAR A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 9649 - LANDCO A custom lot residential su iv1sion on 22.4 acres o h va ote on the southwest corner of Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Lbw (VL) District) - APN 01-17 - 14, 17 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW; 84- - DAVIS (DALE) The eve opmen of a square- foot medical- ui ing on 1.07 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea E), located on the northwest corner of Raven Avenue and Trademark Strut - APN 01- B1-01. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to adept the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL C IT EA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1114 SCHULT - A custom lot subdivision on 5.5 acres o an in the Low Resi dentis istri t ( -4 du7ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del P'rado - AFN 08-91-0 , 04. (Continued from April g, 198 meeting. ) Chairman Stout asked if the representative for this item was present. The representative was net in the audience at this time- therefore, the item was delayed until later in the agenda. C. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT %84-14 - VFW - A meeting hall serving al co o fc overages in an elstng a Ong w h a lease space of 5000 square feet. on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea S Category, iodated at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 09-01- 4. Dino Pbtrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gene Barnes, representing VFW, stated they have tried many; times to comply with the regulations ,based on verbal information. Mr. Barnes indicated that he had not received written information regarding regulations from the Fire District. He presented plans 'which were submitted to the Fire District two Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986 years ago and =stated that smoke and fire alarms and ' exit lights had been installed, as well as crash bars on the doors. He stated that he had been unable to 'make 'contact with the Fire District to determine what is required and advised that the VFW would be willing, to do whatever is necessary once the requirements are determined. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea asked if staff had received written notice from the Fire District as to what is required. Mr. Potri no replied that a copy of the letter from the Fire District to the applicant was received by staff. One of the requirements is to present a plan. He indicated that Mr. Barnes' plan may not have been an electrical plan showing the wiring system for the fire alarm which is actually what was requested by the Fire District. He advised that this letter was dated approximately a month agog Chairman Stout suggested that the Fire District be invited to present testimony with respect to their contacts'with the VFW since there seers to be some factual disputes between the two which geed to be settled. He further suggested that the item be continued two weeks and asked. the Fire District to provide a case file including all correspondence... Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea unanimously carried, t continue the public hearing for the Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 84- to the May 14, 1986 meeting E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12902 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A po^opose re en a u v�lion o o s an one rema n erg parse ' on 39.7 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Avenue - APN 201-071-5, 6, 25, 26, 35, and 36. In addition, applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove select portions of trees. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. hi man Stout opened the public hearing Richard Scott, Woodland Pacific, gave an overview of the project. He asked for clarification of Standard Condition d- a) regarding surety and the posting and execution of an agreement guaranteeing completion of all do-site drainage facilites to the satisfaction of the Building ;Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits; He suggested this be done prior to issuance of grading permits for each individual lot rather than prior to recordation of the Wrap and be included in the CC ,'s or some type of delineation on the final maps Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986 garr,ye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that; these were conditions of the Building Official in the Building and Safety Division, therefore, he would not have the authority to agree to an amendment to the condition. r. Scott asked, if this tract were approved by the Commission tonight, would it be agreeable to add a notation to alloy this to be worked out with staff. r. Hanson replied that the condition was made to the satisfication of the Building Official , which would grant some latitude. r. Scott asked for clarification of building setback line relative to the offer of dedication for drainage purposes. r. Manson-replied that this would be a 50 foot setback line from the edge of the 100 year water surface. He further explained that it would be an offer of dedication for the total 50 feet on either side of the rater surface area. Mr. Scott asked if this would be to the edge of the creek? 9r. Hanson indicated that this was correct. j Frank Williams, Associated Engineer, suggested that it might be better to word that dedication be within limits of the 100 year flow rather than saying building setback lines since there may not be any building setback lines on this side of the creek. He indicated that the problem with the condition as stated is that it may be in conflict on a couple of lots where the 50 foot setback cannot be obtained and alternate methods may have to be used. r. Hanson replied that he would like to establish one on the west side as well as the east side since staff doesn't know if structures could possibly be constructed there. He indicated that staff would like to make sure that those structures are not within 50 feet of the setback line. r. Scott addressed the Grading Committee's recommendation that grading of any additional equestrian trail required by the Commission be reviewed by the Committee prior to action on the map. His understanding was that this recommendation would be attached as a condition of approval on the tract that would be resubmitted while doing balance of processing. Mr. Hanson stated that he understood the recommendation to require the review of the type of grading dune on that trail which would be taken care of prior to recordation* r. Scott was concerned that the staff report stated that if an addition trail was required he would have to go back to the Grading Committee and submit plans prior to tentative map approval . He indicated that this was not his understanding when talking to Grading staff and his understanding was that review could be done following approval of the tentative map' and while doing everything else. Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986 Brad Buller, City planner,, advised that if the trail is to be moved, staff would recommend that the Commission not take action on this tentative map until staff has a chance to look at the final plans including grading and make a recommendation. r. Scott brought up the issue that trails would, be a liability to the City if trails bi-sected lots. He protested the undergrounding of utilities on the oast side of Hermosa. Pars Henry, representing the Trails Advisory Committee, addressed the trail issue. Ms. Henry advised that the Committee had tried to give this developer s much consideration as possible and determined that it was reasonable to delete the trail along Hermosa as a community trail and leave the trail along the channel': and the creek: She` advis.ed that this is a unique trail in that it is one of the few aesthetic trails in the community. She explained that the reason the trail was placed in this location is because of geographic problems. The committee addressed the grading issue and suggested that the trail be loft as close to natural Mate as possible following the creek and recommended as 'few trees as possible be removed to permit safe passage and that grading be kept to a minimum if not eliminated all together to keep the natural terrain in tact. ' She emphasized the importance of the trail as a connection to the Almond -trail' to the north and the continuation on down to the Alta toga. Channel to the Alta Loma Basin. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, advised the the applicant would like to keep the trail in as natural state as possible and not do extensive grading and drainage controls; however, the City has adopted community trails standards which require stringent design, He stated that if this recommendation was adopted, the applicant would need relief from that requirement. `here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. ommissioner Chitiea stated that the Eucalyptus grove in this location is ;a very unique and special feature of the City which should be available to the entire Community. She advised that should the trail be moved to Hermosa, it will be lost to the residents of this City as a whole and she could 'see no reason to do that. She further stated that the alignment of the trail on the east side was discussed a year ago and it was agreed that this would not be the community trail . She advised that the trail mentioned further to the west is unaccessible and is a jog on the Almond trail which goes north/south because of the terrain. She did not want to see this tract developed in any other way than wi th the trail along the 'creek' bed. She stated the utilities should be underrounded. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the ;utilities should be underrounded. Be was not particularly concerned with the trails, but supported. Commissioner Chitiea s recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 23, 1986 Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the maintenance of trails and stated that there may be some real problems eventually for the City. He advised that a considerable amount of muter care down that channel in lgog and the trail is going to be very costly to maintain. He stated that the utilities should be underrounded. Chairman Stout stated that the trail is essential along the creek bed and the standards _should be modified 'in this case. He agreed that the utilities should be underrounded. Commissioner Chi ti a advised that the Trails Committee did not meant the trail constructed under community trails standards, this mould be a special situation and treated as such. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that if the Commission's direction is to recommend approval of the community tram along the creek bed but not to the current standards, he felt they could be worked out with the Trails Committee. Commissioner Chtiea' agreed that this should go back to the Trails Committee. Chairman Stout asked if staff was satisfied with the engineering for the channel as far as flood control . Mr. Hanson replied that staff will look at it closer in final the design phase, but was fairly satisfied at this point.. Commissioner Re pel asked if staff knew the location of the minimum SC foot setback from the 100 year flood plan. r. Hanson replied that it was a best scientific guess. Commissioner Hempel stated that he really didn't like guesses and was net comfortable with SC feet back from a guess line. Motion: Gloved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12902, with the requirement to underground the existing overhead electric lines less than 66 kv' and the telecommunication lines on Hermosa, and language added to Planning Division condition S to require design of the community trial along the creek bed to be such that it preserves natural terrain as much as possible, subject to approval by the Equestrian Advisory Committee prior to recordation and inclusion of Building Division conditions requiring drainage easements to be shown on the final map, and the requirement of either removal or bonding of the removal of the reservoir. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITICA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. BARKER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 23, 1986 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - CHURCH OF THE NACARENE - Construction of use or ur t aaene consa s a ng sanctuary, bible study, office, and vicar apartment on 2.04 acres of land in the Medium Residential District -14 du/ac) located on the north side of Arrow, OO west of Fir Drive - APN 08-8 1-01 . Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman .Stout stated that there was some discussion regarding' a block wall a the time of the review of the first phase.. r. Fields replied that the applicant originally proposed installation of a block wall on the west property line but per s taf f's request the block wall was waived because it was deemed obstructive to any future reciprocal access. He advised that taff's intent was to have a snared driveway on the southwest corner of site with adjacent property. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Howard Baumgarten, 332 Stanford Drive, Claremont, representing the applicant, responded to questions by the Commisison. Chairman Stout asked if the church had changed its position on the block wall . Mr. Baumgarten replied that for financial reasons, the church would prefer that it remain in its present condition. He stated that the parcel originally was considered for an office professional use, therefore, Engineering staff had suggested a shared driveway approach. Chairman Stout asked if the church would be opposed to the shared access at some time in the future. r. Baumgarten replied that future treatment of the boundary would depend on the development to the west and what is developed there, and that the church was not in opposition to the shared access concept. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit' 85-8 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried.. Planning Commission Minutes -7 April 23, 1986 i 8:05 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessesd G 20 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT -01 - CITY OF -RANCH -CUMORGA - Proposal -to a—mi—nd Section - a pertaining to gra ing o custom lot subdivisions, Section 17.08.040- pertaining to usable ;Yard area, and Section 17.02.140 pertaining to definitions of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance No. 211. Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Buller advised that the language in the Ordinance pertaining to usable ;Yard area should b replaced with that which was specified in the staff report. Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested the following amendment to Section 17.02. 10: Subdivision', Tract: A subdivision which creates five or more parcels to be deveTo-ped as a whole or in part by an owner or builder. A tract subdivision for the development of four or more residential dwelling units shall b required to apply for development/design review as a total development. Such application hl be required as a condition of tentative tract approval . Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Development Code Amendment 85-01 as amended. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CTIEA MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS-. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried NEW BUSINESS H. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT I15 g-1 - BLAIR - Design Review of ootpri n s and 6uilding___eTeiva­tVoRs for -a--re-c-orde—d--tract of a 'residential subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low Residential District (Less than 2 du/ac) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of Etiwanda; south of Summit - APN 225-181-20. Punning Commission Minutes -8- April 2 , 1986 John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that there were several suggestions about the site plan at the Design Review Committee level and asked if there were any modifications as a result of that meeting. Mr. Meyer replied that the applicant has met all the recommendations as far as the site plan. The only remaining issues are the architectural concerns. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steve Falk, representing Blair Homes, referred to a letter written to Lewis Homes which stated that their submittal had been approved and designed in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. One of the concerns at the Design Review Committee meeting was that no other project had been approved before the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which he felt were not valid based upon this letter. Another concern was that elevations should be carried around to all four corners of the houses, yet the approval of Lewis Homes in 1984 did that very thing except on corner lots. He advised that the floor plans had been upgraded from the Lewis submittal by increasing the square footage and this proposal was a higher end product with a variety of architectural treatments which comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He referred to the detached garages suggested in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and stated that he had spoken to a representative of the Sheriff's Department who indicated that there was a concern about the safety factor of detached garages. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan calls for Victorian, California Bungelow and California Ranch types of architecture and asked the architect to characterize his submittals. Mr. Falk advised that both Victorian and California Ranch styles of architecture were used in this project. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, clarified that the Lewis project referred to by the applicant was processed concurrently with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This is the first time that the Commission would be approving an architectural product for single family homes within Etiwanda. He advised that the letter was written at the request of Lewis Homes and that Lewis specifically wanted to know if they were consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Chairman Stout recalled that prior approved tracts were not reviewed for their complete compliance with the Plan, but if they were in substantial compliance to the point where it would be unfair to deny them since they had been submitted earlier. Commissioner Rempel stated that this project originally was a custom lot subdivision, not a development; the development of units came much later. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 23, 1986 Chairman Stout advised that he was on the Design Review Committee when this project was reviewed and the reason it was being presented to the +entire Commission is that this type of architecture will set the standard for everything that happens in Ctiwanda ' Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the reasons for bringing the project before the Commission was two-fold: to look at this project specifically and to look at the architectural language within the Ctiwanda Specific Plan, He advised that staff is looking for guidance from the Commission in regard to the Commission's interpretation of the architectural poli i s and guidelines specified in the Ctiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that these designs were not that unattractive but they did not meet the special %needs of Etiwanda. She felt the designs were too comtem orary and did not seem innovative or traditional . She suggested that they needed more work, possibly at a workshop level . Commissioner Mc Niel stated that they were nice houses but with respect to tiwanda, the time and style of design should be established now while the opportunity exists. Commissioner P,erpel wondered what we are looking for in ' tiwanda. He advised that if the intent was to build a 1900 era street, we are going to fail because it can't be built and sold at a reasonable price to fit the community. he pointed out that three of the elevations presented are more Victorian than h of the houses in Etiwanda right now; the other two may need little work. He stated that there would be a lot of problems with copying strictly Victorian look. He felt the Commission should look at what is feasible as well as what we perceive for the picture of Ctiwanda. Chairman Stout Mated that there are stylistic ways of building a Victorian style house which would be more in keeping with what the City had in mind for ti wanda. He agreed that there are no good examples that exist i n Ctiwanda now, but the issue was not emulating but creating a certain type of atmosphere which would eventually be the style of the community. He further stated that the question with respect to this project is if there is sufficient detailing to set it apart to say this is the Etiwanda area; it is a matter of detailing, riot 'conceptual change. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the designs could be altered to give them the character the City is looking for. Planning Commission Minutes _10 April 23, 1986 Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to discuss what constitutes California bung low and what the City is looking for in teens of Victorian. She stated there is nothing wrong with some the elevations presented except they lack a strong statement. She wanted to determine the concept of how ti wanda is going to develop in terms of; design and style, and felt it should he addressed now in a workshop. Commissioner Rempel stated that he couldn't see designing all the houses i E iwanda in a workshop; each tract should be looked at as it is submitted. Further, he did not think 'a standard could be set with PC houses. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the need for a workshop to cone to a general consensus of opinion r. Buller;advised that a workshop has been scheduled for May 8, at which time staff could put together some ;`additional information that might help clarify these categories. Chairman Stout suggested that the Commission be provided with illustrations of examples. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , carried, to resubmit the protect back to the Design Review Committee for action and recommendation back to the furl Planning Commission. Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium due to possible conflict of interest. ,, I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-05 - BARTON - The eve opment of a 1K,000- square foot restaurant on 12.68 acres o and in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ), located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN 0 - 55. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff' report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, gave an overview of the project. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant was able to raise the pad when the grading plan was conceptually finalized. Mr. Barton replied that the restaurant 'pad had been raised one and one-half feet, and would be bermed 'too shield cars from Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Stout asked how much of the building height would be seen fron Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986 Steve Crowe, architect, replied that the building would extend approximately 0 feet above the berming.; There were no furthers comments. Commissioner Chi ti ea Mated it would be nice to have a restaurant at this location Chairman Stout agreed and staged it was a good idea to move the restaurant back a little from the intersection due to the considerable amount o landscaping on Spruce and Foothill . He liked the change and thought it appropriate. Motion: d 1 seconded b a Negative Declaration Move b cN�e sewn e Ch�t�ea to issue Ne a 1 and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-05. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHIT EA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL -carried Commissioner Repel returned to the podium. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 5 ANDERSON - The development of 3 i ndustria u ing-s-- total ing 61, s4vare et on 4.47 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 5) located on the north side of 6th Street, 300 feet west of Turner Avenue'- AP 0g- 11-40. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. She recommended a minor change to the Engineering Division conditions of approval to require the undergroundi ng of 12 kv lines in addition to the existing 'telecommunication lines on the north side of 6th Street Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was a condition relative to meandering sidewalks. Ms. Fong replied that meandering sidewalks were required in the Standard Conditions Chairman Stout invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986 Richard Avent, representing the applicant, gave an overview of project. He addressed the issue of the banding and questioned if this was essential given that the building is concealed to the west by existing property and potentially concealed to the east by proposed development. He was concerned with the expense and questioned the aesthetic value of undergroundi ng two of the lines on the existing poles since the poles and 66 kv lines would remain. He was also concerned with disturbing the existing landscaping and irrigation and advised that the project contained an underground vaulted fire system. He additionally objected to the requirement of meandering sidewalks and advised that it would necessitate the removal of existing landscaping and would not connect to any existing or proposed structures. He asked for clarification of the requirement of the reciprocal agreement for the driveway and asked how far and to ghat extent. r. Hanson replied that it would be to the normal building setback line; one drive aisle. There were no further comments. Commissioner Rempel suggested an in-lieu fee for the utility undergoundin . e felt the meandering sidewalk should be constructed as conditioned. Regarding the texture banding, he stated it is not essential to 'carrying it around to the back of each of the buildings, but there should be some color band on all the buildings. Chairman Stout stated that since those back buildings are essentially hidden from the street, he would agree and that some color banding would be acceptable. He advised that the existing landscaping needs to be replaced where reproved to construct improvements. Commissioner lcNi el concurred with an i n-1 i eu fee for d t i l i ter undergrounding. He stated that texture banding is not essential on the back sides of the buildings,. Commissioner Chitiea considered the in-lieu fee appropriate. She suggested that when the sidewalk goes in, the applicant could possibly do some additional berming to the front of the building. She was in favor of Continuing texture around building, but would not hold up the project for that. Motion: Laved by McNiel , -seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-53 with an amendment to Engineering Division Condition l requiring the undergrou ndi ng of 1.2 kv lines in addition to telecommunication lines on th Street, and amendment to pl a rani ng Division condition 3 changing the required texturized banding to a color band. lotion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, PF PFL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.* BARKER -carried K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 6-26 - CARLTON BROWNE COMPANY - A consistency e ermina ion e ween e, oo i orr oor n erlm Policies and commercial center concept located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street - APN 28-62- . Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Chuck Frye, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. There were no farther comments. Commissioner Chi ti ea steed there were some problems with the site plan; however, the use was consistent and would be appropriate. She also stated there were some problems with the driveway at Pep Boys, and would be willing to give consideration to the applicant's proposal . Commissioner tic i el stated that it is not to this applicant's benefit to be dependent of the Pep goys driveway, which was unfortunate. He was concerned that the driveway might be too close to Lion street and there were too many drive cuts along Foothill . Regarding the site plan, he thought the applicant did a good job, but it still needed some work.: Commissioner Pempel stated that if the original conditions of approval for Pep Boys stated that the drive was; to be on the property line, it should be moved back to where it belongs, He was concerned that the proposed design works to the detriment of this piece of property... He stated that it was very linear and that something needs to be done to improve the parking. He thought these problems could be taken care of through Design Review and advised that the project should move forward. Chairman Stout thought the project was basically in conformance with the Interim Guidelines and with the proper amount of work and some adjustments it would be appropriate and consistent with the Foothill Corridor. He also had problems with the Pep goys driveway and thought the project was underparked. e was concerned with the traffic stacking situation on Foothill Boulevard if this driveway serviced both projects. He agreed that staff should look at the Pep Boys drive to see ifit was improperly constructed, but thought that some other point of access will be necessary to this parcel . He agreed that the project should move forward. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 23, 1986 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Preliminary Review - 6, Carlton Browne Company, was consistent with the Interim Foothill Boulevard Policies and the project could continue through processing. is aF `:�c fie' 9: 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that item C would now be considered. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULTZ Commissioner Rempel advised that he had made telephone contact with the applicant who consented to a two week continuance. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 111 , Schultz, to the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT E. REVISION TO SECTION 1 .04.O7O(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CODE - MODEL HOMES SALES Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Jerry Linton, Citation guilders, gave an overview of his request for the Commission's consideration of this ; amendment. He advised that he would be willing to work with staff to come up with something which works. There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the amount of traffic could be increased substantially through the existing neighborhood. Commissioner McNiel agreed there might be some increased traffic but it would not be that substantial , He thought the Conditional Use Permit method was appropriate, and wanted to insure that -trailers will not be permitted as a part of this request. Commissioner Repel agreed and stated the Conditional Use Permit could take care of the traffic problem. He pointed out that model units are normally at the main entry of a development; therefore, traffic into the rest of development would be minimal . Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 23, 1986 ,j Chairman Stout agreed with the Conditional Use Permit concept. He suggested that the Code language should be tightly drafted as to specifically where a Conditional Use - Permit is appropriate and where it is; not, address traffic impacts, and limitations. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the model homes are located on a collector street there would not be much of a problem, but on a small residential street where traffic would have to go a distance into a development, there could be a problem. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that time limitations be established. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would try to expedite this amendment; however, felt the criteria the Commission is looking for would take some study and consideration. He suggested that staff bring proposed language before the residential Design Review Committee before it comes to the full Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff move forward with the amendment to the Development Code. M. VICTORIA GROVES PARK CONCEPT Bill Holley, Community Services Director, gave an introduction to the pare concept. He explained that development of this park would necessitate the removal of trees on the site; therefore, the staff had prepared an extensive presentati on. Dave Leonard, Park Project Coordinator, gave an overview of the Conceptual Design Plan and presented slides of the site. Commissioner McNiel was concerned with parking. He stated that Windrows Park seems underparkod and recent ballgames there have created congestion with the adjacent model homes. r. Holley explained that this -situation is due to the fact that the Community Parks are now under construction, which has displaced some programs. He stated that rather than cancel these programs;, City staff had looked to some Neighborhood Parks. He advised that the Neighborhood Parks are not designed or intended for Community Park purposes and will return to their intended uses after duly of this year. Commissioner McNiel asked how many parking spaces are being provided' Mr. Leonard advised that there are 26 parking spaces on the site, plus the use of additional parking on the school site Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 23, 1986 Commissioner Rempel asked if there was a way to use the school property for temporary parking until the school is developed. Mr. Holley advised that staff would look into this suggestion. Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, advised that in areas where parks are located an additional 45 spaces of off-street parallel parking have been provided. Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to approve the Victoria Park conceptual design LB BUSINESS N. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- - EB ARDS CINEMA A request to modify the approved buildinge ovations or a 6-plex movie theater of 25,188 ;square feet, within an approved master plan (Virginia Dare Center) located on the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven, in the General Commercial (BC) District - APN 1077 104-C1. and 03. Howard Fields, ,assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Glen Gellatly, Bissell Architects, advised that when the final plans were in the Building Department for plan check, it was noted that a detail pertaining to the side and rear elevations showing a layered furring effect on the elevations had been omitted. He advised that the detailing was never part of any documents which had gone before the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission or City Council . e adivsed that 'what was shown was acolor band treatment using three colors with some layering of the stucco on the front fascade and returning it around the corners on the two sides. Mr. Gel 1 atly presented a model of the building. Chairman Stout asked if the actual construction drawings with the detail o them had been submitted to the City and done in error. r. ,ellatly replied that was correct, Chairman Stout stated that he had gotten confused that Mr. Cellatly was talking about the front elevations and what he was actually saying was the furred out detail is to regain on the front elevation, with a; step: down effect s it returns on the two sides. Therefore, the only part of the construction drawing detail which was being requested for deletion is the side and rear elevations which the applicant intends to put some type of scared treatment in there, Mr. Bellatly concurred and stated that the itent was a long, clean reveal allowing for a clean color break line Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 23, 1986 Chairman Stout stated that the confusion came because he understood the applicant wanted to remove the furred out detail from all elevations of the building. He recalled discussion regarding the detail on the front elevation, but did not recall if there was discussion relative to the sides and did not believe it had been grade a condition of approval . He stated he had no objection to this request because there are two buildings on either side of it and there is some detail in the color band which is consistent with what has been requi red. Further, that from a distance the furred out detail would not be seen on the back anyway. Commissioner gempel Mated a concern that there was never an understanding at Design Review that there: was going to be a change in the texture of the building. He advised that he had gone to the site and the texture looks like n amateur had laid out the block rather than trying to accomplish the appearance of adobe.. He stated that nowhere on the submittals does it show that the building texture will not be similar to what exists. Further, that it has been changed from rest of buildings and is not acceptable. He felt the texture should be dash, which was the approved texture for the center. r. Gel l atly pointed out that this is 13 acre site with a number of buildings to be built and did not see a problem with _going to different nt types of texture as long as the color is consistent and compatible. He stated that the use of the same texture could be monotonious on 13 acres; He advised that he was trying to get a texture variation with this type of finish, and it may not look like much now but once its painted the finish gives a rustic appearance. He explained ,that "sack wipe" is a thin coat of`plaster which is wiped onto the block to cover the joints. = He ; advised that the colors proportions and break up would satisfy all concerns. He pointed out that mission style architecture has all types of textures and that nothing was consistent in the old wineries, Commissioner 6hitiea stated that the community trail runs behind this project. She pointed out that the project to the north was required to do considerable upgrading to the backsides and there are other places in the City which back up to the community trail that have been required to bring detailing around the Mack. She wanted to see this project give that sane consideration to the trail. Mr. Gellatly stated that stucco texture was never discussed at any of the meetings. Further, that during Design Review on all of the projects everyone knew the finish was going to be stucco, but it could have been blown on, hand trowelled or some other type of stucco treatment. Therefore, the applicant could have gone to a cheap finish, but was providing a method which is unique, There were no further public comments. Commissioner Mciel concurred with the continuance of the color band. He was concerned with the texture change and agreed that it should be consistent with the existing buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986 i Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to delete the furred out detailing from the sides and rear elevations The building texture is to match the finish on the existing completed buildings. Bon Christeson, applicant, stated that the Commission was challenging the professionalism of Mr. Cellatly by stating than they know more about the design and what the finish is going, to look like than he does. Be suggested that the Commission allow the work to continue until enough of the wall has been completed to judge it fairly. He pointed out that the; wall is nowhere near completed and is being judged too early. : He felt that by the time it is all finished and painted the Commission would be happy with i , since it would look like a slurry wall with a: lot of character. He stated that there are a number of buildings 'across the street in the Barton complex which are net consistent, and requested that he be given that flexibility. Chairman Stout asked if there was a motion for reconsideration. There was none, therefore the original motion carried by the following vote:' AYES: COMMISSIONERS REPEL, MCNIEL, CITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS' O. TRAILS - Oral Report Brad Buller, City Planner, gave an overview of the current status and review procedures for trails. Chairman Stout advised he had this item placed on the agenda because the system doesn't seem to be working. He asked that staff prepare a report on the status of trails with some analysis on staff time and budgetary needs. He believed there may be the need for the expenditure of funds for a consultant to put together not only; a plan which indicates an inventory of trails and their current condition along with a list of current problems associated with completing the system, but an implementation plan of how it will work. He suggested that the report include some type of scheduled time plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wholeheartedly supported this direction. Mr. Buller stated that if it is determined that trails are a priority for next year's work program, this proposal might require a budget expenditure which would have to be approved by the City Council , Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 23, 1986 Chairman Stout stated that this kind of thin ; that would have been addressed if a Specific Plan had, been done for Alta Loma. He stated that he was looking for more than a trail plan and suggested the scope address rural atmosphere and include those concepts and design elements to preserve the atmosphere and ambiance of the Alta Loma area. ADJOURNMENT Motion: raved by McNiel , seconded by Ehitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn to a workshop following this meeting for the purpose of discussing Industrial Specific plan revisions. 10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Rdsp -fully subm" te , /B4raul 1 er Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986 M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April g, 198 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 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Char man ,Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Citiea, Larry HcNiel , Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hansen, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the workshop scheduled to follow this meeting had been rescheduled to April 23, 1986, following the Design Review`Committee meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. Chairman Stout presented a Commendation Resolution to Curt Johnston for his service to the City as an Associate Planner. CONSENT CALENDAR Art RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 o a re enti a su i vi si o an es,gn review o singTY—fa—m'iTy lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue _ APN 01- 6 - 1, 22. (Continued from March 26, 198 meeting. i Chairman Stout announced that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting in order to resolve issues. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12991, Shelbourne, the the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting'. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULTZ - A custom of su v�s on on . acres o an n ow esi en a istrict (2- du/ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Coal l e Del Prado APN 208-921- 3 and 04. (Continued from March 26, 1986 meeting.') Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, and suggested the Commission's consideration of continuing the hearing for this item to April 2 . Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jerry Wilson, 387 North Second Sheet, Upland, stated that he was seeking direction from the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Nilson advised that he had discussed four alternative grading methods= with City staff; however, due to time constraints was unable to prepare specific plans for this meeting There were no further public comments. Commission Barker advised that the - Commission was" trying to do as much as possible to eliminate unnecessary grading of hillsides. He recognized that this was not a difficult ,applicant to work with, but a difficult piece of property. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114, Schultz, to the April 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to address grading issues. C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12833 - (THE MEADOWS) - THE WILLIAM LVQN COMPANY - An amen ent to mo i y t e con i t ions e approva' o pe odcupancy of homes prior to construction of a permanent or temporary RV parking lot within Victoria. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that staff had received a letter from Debra grown, on behalf of the Victoria Homeowner's Active Group, stating that completion of the permanent facility on Base Line Road should be set at a date to occur prior to the occupancy of a future project, which would be consistent with staf fareco en �o Additionally,onal l " t ,�, � letter was � � from Barry and Cindy Winter strongly opposing the proposed amendment. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steven Ford, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the findings of the Staff Report. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Ford the time free for this project. Mr. Ford replied that plans were anticipated for submittal to the City in mid- May for plan check with construction anticipated in August. Jerrie Kearny, 6594 Dogwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on behalf of Victoria Active Board and thanked the Commission for taking their letter into consideration. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he would ;support giving consideration to the applicant in this request if it can be established in a reasonable period of time and it does not cause unsightliness of lV' s being parked all over the streets. Chairman Stout stated that the applicant had demonstrated a good faith effort and he had no problem with the request to tie completion of the RV parking facility to occupancy to the northern portion of the Meadows project. Commissioner McNiel agreed Co mission 'Chitiea agreed and further stated that she also felt that the permanent RV storage would be one which the Victoria Homeowners' would be pleased to have in their community. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution modifying the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 12833. Motion carried by the following vote, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 LENEEu - re i en s a su i vi si on an esi gn review or i ng ami y ots on .7 acres of land i n the Low Medium Residential District located at the end of 19th Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 0 - 11-3 . Nancy Eong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. haiman Stout opened the public hearing. Larr y Bliss, representing the applicant, was co ncerned with the N to 10 feet block wall required for sound attenuation along the northern portion of 19th Street. He suggested that the wall be 6 feet and the sound attenuation issue be addressed through estabishment of an in-lieu fee which would be placed in an account until such time as the freeway';issue is resolved. Chairman Stout suggessted that some of the wall height could be taken up with berming. He explained that Ealtrans requires Eity's to provide sound attenuation for residential units adjacent to freeways. Mr. Bliss suggested that the Resolution be approved as presented, and the applicant do further study and come back with a final wall design at a later date. d. 0. Austi c, representing the applicant, asked clarification regarding the addition of a floor plan 'added at a later time. He asked if this would be after completion of 50 percent of the project. Ms. Fong clarified that the additional floor plan would be required prior to development of Phase I I. There were no further, comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chi i ea referred to the architectural elevations and advised that the Design Review Committee had addressed the issue of upgrading the rear elevations of all units along 19th Street and requested a modification to the conditions of approval . Motion: Moved by McNi el , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12952 with an amendment to Planning Condition 10 requiring the entire rear elevations for all lots backing up to 19th Street to be upgraded with additional architectural treatments. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MENIEL, BARKER, EHITIEA, REMPEL, STUB" NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried: t was the consensus of the `,Commission that they would consider further discussion of the wall at a later date* H 00 - Planning Commission Recessed 810 - Planning Commission Reconvened C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 36-03 - AJA The eve opment of one -story o i oe ui f n tote i5g , square feet, two o 1-story;. Research and Development/Office buildings totaling 33,940 square feet and two 1-story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 8, 3 square feet on 7.09 acres of band in the Industrial Park District (Subarea C) and the Haven Overlay District located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401- 1. (Previously submitted as Development Review 5-45.) Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chaff man Stout opened the public hearing. Tom Utran, 2311 Traverse Avenue, Commerce, gave an overview of the project. Mark MacErlane, representing Grubb and Ellis, presented a letter to the Planning Commission outlining their concerns with the project. Dan Richards, 6604 Sapphire, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the quality of the; project in relationship with the Haven Avenue Overlay District. Dill Kirkland, 8978 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the design of the project and stated that it looked like an industrial building. Tim 3eedla 965 Business Center Drive, representing the Reiter Development Company, stated that the design of the office building was compatable with the surrounding area.;, Larry Bliss, 6634 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the design of this project was not compatible with the Haven Avenue Overlay District. Gilbert Aja, applicant, gave an overview of the project design. Don Da; akian, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the project. There were no further comments. After considerable discussion by the Planning Commission, a consensus was reached that it would be necessary for the applicant to address the Commission's concerns relative to the site plan and elevations. The Commission determined that the design, as presented, did not project the high quality style required by the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The applicant consented to a continuance to the May 14, lg Planning Commission meeting in order for a special workshop to be held to address 'these concerns. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti ea, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 86-03 to the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stout stepped don from the podium and was not present for the following item: F. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11793 - PENFI LD - Design Review o priis o sing e; ami y homes etas e on acres of land i the Low Residential District ( -4 duac), located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Amethyst Street - APN lO - C1-O4 and 106 mS 1-01. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment. Jim Oolpos, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval . There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated that trees should be removed with replacements where appropriate. Commissioner McNiel concurred and supported the project since the grading issues had been resolved. Commissioner Rempel Mated concurrence with the tree removal request and design review. He felt that staff and the applicant had worked out a satisfactory solution to the grading concerns. Motion Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 1179 and also to recommend approval of a Tree Removal Permit with replacement trees where appropriate to the satisfaction;of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CNITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried; Chairman Stout returned to the podium. O. OR 85- b MODIFICATION BONES - A request to modify a condition of approva requlirin t e elimination of a driveway access on 4th Street for an approved industrial project located at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue - APN 9- 8 -4I, 42. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chaff man Stout invited public comment. Rusty Turner, Turner Development, gave an overview of the applicant's modification request;. Commissioner Barker stated that the problem is in designing an exit which does not allow left turn. Paul Ruugeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that the concern of the City has always been the safety and efficiency of the street once it becomes very busy and very congested, which will be the case with 4th Street. The concern with this driveway, y, bather it is right turn only or not, is that cars and big, slow trues would be pulling out onto a very busy street which would interfere with the street"s efficiency and would be dangerous to the safety of other motorists Commissioner Rempel stated; that` the real problem is with left turns, which he felt could be mitigated through proper driveway design. Chairman Stout stated that his opinion had not changed. He felt that anything which would jeopardize the safety of the traffic on 4th Street, or any other street in the City, far outweighed the inconvenience of getting into that building. Commissioner McNiel stated that 4th 'Street would be a major thoroughfare and did not feel the inconvenience was that significant; therefore,; could not support the request. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and added that even though it would be convenient for the tenant to have the drive, she saw a problem with conflicts between car and true traffic. Commissioner Barker stated that he was not convinced that a properly designed right turn only lane with an acceleration lane would be unsafe or unpractical and would approve of such an action Commissioner Rempel agreed that it is practical to put a right turn lane. Motion: Moved by Chi tie , seconded by McN el , to deny the request for modification to the conditions of approval requiring the elimination of driveway access on 4th Street. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES. COMMISSIONERS- CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT TES: COMMISSIONERS; BARKER, REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioners Barker and Rempel felt concerns could be mitigated through proper driveway design. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. REVISION TO SECTION 1 .D4.D D(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CODE - MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE----- Chairman Stout announced that a request for continuance had been received for this item. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue consideration of the proposed revision to the April 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motions Moved by Darker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the April 17, 1985 workshop following the Design Review Committee meeting, approximately :30 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga. 9 55 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE Regular Meeting March 26, 1986 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 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: 'David Barker;, Suzanne Chi ti ea, Larry McNiel , Herman Bempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planners Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; James Markman, City Attorney; Dino Putrine, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, asked for a consensus from the Commission relative to the date for the Planning Commission field tour of the City. Mr. Buller suggested May 17, 1986. This date was accepted by the Commission. Mr. Buller additionally announced that the City Council approved the contract selecting Forma-Planning Network as the consultant for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTE Motion: Moved by Re pel , seconded by Chitiea, carried, to approve the February 26, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Commissioner McNiel abstained from vote since he was absent during that meeting'. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-36 - MIMES-PETERS R - ae eve opment square ware ouse stri ion aci ity for hobby model products on IJ acres of land in the General Indusrial/Rail Served district (Subaru -10), located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229-21- 71 Commissioner Chitiea requested the item be removed for discussion. She was concerned that the corner post was too dark in color and suggested that it be a lighter shade of blue, more in keeping with the rendering. Motion; Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the consent calendar with direction to staff relative to the corner post color. PUBLIC NEARING B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1991 SELBRNE - A total resi enti a su 1 vi s-r en and-desigW-r-e—vi evr or singe emi y ots on 8.9 ages of land in the Lour Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, aOOt feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 52-2 , 22. (Continued from December 11, 1986 meeting. ) Chairman Stout asked if a representative of this project was present. No representative was present. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing... Where were no comments. Commissioner Barker "asked for direction relative to a continuance for this project. James Markman, City Attorney, stated that since staff had made telephone contact with the applicant who agreed to a continuance, the Commissin could dither continue the project or, deny the: project tonight and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial without prejudice for Commission consideration at their next meeting. He recommended denial of the project at this time since the time line for a decision by the Commission had expired under the Subdivision Map Act.' Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to deny Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12991 A Resolution of Denial without Prejudice is to be placed on the April 9, 1936 Planning Commission agenda consent calendar. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CNITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 26, 1986 w ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULT - A 21` custom of su ivision on , acres of 155ain t e Low Resi en Ta District ( 4 dd,/ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Calle Del Prado` APN D -9 1 D and 04. (Continued from February 1 ,' 19DC meeting. ) Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and gave a slide presentation of the project site. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, requested the following modifications to the Standard Conditions: Page S, Condition L-2 modified to require 25 total feet of right-of-way dedication on Calle Del Prado; Page S, Condition M-2 to e checked; Page 6, Condition M-7 to be checked relative to Calle Del Prado. Commissioner Chltiea requested that Planning Condition 1 of the Resolution require review and approval by the Planning Commission or Design Review Committee. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing W.M. Schultz, applicant, stated that the Commission's concerns have been addressed where possible to do so without creating engineering problems or obstruction of views. Walter Gustafson, 9000 Calle Del Prado, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the loss of his view to the south and requested that a restriction be put on the project that multi-level homes could not be built on the top four lots. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Darker stated that the Development Code Amendment should have been discussed before consideration of this project. He was concerned that the latitude which the amendment was intended to afford these types o developments may not have been adequately addressed at this time. Commissioner Re pel stated that this was an ideal site to build true custom homes because it offers some aesthetic value as far as building split level houses on a piece of property ;rather than to pad each house out. He pointed out that Mr. Gustafson"s property is 19 feet higher than the pad below him; therefore, a two story hone probably would not affect his view. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that overall padding should be looked carefully into and not done on an individual basis due to the complexity of the slopes adjoining one another. Further, that maximum creativity; should be allowed in cases:such as this. She additionally stated that if the grading comes back in groups.. of 4 or more, not only each lot should be looked at individually, but the grading of the entire project should be reviewed to retain the natural character of the land along with consideration of the neighbors both above and below the project. She was not satisfied with the grading of the project as presented at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 26, 1986 Commissioner Mc Niel agreed that alternative methods should be explored to provide usable area, but also realized the difficulty of moving water off the property to protect people surrounding it. Commissioner Barker pointed out that if it saves an attractive piece of property and makes it compatible with the surrounding property, the City is not obligated to make sure that there are the maximum number of 1 ots on any piece of property. Jerry Grant, Building Official , advised that it is extremely difficult to treat lots individually on a subdivision of this size; they have to be treated as a whole from a grading standpoint. Commissioner Rempel stated that there are other ways to insure that there is proper drainage for the project such as a drainage easement on the south and east side of the property. Further, that this is a valuable and beautiful piece of property and the houses should be designed to fit it. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, addressed the usable yard area and advised that this issue had been looked at by the Grading Committee. The grading plan as proposed on exhibit C, which depicted looking at each lot on an individual bases, would achieve this. Commissioner Barker stated that this design relies primarily on cut which is what should be limited as much as possible. He pointed out that deck usage as an alternative is not addressed in this particular design. Chairman Stout stated that some type of compromise should be reached somewhere between a total grading concept and the concept that some type of special treatment would have to be done on the design of houses to make them more closely fit that type of terrain. He felt the project needed more work and could not make a decision on it at this time. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked for a consensus of direction from the Commission. Chairman Stout stated that this is a fine piece of engineering given the constraints of looking for paded lots with certain buildable areas and certain usable spaces in addition to that. However, the question is that a couple of policy concerns were apparently not sufficiently addressed in the project or proposed Code Amendment. He wanted to see how these policy concerns could be addressed by this project and what affect they would have on the engineering aspects. Mr. Schultz was concerned that the Commission was going away from a great deal of engineering study and compromise on both sides towards something that does not relate to the physical nature of the site. He stated that this site is not one which could be developed into large custom homes sites, given the constraints of surrounding development and conditions. Chairman Stout replied that the Commission was not implying that a certain size house or design should be used, but suggested that an innovative design could be used that is not so outrageously expensive that it can't take advantage of that location. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 26, 1986 ........... Commissioner Chitiea stated that the grading plan needs refinement while still dealing with those issues. Chairman Stout agreed that refinement was necessary and wanted to see some conditions relative to the type of construction with respect to some suggestions about methods of making it fit the topography better than a flat slab. Further, that decking could be used for usable space so that the lot would not have to be padded out to the point where all building space and usable space is on one flat plane, 'and that pad sizes should be reduced and the grading softened a bit. Chairman Stout 'asked for the applicant's consent to -a continuance oftwo weeks. r. Schultz consented to a two reek continuance. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would not be able to core back with a detailed grading plan in two weeks, Chairman Stout replied that he was not concerned about the detailed aspect but wanted to know if these problems can be solved by these types of conditions. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 11814 to the April g, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would he heard concurrently by the Commission: Q. VARIANCE 8 - 1 - A request to reduce minimum l ot depth from lg feet to 135-Ve-6tom a 1.3 acre parcel in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 du/ac) located on the south side of Strang Lane, east o Carnelian Avenue - APN 18 _271- . E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349 - SMITH - A division of 1. ages 5T ah into parce s in 't e ery Low Residential District (up to 2 du/ac) located on the south side of Strang Lane, east of Carnelian Avenue APN 1 1- 71m . (Continued from February 26, 1986 greeting. ) Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report relative to the Variance. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report relative to the Parcel Map. : Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Judy Smith, 881 .Strang Lane, applicant, requested approval' of the Variance and Parcel Map. There were no further; comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes - - March 26, 18 ---- Commissioner Chi ti ea didn't think that making the street wider at that point would make a difference at all . She advised that she didn't want to set a precedent, but in this case making the street wider would not help. Commissioner Barker agreed and further stated that to widen the street would Create a monster rather than solve a problem. He was ;i n favor of approving the Variance and Parcel Map. Commissioner McNiel stated that widening the street would create a more negative affect than a positive one. Chairman Stout stated that this issue was weighing a policy created to protect residents of the City from poor circulation and the problems of taking over substandard streets after periods of time against fundamental fairness and hardship. In this case widening the street in this area would create a hardship and basically people who live on that street would have to forfeit major or portions of landscaping to help out the person who lives at the <end of the street. Since the area is already built up, the street widening is not going to have a major visual affect. ' He felt the City"s interest in straightening out the street at this time is far outweighed by the hardship which 'would be created. He agreed that the policy should exist but should not be enforced in a rigid mariner such that in it defies logic. Commissioner Rerpel felt that those people who had similar applications prior to this one should be contacted and advised that they could now develop without widening the street. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance -02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES, COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENTA; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion. Moved by Chi`tiea seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative 'Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9537. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES. ' COMMISSIONERS: CBITIEA; NIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ;MAP 953 LONER, CORPORT TIN - A Z v�s�on o acres n o parce s t n e nera n ns ri al signationSubrea 2 located east of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and gth Street -' APN 209-0 2-10 Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 26, 1986 M Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Stofa presented a revision to the City Engineer's Report Condition G-2 relative to the drive approach on 'gth Street.. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the adoption of a policy regarding undergrounding of utilities as stated in the staff report. Chairman Stet replied that this was done through minute action. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Ascheris, 1'6192 'Von Karmen Avenue, Newport Beach, requested an amendment to condition - ( to require in-lieu fee to be paid prior to building permits for° any parcel of the project. Chairman Stout asked if parcel one or two would develop first. Mr. Acheris replied that it was not known at this time which parcel would develop first. Chairman Strout stated that parcel one is extremely critical since that street is an entry to the city. He advised the applicant to take a close look at it for aesthetic and landscaping treatment. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested that the in-lieu fee be required prior to building permits for parcel 2. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9537, with amendments to the City Engineer's Report Condition G-2 to allow flexibility of the reciprocal drive approach on gth Street, and Condition G ( ) to require in- lieu fee for utility undergrounding to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for Parcel 2. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, C ITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION DE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VFW - A request to operate a meeting haTT—and--to servo a co 0 7 everage in an existing building with a lease space of 5,000 square: feet on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea category located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209-01-84, Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mciel , unanimously carried, to set the public hearing for consideration of revocation of Conditional Use Permit 84-14 on April 2 , 1986. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 26, 18 8: 6 p.m, - Planning Commisssion Recessed 8:56 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present H. CONDITIONAL US PERMIT 86-01 - DIVERSIFIED - The development of a 22,000 square oot retail di Ong a,- ss wit outdoor sales nursery within an approved integrated shopping center on 11.41 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located at the southeast corner of Raven Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN 201-271-53. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout advised that a letter had been received from Mr. O'Meara which proposed a language modification for condition 2. He asked if Ms. Fong had reviewed the letter. Ms. Fong replied that she had received the letter. Chairman .Stout was concerned that the applicant proposed to store items outside other than what was approved at Design Review, Commissioner Chitiea requested that natural rock, be specified for use on the wilding exterior rather than use of synthetic rock. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Barbara Sisson, representing the applicant, presented photographs' of outdoor areas of other projects which are currently used by the applicant. ` Chairman Stout asked ;if the applicant intended to take all items in and out of the store every right. s. Sisson replied that this was normal practice. Chairman Stout stated that synthetic veneer was used on the Lucky's store and similar material on the Save-On project. He had no problem with veneer and had seen some which appear very natural , but some are obviously synthetic. He questioned how this could be conditioned that it be called out to have review'. Darr Col emen, Senior Planner, suggested that the 'condition be modified to require staff review and approval of a sample. Chairman Stout stated that if it doesn't look like natural river rock, it's defeating the purpose. Commissioner Chitiea requested that the sample submitted be large enough to get the full impact of hoer it will look on the building. Chairman Stout stated that the project should be conditioned that plant material shall not be visible from the street. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 26, 186 F Commissioner Rempel referred to the applicant's letter of request,; and stated that the items listed from January to November should not be displayed in the garden area. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti ea, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 86-01 with an added condition requiring the rock veneer to be consistent with veneer used on the Conditional Use Permit 84-3I and subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote'; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 'CODE AMENDMENT B -OI CITY OF pr~oposa to amen ecti on :5 a per ai ni ng to-gradingof custom lot subdivisions, and I7.0 . I40 pertaining to definitions of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance 211. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the language of the proposed amendment would negate the authority of commission to make changes without recommendation of grading committee? Mr. Cook replied that the primary decision would be made by the Planning Commission. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised `that the intent was that the Grading Committee would report to the Planning Commission. To clarify the intent, he suggested striking that language and modify the condition to read: "additional grading may be allowed subject to the Planning Commission where the site constraints Commissioner Barker asked what wound allow the flexibility for alternatives such as the use of deck area, as previously discussed. r. Cook replied that the intent is- that structures are to be designed to fit the natural topography and allows flexibiity for alternative grading schemes at the discretion of the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Barker stated that elsewhere in the Code is a regulation which says there shall be 15 feet ofusable yard space, he didn't see where that is addressed. He was concerned that this requirement in the Development Code might be in conflict with `the proposed amendments to the sections. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 26, 1985 i Chairman Stout agreed it might be wise to add a statement to that section for clarification and reference for those types of situations were people who, do not read entire code Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. The consensus of the Commission was that further refinement to the amendment was necessary to reflect the use of decking material or some type of substitute to the solution of flat 'grading. Additionally, a statement is to be added to Section 17.08.04G®d pertaining to usable yard area, for clarification. The 'item was therefore removed from the agenda to allow for proper advertisement and notification for the April 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, Old Business J. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12830 - CITATION BUILDERS A residential su -i vi si on of 21.41 acres —in the Low Medium esi enti al District (4-�8 du/ac) into 103 lots located on the west side of Beryl Street north of Base Line Road - APN G -7S1-4C. (Continued from February 26, 1986 meeting. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Jerry Grant, Building official , provided a cress section of the grading plan at scale and reviewed the site's grading. Chairman .Stout asked for an explanation of how the Grading Committee examined the project and what changes, if any;, were made from original proposal . r. Grant 'replied that this proposal is actually four feet less than the original proposal . He advised that alternatives had been explored such as dropping parts df ,the street or grading to the rear of the property, all of which created other problems. He advised from the Committee's standpoint, the grading plan presented contained the best of all features of grading practices and the Committee felt it was one of the best jobs that could be done under the conditions Commissioner Pempel asked the grade of the slope from the back swwale. Mr. Grunt replied that it was a slope from the high to the-low point at the l ow corner of the 1 ot. Chairman Stout invited public comment Jerry Linton, applicant, advised that he had met with the homeowners to the south to review existing grading conditions which he explained were the same if not better than the grading plans of the previous developer. He pointed out that the previous design review contained closer rear setbacks and had two more -stony horses. ; He felt his project had come a long way in considering the adjacent homeowners' concerns. Planning Commission Minutes - C- March 26, 1986 " Geraldine Putnam, 9066 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the loss of view due to the height of lots to the rear of her lot. Ms. Putnam stated that she had not been given an indication of how the Commissioners felt about this issue. Martin Balding, 9016 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga stated that the developer did explain his position and he appreciated his concern and cooperation. He was concerned with the grading height of the homes to the rear of the existing tract. He suggested th at at the previous developer s eoer g9 should have been required ` o p t work with the homeowners before the tract was reviewed by the Commission so that the concerns and issues could have been mitigated. There were no further comments. Commissioner Barker asked what authority the Planning Commission has in responding to the concerns voiced. James Markman, City Attorney, advised that the tract map, which included street grade levels, was approved under the Subdivision Map, Act and if this project conforms with that approval , the Commission is bound by that approval . Commissioner Harker stated that he felt frustrated and was not happy with the situation; however, the Commission was apparently powerless to do what they wished they could do. Commissioner Chitiea was sympathetic with the concerns raised by the homeowners; however, based on the City Attorney's direction, the Commission could not correct the grading situation at this point. Chairman Stout advised that the Commission sits as administrative ,fudges and everything is done in public. He explained that the reason the homeowners had not received input from the Commissioners is that they do net comment on how they feel about a project prior to the public hearing. He advised that the Commission does 'not prejudge items before a meeting in which they take,public testimony. Further, that the new developer has unproved the design over what was done before in that the site plan is better and there are less two story models. He advised that the Commission had done as much as it could to improve the project based on the authority they had towork with tonight. Commissioner Barker stated that a considerable amount of time was spent on this issue at the previous meeting and he saw some of the changes reflected in condition 2 dealing with lots 9 -97. He asked if it were safe to assume that each issue discussed for modification was included in new conditions. r. Cook replied that the Resolution was amended per comments made at the previous meeting. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that there was considerable discussion at the last meeting regarding treatment of lot " " which was addressed in report but not made a condition other than ghat is shown on the plans. Commissioner Barker asked if the conditions reflect the area to be walled off to allow access to south.- Planning Commission Minutes - 1- March 26, 1986 Chairman Stout replied that this was not a condition since staff advised that the County Flood Control District will not allow this condition. Motion: Moved Rempel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tract 12830, Citation Builders. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MPEL, BARKER, C ITI A, MC IEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried NEW BUSINESS K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-45 - AJA - The ve o ent Of &o ui In s to a n , square eet an tree multi- tenant industrial buildings totaling 77,076 square feet on 7 .09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District located at the northeast corner of Maven Avenue and Acacia Street -' PN 09-40I-0I Chairman Stout announced that an application for a Conditional Use Permit, which is required in conjunction with this project, had not been received as of this meeting. Staff recommended a continuance to April g, 1986 in order for the Commission to review both items at one time. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mciel , ;unanimously carried, to continue discussion of Environmental Assessment and Development Review 0 -45 to the April g, 1.906 Planning Commission meeting. L. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 06 66 - WOOD - A consistency determination between the do ii orrl or nterim o roies and a commercial/office Master, Plan concept located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment Donald Wood, 10040 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, gave overview of his request and asked for direction from the planning Commission. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission had recently reviewed another request by Equi`'s Restaurant which is located adjacent to this site. He reiterated the Commission's previous decision that 'this 'location is a problem and a feasible master plan is necessary for that area. He advised Mr. Woad that it would be necessary for him to gain cooperation and agreement on a master plan from the property owners adjacent to this piece of property. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March 26, 1986 Chairman Stout stated that the City Council recently appointed a consultant to prepare a plan for the development of Foothill Boulevard. He advised Mr. Wood that the completion of the plan would take approximately 18 months; therefore, Interim Policies were developed for those applicants who did not feel they could wait until the completion of the plan to develop. Additionally, the preliminary review process was established to insure that applicants did not put a lot of time and money into a project which may not be consistent with what the City envisioned for 'Foothill Boulevard. He agreed with Commissioner Barker that the raster plan proposed by the applicant does not meet the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Interim Polilcies and that a master plan would have o be developed which would be agreed to by the adjacent property owners. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Bhitiea, unanimously carried, to determine Preliminary Review 8 -6 , Wood, inconsistent with the Foothill Boulevard Interim Policies, PUBIC COMMENTS Dan Richards, Stephen Daniels Associates, suggested that staff should explain to people the i ty's position toward development on Foothill Boulevard until completion of the study. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adjourn. : I1 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Rasp tfully 'tied, a , rod Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March 26, 1986 � ,r �i o a � ,� � n � e.... � � a a s:. �, � - ,. .. � „ �.: �. .i. t CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regul ar Meeting February 26, 1986 Chairman Bennis 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 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Herman Rdmpel ,; Dennis Shut ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Bruce Cock, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Bar ye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Barham Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner; Dave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator; James Markman, City Attorney, John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary ,ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff has begun working on the plans for the Planning Commission tour and asked if the Commission would hike to conclude with a tour of Foothill Fire District. It was the concurrence of the Commission to and this item to the tour. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Chitiea requested an amendment to the January 22, 1986 Minutes, page 9, 6th paragraph by adding "might be" acceptable, could "possibly" be compatible, and was "deeply" concerned. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to approve the January 22, 1986 Minutes, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE- TRACT I46 - JENSEN - A custom lot rdsi t al sua vision o on acres and in the VC (Very Low Residential ) District, located on the south side of Summit t Avenue, east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN S-IB -O & 03. Commissioner Chi ti ea requested discussion of Item A. She was concerned with the replanting of the Eucalyptus windrow and requested clarification that the replanting would be done outside of the trail . Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, confirmed that the replanting would be outside of the equestrian trail Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS. CHITIEA, RE EL, BARKER, STOUT NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9I80 - LANDCO FINANCIAL CORPORATION - A div-i-slono-Fat res ff-1 la6d int-Y-3 parses n e n ra n dstrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ), looted south of 9th Street and west of Hellman Avenue _ APN O -OI3 4. (Continued from January 22, I986 meeting). Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ray Ferguson, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9I80 as presented. Motion carried by ;the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12420 - RANCHO PARK VILLAS 'e eve opment o single familyattached units on acres o and in the Low Medium Residential District 4-8 du,lac), located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Hellman Avenue APN 209-'161-04, DS`, and 06. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Paul Delalise, 3471 Valle Aliedo, Newport Beach, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval . Mark Cysalino, 1354 Del Rio Warr, Ontario was concerned with flood control on Hellman Avenue. He asked the price range of the units. Mr. Delalise replied that the price range is speculative at this point, but thought the units would be in the high $80,000 range. Iarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, addressed the issue of flooding on Hellman. He explained that the project had been designed with high curbs and a low block wall along the Hellman property line. Chairman Stout pointed out that Hellman is one of the streets slated for Improvement under the Cit 's Storm Drain Master Plan which would eventually Provide a storm drain in Hellman. He stated that the drainage study for 'this project supported that this ;project would not adversely affect existing drainage on Hellman. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel commended the applicant for their cooperativeness during the Design Review process. He felt that this development will improve the existing flooding condition on Hellman Avenue. Chairman Stout agreed and further commended the applicant for taking the Design Review Committee's 'recommendations into consideration. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12420, as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: ; AYES. COMMISSIONERS: R MPEL, CHI IEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 26, 1986 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13203 - R BERT ON HOMES L res entia eve consisting o con bmfniu units n acres of land in the Medium High Residential'; District 1 - '4 du ac) located on the north side of Arrow Route, adjacent to the east side of Deer Creek Channel - APN 08-341-13. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report® Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tardy Stroier,. representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Strozier referred to condition 6 of the Resolution requiring a 3-foot low profile wall along Arrow Route. He suggested that flexibility be given to allow the use of bering and softscaping. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested if the Commission concurred with the applicant on this request, staff be directed to work with the applicant since the wall might be necessary in some areas. There were no further comments, therefore the public hewing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that some time ago he requested a report from staff which would outline the rules, regulations and limitations of fire sprinklers and alarms on 3-story buildings in the City. _ Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the City Building Official was preparing this report for the Commission. Chairman Stout asked if the Foothill Fire District was satisfied by not requiring sprinklers. Mr. S ro ier replied that the Fire District had required sprinklers on all buildings which do not "meet the 350-foot requirement; therefore, those buildings had been provided with sprinklers. Commissioner Barker stated that a lot of wore by staff and the applicant had gone into this project in an effort to open up the site plan. Chairman Stout requested that density averages for projects be included in future staff report Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed that the project had come a long way-i n redesign to open up the open space. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Repel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt ; the Resolution' approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 1303 with a modification to Planning Condition C allowing flexibility in the use of a 3-Moot low profile along Arrow Route to the satisfaction of the City Planner, and the requirement for fire alarms on all 3-story units. Motion carried by the following' vote. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, ,REMPEL, C ITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349 - SMITH - A division of 1.3 acres of landinto 2 parcels in the er ow es ential District (1 du/ac) located on the south side of ,Strang Lane, west of Carnelian Avenue - APN 101- 71-07, Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Repel was very concerned that the Commission policy requiring public struts was not being followed if the parcel'iation was approved without street dedication; After discussion, the Commission determined that additional information relative to exact lot dimension and detailed map of the surrounding parcels would be necessary prior to considering this request. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would consent to a continuation:: Brian Smith, applicant, replied that he would agree to a continuance. Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9349 the the March 26, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-44 - EALK - A proposal to develop a 93,120 square-foot acres of land along the southeast corner of bth Street and Lucas Ranch Road in Subarea 5 (General Industrial/Rail Served) - APN 1 -3 -0 . John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Gerald Edwards, 370 Edwards, Claremont, applicant, was concerned with the recommended relocation of the employee plaza area which placed the plaza area O feet closer to 6th Street. He pointed out that this location near the sidewalk and street would not create a relaxing atmosphere for employees. He was also concerned that the 400 square feet required for the plaza area was Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 26, 18 too large. Regarding trash enclosures, he requested that they be moved to more central location in the project Mr. Edwards asked for clarification of Standard Condition -4 requiring the filing of a Notice of Intention to join and/or fora landscape and lighting districts with the City Council . Parrye }Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this condition was actually a' requirement for a Notice of Intention to join and/or form the median island landscape district, which is required of all development within the; Industrial Specific Plan area. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Barker understood the applicant's concern relative to the placement of the employee plaza area near the sidewalk; ho+ ever, could not support his concern with the 400 square foot requirement. Chairman Stout suggested that ,landscaping he provided in the current trash enclosure area and that the trash enclosures be relocated to a central location. He was concerned with the corner section of the lot at 6th 'Street and Lucas Ranch ;Road and suggested that special landscaping be provided. Commissioner Chitiea supported the placement of the plaza area as proposed in the original site plan with the condition that the size remain 400 square feet, and the relocation of the trash enclosures to a central location. She was concerned with the gray color of the accent band and suggested something more col orful l -which should be submitted on the Design Review Committee consent calendar for approval . Motion. Moved by Chi i ea,- seconded by Barker,-to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and 'Development Review 85-44 with added conditions that the trash enclosures be moved to a central location, a 400 square foot employee plaza area to be located as on the original site plan, special landscape treatment on the exposed corner section of Lucas Ranch Road and 6th Street, and the color band to he submitted on the Design Review consent calendar for approval . Motion carded by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES. CO MISSIOENRS. NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried G. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12830 - CITATION - Design Review for 'tract 12830, a resi-dential subdivisionof 2L e acres in the Low Medium 'Residential District ( B du/ c) into IO 1 ots located on the west side of Beryl Street, north of Base dine Road. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, ;reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited pubic comment. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986 Jerry Linton, representing the applicant, addressed condition 2 of the Resolution requiring single story floor plans on Lots BB through 97. He stated that Lots BB,. 69 and 91 do not have existing homes behind them and requested that. ;-story floor plans be allowed.. He objected to fencing off the flood control area with a solid fence or wall and was concerned that this would create an area to hide vandals, r. Cook advised that this topic was discussed at the neighborhood meeting and the suggestion was that wrought iron be used which would create a view area. Mr. Linton pointed out that the condition stated "wall " and was concerned that wrought iron would not afford privacy for the residents of the lots adjacent to the flood control area Scott Allen, project architect, objected to condition 3 of the Resolution requiring architectural details on front elevations to be carried to some extent to the other three elevations. He stated that in most cases the side elevations will be hidden by fencing and landscaping, and could not see the necessity for the condition. He asked for clarification of "public view" relative to retaining walls. Mr. Allen objected to landscaping requirements listed in conditions 16 and 14, and stated that the homeowners would probably prefer to do their own landscaping. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project based on grading concerns and loss of view and privacy. Martin Balding, 9016 'Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga James Chiln, 906 Lavine, Rancho Cucamona Geraldine Putnam, 9036 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga Norm Hiller, 7057 Garnet, Rancho Cucamonga Alex Sanchez, 9046 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public heaving was closed. After discussion, the Commission determined that further information was needed to address the following areas: The Commission was very concerned that building pads had not been graded according to the approved grading plan for this tract. Staff was directed to check the grading to insure the approved grading plan was constructed with the conceptual plan and whether the existing grading was per the approved plans. n exhibit was requested which would depict the streetscpe with -story units on Lots BB, 69, and 91 as requested by the applicant. Direction was given to the staff and City Attorney to review the terms of the Right-of-Way agreement with the Flood Control district, relative to fencing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , carried, to continue discussion of Design Review for Tentative Tract 12830, Citation Builders, to the March 6, 1986 planning Commission meeting;. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986 H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5- 6 - WILLIAM LYON - Consideration of the per�reter wa tr°ea ent a recreat�ona ve cle storage/mini-warehouse facility; appeal of the decision of Design Review Committee. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Jim Bailey, representing the William Lyon Company, requested reconsideration of the Design Committee's ;recommendation of tree pockets at 100 foot intervals and off sets in the east and west boundary walls surrounding, the recreational vehicle sterage/mini-warehouse facility. Mr. Bailey was concerned that this condition would decrease the usable storage and parking space and would'create security hazards and maintenance difficulties. Mr. Bailey assured the Commission that if they were not pleased with the final product, he would see to it that modifications would be made. Motion: Moved; by Rempel seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the wall design for the perimeter wall treatment for Conditional Use Permit 5-26 as proposed by the applicant, with the use of vines on alternate wall sections. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS . HUNTER'S RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF FONTANA - Planning; Commission riveew o an use a terna i . for the un er s Ridge Specific Plan on 567.6 acres' of land within the City of Fontana., located on the north side of Summit Avenue, east of San Sevaine Creek, west of Nevore Freeway. Curt Johnston, Associate planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that all three alternatives presented were unacceptable. He advised that staff had done an excellent job of outlining the Commission's concern in the staff report and suggested that these comments e forwarded to` Fontana. He could not support any of the alternatives until those issues have been addressed.. Mr. Johnston advised that staff and the -Commission would have an opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Report to make sure that mitigation measures are implemented to address the concerns listed in the staff report. t was the consensus of the Commission that noire of the alternatives presented were acceptable and directed staff to forward the concerns' outlined in the staff report and the following comments to the City of Fontana: 1. The overall density is high given site constraints and the rural character of the area.> i The intensity of multi-family units along 1-15 and commercial development will establish an undesirable precedent for future development on surrounding property and along I-15. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 26, 196 . Natural features of the site will be significantly altered by the plan. 4. Equestrian trails should be located adjacent to San Sevaine wash. S. Improvement costs directly related to the project, but within Rancho Cucamonga, must be provided by the developer and,/or the City of Fontana. . Alternatives One or Three, with larger lots along the southern boundary of the project and no commercial facilities, are least objectionable. (Added Item) J. STATICS REPORT - TERRA VISTA PARK DESIGN Dave Leonard, Parks Protect Coordinator, presented renderings of Terra Vista Park. Motion: Moved by Repel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to forward the perk design to the City Council . ADJOURNMENT Motion. Moved by Repel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. :45 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - -- February 26, 1986 i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 1 , 1986 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 ;ions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitia, Larry McNiel , Merman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Barrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Otte Kroutil , Senior Planner; James Markman, City Attorney; John 'Meyer, Assistant Planner; Dino Pu rino Assistant Planner-, Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Stout announced that' Janice Reynolds, Secretary, had been selected as the City"s Employee of the Month for February. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion; Moved by Barker, seconded by M 'Niel , unanimously carried, to approve the January O, 1986 minutes as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 - CARLI - The opment n ustr� multi-tenant ui crags totaling 147,160 square feet on 8.9 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 8) , istrict located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN 209-171- , 20, 36, 49 - 56. Commissioner Chi ti ea requested; that Item A be removed for discussion of the plaza area. She was concerned with seating areas in the pedestrian plazas, Bruce McDonald, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the plaza areas, and indicated that he would continue to work, with staff on the development of acceptable plans for the plaza and seating areas, Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that in final ;plan approval , staff will make sure that the plans 'address concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the plazas and seating within the plazas. Motion raved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Consent Calendar, Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS` B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-08 - VERNACI - A proposal to locate a single tray er or a care-,- er s ace-TT y in a wholesale nursery located in the Edison right-of-way on the north side of Base Line, east of Rochester - APN 227-091- 1. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Meyer recommended that, should the Planning Commission recommend revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant be given until Monday, May 12, 1986, to remove plant stock and restore the site to its original state. Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout requested that the photographs provided by staff be made a part of the record for this project. Planning Commission Minutes -2® _February 12, 1986 Motion, Moved by darker, seconded by Rempol , to approve the Resolution revoking Conditional Use Permit BS-DB. The applicant was given ninety days (May 12, 198 ) to remove plant stock and restore the site o its original state. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BS- g - TRANS MEDICAL ® To establish an ambulance service facility- witW a mu 1-tenant oo ercial building on 2.4 acres of land in the General Commerical Distract located at 8270, Suite "M", Foothill Boulevard (Bear Gulch Village) ® APN O -1OI-1 . Dino Autrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Don Reid, 9650 Apricot, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, advised that Trans Medical would be relocating to another site in approximately 60 days. He was concerned with the recommended ambulance parking location at the south side , of the project site and requested that it be moved closer to the unit. There were no hr f uterco ntherefore e is the public r p hearing was closed... Commissioner Rempel suggested . that when this site changed to being office uses, a bond was posted to correct the parking and suggested that staff look into the situation, He recommended that it might be more appropriate to restri pe two spaces in the area where the ambulance is currently parking s that it is parked straight in the space. Motion: Moved by Rempol , seconded be Chi iea, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit BS- g, with a modification to reflect the restriping of the parking space parallel to the unit for ambulance parking. Motion carried by the following' vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE PEL, CHIT EA, BARKER, MC IEL, STOAT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1986 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - LABANO - A custom lot resi-dential su i va sa on ots do appro ima y acres ofl and i the VL District, located on the east side of Haven` Avenue, north of the Hillside Drainage Channel - APN 01-11-24. John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.. Chairman Stout was concerned that the landscaping along Haven Avenue adjacent to this tract has begun to deteriorate and suggested that the developer or Home Owner's Association replace the dead or dying trees and shrubs. He then opened the public hearing Phil Douglas, 316 "'E" Street, Ontario, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and recommended conditions of approval . Mr. Douglas was unsure where the responsibilities lie for replacing the existing landscaping. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Brad Duller, City Planner, advised that staff would look into the landscaping concern and take appropriate action, Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Decl ration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12332. Motion carried b the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS., C ITIEA MCNIEL, BARKER, REiPEL, STOUT NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried i E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1311.4 - SCHULTZ - A 21 custom Tot su ivis;_ron on . acres o an n t e Low Residential District 2-4 du;/ac 'located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del Prado APN 20 -921-03 and 04 Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance to the March 2 , 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hearing, Charles Rich, 8930 Balsa, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that drainage be adequately y addressed. Chairman .Stout advised that drainage was the main reason the applicant had requested the item be continued. He suggested that if possible Mr. Rich attend the March' 26th meeting to see if his concerns were mitigated. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 12, 1986 i V There were no further comments: Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by MNel , unanimously carried, to continue the public -hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114 to the March 26, 196 Planning Commission meeting F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9431 - HARRISON - A division of acres i nto parcels in_ -the-Very Low a ac evel opment District located on the east side of Beryl , south of Hillside Road - APN la `1- 11- a . Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Harrison, applicant, Mated that it would be cost prohibitive to parcel into four lots with the cut-de-sae and requested consideration of his original proposal of S lots. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he didn't have a problem with flag a lots. He suggested a possible solution of putting the pole of the flag down on south side. He further stated that the drive area should be totally lanscaped. Commissioner Barker stated that he did not particularly like flag lots and was concerned with adding 4 more driveways onto Beryl. He stated that he was satisfied that the trail connections had been taken care of and that since the applicant indicated that four lots was not financially viable, did not believe it should be a consideration Commissioner Chi ti ea stated she felt all along that drives should not empty onto Beryl ; however, with this configuration and especially with number of hots the applicant can afford to develop, it really doesn't become viable;. Further, the Trails Committee recommendation of switching the flag is appropriate to make the trail connections and she suggested that if this particular configuration was selected the driveways be combined so that there would be fewer drive cuts onto Beryl . Barrye; Hansom, Senior Civil Engineer, was concerned with shared driveways due to possible homeowner disputes. He pointed out that the amount' of traffic would be the same. Commissioner Mciel stated that the problems seem to have been resolved. He agreed with the layout of the trails. Chairman Stout stated he was totally against hammerhead driveways and adding any more driveways on Beryl , therefore, could not support this project. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 12, 1986 Motion, Moved by Rempel , 'seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 0431 with modification of moving the flag to the south end thus making ;a through connection of the equestrian trail . The trail is to be developed as proposed on Exhibit "F-9" The drive shall be a maximum of 15 feet in width with the remaining areas adjacent to the driveway to be landscaped to the w satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion d a t o carried the following n vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIL, BARKER, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Chairman Stout ,announced that the following related items would be heard concurrently by the Commission- G. AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY - e a ve to properties located beUw_e6n___tKe_ ex ensfi— of Banyarl venue and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN -141-08, 1 -19 5-151-01 through 03, 0 , 0 , 10-1 . H. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 154 - CARYN - A residential subdivision of ots o acres 1 and; w is —Ts—part of a larger master-planned community, located between the extension of Banyan Avenue and Highland Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 5 I 1-CH, 1 -19, 21-28. I. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12643 - HALL & FOREMAN - The development of 463 sink a amp + o s on acres o, ' in an e aryn Planned Community (Phase II), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east ' of Milliken Avenue - APN 5-141-0 , 1 -15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 5-151- , 7, 11, 13. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. James Markman, City attorney, suggested additional language to the conditions of approval , He advised that the intent was to accomplish an adjustment without the necessity of bringing it back before the Commission. His suggested language specified two numbered lots which would be deleted from one tract and roved to the other so that substantially equivalent lots: would be added to the other tract. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 1 , 19 i Commissioner Chi:tiea asked if the school play areas would be open during times when school was not in session: Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joe Ci Iori o, Caryn Development, advised that Carlton Lightfoot of the Eiji wanda School District had committed to keeping the school play areas open :during weekends. Mr. Cilorio thanked City staff and Mike <Romeo of Marlborough Development in working to resolve difficult and sensitive issues. Mike Romeo, Marlborough Development, thanked staff" in working to resolve problems. With regard to the City Attorney"s proposed amendment he advised that he would have no problem with identifying the two lots to be relocated. Dan Coleman advised that the lots would be 75-C and 75-D of Tract 12643. Mr. Romeo stated that he would not have a problem with identifying those two lots and eliminating the word "approximately"` but the key issue is that it would be deemed in substantial conformance. Mr. Markman agreed that "deemed in substantial, conformance" could be added to the condition. Mr. Romeo advised that Condition 8 of the original conditions still retains language relative to the park and suggested it should be eliminated. Otto krout l , Senior Planner, advised that the elimination of this language would not be a problem. Mr. Romeo advised that the original Resolution also makes reference to the County Transporation Department and stated it should read City Engineering Department. Chairman Stout asked who would be responsible for making revisions to the aryn Planned Community Text? Mr. Kr,outil advised that ' a condition of; approval last year on the original agreement deemed text revisions necessary. He stated that it would be helpful now due to the number of changes since the text will be used as the zoning ordinance for this project, Chairman Stout stated that since the text is to be used as a substitute for the General Plan, it is time to bring the text up to date. He asked Mr. Romeo if 90 'days would be a sufficient amount of time to revise and submit the text o the City. Mr. Romeo replied that it would and that he would submit an up-to-date text within 90 days. There were no further comments; therefore, the public hearing was closed. PlanningCommission � uto s - February 1 , 1986 Commissioner Chitiea stated that the change is appropriate. Chairman Stout stated that the City is in a fortunate situation since this is a perfect "location for a school and the City is getting money for the park fund while 'still getting the same benefit of open space for the community. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Repel , to adopt; the Resolution approving the Amendment to the Annexation and Development Agreements, Revisions to Tentative Tract 12642, and Revisions to Tentative Tract 12643. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Chairman Stout announced that Item Q was related to the above projects, therefore would `be heard out of agenda order: Q. TENTATIVE TRACT 12642 - K&B - Proposed modifications affecting floor plan mii 5 RX por ion of Tentative Tract 1 64 C ryn Planned Community. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker pointed out that this modification increases square footage of one yodel from 11,42 to 1235 and eliminates one model and replacing it with a larger one. Chairman Stout stated that the City is getting a better product, therefore, would have not problems with the modifications presented. Commissioners Chitiea and Mci el indicated they were very pleased. It was the consensus of the Commission that this modification was within the parameters of the original approval NEW BUSINESS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-5 - AJA - The development of i-55,000 square oat warehouse manufacturing industrial building on 3M48 acres of land in the Industiral Park District (Subarea 1 ) located at the southeast corner of 5th .Street and Pittsburgh Avenue - ARN 9- 51.- 0. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 1 , 1986 l Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, Chairman Stout invited public comment. There were no comments. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the lunch area go back to, Design Reviews on consent calendar. Chairman Stout stated that this building is on the corner of approximately 100 acres of which ;the owner is in process of discussing a master plan concept with the City. He indicated that he highly supported the master plan concept and if done correctly it will make it a lot easier for the Commission to reviews the individual projects when submitted. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and 'Development Review BS- 0, with an amendment to the Resolution requiring submittal of the lunch area to the Design Review Committee on the consent calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: C ITI A MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8: 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed : 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-50 - EXECUTIVE CAPITAL e eve dpmen o a , squa-me-foot office building on acres o land in the 'Industrial Park Category (Subarea B) located at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Haven Avenue PN 09- 11-01. Dino Rutri no, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. John Willard, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval . Commissioner Rempel thanked the applicant for his cooperation during the review of this project which shows that a project can have a mix and still have good design. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 1 , 198 I Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the applicant had done an admirable job of translating a traditional style of architecture into urban design which the City is looking for in the Haven corridor. She indicated that the design was very creative and shows there can be harmony and diversity in the area. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adept the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review SS- I}, as presented. Motion carried by the _following,vote: AYES: = COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNI L, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried L. PRELIMINARY REVIEW -O.I - dAUN EMIS -- The consistency determination e W Foothill C-6-i�eFd-d-r--I--n-t-&-r—i4i--Policies and the 'proposal to occupy an existing abandoned service station temporarily for the operation of a retail/'wholesale glass business in the General Commercial District and within the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard - APN 08-1 -05 Nancy `Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Ed Jaunzemis, 7`747 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, came forward to respond to Commission questions. Chairman Stout asked for clarification of a wholesale glass business. r. daun emi s replied that he 'would stock sheet glass which would be cut and delivered to accounts. Chairman Stout asked what the retail business would entail . r, daun emir replied that retail would include window and screen repair. Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. daun emir plans to relocate in 12 months. Mr. daun emi s replied he intended to stays approximately 13 months, depending on what improvements would be necessary. There were no further public comments. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would not object to a temporary use, given that the location would not be a permanent home and the area would more than likely be targeted for redevelopment before long. Planning Commission Minutes =10- February 12, 1986 i Commissioner Chiti ea stated that in terms of consistency, she would disagree since other projects that were determined nonconforming and needed a great deal of improvement have been given direction by the Commission to not proceed with further processing at this time. She indicated that if this were allowed to stay at this location, the improvements would be costly and she could not see it as a permanent place. Further, she would prefer to see 'him move to another location initially than to have to make determination in 9 or 10 months: that he has to move, which might be more expensive to him then. Commissioner Barker stated that at the conclusion of the Foothill study, this location more than likely will not fit in with what the City has in mind for Foothill Boulevard. He did not believe this proposal fits the interim policies. He was concerned with talking about 13 months and then re- evaluating at the end of that time. He agreed that the applicant should look into finding another place to do business since a tremendous amount of time and money would have to be placed into this location, Commissioner empel stated that he could not support a consistency determination at this time since there are some serious problems with this location. Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to determine Preliminary Review 6-01 inconsistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA BARKER, PEMPEL, STOUT DICES, COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- - CHRISTESON COMPANY - The development of a two- story o ice retai building o a ng , OO square feet within an approved integrated business center (Virginia Dare) in the General Commercial District located at the northwest quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 107 - 1-6. (Continued from January 8, 1986 meeting. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Stout invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -11 February 1 , 198E µ Larry Tieman, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Ti eman addressed the Design Review Committee recommendation that a l texturied pedestrian connection be provided to the Del Taco Restaurant across the circulation aisle. He indicated that he did not feel this requi remen necessary since there was really no place to put this strip of sidewalk. He asked that the condition be removed from the conditions of approval. Commissioner Barker stated that some time ago when the fast food restaurant was proposed by the developer, it was presented to the Commission that the movie theater people wanted and needed the fast food there. He asked now the people would get there. He was concerned with the developer's inconsistency in now saying the access is not needed when it was once a major part o developer's argument of allowing the fast food to go in that location to begin with. ; Further, that the original case presented by the developer was that the fast food was needed, should not have external access, and was to provide service in particular to the movie theater. Commissioner Chi ti ea advised.. that initially the fast food was to be an integral part of the project;. She questioned the developer's logic in now requesting to isolate that use when everything else in the development is to be interconnected. There were no further public comments. Chairman Stout asked if a condition should be placed on this building with respect to building permits upon completion of parking agreement. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that it would not be necessary due ;to the condition which is now in effect to control parking. Chairman Stout asked if the theater was a party of the agreement. r. Markman replied that Edwards Theater would be a party of that agreement. Motion: Moved by 'Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to -adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 5- , as presented. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, RE PEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -1 -- February 12, 1986 I DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. GRADING CE CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISIONS Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.. Commissioner Chitiea referred to the flexibility clause and asked of whom it would be at the discressi on. r. Cook replied that staff would propose that it would be at the discressicn of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Barker referred to the property on northwest corner of Foothill and Vineyard where it takes a tremendous'- drop and stated that there needs to be some sort of direction on the part of Commission to provide some alternative for the 15-foot usable rear yard space, such as use of decking. He suggested that some sort of alternatives need to be provided to taking large ;amounts of earth away from sates. Chairman Stout stated that the idea behind flat usable space was to insure that people would not have banks up against their house; it was never really indicated that the land had to be perfectly flat, but had to be something usable without having a steep incline or slope. Commissioner Chitiea stated that flexibility was needed so that solutions could be created for specific locations, and recommended that staff move forward with an amendment Commissioner dcNi el stated that we shouldn't deviate too farfrom the code. Commissioner Barker stated that he didn't like the idea of gigantic amounts of earth moving and his, direction would be to investigate alternative means of aachi ei' i ng the objective to provide some sort of usable space. Commissioner Rempel stated that the objective has always been to have as little grading as possible thus creating unique types of settings for hone designs. He suggested that there are various methods of providing adequate drainage which should be looked at. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the intent of the language should be clear. Chairman Stout agreed and advised that conflicting policies should be stated. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -13-- February 12, 1986 Wally Schultz, 8513 Red Hill County Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he was developing a: tract in the City and was "hooking for input to give direction how to include mass grading on Tract 13114 and projects like it where` it will end up to the best interest of all eventual homeowners to have all grading clone at one time. There were no further comments. Staff was given direction to proceed with a Development Code amendment. D. REPORT ON PERSONAL SERVICE USE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Lloyd Wedblad, Plaza, Travel , urged the Commission to retain the Conditional Use Permit requirement in the Haven Avenue area and to consider its implementation in other areas of the City- Tim Beedle, 9520 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the concept of Conditional Use Permits as a requirement of the Personal Services rises. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, also supported the requirement for Conditional Use Permits. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Rempel advised Mr. Wedblad that because a CUP was required in his case, it doesn't mean that another CUP cannot be allowed for another 'travel agency next door to him; in other words, because he obtained a CUP, it did not mean that someone else cannot obtain one. He advised that the Commission cannot prohibit trade. His intent was that the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan are contradictory in that the Code states that personal service (i .e. , travel agency) is allowed in the administrative professional area, which is what the City is making out of Haven Avenue Overlay District. Further, that to require a CUP of a travel agency but not of a florist is ridiculous because a travel agency is associated with office/professional Chairman Stout stated that he didn't see where this process discourages travel agencies in any way. Further, that the Conditional Use Permit system is basically to assure that the Haven ' Avenue office/professional is protected; therefore, would like to see the process retained. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - ; February ,1 , 1986 M Commissioner Chitiea agreed that she would not like to see the process eliminated since the City has a good balance planned for' Haven Avenue and she would like to see that balance maintained; Further, Personal Services covers a broad spectrum of which 'travel agencies are only a small part. She saw the Conditional Use Process as one which is not meant to discourage uses, but provides are opportunity for the City rake sure the use is appropriate and that circulation is adequate. Commissioner McNi el agreed that the Conditional Use Permit process provides control and is no restraint of trade. Commissioner Barker agreed that the CUP process should be retained but pointed out that Commissioner Rempel has a valid point in that the objective of a Conditional Use Permit is not to provide protection of one business over another. Further, that the City should not be in business of regulating trade, and this should be understood by applicants, It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Conditional Use Permit regulations for Personal Service Uses within the Industrial Specific Plan and Haven Avenue Overlay Distract, P. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT x DRAFT SCOPr OF WORK Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and scope of work,. Commissioner Barker expressed appreciation for the amount of work to date put into this project by staff and particularly to the thoroughness of Gar. Johnston, Commissioner Chi'ti ea commented that the draft scope of work prepared by Forma was concise and well organized. She stated that the firm selected should have tremendously creative ability and be able to look at diversity` and find a creative solution. Chairman Stout stated that information should be provided as to which individuals within the organization would be completing each task. 6r. Johnston advised that ;a matrix would be provided by the consultants which would designate tasks and the persons responsible for the completion of those tasks. There were no further comments. Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 12, 198 R. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS - Planning Commission review of genera revisions an ate to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part IV AOL (Subarea Development Standards). Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission expressed support for the revision to the Subarea Development Standards, with the following exception and/or comments: r Reprove Automotive Sales as an allowable use in Subarea 1 . . Subarea 16 regulations need to be reviewed at a following meeting to determine if an appropriate transition will be provided to the 'single family area north of Sth Street. 3. A ;letter in support of the 4th Street median island shall be sent to the Ontario Planning Commission or City Council requesting their review of the issue. Said letter shall be signed by Chairman Stout. The o ission agreed that the median should not be eliminated with input from Ontario City staff only. 4. The Commission expressed serious concern: with the Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial designation for Subarea g, and directed staff to prepare options for addressing concerns related to aesthetics and land use transition. In addition, the City is committed to existing businesses in Subarea g and ways to guarantee their continuation, such as Development Agreements, must be considered. . Consider changing the land use designation on the south side of le i ttram Avenue, east of Etiwanda From Heavy`; Industrial (Subarea 15) to General Industrial (Subarea ). Staff should prepare analysis for the following meeting. 6. The Haven Avenue Overlay District and possible 1-15 Overlay should be located in front of Subarea I in the document. . The word "loggias" with the definition in parenthesis must be replaced in Section B-2, page I1I35. 8. Further review of major topics should occur at a special workshop in April . Planning Commission Minutes -16- February-1 , 1986 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mewed by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:10 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned spec fully submitted, t Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning o i ss en Minutes -1 - February '1 , 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 22, 1986 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :O;O p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel , Herman, Rempol , Dennis Stout ABSENT:: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman,an, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong; Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Barbara Kr all , Assistant Civil Engineer, James Markman, City Attorney; Janice Reyn ld , ;Secretary Alan Warren, Assistant Planner; Chris Westman, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from the applicant for Item I, Conditional Use Permit 85- ,' Jensen Valley Plant Growers, withdrawing their request for consideration at this time. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, announced that the applicant for Item M, Environmental Assessment and Parcel; Map 9180, Lan co, had submitted a letter requesting; continuance for one month. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9180, Landco. There were no comments. Motion: Moved. by Barker, ;seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried,` to continue the public hearing for Parcel Map 9180 to February 26, 1986. ,l APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chiea, unanimously carried, to approve the November 13, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes with minor� word changes to pages 14 and 19 as requested by Commissioner Chitie . CONSENT CALENDAR Am DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10076 - LIGHTNER DEVELOPMENT - Design evi ew compr i si n si ngl a family omes on acres approved 19 lot subdivision TT 10076) in the Low Residential ( -4 du/ac) District located at the northeast corner of London and Liberty - APN 01-2 1-D50. (Continued from January B, 1986 meeting) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-47 - FORECAST - A proposa to d5055 a w -s cry office a ng to a rrg , square feet on .66 acres located on the east side' of Utica, north of Civic Center Drive, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan (Industrial Park District) .APN 208- 5 -08. C. DESIGN ;REVIEW FOR TRACT 10046 - LEWIS HOMES - Design Review of building e evatiores an oo prin s er a esi en a subdivision of 18. acres into 27 lots located on the north side of Hillside, west of Hermosa - APN 201- 52-1 through 27 D. DESIGN REVIEW OF LOT 20- 6, 8-61 OF TRACT 12650-1 - THE DEER` CREEK COMPARY e ''first phase—of development for-766tt-affive Tract , a resi anti l subdivision of 14 .16 acres in the Very Low Residential District 0-2 du/ao) into 225 lots located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of the Hillside Floon Channel , north of Hillside Road - APN 2C1-12 -24. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 -;C.T. ., INC. - Design review of 0o prfn s Rd 601ding e evat ens er an approve entative Tract of a residential subdivision of 2.55 acres into 10 lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 a/ac) located on the north side of Finch Avenue, crest of Haven Avenue - AN 20 - 1-15. Commissioner Chi ti ea requested the removal of Item A from the Consent Calendar. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Commission had received an addendum to the Resolution for Tentative Tract 1192 regarding the sound attenuation wall'. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 22, 1986 Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the remaining Consent Calendar items, with the inclusion of the addendum to the Resolution for Tentative Tract 119 . Item A - Design Review For Tentative Tract 10O 6 - Lightner Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, gave an overviews of the continuation of Banyan Street issue which was before the Commission. Mr. Hubbs advised that the continuation of Banyan through an S-curve to the east seemed to be a viable solution and suggested that the Commission might direct staff to look into this alternate as a future capital improvement project. Chairman Stout stated that the Tentative Tract calls for a temporary cul-de- sac at the end of Banyan and suggested that it be removed and substituted with barrier so that it matches the other side of the street until such time as the street continues through. He suggested that the design Review be approved with the understanding that staff would be directed to make every effort to place the street continuation in the capital improvements program as soon as possible. Commissioner Rempel was concerned with not opening the street up so that a vehicle could turn around. Chairman Stout stated that he didn't see the need for the expense of patting in acul-de-sac since the street is' 44 feet curb-to-curb, which is wider than most streets. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Rempel and stated that there are other streets in the City designed this way which requires vehicles to pull into resident's driveways to turn around. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that the expense is net such that the cul-de-sac should not be provided and did not see this is as a major issue. He stated that his concern was that the bridge be constructed to provide for the continuation. Motion* Moved by Rempel seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 10076 with the understanding that the continuation of Banyan will be placed on the City's Capital Improvements Program as soon as possible.. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-38 - VICTORY CHAPEL on-construction on Bona se arm to es a �s a c urc �n an existing building in a multi-tenant industrial park within Subarea 4 (General Industrial ) of the Industrial "Specific Plan,_ located on the northwest, corner of Archibald and 7th (9618 7th Street) - APN 09-171- 4 . (Continued from January 8, 1986 meeting. ) Planning Commission Minutes - - January 22, 1986 Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Alex Wilson, applicant, was concerned with condition 7 of the Resolution which limited the use of the building for assembly or group meetings to the weekend and after 6:00 p.m. on weeknights. Reverend Wilson explained that a women's Bible study attended by approximately 25-30 people will be conducted on Tuesday mornings. He additionally advised that a Bible seminar would be held for eight days in May and in November from 8:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. which would be attended by approximately 225 people. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested with regard to the bi-annual Bible seminars, rather than amend the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit the applicant could apply for a Temporary Use Permit in order to gain approval for the Bible seminar. He advised that though there may not be a problem with the women's Bible study, the seminars might be of a magnitude to adversely impact surrounding busineses. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested a modification to the Resolution which addressed the issue. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the applicant would have all Uniform Building Code and Fire Marshall conditions complied with prior to occupancy. Mr. Wilson replied that he would have all conditions met. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-38 with an amendment to condition 7 to allow religious assembly and group meetings which exceeds the allocated parking spaces for this unit only during the weekend and after 6:00 p.m. on weeknights. The Bible seminar is to be handled under the Temporary Use Permit process. Motion carried by the following: vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COKMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9530 - WALKER - A division of 7.7 strict (Subarea 13) located on the north side of 6th Street, east and west of New Rochester Avenue - APN 229-261-38. (Continued from January 8, 1986 meeting. ) Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 22, 1986 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Bud Roberts,, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of approval . Mr. Roberts referred to Exhibit B of the report and pointed out that the parcel size was actually .55 of an acre, not one-half of an acre.: There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with all recommendations by staff, and additionally stated that option 2 to require an offer, of dedication should be required at this time, Motion: Moved by Chitiea,; seconded to McNie1 , of issue a Negative Declaration and adopt ;the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9530 with the requirement for an offer of dedication for the interchange to be constructed from the Route 15 Freeway to 5th Street. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA MCN EL, BARKER, RE PEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-03 - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSOCIATION - A request o retain square oo ray er for-temporary office space on a 155 acre site in the "M"° District, located on the north side of Arrow Highway, west. of Cucamonga Creek Channel , 8706 Arrow Highway - APN 07- 11-01 Alan barren, Assistant planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if another trailer existed on the site. r. Warren replied that ;the temporary office trailer was the only trailer which existed on this site; however, the property immediately adjacent to this parcel also contained a trailer. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Repel , to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use 'Permit 8 - 3. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONER'S: BARKER, REM EL, C ITIE , MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes 5`- January 22, 1986 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _ 3 _ J NSEN ;VALLEY PLANT GROWERS - A request tb lnsta a tray er s a temporary office an s ora e s for a wholesale nursery business on 1.17 acre land s o l d within the Southern California Edison Corridor located at 1.2050` Arrow Highway, east of Rochester'- APN 27-0 1-47, 53 SO. Chairman an Shut advised that this item had been withdrawn at the request of the applicants J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- P COLE S HAEFER A request `to opera b a 24 hour' emergency am a anee MMF�wlth quarters in a tenant space of an existing building at the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park, 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 206, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan ,. APN 0 ® 5 - 1. Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium and abstained from vote due to a possible conflict of interest. Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout questioned the licensing procedure for San Bernardino County. Chairman Stout bp P D 'opened the public hearing. Pat MAlmond, representing the applicant, responded to Chairman Stout's question by advising that there are no legal findings at this point as to what can be done with respect to the licensing procedure. Mr. McAlmond concurred with the findings of the Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-4 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL -carrie d Planning Commission Minutes -6 January 22, 1986 , . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-40 - SLOAN - request to operate a two-station eaut sa 'on inc a ng manicure service within an existing health center (Star's Aerobics Fitness/Tanning Center) in the General Industrial District (Subarea located in the Cucamonga Business Park at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Archibald Avenue - APN Og-OI- g (Portion). Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report- Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Eva Sloan, Applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNi el , to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-40. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL,' MCNIEL, BARKER, CNITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 96I - BARTON - A division of 13.22 acres of landinto parse s in the nos rTal Park District (Subarea ), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, oast of Maven Avenue - APN 0 -351-48, 49, & SO. Commissioner R mppel stepped down from the podium and abstained from vote due to a possible conflict of interest. Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Citiea asked if parking had been addressed at this point. Ms. Kral 1 replied that any building on the vacant parcel would have to come before Planning Commission prior to construction and parking would be addressed at that time. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, applicant, stated that the reason for the change in the map was to put permanent financing; on the building and to open up the parcel in the center to enable construction of the two structures and the parking structure. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 22, 1986 There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mci el , to issue a Negative 'Declaration and adopt the Resolution ; approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9612. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNI L, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9180 - LANUCO; FINANCIAL vision o gross acres into parce s in the enera rr us r7 a all Served District, Subarea , located on the south side of 9th Street and west of Hellman Avenue - APN 209-013- 4. Chairman Stout announced that this item had been granted a continuance under the Announcments section of this agenda. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0IA - HAWKINS - A rogues o amen a an seMap of the enera an corn- ow Dinsity Residential ( -4 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential L 4- du/ac for 13.55 acres of land located on the south side of Feron Boulevard, east of Archibald APN 209-055-02, 03, 14e Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked ifthe project was a market rate project, could the developer done in with a request for a bonus thereby increasing the density? Mr. Buller replied that a 25 density bonus- could be possible which would increase the number of units from 8 to 10. He additionally advised that this would requirei additional review b both the Planning n Commission ssi on and the City y 9 _ y Council , if requested by the applicant. Chairman Stout ope ned the_Pu_b1 � hearing.n g Tracy Tibballs,; 10522 Wilson, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Tibballs acknowledged that the 25 density bonus issue for affordable' housing if requested would be addressed, by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date. He requested approval of the General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Low Medium Density. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 22, 1986 Nacho Cracia, 104 Humboldt, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the amendment and stated that he was happy to finally see the density reduced to an ;appropriate level . Commissioner Barker asked if Mr. Gracia understood that the density could come in at 10 with a density bonus for affordable housing* Mr. Craci a replied that he would like to see what that would mean on a site plan, since he was not sure how that would 'affect the number of dwellings constructed® There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that this was the density which was established as the one most suited for this parcel and was glad to see it finally reduced t that level Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that 4-8 might be acceptable and could possibly e compatible; however, was deeply concerned with compatibility should the density increase to 10 under a density bonus. Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the development of condominiums or apartments in this area of the City. He stated that this type of product is inherently incompatible with the area due to surrounding uses such as the school on one side and the railroad on the other; therefore, could not support the amendment. He suggested that the project:be developed under the terms of a Development Agreement. Commissioner Barker agreed that 4-8 units per acre is an appropriate density for this parcel , however, was concerned with development at 10 units per acre under a density bonus. Chairman Stout stated that he had not changed his opinion that 4-8 units per acre is an appropriate density for the parcel He indicated to the developer that when the Commission expresses strong concerns regarding compatibility a higher than 8 units per acre this issue will core up in the design phases, therefore strongly urged the ;applicant to consider this concern in their building program. Commissioner Chi'ti ea asked if there was a way to tie a development agreement to the land use amendment. Mr. Markman replied that a development agreement replaces zoning not the General Plan designation, therefore, could not be applied to the land use amendment. Mr. Markman indicated that before this project goes before the City Council documentation would be necessary to indicate that the people signing the application are authorized to control the land use on the property. He advised that if this documentation is not received, it would be necessary for the City Council to continue consideration of this item until it is received. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 22, 198 Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Stout, tarried to recommend issuance of Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and General plan Amendment 86-01A, Hawkins, to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: 0 ISSIONERS: MENIEL, STOUT, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ONITIEA, REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout announced that Item R was related to the following item and would be heard concurrently. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9687 - TURNER-TONES - A division o ages nto parcels in the -General In us riaArea (Subarea 1 ) located at the northeast corner of Santa Anita and 4th Street - APN 229- 28 -41 & 42 . (Related File: DR 05-46) R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-46 - BONES The pve opment of a , s waare oot ware Ouse is ution ui ing and two light industrial buildings totaling 41,100 square feet on 9.23 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) located at the northeast corner "'of 4th Street and Santa Anita - APN 29-2841 and 42. (Related File: PM 96 7 Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested that condition 2 of the project Resolution be added to the Parcel Map Resolution so that there would be no confusion that there is a requirement for reciprocal use of the plaza area to be recorded in the 00 R's for the parcel map. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Rusty Turner, Turner Development Corporation, addressed the access issue on 4th Street and explained that the access was necessary to accommodate truck traffic. He indicated that the site would be marketed for a large distribution building and felt that it would be of benefit to have access off of 4th Street. Mr. Turner also addressed the issue of undergrounding utilities on 4th Street. He pointed out that the poles will remain in place since the 66 Ev lines cannot be undergrounded. He requested that it not be required to underground 12 BV lines where 66 Kv lines exist* Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that special consideration of additional access be given to larger parcels. He stated that D driveways in total is not a major amount when dealing g with large parcels such as this. _ Planning Commission Minutes _10® January 22, 1986 Greg Lansing, 985 Alpine i ve, Beverly Hills, supported the parcel asap and stated that one drive on 4th Street is an undue hardship on the developer. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker asked for discussion regarding the utility underg rounding. Chairman Stout stated that it really doesn't 'make much sense in this case to underground the 1.2 kv and leave the 66 kv lines on the poles. Commissioner Rempel suggested a l i erg agreement to provide for the removal of the 12 kv lines at such time that something is done with the 66 kv's. James ',Markman, City Attorney, advised that a lien agreement would not be the answer since the then-owner of the property would hear the cost of under rounding when the time comes. Further, that this would more than likely e accomplished through a <utility unergroundig district. Commissioner Barker was concerned - with telecommunication lines on utility poles.' Chairman Stout agreed that the pollution of telecommunication lines is a problem; however, in this instance only 66 kv and 12 kv lines exist on these poles and felt that they could remain until such time as the 66 kv lines are removed. Commission Chitiea agreed. She stated that the direction to underground utilities in the industrial area is done for aesthetic reasons and should be done wherever possible. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the driveway issue. Commissioner Rempel supported the concept of the drive onto 4th street and felt it was essential to this piece of property. Commissioner McNiel stated that he could not support the applicant's indication that a traffic study revealed that 4th Street is not going to be heavily traveled. He was concerned with a truck pulling out of a driveway onto a major street and suggested that the driveway be eliminated.` Chairman Stout advised that secondary streets in the industrial area were intended for use by truck traffic. Further, this one driveway may not cause an impact, but the cumulative impact of every other applicant who wants one starts to add up. Therefore, he could not support the driveway access on 4th Street Planning Commission Minutes -li_ January 22, 1986 Commissioner Barker stated that he could understand the applicant's desire for driveway; however, was concerned with trucks crossing traffic. He could support the concept if the driveway could be arranged so that left turns in or out of the driveway were prohibited and if a deceleration lane could be provided; however, in this instance it could not be accomplished and he opposed the driveway on 4th Street. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that making left turns onto 4th Street could be hazardous, and did not support the driveway onto that street. Motion: Moved by Chitie , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9687with amendments to .special Conditions G-2 to strike reference to underground overhead utilities on 4h Street, additional condition to reflect that reciprocal use of the plaza area is to be provided and recorded in the CCR"s prior to the issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT - NUES., COMMISSIONERS: REMREL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Commissioner Rempel advised that the driveway onto 4th Street should have been allowed, Motion. Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 5.4 , with the removal of reference to underrounding utilities on 4th Street in Engineering condition 1, and reference to the drive approach on 4th Street in Standard Conditions 1-5 and - . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MC'NIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEt, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NINE -carried . 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed. .SU p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 22, 1986 I I R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAR 9670 - - R.C. ASSOCIATES II division of 32.6acres of landinto; parce s in -the General- category (Subarea 1) located on the north side of 6th Street, west side of Buffalo APN 229-261-78. Related File: OR 85-49. Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-49 - SANTA ANITA P p ase eve opment o a ware Ouse is rioution building tote ing 40,1575 square feet with 255,950 square feet for Phase I on 18.83 acares of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) located on the west side of Buffalo, north of 6th Street - APN 229-261- 78. (Related File: Parcel Map 9670. ) Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joe Hyde, representing the applicant, addressed Special Condition 5 of the Parcel Map Resolution and asked for clarification that the condition referred to a slope easement and not reciprocal access easement .between the two parcels. He also addressed the condition for street improvement plans to be prepared and asked for clarification that the addition of driveway cuts, street lights and trees would be made to existing plans on file. Jim Watson, 363 San Miguel , Newport Beach, thanked staff for cooperating in expeditious handling of project. There were no further'comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer, advised that staff concurred with the applicant's request regarding Standard Condition 5 of the parcel map Resolution. Regarding Condition - , he concurred that street improvement plans have been completed and it would be a matter of adding items to existing plans. Mr. Markman suggested modifications to condition 5 by replacing the first sentence of the condition with "reciprocal access easements for landscape maintenance", and striking "common roads, drives or parking areas" . arre Ranson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that in order to insure access to maintain the slope, the condition should be required of parcel two. 8e suggested that staff be directed to revise the condition. Motion: moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue Negative Declarations and adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9670 with staff direction to modify conditions regarding the slope easement. Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-49 approved as presented. Motion carried by the following vote, AYES; COMMISSIONERS. BARKER, MCNI L, CBITIEA, REIPEL,, STOUT NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 22, 1986 ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by cNiel unanimously carried, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on February 3, 1986 to discuss general revisions and update of the Subarea Regulations within the Industrial Specific Plan* The meeting will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Room 4, beginning at .QU p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Duller Depute Secretary I Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 22, 1986 i i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January B, 198 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, glbl Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chiti a, Larry McNiel,, Berman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT. None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Jane's Markman, City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary- Alan Marren, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Pl-anner, announced that the City Council had directed the selection of a Civic Center Subcommittee to be comprised of two members of the Planning Commission. Dennis Stout volunteered to serve on the Committee and Herman Rempel won the luck of the draw for the other position. Commissioner 9cNiel will serve as alternate. r. Buller additionally announced Desi gn Review Committee rotations. Commissioners Chiti a and. Rempel will serve on the Commercial/Industrial Committee and Commissioners Barker and McNiel will serve on the Residential/Institutional Committee. Chairman Stout will act as alternate for both Committees. r. Buller asked the Commissioners if February B, I986 would be an available date for a workshop to discuss Industrial Specific Plan amendments. The Commission agreed that this would be an acceptable date, with the exception o Commissioner Chi ti ea who stated that she would be out of town. APPROVAL DP MINUTE Commissioner Rempel amended page 11 of the November 27, 1985 Minutes. He advised that the intent in the first paragraph was that only D- of the building was being used, therefore he suggested that the remaining percentage e excavated for use. Commissioner Chitiea requested that the tense be corrected on the Chairman Stout's comment following adoption of the consent calendar. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chiti a, unanimously carried, to approve the November 27, 1985 Minutes as amended. Motion. Moved by Chitieaa seconded by McNiel unanimously carried to approve the December 11, 1985 Minutes as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10076 - LIG TNER DEVELOPMENT - Design eve ew compr*i s nj 19 -single- famp Tomes on acres approved 19 lot subdivision TT 10076) in the Low Residential ( - du/ac) District located at the northeast corner of London and Liberty - APN 01- 1-05 . B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 577 - PILGRIMS A custom lot res entia suvisfon o o s on acres o land in the Low District ( -4 d ac) 'located on the south side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue - APN 0 -0 :1-0 and 6 . Chairman Stout requested that Item °"A" be removed for discussion. Motion: Moved by Darker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adopt Item "B" of the consent calendar. Design Review for Tentative Tract 10076 - Lightner Development Chairman .Stout stated that Banyan was proposed to continue across the City to Summit and was concerned with the "T" intersection which was now depicted in the current plans. Commissioner Rempel disagreed reed and stated that Banyan would b designed to o p g �° _ g g through if the City constructs a bridge. Commissioner Ranker Mated that if there was a question of how this tract was originally approved, staff should be given direction to research' that issue and continue the item for two weeks Planning Commission Minutes - - January 8, 186 Moti on;: Moved by MONi el , seconded by Barker, to Continue Design Review for Tentative Tract 100 6, Lightner Development, to the January 22, 1986 meeting. Chairman an Stout requested that the Minutes be included in the staff report, including those which were taken at the time the project was granted a time extension. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOAT NOES: COMMI-SSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 6-01 THE LL A - request to amen the anne o unity to or the Victoria anned Community to allow commercial RV storage and mini-warehouse in the Medium High ( 1H) Residential District. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff ; report. Mr. Cook advised that a letter had been received from Ms. Elena, an adjacent property owner, opposing project- due to incompatibility with her property. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, stated concurrence with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval Chairman .Stout asked if the applicant anticipated the need for more of these types of facilities. Mr. Ford replied that the Community Plan provides for an annual review to evaluate the need. He advised that the William Lyon Company anticipates participating in that type of review to monitor the need; `here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Barker stated that he was not opposed to the use. Commissioner Rempel stated that he was not opposed. Commissioner McNiel stated that he was not opposed to the use, but that there should be a provision that in such case that a private business fails, the responsibility falls on the homeowners association to maintain the property. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the use was appropriate and that interior storage is necessary for the community. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 8, 1986 Chairman Stout concurred and asked the City Attorney if there would be a way to mitigate Commissioner McNiel 's concern. James Markman, City Attorney, advised that the applicant is probably going to transfer title to another entity. He stated that them may be a problem in what constitutes failure. Additionally, if this were the last property to be developed, he would consider it more of a problem but there are other properties to be developed, which would give the City some control . Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the property maintenance issue would be controlled through the City's code enforcement process.. He additionally advised that staff developed some development cri ti ea or standards for mini- warehouses which were included in the resolution for this project. He asked the Commission if these conditions would be acceptable as the standard criteria for mini-warehouses. It was the consensus of the Commission that those standards were acceptable. Motion: Moved: by Barker, seconded.. by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration and <approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 85-01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHIT E , REMPEL, STOUT NOES: 'COMMISSIONERS: ,, NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5- 5 - THE MILLI ° LYON CO NY - development o a o eF6a storage of wit mini- ware ou ors 4.4 acres of 'land within the Victoria Planned Community (Medium High Residential , 14- 4 du/ac), located on the north side of Base Line Road, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor - APN 09I- 4 ' Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, ;reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. .Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, stated concurrence with findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval . He asked that it be clarified that roofing material on the caretaker's quarters would be tile; however, the roofing of the actual storage area would be metal for fire protection, Planning Commission Minutes 4- January 8, 1986 Commissioner Chii ti ea ;asked if the applicant had time to make modifications to the circulation system after Design Review. She was concerned that the present spaces show only 17 spaces where someone could easily back a boat, trailer, or camper unit to be dropped. Mr. Ford replied that the architect had worked on the circulation pattern with respect to the way in which parking spaces orient to driveways, however, those modifications had not been included In this packet and were not rewired to be resubmitted prior to this meeting. Commissioner Barker agreed that some changes were suggested at Design Review and was concerned that the packet did not include revisions and that colored renderings were not provided. Commissioner Chitiea asked how the dump station and water fill-up areas had been designed® Stewart Calderon, project architect, advised specific designs had not been developed. He stated that the attempt would be to have at least three wash rucks and two spaces for -dumping so that 5 RV' during peak hours could be accommodated. Mr. Calderon outlined the area on the overhead exhibit. Chairman Stout stated that the Design Review Committee expressed concern about the exterior wall and recommended that some type of landscaping treatment, recessing of the wall in certain areas to accommodate landscaping, and the use of a combination of materials. He asked if those recommendations had been included in the final plans. Mr. Calderon stated that, pilasters would be used to break up the expanse of the gall and that vines would also be used. Further, a brick cap was proposed for the top of the wall . Chairman Stout questioned the landscaping maintenance along the perimeter walls r. Calderon advised that irrigation would be through the use of drip lines. Chairman Stout stated concern with not seeing final renderings. Brad Buller, City planner, suggested that the Commission consider one of two actions, to continue the item in order for the protect to return to the Design Review Committee for fine-tuning, or if they felt comfortable enough to act on the project at this meeting, certain items of the resolution could be conditioned to return to the Design Review Committee for final approval . Commissioner Barker replied that he would rather condition the Resolution that Design Review Committee give final approval rather than hold up the project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Planning Commission Minutes -5- January B, 1986 --------- Commissioner Chitiea stated that the use is appropriate, however, the design criteria would have to go back to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Barker agreed. Chairman Stout stated that placing d few vines on the wall would not solve the problem of the expanse of the wall . Regarding changing material', he stated that since the building is long and linear, his concern would be more with the material change being vertically rather than merely a cap change and that his thought would be to block: it off with different sections. o i si over Rempel referred to the letter from the adjacent property owner, and stated that since that property is medium high density it would mean the property would have a fairy dense project and might benefit from this project. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution with modifications to conditions 7, 10, 11 regarding design issues are to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and a modification to condition 9' stating that all roofing material on the caretaker's quarters is to be tile. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ak ak �r 3k �r E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- 1 - WEDBLAD - A reques to operate a trave agency i n a tenant space wiMin an industrial office park in the Industrial Park District and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at 9140 Haven Avenue, south of 6th Street - APN 9- 6 - 17. Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if staff saw a need for limiting hours on Saturdays o : D p.m. Mr. Warren replied that the applicant stated that this 'would be his hours of operation. Further,, the fact that the conditional use permit runs with the site and that another travel agency could relocate to this building, staff felt that it would be appropriate to place this condition on the permit. Commissioner Mciel questioned the available parking spaces in comparison to leasable space within the complex. Planning Co mission Minutes -6- January 8, 1986 i r. Warren replied that a break down of h r F ea the area had not been r d p_ are... however, in a previous approval the owner of the u p p pp property has guaranteed additional parking on a parcel to the south upon expansion of the development, Commissioner empel Mated this type of use is what was envisioned in this Subarea and questioned why the applicant was required to submit a conditional use permit for review. Chairman Stout stated that the conditional use permit process is an overlay district requirement. He then opened the public hearing. Lloyd Wedblad, applicant, gave an overview of the project. Cyr. Wedblad supported the conditional use permit process in that he felt notification of surrounding businesses and review by staff and the Commission was beneficial to surrounding businesses. Mr. Wedblau questioned the condition regarding hours of operation and requested that he not be restricted. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.. Chairman Stout stated that if the hours of operation were conditioned due to parking conflicts, he could see the necessity; however, this operation would use such low intensity, he could not see the need to limit his hours of operation. Commissioner Barker suggestedcondition that n c too one be removed in tot al and further stated that he did not have a concern with the proposal,. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had no problem with this use since it was intended in this Subarea and felt that a Conditional Use Permit should not be required. Commissioner Chitiea supported the project and stated that it would have minimum impact and be an appropriate use. Chairman .Stout stated that this is an acceptable type of use, and didn't see a problem with the process Commissioner cNiel supported the travel agency and suggested staff determine if a conditional use 'permit should be required. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Haven Avenue Overlay District requires a, conditional use permit for this type of use; however, if the Commission did not believe a conditional use permit should be required, staff could research the language and possibly bring modifications back` before the Commission. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the question: was not whether or not the use was appropriate, but how Much is appropriate in a complex before the nature of the office professional support is changed to the primary commercial use. Further, that it was not intended to exclude uses, but to control them. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 8, 19,86 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-41 with the elimination of condition one. Section 3 was modified to read that the conditional use permit is hereby approved. Motion carried by the following vote: ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA NIEL, BARKER, REPPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Repel stated that the; requirement for a Conditional Use >Permit for travel agencies is not in the best interest of the community and requested that the issue be brought back before the Commission. F. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-38 - VICTORY 'CHAPEL on-construction Conditional Use- ermit to establish a c urc 5 an existing building in a multi-tenant industrial park within Subarea 4 General Industrial ) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Archibald and 7th (8618 7th Street) APN 09-11- 47. Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item requested a continuance to the January 22, 19 meeting. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to Conti nue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit: 85-38 to the January , 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNI L, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9530 WALKER - A division of 7.7 acres into 2 pair e s i a Teneral -Indust_ °strict (Subaru 13 located on the north side of 6th Street, east and vest of New Rochester Avenue APN g- 61-38. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 8, 186 I Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance to the January 22, 1986 Planning; Commission meeting, Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9350 to the January 22, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL, BARKER, CNITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried * * - 8: 0 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 5-0 - CITY OF RANCHO _ - en am ment c ect on of the Development o e pr3r a1 h7 ng to Non-Conforming Use. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker suggested that the new text be modified to read that the Planning Commission could approve or consider a request. James Markman, City Attorney, suggested further modification to road "approve or conditionally approve" Motion: Moved by Pempel, seconded by Barker, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and: adoption of the Ordinance approving Environmental Assessment and ;Developmen Code Amendment 85-06 to the ;City Council with the modification to the new text- to read "approve or conditionally approve". Motion carried by the following' vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL,' STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes - - January B, 1986 NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- D - AJA The devel opment 6 mU I tl-tenant 1n ustria u ings totaTi_n_9__6TM square feet on 4.92 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) located at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Archibald - APN 09- 11- 1, 36, 37. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms, Fong suggested word changes to condition 6 of the Resolution. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Franz Nale ny, Aja & Associates, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of approval . There were no c further o r e eats ; therefore th e t e public hearin g g was closed. Commissioner hi ti ea stated at th the applicant made significant design improvements to this project which will better serve the users of the complex, and enhance Archibald. Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that Archibald is getting to be a problem with the strip commercial look and that this project is an excellent example of how that can be broken up. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-38, with a modification to condition 6 to read "an that the existing well site drive approach along 7th Street be removed". Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-4 - CHRISTESON COMPANY The development of a two- tory o e retai uffdfng total ng O square feet within an approved integrated business center (Virginia Dare) in the General Commercial District located at the northwest quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 1077-661- ¢ Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report* Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 6, 1986 Glen Cellatly, Dissel Architects, stated concern with the condition requiring a pedestrian connection to the gel Taco Restaurant. Ms. Fogg stated that :previous conditions state that the developers of Virginia Dare and Brunswick work together to find a workable solution for the connection: There were no further'comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. James Markman, City Attorney, provided an update on the parking situation and advised that a Development Agreement is being worked on with the developer. e further advised that an appeal has been made by the applicant on the perking issue and scheduled for public ;hearing before the 'City Council on February 5, 1986. He stated that staff does not know which parking condition will apply and hew it will affect the office building now before the Commission; therefore, Staff°s position was to continue review of this item until the first meeting in February to have this issue resolved. Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing. Glen Cellatly stated his understanding that the concern was with all three properties and it was agreed to that the building at the southwest was the questionable building regarding; parking and the building to the northeast was small enough that parking was not an issue. Wherefore, ' felt that this building should be exempt. Mr. Markman stated that the building was not specified the only thing that was specified was that a single office= building could be developed if it only required HS parking spaces or less and the cinema parking would be assured. Further, that this approval would have validated this project; however, the appeal by the developer invalidated the Planning Commission's decision. David Micheal , representing the applicant, stated that from all indications there would not be any problems with the development agreement. Further, 0,000 to 80,000 square feet of buildable space remain to be built out in the complex and felt that this would provided plenty of cushion for the Development Agreement to be exercised. There were no further comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to continue the public hearing for Development Review H -4B to the February 12, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, RE9PEL, STOUT NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Co is ion Minutes =11- January H, 1986 K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW -84 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - A consistency e erminat!on betwelt,I F ooT orr, or rater m Policies and proposed expansion of an existing bank building located at 9590 Foothill Boulevard, formerly occupied by Wilmington Savings and Loan. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Steven Sensenbach, applicant, gave an overview of the project. Commissioner Barker asked if the architect could., discuss how the proposed design could with link the Wendy' plaza to the west., Tom Harris, architect, stated that in the short time available that problem had not been addressed and that the only issue addressed was what to do with the Wilmington Savings & Loan building to torn it into a viable project. Commissioner Barker advised that one of the concepts behind the Foothill Study is to master plan developments along the corridor. Commissioner Rempel stated that the upgrade of this site is exactly what the City wants out of the Foothill Corridor Study. However, this was not to say that the rough plan ,presented is exactly the plan which will be approved. He agreed that this is a feasible project for Vineyard Bank to pursue. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that at the preliminary stage, the consistency determination could be made. Commissioner McNiel concurred. Chairman Stout stated that when this procedure was established the intent was not to shut down all development on Foothill until completion of the study; it was realized that there were certain situations and sites that would lend themselves ;to immediate development. He found the proposal consistent with the Interim Policies, but noted that the architecture and site plan may need adjustments and possibly reassessment of the `drive h. -. t_rou h s. g He felt those were minor technical aspects which could be worked out later in the process. Mr. Sensenbach stated that relocating the drive throughs is not a minor accomplishment and would cost upward of .$75,400 to relocate. He advised that here are currently three drive through spaces and Vineyard Bank plans to expand to four. Further, that in working on this site it was important to come to an understanding :that it would be allowable to expand the existing drive through facilities and not relocate them since this issue would be of major d consideration in continuing this s project. He advised that the drive throughs would continue to exit out onto Foothill and stark to the rear of the building. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - January B, 18 Garrye Hanson, ;Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the access policy is not to allow access onto major streets when an alternative side street could be used. He was concerned that this project has not gone through the technical review process. Brad 'Buller, City Planner, stated that the conceptual plan in the packet and the preliminary plans presented by the applicant this evening must be reviewed further. It would be difficult to rake any kind of judgment on the technical issues such as driveways, circulation patterns, and architectural concepts until more precise plans can go through the technical review process. Chairman Stout reiterated that at the Planning Commission level this proposal was seen as an improvement and the Commission conceptually agrees with the proposal . L. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- 8 - HAVEN AVENUE FOOD COIN - The development of a one-story retail restaurant square oo uil ding located within the Virginia Dare Center at the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven on about 13 acres in the General Commercial ( C) District - APN 1077-401-0 7. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the centered reveals required by the Design Review Committee. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that Exhibit D-2 depicted the applicant's revisions. He advised that his recollection from that meeting was that the Committee discussed the centering on the section of the wall which is parallel o the parking, not between the existing building and the end of the building as proposed. He also raised a concern with the balance of landscaping along the south elevation Chairman Stout invited public comment. Glen Gellatly, project architect, explained why the reveals had been centered as shown on Exhibit C- . He further noted that the trees along the south building elevation are centered between parking stalls and that a fire hydrant location determined the size of the landscaped areas adjacent to the grape crusher building r. Culler advised that staff; would work with the applicant on the south elevation, if the Commission desired. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that landscaping be expanded into the fourth space which would eliminate that space and give more landscaping, She asked i f thi s wool d be a probl em Planning Commission Minutes -1 A January 8, 1986 r. Gel l atl,y replied that it would be a problem and could not speak for the developer by indicating it would be alright to eliminate a parking space® He advised that this elevation would be the service side, since the main entrance would be off of iHaven. There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the parking space should be eliminated and the landscaping increased. Commissioner McNiel was satisfied with the design and did not see this as a major issue. Commissioner Barker considered it a major issue and suggested that staff be directed to work on a solution with the applicant. Commissioner Rempel Mated that many projects have gone through undue limits trying to shield loading 'zones and trash areas from view. He was concerned that this project places it out in open view and there is no place on the site for loading and cleaning.: He felt that the opening to the south should be totally screened, Chairman Stout stated that the problem is that the City designated the gusher building as historical and wanted it visible; however, the applicant didn't need the space therefore decided to integrate it into their restaurant by making it a service entry. Commissioner Rempel stated that trucks should net be parking out in the driveway and there should be an area to the wrest to use as a dock area which might necessitate the loss of six parking spades. He suggested that staff be directed to work with the applicant on a driveway loading area which is fully screened. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review B - B with direction to staff to work with the applicant on the development of a driveway loading area which is fully screened. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, CAE IEt, REM1PEL, STOUP HUES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, NONE -carried ADJOURNMENT Motions Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 8, 1986 The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop following the Design Review Committee meeting on January 16, 1986. The workshop will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Room 4, Rancho Cucamonga, California beginning at 7: Q p.m. The topic of discussion will be the proposed shopping center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line (Conditional Use Permit 8 - 8) 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 5- January 8, 1986