The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997/01/22 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Bethel__ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Macias__ Commissioner Tolstoy !1. ANNOUNCEMENTS III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 11, 1996 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Tract 14380, consisting of 25 single family lots in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the north and south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225-451-39 to 58 and 225-461-57 to 60. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28 - RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for 90 lots within Phases 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Tract 13565 in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson Avenue and west of San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-211-44, 45 and 51 through 55; 226-222-30; 226-251-24 through 36 and 42 through 45; 226-261-17 through 20, 46 through 58 and 60 through 71 and 226-272-01 through 36. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chaff'man and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. VARIANCE 96-09 - OLIVAS - A request to reduce the parking setback from 15 feet to 5 feet along the south property line for a proposed Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Medium Residential zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), to be located at 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road. APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Related File: Pre~Application Review 96-05. Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS RECONSIDERATION OF COMMERCIAL USES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET (Related file Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04) E. REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE POLICIES FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS UPDATE ON JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ISSUES - Oral Report G. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Page 2 IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 16, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP .....:.:...: ................... ....................-................:.:...: ...........: .... .....................: .................. :.-..........................: ............. ........-.-.., ..... -...-.....-.-.................-...... ................... ....-.-.-................ ..... ....... :.:.: ....... -.......-.-.................. ................. ..................... .......:. · · --I I .....::::::::::::::::::::: ....................:.........-.-:-:.:-:.:.:.:-: ..........................-....:.:.:-:.:.:.: .........................-:-:-:.:.:.:.: ......:.:.:.: ..... I .. ~.~~~.~~~:~:.:.:.......~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~..~~~.~~~~~~..~~~~~~~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....-.-.......-............................................................-.................... ....... · I i'' ""'"'"'"' ..................... '..:.' .... '-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ' '.'~I'~' "- · · - · A.T.& S.F. RR CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF R/uNCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 22, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Tom Grahn, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Tract 14380, consisting of 25 single family lots in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the north and south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225-451-39 to 58 and 225-461-57 to 60. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 24th Street. Etiwanda Avenue was installed with the development of Tract 14139 to the north, which is currently under construction. The project site is currently vacant; however, rough grading has occurred and curbs and gutters have been installed. ANALYSIS: Background: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (i.e., Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. The initial Design Review approval for Tracts 14380, 14381, and 14382 expired in September 1992 and the Design Review for Tract 14379 expired in September 1993. General: Tract 14380 contains a total of 80 lots, 25 of which are included within the initial phase of project development. Both single stow and two-story units are proposed ranging in size from 2,820 square feet to 3,530 square feet. The project proposes four floor plans with three elevations each. In addition, there are side-on and four-car garage options that provide additional architectural variety (Exhibit "C"). The project was designed to reflect five of the seven architectural styles established by the Eftwanda North Specific Plan. Plans 1 and 4 are single stow floor plans that are proposed in the Bungalow, Ranch, and San Juan architectural styles. Plans 2 and 3 are two-story floor plans that are proposed in the Ranch, Country, and Santa Barbara Revival architectural styles. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on three separate occasions. On December 3, 1996, the Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended the project be revised to further reflect the architectural guidelines of the Specific Plan. The project was reviewed on December 17, 1996, as a consent calendar item. The Committee (McNiel, Fong) did not approve the project and recommended that the project be revised consistent with the previous Committee comments. The project was ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES January 22, 1997 Page 2 reviewed on December 30, 1996, as a consent calendar item. The Committee (Macias, Fong) recommended approval of the project subject to further architectural revisions. Minutes are attached (Exhibit "D"). Architectural revisions recommended by staff to the Design Review Committee reflect the design guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. At the initial Design Review Committee meeting, the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the project and resolve the identified design issues. The following provides abbreviated comments from the December 3 and 17, 1996, Committee meetings. The following Committee's comments are identified in bold italics and are followed by a staff explanation of the resolution: The Site Plan should be revised to provide additional side-on garage floor plans. A total of 8 units, out of the 25, should have side-on garages. The Committee determined that the units were adequately skewed and that at/east 50 percent of the units were not plotted parallel to the street frontage. The applicant revised the Site Plan so that 7 lots were provided with side-on garages (Exhibits "B-I" and "B-2"). 2. The elevations should be revised to provide the fofiowing: a. Provide 360 degree architectural treatment. Staff recommended to the Design Review Committee that additional architectural treatment be provided to all sides of the structures to provide a distinction between the different units because the side and rear elevations of each floor plan appear almost identical. These comments were also provided so that when viewing the project from Etiwanda Avenue, the units would reflect the different architectural styles of the specific plan. The elevations were revised to provide additional architectural treatment to all elevations by providing additional siding, window shutters, window trim, exposed rafter tails, etc., to the side and rear elevations. Where possible, provide additional variation in the roof line along the rear elevation through different roof rnassing. This could be accomplished through gab/es, hipped roofs, and bay windows. The elevations most suitable are the Bungalow style in Plans 1 and 4. The rear elevation of all Plans 1 and 4 were revised to provide additional variation along the rear elevation roof line (Exhibits "C-3," "C-5," "C-7," "C-29," "C-31 ," and "C-33"). c. Revise the window trim to provide wood trim on applicable elevations. Window trim has been revised from stucco to wood on applicable elevations. Extend the use of wood siding to the side and rear elevations of plans using this element. The use of siding has been revised since the last Design Review Committee meeting. During Committee review the applicant was directed to substantially PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES January 22, 1997 Page 3 expand the use of siding on both the side and rear elevations when siding is used on the front elevation. For example, on the Plan 1 Bungalow elevation (Exhibits "C-3" and "C-4") the amount of siding shown is acceptable as it is consistent with Specific Plan design guidelines; however, the amount of siding should be substantially expanded on the Plan I Ranch elevation so that siding appears as a primary architectural feature. This comment applies to applicable elevations of all floor plans. On the Plan 2 Country and Plan 3 Ranch front elevations, siding was shown as the primary material on the first floor and stucco is shown on the second floor (Exhibits "C-16" and "C-23," respectively). The Committee determined that these elevations should be revised to significantly expand the use of siding on the front elevation. After attending the Design Review Committee meetings, the applicant chose to delete the use of siding on Plans 1, 3, and 4 "Ranch" and Plan 2 "Country" elevations. Consistent with directions provided by the Committee, staff has included a condition recommending the use of siding on these elevations. Brick and stone accents utilized on the front elevation should terminate on the side elevation at the masonry return walls. The location of masonry return walls was clarified with respect to the termination of decorative materials. At the December 17, .1996, Committee meeting, an additional issue was addressed based upon new information provided by the applicant. The side-on garage elevations for all floor plans were included with this submittal and the Committee requested either a break in the roof line or adding additional windows to address the long linear expanse to the rear elevation of the garage. The attached exhibits reflect this modification. The Conditions of Approval address the applicable preceding comments from the Design Review Committee meetings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 96-27 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan Exhibit "C" Elevations Exhibit "D" Design Review Committee Comments dated December 30, 1996 Resolution of Approval IIIi , ,rt ,f~ ,I. I Title: Exhibit: court CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA TRACT 14380 I~tA~E I PRECISE G~AI724G Pt-AN LOTS ~. Project: .1~_~.-~-_"7 . ~ """""~~1 Exhibit: ~[ 'Date': 49' .68 El/wanda ____.__ Avenue CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA TRACT 14380 PttASE 1 PRECISE GlIADING PLAN ....... - ...... :~.J Project' Exhibit: 't'~''Datei : FRONT ELEVATION ~-~~ .... FRO~T ELEVATION "C" SAN ,JUAN 'B" RANCH C OI,~C. FLAT ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION BUNGALOW RIGHT ELEVATION L.E .F T .E.L.E V A T/O N 4 , .....'~ - ................~l I-m---_.. -nTm-~t Ft. '~"- .R_.EAR ELEVATION RANCH RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SAN JUAN RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN BIrD'ROOM O ~-~ OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5 SECOND FL..O.(~.R PLAN 10 ' --===-%l '~1 ~ h~ ~ B FRONT ELEV ~_ ~ ~, ' ,-~~._, ~ + .~ , ~ .... ~/lU~ z~~-~-~" ,' '.',',' ',', [',,, ',', , , '~ - ,:,p[,.,[,'-{. RANCH . S~ :=,;:'=' '-~'"' ~': t r' ~ ...... ~ F~NT ELEVATION ~ COUNTRY FRONT ELEVATION SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL 11 R£~ ELEYATION SANTA BAPJ]ARA R~VIVAL 12 RIGHT EL.EVATION LEFT E_L_EV A TIO N REAR ELEVATION " ' -- ~:,'.',': ' :' '. ,'~t,'~)'~11 IH-II ~ ~ ', . l ...... 4 ........ ~ ,' i I",~ ~;;: ~ L ..... %~" ~ ........ / .... FRONT ELEVATION RANCH 14 RIGHT ELEVATION L E_.._F T ELEVATION I 15 ROOF PLAN CONCRETE ~ TALLATIQN NQTE~ R~E~A.R _E.LE ¥' A 'I'_10 N /.='t.::~lL=i~'--;~t~-~ ~' .,-...-.,,,,¥ ::.';',',,;,;-; ;~_ ','.'.'. '-'.~ '--'~-- ~~ , ..........~ FRONT ELEVATION COUNTRY 16 RIGHT ELEVATION \ .L.E..F._T_.E_L.E.y.A. TLO? 17 FIRST FLOOR PLAN .;~_ .....~- ........ :1: OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 03 1:3 Z Z 0 19 FRONT ELEVATION 'B" RANCH "C" COUNTRY FRONT ELEVATION SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL 20 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SANTA BARBARA RlVlVAL RIGHT ELEV ATI.QN _RE .A.R_ ELEVATI~.N RANCH 23 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION R.._[E _.A R EL.E.V ATION COUNTRY' ~ n ~ Z z O i !- 25 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 26 pAldin y I~0011 FLOOR PLAN 27 FRONT ELEVATION 'C' SAN JUAN "B" RANCH F_..R O NT ELEVATION BUNGALOW ' t' ,ill llt ,'l I' O' REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SAN JUAN RIOHT E.LEVATION REAR ELEVATION ;.~, ..'. :':','~. ................ .FR O_NT ELEVATION RANCH RIGHT ELEVAT ON ~-.;, ~.-TiT'., ~ ...... LEFT .EL. E ¥_A._TI .O.N. 32 REAR ELEVATION ~' I I I I I I I l' I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I IllI I -- BUNCh. LOW 33 ~- .... ~'{~ m__m__m_. R I__g,...H_"r ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 34 REAR ELEVATI(~N ;,,~. ~ ~.;.~ ..... : '-:=--.--,~-':-:-:-~e,~ ....~-,-.,,.,. :, :., :~- :. :. :,'.'.'.' ','--,' :~.~~1t-F .~:.4:,=.=~-~.~;~,: :,.._..,.¥,~ ~ ,:-',',',',',','- · .' ....:,:,: ', ,. _ . ' ..... H I --, ~:__-.~- ,-~:_'.. ,,,,,,,,....,. ........::?.:'". '~~-~~itl .-- _,, '~-_.¢'T'--_.-.~%'---.-: ~ ,-h ,!,:, ,:,h',::; - .'.;'"' .~_~ ..... .z .......... f =- ..... ~','-- ................. ,--~ ....... ' ....... FLOOR PLAN AODENDA FRONT ELEVATION 35 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~~-.~:::~-~~-~~-~ '~.fi,~~... '~,,~,:,,,~ '~ . . ~ .. _~ ~ . ~ ~ B ,11 ..... ' , I:~'~ :', ' ~ ....."..-~'~,~~ ,,:~~~,,~:~_ F R__..~O N _T ELEVATION 37 RIGHT ELEVATION .LE_F.T EL _E V A..TIp. N 38 REAR ELEVATION · ~7;': ~---'"~ .....oo:oo ........--::-.-:-:-~ ---- _ ':-'-. - - ~._.=._-J ......~7.~'~ FRONT ELEVATION Z '~ I 39 .: ROOF PLAN : RIGHT ELEVATION IO~KIHO~ a-CAR QARAQ~ 41 $E__E..P.~.O_N..D FLOOR PLAN 42 ROOF PLAN CONCR£TE TI~E REAR ELE y.A. TIO_N 43 R_L.G H T ELEVATION LEFT__ ELEyATION ROOF PLAN CONCRET~ TU . ,,~.~.:£~.,~ ~.,~'.;,: -. R E___A. R ELEVATION ~-'-* ' -- 0000 ,. __ ,_--.-, I::"" ---%__oooo ~-:~-sJim".~-.-".."~~-~"~ :;::::'"":'~_t_~_~::: ....~t.-~-~ ' '5-:."2'_x ...........L '- =~: ...................~- ~- FRONT ELEVATION 45 RIGHT ELEVATION L._EFT ELEVATION I I 46 REAR ELEVATION ~-~ ....';'~. .......... · "':"~-,~'.-:'-.~-'.':L':.'::'.:"~,.~'~ "~''' ~ ,'~,. "- · .'"','~. ,,'~;:::~:..':~".'.'.'.'.'.'.~1 I =~"""~'- -~I-ITFI u..' ' ' 'I ~---' .... ' ' ' ',F'.,','-]"' ,~--"..:L:'~- ~ ....,- .,____ ;..~ ,:,,:,,=:,-~,-,~r. ......., ...... ! :;-~='' -.::'::::: ,..~ ~H~f~~ -~~ FRONT ELEVATION 47 R I G_.~H T ELEVATION LEFT ELEVA_ TIQN 48 ~.~F PLAN CONCRETE R_[EAR ELEVATION __FL_~O. OR P.LA..N_ ADDENDA RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION Z '~' Z 0 04 -- Z :> 5O REAR ELEVATION 51 FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA R~I G___H_ _T E L_E V. A T.I.O N LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN ~'~.',7 ~;~ ~', ~.,- ---- CONCR~['~E ' l REAR ELEVATION ~_~, '......~.' ........ _~_ ~V' ~,~ ..... : * , ..... ~ , ,~ ..... FRONT ELEVATION 53 FLOOR PLAN AD.DE..N...D..A_. RI,G. HT ELEVAT ON ~:~..7 -.';~. ................. LEFT ELEVATION 54 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 55 II O_PTIO~NA L II 11 II II B._ED R O0 M § SECOND FLOOR PLAN 56 REAR ELEVATION '~ J ...... ,,:~L 57 RIGHT ELEVATION II II 1 LEFT ELEVATION I REAR ELEVATION J .... '~'"°' RIGHT ELEVATIQN LEFT ELEVATION 60 REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION mmmm ~mmmmmmm-mi J CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION C O:X~M[EN-f S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERC1L-~-F HOMES - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Tract 14380, consisting of 25 single fam/ly lots in the Low Residential designation (24 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the north and south of North Overlook Drive - APN: 225451-39 to 58 and 225- 461-57 to 60. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee did not approve the project and recommended that it be revised as stated in previous Design Review Committee comments. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS :55 p.m. Tom Gr~,,n D~m~,3.1996 DEVELOPM'ENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERCP,_~FT HOMES - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Tract 14380, consisting of 25 single family lots in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the nor'& and south of North Overlook Drive - AlaN: 225-451-39 to 58 and 225- 461-57 to 60. Backround: The project site was initially approved as Tract No. 15327 which include the subdi,,4sion of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. That tract was broken down into Tracts 1-~.279, 14.~80, 1-~.281, and 14.~82. Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. Tract No. 14380 includes a total of 80 single family lots. Design Parmeters: Tract 14380 is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of 24th Sh-eet. The tract has been rough graded and all previously existing vegetation was removed. Etiwanda Avenue was installed for access to Tract 14139 to the north, which is currently under construction. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Cammince discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Cormmirtee discussion regarding this project: Site Plan.' The Site Plan should be revised for consistency w/th specific plan design guidelines. Th/s would include: a) revising fine unit placement so that at [east 50 Dercent of the dwellings are not plotted parallel to fine street; and b) revising the unit mix so that at' least 30 percent of the m'fits have side-on garages. To meet these requirements orfiy 12 tin/rs may be ploned paralteI to the street frontage and 8 units must have side-on garages. ,4rchirecture: The project was desianed to reflect fine primary and secondary.' architectural sq,.'tes of the Etiwanda North Specific Pi~.~. Plans 1 and 4 are singie sto~' floor .21ans, and are proposed in the Bungalow, Ranch, and San Juan arch/tectural swtes. Plans 2'and 3 ~,-e two story, floor plans, and are proposed in the Ranch, Country, and Sana l~arbara Revival architectural styles. These styles were used to accent the front elevation to establish the distinct neighborhood identities encouraged by the Specific Plan. The elevations should be revised to include 360 degree architectural treatment by cart-ling over specific a-.-chitecmral elements and features to the side or rear elevations. Without modifications to the side and rear elevations there will be absolutely no distinction bew,-'een the encouraged neighborhood identities when viewing the project from adjacent r/ghts-of-way, for example Etiwanda Avenue. The project architecture should be revised to include 360 degree architecmrai treatment consistent with the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Possible revisions may include the foliowing: £ungalow - Horizontal siding on all sides; front or rear porch; wood siding, brick or stone veneer on chim_ney/cap; wood surrounds; detached garage. DRC COM2vLENTS DR 96-27 - :.Y'La. STERCRAFT HOMES December 3, 1996 Page 2 Ranch - Brick accents ~5th stucco or siding; brick or stone chimney caps; resav,.n wood surrounds. San Juan - Wood surrounds; stucco detail at chimney cap; front and rear porches; entry courtyards. Country - Stucco with brick or stone accents; brick or stone chimney; wood surrounds. Santa Barbara Revival - Small balconies projecting at front or rear; exposed rafter tails; wood surrounds; stucco detail at chimney cap; ent~ courD'ards. Secondar-v Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Cormnittee ,.t.-ill discuss the following secondary design issues: Additional elevations should be submined for Committee review to address conditions shown on the Site Plan but are not reflected in the elevations. These include the 4-car garage option for Plans 2 and 3, and the side-on garage option for Plan 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned for reviev,' by the Design Review Cormminee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macins, LaW McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Plmqner: Tom Grahn The Committee recommended that the applicant work w-ith staff to revise the project to address the foliowi.ng desig,n issues and return to the Design Review Committee, on a consent calendar basis, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission review. The Site Plan should be revised to provide additional side-on garage floor plans. A total of' $ units, out of the 25 proposed, should have side on garages. The Cormmittee determined ',hat the units were adequately skewed and that at least 50 percent of the units were not plotted parallel to the street frontage. The elevations should be revised to provide the following: arcm~ectura[ Treatment. a. Provide 360 degree '" Where possible, provide additional va-iation in the roof line along the rear elevation through different roof massing. This could be accomplished through gables, hipped roofs, bay windows. The elevations most suitable are the Bungalow style in Plan [ and 4. c. Revise the ,aSndov,' trim to provide wood trim on applicable elevations. d. Extend the use of wood siding to-~he side mad rear elevations of plans using this element. DRC C OM,.'vLENT S DR 96-27 :.Lq. biERCR_q. FT HOI~S December 3, 1996 Page 3 Brick and stone accents utilized on the frow. elevation should terminate on the side elevation at the masom'y return walls. Provide elevations for the 4-car ~_arage option for Plans '~ and 3. and the side-on ~,ara~,= option for Plan 3. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. 96-27 FOR PHASE 1 OF TRACT NO. 14380, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF NORTH OVERLOOK DRIVE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-451-39 TO 58 AND 225-461-57 TO 60. A. Recitals. 1. Mastercraft Homes has filed an application for the Design Review No. 96-27 for Tract No. 14380, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of January 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 22, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: and That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Eftwanda North Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES January 22, 1997 Page 2 Planning Division 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7 9) lO) The use of siding should be included on the front, side, and rear elevations of the following plans so that siding appears as a primary architectural feature. The following elevations shall be revised: Plan 1 "Ranch" Plan 2 "Country" Plan 3 "Ranch" Plan 4 "Ranch" Revised elevations shall be subject to Design Review Committee review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. Additional windows shall be provided to break up the long linear expanse of stucco at the rear elevation of the side-on garages. Rear yard drainage swales shall not exceed a maximum slope of 6 percent. Provide a minimum 15 feet of fiat, usable rear yard area adjacent to the rear of each structure. The usable rear yard area shall not exceed 5 percent slope. Provide a minimum 18-foot area in front of each garage that does not exceed 5 percent slope. Maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Driveways for side-on garage units shall not exceed a width 12 feet from the front property line to the turnaround area in front of the garage. Driveway widths shall not exceed 16 feet at the curb. The project perimeter wall adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue shall be designed compatible with the wall for Tract 14139 directly to the north. Masonry return walls shall be provided between each unit. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. Corner side yard walls shall be provided. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. The walls shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the sidewalk. Landscaping shall be provided between the wall and sidewalk and maintained by the homeowner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES January 22, 1997 Page 3 Engineering Division 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Private drainage easements shall be recorded for all lots in Tract 14380 intended to accept cross lot drainage, consistent with the rough grading plan for Tracts 14379, 14382, and 13527 and the approved precise grading plan for Tract 14139 to the noah, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) Install 12-inch pipe, with a medium capacity curbside drain outlet (Standard 107-B) in each private drainage easement within the Phase 1 boundaries. Connect to existing pipes within the north property line slope on Lots 4, 5, and 6. On Lots 75 and 79 the facilities should include the off-site inlets, if rights of entry are obtained to construct them. Install a block wall along the west property line of Lots 1, 3, and 73 through 80, or equivalent facilities, to protect these lots from off-site runoff, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All missing public improvements within the Phase 1 boundaries, including Etiwanda Avenue improvements from Wilson Avenue to the noah tract boundary, shall be installed per the approved improvement plans, Drawing No. 1435. It will be necessary to recheck the plans for conformance to current City Standards since more than a year has elapsed since their approval. Anticipated revisions include, but shall not be limited to: a) Drive approach relocations. b) Medium capacity curbside drain outlets (Standard 107-B) for all private drainage pipes greater than 4 inches in diameter. c) A Landscape Maintenance District palette consistent with Tract 14139 to the noah, with tree, shrub, and rockscape spacing adjusted to facilitate both horizontal and vertical lines of sight north of the intersection of NoAh Overlook Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. Landscape Maintenance District plans shall also show revised concrete headers on Lots 10 and 11 and corner cutoffs for the sidewalks consistent with the street improvement plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of all public improvements for which this developer is responsible. Fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office, prior to any work being performed in public rights-of-way. In November 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) covering Tracts 13527 and 14139. The necessary drainage improvements have been installed and the developer of Tract 14139 has requested the final Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That letter shall be PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-27- MASTERCRAFT HOMES Januaw 22,1997 Page 4 received prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first, for Lots 1-11, which have a Zone D designation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map. Occupancies may be released earlier if the developer posts a cash deposit to cover any flood insurance requirements that lenders may impose and executes a trust fund agreement with the City. 7) Etiwanda Avenue across the project frontage was constructed by Tract 14139. If that developer processes a reimbursement agreement through the City, the developer of Tract 14280 shall honor that agreement. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman AT-f'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 MASTERCRAFT HOMES TENTATIVE TRACT 14380 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Completion Date / B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. / / SC - 10196 Go Project No. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter, along corner side yards, and returns between houses. Building Design All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. D. Landscaping o A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All pdvate slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. DR 96-27 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - Eo Project No. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. DR 96-27 Completion Date / / / I / / / I APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. H. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / / / / / / / / / / / SO - I0/96 Project No. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporaW water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Plan check fees in the amount of SO have been paid. An additional $145.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. With the home located above Hillside Road, it shall comply to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District's Standards for a high fire hazard zone. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a doubie cylinder dead bolt shall be used. DR g6-27 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/S,5 Project No. 3~ All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR 9~-27 Completion Date / / / / / / SO - 10/9~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Januaw 22,1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28 - RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for 90 lots within Phases 5, 8, 9, and 10 of Tract 13565 in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson Avenue and west of San Sevaine Road - APN: 226- 211-44, 45 and 51 through 55; 226-222-30; 226-251-24 through 36 and 42 through 45; 226-261-17 through 20, 46 through 58 and 60 through 71; and 226-272-01 through 36. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project site, which contains the last remaining undeveloped lots of Tract 13565, is currently vacant and void of any significant vegetation or structures. The lots were previously rough graded, but no other improvements were installed in these phases of the subdivision. To the north is a Southern California Edison utility easement and to the east is an area designated as a County floodway. Single family homes from earlier phases of this tract exist to the south and west of the site. ANALYSIS: General: This subdivision was originally approved by the County of San Bernardino and includes 10 phases on 159 acres of land. Annexation and Development Agreements were approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 16 and December 7, 1988, respectively. The applicant is proposing to develop the remaining 90 lots within this subdivision with a product line that is similar in architecture and size to existing homes within the tract. The proposed homes are also consistent with all design guidelines that apply to development of the site. The proposed residences range in size from 1,843 to 2,707 square feet on lots that have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Three different footprints are proposed and the middle-sized unit has an option of adding an additional bedroom on the second stow over the garage, so that four different elevation types are possible. Each plan has three different exterior treatments (Ranch, Santa Barbara Revival, and Monterey), all architectural styles are recommended for the area per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. All models have a three-car garage and on the Plan 2 and 2x models, the garage sides onto public streets. These plans are plotted on approximately 30 percent of the lots to provide variety and interest to the street scape. All other design elements, including the proposed walls and fences, have been designed to be consistent with development in other phases of the subdivision and with the design guidelines for the Eftwanda North area. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-28- RICHMOND AMERICAN JanuaW 22,1997 Page 2 Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 17, 1996 (Macias, McNiel, Fong) and January 14, 1997 (Tolstoy, Coleman) and recommended approval of the project at the latter meeting. Action comments from both meetings have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit "E"). The Committee's recommended Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the attached Resolution. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee also recommended approval of the project, with conditions, on December 17, 1996. All recommended Conditions of Approval from the Grading Committee have been incorporated into the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 96-28 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Vicinity Map Site Plan Building Elevations Floor Plans Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 17, 1996, and January 14, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions T~. , SITE PLAN '~RACTS t:~b65 5. -9. & tO ETIWANDA RI(;I IMOND AMEIIICAN 110~,tFS ~O~E ' i SIF-L'~ 1 OF ii !'!]:.'._ ~.:~!. -..,.-?,.ISITE PLAN ETIWANDA llICHMOND AMElllC^N · "."7'~'.--. SI -EET2C~2 llll RANCH PLAN l RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN FIOM£S OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL PLAN 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN I IOMES OF CALIFORNIA Wiliam I*lezm~ll**dch Architects. Inc. ~. ~'~',,~ ~ ~ ...... REAR W/UI'I. LIO IlS RANCHO MONTEREY PLAN 1 CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA HESMALH~LCH ARCHITECTS ID:7!d-250-0607 JAN 15'97 10:35 No.001 P.0! x ~~ William Hezmaihalch " Architects, Inc. Ar,. hd~CmW & ?lanmr'~g h.i.,e. ¢;a[ffu..a 'JzTt'l Post-It" Fax Note 7671 P~ono ~ ~hono FaX, ?~. ~. Fax, RANCH PLAN 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA ~. ,~..~, Willare tlezmaihalch Ar dilleels, SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL PLAN 2 ..... , RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES h,m,,nh,,,,.,m,,,m,,~"~;~'~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA .... RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CAL~OR~A ~ .... Ill)LI LIp SICIIONAL ~,l IX)Or /vtONTErEY PLAN 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA [J UlllK T__ WOOl; 2x WOO0 '-' 2 LLI I __~X t tl' MCIK~At C~.RA~:I IXIOR Wigfl. R ANCI' I PLAN '2 X RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA ~)01) I~01~ I I I SANTA Ib\RIIARA REVIVAL PLAN 2 X RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICI-IMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA I',]1 ;J' ~ lJ I~ II Id i_t~ J I 1it ~ ~ ' ---~ J ~ '~'>,~,,,~,s.N'~" ,,,,.. ~~ ~....~ ~;~~,; ~, ~ ....~,/ , ,,,,. ~. .. ~,.:,. ..**.:.. ~ *"~ ..... · *,','. i:~L.~ , · .: .,L~'~~ .~ , ~ur i~t/ / / xx ~,l,~ ~t~/ / / 'x ~ 1R~ .............. ~ ~L-~~ ~CT~ ~l I~ w/a'l. t~ ITs MONTEREY PLAN 2 X RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCA/vtONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOtvIES OF CALIFORNIA ...*. '¢. IIH-itlIu_t~D,~'~,~. ,'~-~ .~ '-. . ~..~ .~ ~ ,, ~ '.. ~..., ; . . ,, j~. ~;.. . · *.~ .~:...., ~ : ,.... ~ ~- -~~-~- -~--~~~~~~ ,,~:, ~ ~-~. · ,~' II ~ I1~1 ~r ~ v'-T~--I ' , RANCH PLAN 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA W/Olq. I.K:I AIch~tect5. Inc. .' ~ °~1-~' ~ _- . ~ ~ -, ~ -. ~ .......... ~,~ ...... . · ..~ · ,, ~-... . ,, ~'~ ,:.~. .. .. ....._ .. . :.~-~. ~ :~- -- ~,.. ____. ., . ..... ' . ~ ,' . ~.- ~NTA llARBARA REVIVAL PLAN 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES --,~ W~am ~zma~alch A~d~lectS, ~. R~CHMO~ A~ER~C~N HOMES OF C~L~Om~ .3.3'. RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICH/VlOND AMFRICAN HOMES OF CALFORNIA IIA! CONCI~I II k~X)l ll! VvK)(.)I ) II[AM -- . ~IuTTTIRS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA SIUCCO O/CI i/vlN[ Y I)1: / St UCO IA~CIA ._~S1 L)CCO Y RI~4 HOMES . ~.. -- Wiliam Hezmalhald~ ^rch4lects, 6x6 WOO0 I~)ST , .6~ WOO() I~AC[ 6x6 V~JO0() POST .........~ · RANCt I iHEMA1 IC CI IARAC1 [R SANt-A [:JARI~ARA REVIVAL [I lIMATIC C) {ARAC I LR 4.4 WOO01~5T 6~6 WOO0 POST_ MONTEREY 1/HEMAIIC CItAR^C I [R RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA '- . .~,. -7 wiJli.tm Hezm~lhGh h Arch~tecl.% Ir~. 1843 TOTAL Sq~.JA~E FEET I~DROOM./2 BATH 3 CAR GARAC~ RANCHO PLAN t CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CAL~:ORNIA 47' O' 22~ TOTAL SQ~JARE FEET 3 BEL,~OOM/3 LiATH +175 SQ.F~I'. OPTIONS 3 CAR GARAGE O~t K3t4AL PLAN 2 !. RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA Ard~lect~,, 2491 TOTAL SI~.JARE FEET ] BEDROOM/3 BATH ] CAR GARAC~ ~"tR FA~.y O~ ~ONA~ PLAN 2X : ~ :~, RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA A~chilects, 2707 TOTAL SQUARE FEET 4 §[DROOM/ZS BATII +202 SQ.FT. OPTIONS 3 CAR GARAG[ PLAN 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CA RICHMOND AM[RICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA ~...~,. )' W'liam I lezmalhalch Ar(hile/Is, If[', DESIGN I:LEVIEW CON~X'~NTS 5:30 p.m. Steve Hayes December 17, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28 - RICI-fi'v!ON-D .&MERIC.&N' HO,M:ES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for 90 lots within Phases 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Tract 13565, located north of Wilson Avenue and west of San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-211-44, 45 and 51 through 55; 226- 222-30; 226-251-24 through 36 and 42 through 45; 226-261-17 through 20, 46 through 58 and 60 through 71; and 226-272-01 through 36. Background: Tract 13565 was originally approved by the County of San Bernardino and includes 10 phases on 159 acres. An Annexation and Development A~eement was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 16, and December 7, 1988, respectively. Design Review applications for the site planning and product type have also been previously approved by the Planning Commission for these phases. However, the lots in question were recently sold and the applicant is pursuing a different product type with this application. Design Parameters: This site is subject to the development standards (i.e., setbacks, coverage, height, etc.) of the Etiwanda Highlands Development Plan adopted by the County. The architecture is subject to the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The entire site has been rough graded for several years. Single family homes from earlier phases of this tract e.,cist immediately south and west of the site. To the north is a Southern California Edison utility easement and to the east is an area designated as a county floodway. No trees or other significant structures oflandforms exist on the property. The site slopes from north to south at roughly 4 percent. NOTE: Staff met with the applicant on December 4, 1996 and the applicant has agreed to attempt to address all of the design issues mentioned in this report. However, at the time of comment preparation, revised plans had not yet been received to verify that these items had been addressed to the satisfaction of staff. An oral update regarding the status of the issues will be presented at the meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues ~,dll be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff feels that there are no major design issues associated with the proposed site planning and architectural design of the project. Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Generally, the proposed architecture fits x~-ithin the architectural styles required under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. However, staff would recommend the £olIowing changes to further upgrade the appearance of the homes, as folIows: Ranch - The wood railing detail should be modified and the wood posts upgraded in size. Exposed rafter tails should be incorporated in applicable areas. Additional windows with shutter detailing should be provided on all elevations. DRC AGENDA DR 96-28 - RICI--EMOND ~-MMERICrMN HONfES December I7, 1996 Page 2 bo Santa Barbara Revival - More arch features should be introduced (example: over the garage on the Plan 1 model) and exposed rafter tails added in applicable areas. Additional wSndows exposed to public view should receive shutter and/or potshelf detailing. Monterey - The wood posts on the front porches should be upgraded in size or doubled up and exposed rat~er tails introduced in applicable areas. The optional deck on the Plan 2 model should be more integrated into the design of the house. Plotting - At least 50 percent of the homes must not be plc~tted parallel to the street frontage per the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Design Guidelines. Please refer to the attached examples from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan for architectural detailing of the proposed architectural themes. 3. Porches should have a minimum depth of 6 feet in order to Function as an usable area. On Lot 33, the return wall should be pulled back from the street to provide a larger open front yard area visible from the street. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Driveway treatments should vary, with some driveways incorporating brick banding or other treatments acceptable to the City Planner, to provide additional interest to the streetscape. All return walls and other walls exposed to public view should be composed of a decorative block material or have a decorative finish, such as stucco. (This treatment would be consistent xGth other existing phases already constructed within the tract). A minimum of 5 feet should be provided between the back of sidewalk and walls in comer side yard situations in order to provide landscaping (including trees) between sidewalks and walls. A decorative cap should be provided on the stucco portions of the screen walls adjacent to public streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the incorporation of the secondar7 and items into the plans or as Conditions of Approval. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the project return to the Committee as a Consent Calendar item with recommended issues addressed, as follows: Exposed rafter tails should be wrapped completely' around the homes on the Monterey elevations. DRC AGENDA DR 96-28 - ttICI-~vfON]D A~'vfERIC:&"~ HO~.fES December 17, 1996 Page 3 A second fascia board should be added to enhance the fascia on the ranch elevations. A varied roofiine should be introduced on the Plan 1 elevations. The accent treatment over the garage on the Plan 1 Santa Barbara Revival elevation should be re- considered with options available for Committee review at the Consent Calendar meeting. A balisler should be added to define the front porches of the Monterey elevations. Provide a detail of a typical optional deck for review of staff. The applicant should consider a wider variation of front yard setbacks within the project. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes January 14, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28 - RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for 90 lots within Phases 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Tract 13565, located north of Wilson Avenue and west of San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-211-44, 45 and 51 through 55; 226- 222-30; 226-251-24 through 36 and 42 through 45; 226-261-17 through 20, 46 through 58 and 60 through 71; and 226-272-01 through 36. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions previously recommended by the Committee at the previous meeting and providing upgrades to the rear elevation of the Plan 1 model to the satisfaction of staff, prior to the issuance of building permits. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 90 LOTS WITHIN PHASES 5, 8, 9, AND 10 OF TRACT 13565, LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE AND WEST OF SAN SEVAINE ROAD WITH IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 226-211-44, 45 AND 51 THROUGH 55; 226-222-30; 226-251-24 THROUGH 36 AND 42 THROUGH 45; 226-261-17 THROUGH 20, 46 THROUGH 58 AND 60 THROUGH 71; AND 226-272-01 THROUGH 36. A. Recitals. 1. Richmond American Homes has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 13565 (Development Review No. 96-28), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of January 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 22, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, wile not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-28- RICHMOND AMERICAN JanuaW 22,1997 Page 2 Planning Division 1) A varied roofiine shall be introduced on the rear elevation of the Plan 1 Model, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) A wider variation of front yard building setbacks shall be considered by the applicant and shown on the final site plan, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) The final design of all required special paving treatments in driveways shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The final design of all return and perimeter walls (including decorative cap treatments) and fences shall be coordinated for consistency with the design of existing walls within the tract and reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) A minimum of 5 feet shall be provided between the back of sidewalk and walls in corner side yard situations in order to provide sufficient landscaping between sidewalks and walls. Enqineering Division 1) San Sevaine Road shall be completed, full width, per Drawing 1352, from it's current terminus north of Crescentia Way to the north tract boundary upon development of the first construction phase abutting that street (Phases 4 though 9 shown). 2) Crestline Place shall be completed, full width, per Drawing 1352, with the first construction phase which exceeds 600 feet from either Bradbury or Crescentia Ways. 3) Street tree placement and species on the south side of Ridgeline/Crestline Place shall take into account line-of-sight considerations for all driveways on lots which front onto the inside of the curve. 4) Some redesign of the curb adjacent sidewalk on cul-de-sacs may be necessary to meet current ADA regulations. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-28- RICHMOND AMERICAN JanuaW 22,1997 Page 3 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 96-28 Design Review for 90 lots within an approved subdivision Richmond American Homes North of Wilson Avenue, west of San Sevaine Road ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time 1. Limits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval, Completion Date / Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territoW of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. SC. I01.c6 Project No. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as DR 98-28 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Project No. follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along San Sevaine Road. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. D. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may DR 96-28 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - ~,g/s6 Project No, include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. F. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways. 7. Plan check fees in the amount of $O have been paid. An additional $145.00 shall be paid: DR 96-28 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10196 4 Proiect No. Prior to water plan approval. Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. With the home located above Hillside Road, it shall comply to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District's Standards for a high fire hazard zone. H. Special Permits Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. Contact the Fire/Building Safety New Construction Unit for information. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Security Hardware A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. J. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. K. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. D~ 95-29 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / SO - 10t96 5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-09 - OLIVAS - A request to reduce the parking setback from 15 to 5 feet along the south property line for a proposed Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Medium Residential Zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), to be located at 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road - APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Related File: Pre-Application Review 96-05. ABSTRACT: The purpose oftonight's meeting is to consider the proposed Variance, as described above, on the basis of its potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has also submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a new Kingdom Hall on the property, as generally shown on the preliminary site plan. The applicant has stated that the Variance for the proposed setback reduction would be necessary to provide the number of parking spaces and the size of meeting facility to make the project viable. BACKGROUND: The applicant submitted a Pre-Application Review 96-05, which the Planning Commission reviewed at their meeting of November 13, 1996. Minutes from the meeting have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit "D"). The applicant was informed of the setback deficiency in question prior to the meeting although the item was not specifically discussed by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to reduce the required setback along the south property line from 15 to 5 feet in order to allow for a proposed par'king area of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of cars needed for the proposed new Kingdom Hall facility on the property,. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a minimum of 15 feet from existing or planned residential development as a physical separation to buffer vehicle noise, glare, and fumes from residences. The property to the south is zoned Medium Residential and some multiple family units exist south of the site, but a majority of this area is not developed at this time. Within the proposed 5-foot setback area between the parking lot and the south property line, the applicant is proposing to provide a decorative 6-foot high screen wall and dense landscaping (including trees) to help buftkr the parking lot from the residential property to the south. The applicant has provided a detailed letter of justification as to why the variance is warranted in this situation (Exhibit "C"). In most situations where similar land uses adjoin each other, a 5-foot setback from the property line to a parking area is sufficient to mitigate any potentially negative impacts (i.e. noise, headlights, parking lot lighting) associated with a parking lot; the combination of walls and landscaping can mitigate potential impacts successfully within a 5-foot horizontal area. However, where potentially ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-09 ~ OLIVAS January 22, 1997 Page 2 diverse land uses are adjacent to each other, a 15-foot parking setback is required within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to provide an even more sizeable buffer between differing land uses. The additional required setback would ensure that there would be a minimum separation of 20 feet between parking areas and any residential structures, which is a substantially more significant buffer that the 1 O-foot separation that would be permitted between similar land uses. In this specific case, there is a 20-foot ~vide "flag pole" portion of a flag lot immediately adjacent and south of the church property that could serve as a potential future secondary access for the medical office complex south and west of the site. This portion of the flag lot on the property south of the church has been highlighted on Exl'fibit "A." With this additional 20-foot wide portion of the lot immediately south of the church property, the closest a future residential unit south of the church property could be to the proposed parking lot (even with the 5-foot setback requested by the variance) would be 30 feet, well in excess of the minimum 20-foot separation intended between land uses with the increased setback. Therefore, staff feels that the variance is warranted in this situation due to the unusual circumstance of having the 20-foot future access serving as an additional buffer between the church parking lot and any future residential units. In the applicant's letter, they also list a few other facts that will aid, in staffs opinion, in mitigating the impacts of the parking lot from any future residential development to the south of the church. Staff w511 be considering the specific concerns that could potentially cause conflicts between land uses (parking lot lighting, sufficient landscaping, block wall screening, etc.), as part of the Environmental Review for the associated Conditional Use Permit. All potential environmental issues will be addressed through mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property have been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance 96-09 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BB:SH/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Assessor's Parcel/Vicinity Map E,,chibit "B" - Preliminary Site Plan for Associated Conditional Use Permit Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "D" - Minutes of Pre-Application Revie~v Meeting Resolution of Approval SAN BERNARDINO P~r. I Par. 0 '.,5,'! VARLanNCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEI MIT KI~NGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITN'ESSES 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91731 JUSTIFICATION FOR REDUCED PARKING SETBACK The purpose of this application is to obtain a vahance allowing a reduced parking setback along the south side of the above properties. We request the parking setback requirement be reduced to five feet. We feel this is very justifiable since it is compatible with the surrounding area. Following are reasons for this. 1- The ex/sting medical facility on the west and south sides of the property has a five feet parLing setback for the area abutting the subject property, as well as along the existing four residences directly south of our property. 2- There is currently a three foot parking setback along the south side of the existing 'Lingdom hall. The proposed new site plan w-ill improve this by increasing the setback to five feet. 3- There is a twenty foot access and utility easement directly south of the subject property, with an additional ten foot setback for the existing residence. This results in a minimum distance of 35 feet from the residence to the proposed parking. 4- There is currently a six foot h/gh block wall along the south property line with approximately 8' high oleanders which screens {he proposed parking for the residential area. 5- We propose a 23' w/d~ landscape island at each end and at midlena'th of this step, with large trees that will give a massive appearance to the vegetation along the s~uth side. Based on the above reasons we feel the proposed vahance is justifiable. We hope you will agree with us, specially since the required fifteen foot setback would eliminate 18 parLing spaces and would make the project unfeasible. Please let us know ifyou have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Peter Arencibia, Civil Engineer CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting November 13, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 11:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the DeAnza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner;, Steve Hayes, Associate Planner;, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEVV BUSINESS Ao PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 96-05 UPLAND. CALIFORNIA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES - Review of preliminary site planning for a proposed two-phase project at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club Drive. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the meeting by introducing the project to the Commission and briefly explaining the purpose and goals of the pre-application review process. Ralph Olives, representative for the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, explained the basic functions of the proposed facility and why a larger Kingdom Hall is necessary for this area. He went on to highlight the proposed phasing of improvements (both on and off-site). Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, summarized staffs concerns with the site plan and architectural elevations. Commissioner Macins noted his concerns with the proposed architecture and the "closed" and barrack-like appearance of the buiiding given that no exterior windows are proposed. He felt some architectural solution will be necessary to compensate for the lack of windows and the elongated appearance of the building. He recommended that the building be re-oriented so as not to be directly in the middle of the site and that an outdoor congregation area be provided. Commissioner Bethel felt the lack of windows presents a safety issue and may induce curiosity as to the activities that may be occurring inside the building. Mr. Olives stated that it is ,Wpical cf all Kingdom Halls .~round the world not to have exterior windows. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Macias that the building should be re-oriented and that the architecture appears dated and needs to be significantly upgraded. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his pleasure to see an expansion of the existing facility proposed at this location. He too felt that the building architecture needs further embellishment, including varying roof lines and the addition of windows. Chairman Barker summarized that he generally agreed with the recommendations of staff and his fellow Commissioners. He asked the applicant how much parking is used' on a daily basis. Mr. Olivas stated that about 80 percent of the parking would be used on a daily basis for about 3 to 4 hours a day. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant had considered the use of turf-block for some of the parking spaces. He stated that the applicant should look into materials (not necessarily windows) to upgrade the overall appearance of the building. Mr. Olivas asked the Commission for clarification as to the most important issues to resolve in revising the project design. Mr. Buller indicated it is the site plan/building orientation. He also noted that the building architecture is a key issue. Mr. Olivas asked for comments regarding signage. Mr. Bullet stated that this item would be under staffs review but noted that if a monument sign is proposed, staff would recommended one similar to that done at the Ki.ngdom Hall on Church Street. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adiourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes November 13, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 96-09, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE PARKING SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR A PROPOSED KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ZONE (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), TO BE LOCATED AT 8141 AND 8171 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-123-02 AND 03. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Ralph Olivas has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-09 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22rid day of January 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 22, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located at 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road with a San Bernardino Road street frontage of 225 feet and lot depth of 220 feet and is presently improved with a church facility and related parking areas on the eastern half of the site and is utilized as an unimproved storage area on the western half of the site; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with residential and commercial buildings, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is residential, and the property to the west is developed with a medical office complex; and c. The proposed application contemplates a reduction in the required 15-foot setback between an interior side property line and parking areas where planned residential development is adjacent to the church site, down to 5 feet; and d. An associated Conditional Use Permit is being processed that reflects the requested setback reduction and indicates a decorative block wall, dense landscaping, and low level parking lot lighting that projects only on the parking lot area and does not spill over to adjacent parcels; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-09 - OLIVAS January 22, 1997 Page 2 e. A 20-foot wide "flag pole" portion of a flag lot is immediately south of the church parcels that may serve as a future secondary access for the medical/office complex south and west of the church property and provide an additional buffer between the church and any future residential development to the south of the church site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Vadance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and concIusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-09- OLIVAS Januaw 22,1997 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey R. De Berard P.O. Box 1757 Upland, CA 91785 Jmauary 22, 1997 crrY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Reconsideration of commercial uses at the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street The De Berard family, as owners of the eighteen acres at the southwest comer of Sixth and Archibald since 1902, are here tomght because we were confronted with this issue by the development of Ghffm Industries residential development within sub area 16. When city staff recommended a five ~cre commercial designation on our property, we were delighted. At the Planning Commission and City Council meeting~ we had requested that the commercial designation be expanded to ten acres. We based this request on that a typical neighborhood development (as an example) of a major supermarket, drugstore, and small shops would require thirty-two thousand square feet of land or approximately ten acres. We also felt that due to the lack of commercial services in the area, with respect to the proposed new residential project and existing homes, that the expanded designation would be beneficial-not only to the community and residents, but to the city in increased tax revenues. I am here tomght in a catch 22 situation. At the City Council Meeting that adopted ordinance tt95-04 regarding sub area 16 and Griffin Industries, a procedural error was made. The result was that certain language, positively discussed by the council members relative to increasing the size of the commercial area from five acres to ten acres, was not made a part of the motion. The majority, and/or the entire council was in favor of expanding the designation to ten acres. The city attorney stated to Mayor Alexander, that since the motion on the ordinance was voted on and approved as read, that the council, per legal requirements, could not amend their action. Therefore, it was requested by Mayor Alexander, after deliberating with Mr. Bullet, that the issue had to be sent back to city staff for evaluation and forwarded to the planning commission. We are not requesting a general plan amendment or a zone change, merely an expansion of the five acre commercial designation to ten acres, relative to the industrial specific plan sub area 16. We feel strongly that the city should initiate this process and not the De Berard family m light of the aforementioned and that a market analysis is not necessary now or in the future. In conclusion. the De Berards are in support of Alternative 2-A in the staff report to expand the commercial limitations of five acres to a size not exceeding fifteen acres, or as requested, ten acres. We feel the city should proceed with the amendment application if it is necessm-y. I stand before you tomght to ask for your approval of our request. Sincerely, ef~y R~De~BeSd ~J~ '~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 22, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner RECONSIDERATION OF COMMERCIAL USES AT THE CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET SOUTHWEST BACKGROUND&DISCUSSION: On November 20, 1996, the City Council approved Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-04 that, as pad of the Griffin Industries Cucamonga Cornerpointe project, authorized 5 acres of neighborhood commercial uses at the subject location. On December 4, 1996, the property owner, Mr. De Berard, requested that the City Council reconsider the decision and allow at least 10 acres of neighborhood commercial uses. The City Council determined that the Planning Commission should reevaluate the amount of commercial land appropriate for the area. Staffs recommendation for 5 acres of commercial uses was based on the following issues: Early in the project formulation, staff determined it would be a good idea to include a commercial component as one alternative for the City's consideration. Commercial seemed to be a viable alternative to provide some support retail uses for the expanded residential neighborhood. The project applicant did not propose any commercial development, nor did staff suggest a conceptual design for a commercial center. Instead, the Environmental Impact Report included 15 acres of "floating" commercial activity as one of four land use alternatives. The commercial activities allowed in the industrial area are generally limited to those in support of industrial users. In many instances, staff is unable to approve business license applications in the industrial park area for commercial businesses directed at the general public. Staff anticipates an increased demand for resident-related commercial uses in the industrial park area because of the expanded residential neighborhood. To better accommodate this anticipated demand, staff proposed adding to Subarea 16's list of commercial uses. The amount of commercial use recommended by staff, 5 acres, was the result of reviewing General Plan provisions for commercial designations. Neighborhood Commercial, which is the least intensive commercial land use, is intended to provide services for an immediate residential neighborhood. The suggested size for a neighborhood shopping center is 10 to 15 acres. It was not staffs intention, however, ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL@SWC ARCHIBALD & SIXTH Januaw 22,1997 Page 2 to design a neighborhood shopping center into the project, but merely allow for some expanded commercial activity for the residents. Within the General Plan Neighborhood Commercial designation there are provisions for Convenience Commercial centers at 2 to 3 acres in size. These centers are not specifically zoned as convenience commercial but can be authorized within the Neighborhood Commercial designation. Five acres appeared to staff as an appropriate amount of retail commercial within an industrial park to meet some of the neighboring residents' needs. It was not staff's intention to design a full neighborhood commercial center into the project. The method of providing the commercial uses is intended to be permissive, not required. The property owner may include the commercial uses subject to a conditional use permit master plan. Staff believes it is important that these uses be logically placed within a larger industrial park to avoid a scattering of conflicting uses within a project. If the property owner wishes to provide commercial uses, it would be his responsibility to plan for them at (or near) the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street. Staff felt this would be the most logical location. Because we did not specifically zone the area neighborhood commercial, the property owner does not have to include a commercial area within the ultimate development. The direction staff recommended was to allow for the flexibility of limited commercial development without mandating a typical neighborhood shopping center. The adopted provisions allow neighborhood commercial uses only in a designated area within a larger industrial park complex. Industrial park uses could move in and out of this commercial section. ALTERNATIVES: Because no new evidence was presented by Mr. DeBerard showing a definite need for a neighborhood center on his property, staff does not recommend increasing the amount of commercial land at this time. However, staff does recognize the potential for a larger than 5 acre neighborhood center, but without some market analysis could not support an increase.. Alternative approaches are as follows: A General Plan Amendment and zone change could be processed to specifically designate an expanded area for the neighborhood commercial designation. However, this approach would not allow industrial park uses within the area so designated. Allow for a larger area of neighborhood commercial uses within an industrial park project, an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment could be processed to consider the following: ao Expand the commercial acreage limitation (5 acres) to a size (not exceeding 15 acres) the Planning Commission believes is appropriate, or Do Provide authority for the City Planner to accept a master plan CUP up to a specified acreage (maximum 15 acres) upon receipt of a viable letter of intent to occupy a site near the corner from a neighborhood commercial user (food market or drug store) of at least 40,000 square feet floor area. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL @ SWC ARCHIBALD & SIXTH January 22, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission believes additional commercial area is now warranted for the site, staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to process an amendment similar to Alternative 2b upon submittal of justification by the property owner. However, if the Commission believes that the recent changes are sufficient (given the present development situation) it would be appropriate to recommend that the property owner initiate formal consideration of the request with his own amendment application(s). The applicant would submit with his application a market study justifying the need to increase the average of commercial zoning. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:AW:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" General Plan Neighborhood Commercial Description Adopted changes to Subarea 16, ISP Commercial Policies Commercial, and Office Professional. Neighborhood Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial includes shopping centers and convenience commercial clusters that provide essential retail goods and services to the residents or occupants in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Shopping Centers shall be provided to meet the retail and service needs of a cluster of neighborhoods with a total population of roughly 10,000 residents. The primary use within the neighborhood shopping center should be a major supermarket and total leasable area ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The following provisions shall guide the development of such centers. · The centers shall be approximately 5-15 acres in size. · No more than 2 centers shall be developed at each designated intersection. The centers shall permit the following tenants: eating and drinking establishments; food and beverage retail sales; general personal services, repair services for commonplace household appliances; and retail sales. Administrative and professional offices, medical services, and financial, insurance and real estate services may be permitted. The centers should be located at street intersections of at least collector size, or at the intersection of two major local streets. Convenience Commercial establishments are small, localized retail and/or service businesses that provide goods and merchandise to the immediate surrounding land uses. Convenience facilities may include eating and ddnking establishments; food and beverage retail sales; limited personal, medical and repair services; and retail sales. However, their primary function isto provide a convenient place to buy groceries. The facilities may be freestanding or organized into a small cluster on land no largerthan 2-3 acres in size. They should be within convenient walking distance or bike ride from the intended users of the businesses. The convenience commercial uses are not indicated on the commercial Land Use Plan because of their small size and because their locations are subject to City Planning and Planning Commission review. However, as they are primarily intended to serve a specific local need, they may be appropriate in residential, office, or industrial areas. General Commercial. This commercial category is characterized by a broader range of use activities than any other commercial designation. It includes local commercial, community shopping/office complexes, and commercial uses surrounding the regional center. Future commercial activities shall be organized into planned, group concentrations as opposed to commercial activities organized in a linear fashion. Stdp commercial development shall be discouraged because it is not energy efficient, it represents an · uneconomic use of land, it does not allow for multi-use parking, it requires consumers to drive from shop to shop, it increases vehicular III- I~L~ CI'T-Y' COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC November 20, 1996 Page 3 follows: Archibald Avenue to provide for use activities associated with airports such as tourist commercial. This subarea is located between Sixth Street and Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and contains property substantially undeveloped. It lies adjacent to a direct access to the Ontario International Airport and is located at a gateway to the City." Part IV, Subarea 16, Permitted Uses, shall read as follows: "Administrative and Office ProfessionaVDesign Services Research Services LighlLVVholesale, Storage, and Distribution Building Maintenance Services Business Supply Retail Sales and Services Business Support Services Communication Services Eating and Drinking Establishments Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services Medical/Health Care Services Recreation Facilities Administrative Civic Services" Part IV, Subarea I6, Conditional Uses, shall read as follows: "Custom Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Automotive Rental/Leasing Automotive Service Station Convenience Sales and Services Entertainment Fast Food Sales Food and Beverage Sales Hotel/Motel Personal Services Cultural Public Assembly Public Safety and Util~y Services Religious Assembly Uses listed ("permitted" or "conditionally permitted") in the Development Codo's Neighborhood Commercial District subject to a 5-acre maximum and site constraints as listed in the Special Considerations." Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, second paragraph shall read as "A revised conceptual Master Plan (revises the master plan of Development Review File Number 82-16) which outlines access, circulation, drainage and timing of improvements is required prior to approval of development plans. All new development must be consistent with this Master Plan, or the appropriate revisions CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC November 20, 1996 Page 4 approved. Neighborhood Commercial uses (listed as "permitted or "conditionally permitted" in the Development Code) may only be considered within a 5-acre area at or near the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street subject to approval of a master plan for those uses within a larger industrial park project. In the event of a conflict between whether a use is permitted or conditidnally permitted, the Industrial Park requirement applies. It is not the intent to allow neighborhood commercial uses to be scattered throughout an industrial project nor to permit such uses within any existing complex designed solely for industrial uses." e. Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, fifth paragraph shall read as follows: "Attractive screening of outdoor work, loading, storage areas, and roof and ground mounted equipment from significant residential and public right-of-way freeway points of view shall be required." follows: Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, new paragraphs shall be added as "Building height limit shall be 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting residentially designated property. No loading doors or facilities may face, unobstructed, towards any residentially designated property. No outdoor activities/storage or mechanical equipment shall be located beyond the rear wall of any building that faces, unobstructed, towards any residentially designated property or public right of way. The remaining portion of Subarea 16 at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street, created by adoption of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, is authorized to have a Fourth Street single property line frontage of less than 300 feet. No further reduction of the Fourth Street property line is permitted, except for the acquisition of public right-of-way." g. Pa~ 111, Table It1-1, shall be amended to reflect the above text changes. h. Part IV, Subarea 16, Figure IV-18, shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A." i. All other applicable maps, tables, chads, and text to provide consistency with the above changes. 5. The City Clerk shall ce~ify to the adoption of this Ordinance. 6. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after is passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 61 Z no -subarea 4 ..~ CIRCULATION ~ 100' FLO.W. 88' or less R.O.W. RAIL SERVICE I i t ] t Existing -~--I-~-, ~-- Proposed 0 400/ 800/ 1600' Note: Parcel lines and lot configurations are shown as approximation onty. TRAILS/ROUTES 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian A Bicycle Regional Mufti-Use Bridge I I I I Access Points ~-.reeks & Channels Special Streetscape/ Landscapin~ iV-94 1The sites shown may not be currently owned nor is the location site specifr_ The depiction of a site is an ~dication of a projected future need that may be adjusted over time as the Cfty develops. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: FROM: Mayor and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members o~-the Planning Commission SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE POLICIES FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD The Planning Commission is presently reviewing a general plan amendment application (GPA 96-03A) to allow retail commercial on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Aspen Avenues. Specifically, the request is nearly identical to the Wohl property request (south side of Foothill, between Spruce Avenue and Elm Street) that was approved early in 1996. This application was submitted to the City in mid 1996 before the recent City Council/Planning Commission workshop on General Plan issues. In January 1996 the Planning Commission began looking at the issues of Foothill Boulevard and the rest of the City after completion of the City-wide Commercial Land Use and Market Study. Two new members joined the Planning Commission last August. Both new Commissioners have spent considerable time studying and discussing with the other Commission members the issues of Foothill Boulevard and other commercial land use issues in the City. In November the Commission determined that a City-wide field trip for all the Commissioners was important. Because of scheduling conflicts and bad weather, the field trip was postponed until January. The Commission has reviewed and processed development applications on Foothill Boulevard while continuing its study. However, the Commission believes policies for land use amendments, where development is not proposed concurrent with the requests, are warranted as we proceed with our investigation and ultimate recommendations. Therefore, in light of issues discussed during our joint workshop, the Planning Commission would like the City Council to provide guidance for the following items regarding Foothill Boulevard land use amendments. Since the City Council and Planning Commission recently established a joint task force to look at the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, an alternative option for City Council consideration would be that these policy questions be referred to the task force for recommendation before full Council action is taken. 1 ) Should the City support individual land use requests before the completion of a review for all of the Foothill corridor? 2) If we are to continue to act on individual property owner requests, should the City, as we have in the past, continue to request the submittal of market analysis (by the applicant) for each proposal to verify the long range need for additional retail land? 3) Also, should the City continue to request precise site plans and specific tenant mix programs before approval of retail commercial amendments? Your guidance on these items will aid the Planning Commission in processing this and future land use amendment applications. Respectfully submitted, E. David Barker Chairman of the Planning Commission ~,,._Attachment: GPA 96-03A Site Map DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 22, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE POLICIES FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD As directed by the Planning Commission at its January 8, 1997, meeting, attached for your consideration is a draft memorandum requesting policy direction from the City Council. City Planner Attachment: February 5, 1997, City Council Staff Report ITEM E DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DRAF-F February 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE POLICIES FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD The Planning Commission is presently reviewing a general plan amendment application (GPA 96-03A) to allow retail commercial on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Aspen Avenues. Specifically, the request is nearly identical to the Wohl property request (south side of Foothill, between Spruce Avenue and Elm Street) that was approved early in 1996. This application was submitted to the City in mid 1996 before the recent City Council/Planning Commission workshop on General Plan issues. In January 1996 the Planning Commission began looking at the issues of Foothill Boulevard and the rest of the City after completion of the City-wide Commercial Land Use and Market Study. Two new members joined the Planning Commission last August. Both new Commissioners have spent considerable time studying and discussing with the other Commission members the issues of Foothill Boulevard and other commercial land use issues in the City. In November the Commission determined that a City-wide field trip for all the Commissioners was important. Because of scheduling conflicts and bad weather, the field trip was postponed until January. The Commission has reviewed and processed development applications on Foothill Boulevard while continuing its study. However, the Commission believes policies for land use amendments, where development is not proposed concurrent with the requests, are warranted as we proceed with our investigation and ultimate recommendations. Therefore, in light of issues discussed during our joint workshop, the Planning Commission would like the City Council to provide guidance for the following items regarding Foothill Boulevard land use amendments: 1) Should the City support individual land use requests before the completion of a review for all of the Foothill corridor? 2) If we are to continue to act on individual property owner requests, should the City, as we have in the past, continue to request the submittal of market analysis (by the applicant) for each proposal to verify the long range need for additional retail land? 3) Also, should the City continue to request precise site plans and specific tenant mix programs before approval of retail commercial amendments? Your guidance on these items will aid the Planning Commission in processing this and future land use amendment applications. Respectfully submitted, E. David Barker Chairman of the Planning Commission Attachment: GPA 96-03A Site Map 0 CITY OF R_&NCHO CUCAxMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 22, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: At the January 8, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner McNiel announced that he will no longer be available to serve on the Design Review Committee. A brief discussion ensued and it was determined that Commissioner Macias would remain on the Committee and Commissioner Bethel would join him. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should formalize the appointments of Commissioners Bethel and Macias and determine the order of Alternates. City Planner BB:GS/gs ITEM G