Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/04/23 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, 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 __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS March 26, 1997 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 26, 1997, Adjourned Meeting April 9, 1997 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. VACATION OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - WILLIAM LYON CO. - A request to vacate a 20-foot wide storm drain easement as shown on Parcel 1 of Tract 13279, associated with Tentative Tract 14534 - APN: 227-091-31. 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 Chairman 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from March 26, 1997) AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - A request to reduce the minimum and minimum average front yard building setback requirements in City adopted Development Agreement 89-03, for a previously approved County subdivision annexed into the City (Tract 13835), which consists of 78 lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 225-501-01 through 78. Vl. OLD BUSINESS DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR - The design review of 264 apartments on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12 and 13. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS USE DETERMINATION 97-01 WALGREENS - A request to determine that a drive-thru pharmacy is similar to a drive-thru bank and is a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial District in the Terra Vista Community Plan. VIII. 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. Page 2 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS G. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) H. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) X. 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, Gail 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 Apdl 17, 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 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:.:.:.:.:, , .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.'.'.'.-.-.:.'.'...... · m::;:;::::: .......... - ....m.-. ,. ~ .,.,.~ ~ w e..: .... .....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · ..-...-.......-..~..-....... ............... :.:,,,........ ,o, '.......-.............-...-.........., · ................ :..:.:.:.:.:.'.'.'~'.'.'.-...........- .........:.:.:.:.............-.-...-. ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ '~1" ...................... '"""'""""""""""'"'"'"'""""': ............ " · ...... "'""" '""""'""""'"""'"'"'"" .............. """'"'"'"""'"'"" ':':' · .:.: ...................... ..-.....-.....-.-.................-.-.-................:...: ................... :...........-.......-...-.............. .................. ..........-.................., _ I____----.-- .......... -- ...................-........................ · · ,: ............................~,:~......: .-...-............:.:..:..: ........... :...;.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ~ .... · .I Alff~ I:::::::: ;':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':-:-: ....................... ~ ~:':':':, I ...... '"""':':':""""'""""""""'" '" ' ' · ............... '"""' · !-'-'""" ~'~ I ....:':'":':'""":':':':':':':':':':':'/""" ....: ......:':':':':':':':1-':':':'~ .........:.....: ..... : .... ....-... . ......... ................ -.'.'.'.~ J ::::::::: ::: :': :::: :::: :: ::/ ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :l li::: .:: · H~t~I~ H~t~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::: ::::::::'"""'"":':':':':1 I' · ':': .....:.:...:.:...-.....-.........-... . ..... .. ........-. j...... · J ,,, :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.I.:.::-:.:.:.:.::::::::::'-'::.:., t ~ J':':':':':':"-:':': ........... '.'! "' 'i,i~'"' ..... .~ '.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:..:.:...~ .- CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer VACATION OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - A request to vacate a 20-foot wide storm drain easement as shown on Parcel I of Tract 13279, associated with Tentative Tract 14534 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 96-60 and approved Tentative Tract 14534. During the plan review process, it was discovered that the storm drain easement dedicated under Tract 13279 (Parcel 1) was relocated and was never vacated. Therefore, said easement will need to be vacated with recordation of the final map. The subject storm drain easement is 20 feet wide and 918 feet long and is located at the southerly end of Parcel 1 of Tract 13279. The vacation of the storm drain easement is consistent with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the subject proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. The finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:WV:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Proposed Vacation of Storm Drain Easement (Exhibit "B") ITEM A L ,dfV~' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGIN"J~Rn~G DIVISION N d: 10'21'1~' R:i800.00'. .... - - - /~,~/f'C~/ I ~' 7'~' ~' ~' ~ ~ 23.026 ACRES ~ ~ NET /~. 20.00' WIDE STORM DRAIN EASEME~iT R=45.00' 50' 50' I DEDICATED HEREON TO THE CITY ~=50'48'5G" -- -- ~ NO'II'ZS"E ~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. _=$9.9r .,,., ~":, zoo.55' ;_ . ~.~ ~-_o ~esoa'.,'/See.monument detoil above. ~ [] ~" (, 8.~ zo~ 600 __.~-~N 89']~'20'~28e.74'~0'[ a 00- ' (J 0' ,, :\- . - · ,. '-'~11 Ig,56' $l 'E "/ :E 8o.o~'-'- \(N 0'!1'~8'[) (N ~ (10.00'~ (6.11,J) .~" I. P. W/TAG ~' ( :~10~ NO REF. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA gNG~G DIVISION N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from March 26, 1997). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission again continued this project at its March 26, 1997, meeting at the request of the applicant. Since that date, the applicant has hired an architectural firm to help prepare a set of comprehensive Design Guidelines and a draft copy of a Uniform Sign Program. These items were received by staff on April 10, 1997. Staff informally reviewed the Uniform Sign Program and noted potential issues for the developer to address. The applicant was asked to revise the program in preparation for a later Planning Commission meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: On April 15, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program. The Committee did not recommend approval and recommended that the Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and reviewed by the Committee again (Exhibit "C"). RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration as well as the previously prepared Resolution of Approval. Based on the direction of the April 15 Design Review Committee action, staff recommends continuance to allow the applicant to present revised documents to DRC for review. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Resolution Resolution Design Guidelines Draft Uniform Sign Program Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 15, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 26, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 11, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997 of Approval of Denial ITEM B DESIGN GUIDELINES i Southwest Corner of Foothill and Vineyard Ave.. Rancho Cucamonga Developed by Gil Rodriguez Jr. & Feola Carl i & Archuleta Architects '1 'A B !.. E ()I: CON TF.N 1'S il PROJECT DESIGN GOALS ARCHITECTURE THEME COLORS AND FINISHES CENTER ACCESSORIES HARDSCAPE II TRELLISES AND ARBORS BUS STOP AND TRASH ENCLOSURES CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS The objective is to create a unique PLACE that the public will f'md original and exciting. The ultimate design wil capture and reuse the rich architecmal heritage of the immediate vicinity of where the project is located. The architecture ranges from adobe style construction with a winery theme m the early 1800's ( Thomas Winery); fired burned brick and mortar style construction with a southern accent in the late 1800's ( Raines House ); Spanish revival with lath and plaster style construction set in the late 1920's ( Klusman House ); and field rock with corrugated metal used for vahous ranch related buildings. A R (7 ! t I'l"l.:. ( ;'!' !. I1'( li 'i' H [! ~1 MAJOR TENANT SEE SHEET 2A AND 2B FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SKETCHES SHOPS SEE SHEET 2A AND 2B FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SKETCHES FREE STANDING PADS SEE SHEET 2C AND 2D FOR EXAMPLE OF PAD BUILDING DESIGNS NOTE: The conceptual designs and pad building examples are a guide. All future buildings shall have the flexibility to vary from other buildings on the project while staying within the basic project design goals A R C tt IT E (77T [. ~! R A L T H E M E VIEW FROM FOOTHILL ARCHITE('I't, TRA!. TI tEME VIEW OF MAJOR A R (' III T E (:T t .! R A I. NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION I:ltJR(;ER KING EI,EVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION RESTAURANT ELEVATIONS ~;()I.¢')R AXCl) t.'lX.'15:,t it:!15q EXTERIOR WALLS A I WHITE WASH STUCCO WALLS I TWO PIECE CLAY TILE B ROOFING CORRUGATED METAL C EXPOSED WOOD AREAS S!MUL~T~ WOOD SI~INGLE D IWOOD STAIN E STONE FACING F G H [,,,,'I'i~'TI:]R AC("t :~'q~( WATER ELEMENTS INTERACTIVE WATER ELEMENT I D B C USED IN ACTIV1TY CENTER ART PIECES E The an piece for the center shall be one of the following: Project Theme - Historical - Abstract F TRASH RECEPTACLES G EXTERIOR TABLES AND CHAIRS H USED IN ACTIVITY CENTER POTTED PLANTS ) BICYCLE RACKS PARKING LOT L~G~IT BOLLARDS L Parking lot area and pedestrian areas will have two different styles exact style and color to be decided. COIORqV;I! I V~Rx' H .'-\ R i)%C'.\ I~1 PUBLIC SIDE WALK BRICK OR COLORED CONCRF..TE ACTIVITY CENTER A A-85 Mule~ Gree~ USED INSTEAD OF RED C$" e,~ G-ee- D WALKWAY AT ;,..~.~ ~ PAD BL~DINGS PARKING LOT WALKWAYS POSSIBLE COLORS TO BE USED IN TRIM AREAS E F G CIRCULATION AISLE ENTRY TO CENTER H J SOLID IRON. NO TUBE STEEL A B 1920'S WROUGHT IRON FOR SPANISH STYLE BUILDINGS C REDWOOD FOR WINERY STYLE BUILDINGS ARBORS Arbors for pedestrians not planned at the moment] BUS STOP TRASH ENCLOSURE Trash enclosures shall match the architectual style of the closest building or shall be built of rock in basic ranch style. 3 COLOR AND FINISHES 4 D WHITE WASH STUCCO WALLS LA HABRA STUCCO - X-73 EGGSHELL TWO PIECE CLAY TILE MCA "TWO PIECE STRAIGHT BARREL MISSION TILE" F-40 NATURAL RED CORRUGATED METAl. GALVANIZED FINISH SIMULATED WOOD SHINGLES LOUISIANA PACIFIC NATURE GUARD CEMENT FIBER ROOF SHAKES COLOR - DUSK WOOD STAIN DUNN EDWARDS 1) SP56 - WEATHERED BROWN 2) SP145 - BOXWOOD 3) SP74 - COCOA NATURAL STONE - INDIGENOUS TO AREA PRECAST CONCRETE CAP "CALIFORNIA PRECAST" E-506 - #WC-14-24 MED CENTER ACCESSORIES FOUNTAIN - CERAMIC TILE CLAD DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED PRECAST CONCRETE FOUNTAIN "CALIFORNIA PRECAST" DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED CERAMIC TILE CLAD BENCH DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED PRECAST CONCRETE BENCFI -SMFFt114AWKINS" * ESTATE BENCH - #D490698 METAL BENCH "TIMBERFORM" - # 2806-6 BENCH WITH ARMRESTS F TRASH RECEPTACLE - DURA ART STONE - TR-D ROUND ASH URN - DURA ART STONE - AU-D ROUND G TRASI I RECEPTACLE DURA ART STONE - TR-V ROUND H TRASH RECEPTACLE TIMBERFORM -"RENAISSANCE" #2811 -FT-P I. TABLES CHAIRS "SMITH FIAWKINS" 3l I/2" BLACK #M4147 "SMITH HAWKINS" BLACKJ NATURAL ARMCHAIRS # M354613 PLANTERS QUICK CRETE - CLASSIC SERIES I) QR-CLS-1815P 2) QR-CLS-2422 P 3) QR-CLS-3031P BICYCLE RACKS TIMBERFORM - #2170-11 - ORIGINAL CYCLOPES (11 DENOTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BICYCLES) SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES "WESTERN LIGHTING STANDARDS" 1) PCVLC00 I/GNS I/420 2) MAI2/39049.5/D 16 3) SN 13/A39215 MOD- 3/FXCM 130 4) WZ101630 5 HARDSCAPE CONCRETECOLORS-"SCOFIELD" A. MUTED GREEN A-85 B. FERN GREEN CS-I l C COPPER PATINA CS-13 D NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE E. TERRA COTTA A-29 F. RUSSET A-24 G. LA CRESCENTA BROWN A-25 H. ANTIQUE AMBER CS-15 [. FADED TERRA COTTA CS-16 J. WEATHERED BRONZE CS-12 6 TRELLISES AND ARBORS A. SOLID IRON TRELLIS - "SMITH HAWKINS" BLACK - #D442731 B. SOLID IRON TRELLIS - "SMITH HAWKINS" BLACK - SIMILAR TO #D492041 C. REDWOOD ARBOR BY "SMITFI HAWKINS" VARIOUS STYLES - DUNN EDWARDS CWF (CLEAR) NOTE: ALL MATERIALS, COLORS, AND ACCESSORIES ARE SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTION WITH AN ITEM OF EQUAL QUALITY. , MA 12f39049-5ID16 "WI,2'4TI,:I,tN I.l(;[rl'lN(; WI;\NI)ARI)S" M A 12 ~9o4')-5/'1) 15 PCVlc001/GNs11 "WI,;~'I'I,;I*,N I.I(H rllN(i S'I;\NI),\RI)~" I'CVI ,CII01/(iNS 1/42¢1 "'¢.'1.:S'1'1.:14N I.I(;11'I'IN( .',;'I'\NI).\I(I)N" SN I~, . \.:1',~215 M( }1 )-3, I"XC'M I ~,0 "( i.\l{I X_'( ) I.l(il ITIN(i" I,;11141 (.)1ooM1127711R \ FOOTHILL VINEYARD PROJECT RECEIVED APR ! 0 1997 Cily of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGN PROGRAM For: Gil Rodriguez Jr. of U.S. Properties DATE: April 10, 1997 PREPARED BY: FEOLA CARLI & ARCHULETA ARCHITECTS 116 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 (818) 247-9020 h:~obsxusxus701 sp.doc Page Name INDEX INTRODUCTION II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE - IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE (Anchor Tenant 50,000 s.f. plus) MAJOR USER SIGNAGE (Major User 10,000 to 49,900 s.f.) PAD TENANT OR RESTAURANT SIGNAGE SHOP TENANTS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS GUIDELINES MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS EXHIBITS SIGN TYPE - A-1 SIGN TYPE - A-2 SIGN TYPE - B SIGN TYPE - C SIGN TYPE - D LOCATION PLAN Page Number 1 2 3 4 8 11 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Foothill & Vineyard Project Sign Program INTRODUCTION This program has been developed for the purpose of assuring a coordinated Signage theme, and continuity for all types of Signage throughout the project for the mutual benefit for all tenants and the public. All Signage contained within the Foothill & Vineyard Project shall be consistent with this criteria and shah be submitted for review and approval to the landlord, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Page 2 of 24 Foothill & Vineyard Project Sign Program INTRODUCTION This program has been developed for the purpose of assuring a coordinated Signage theme, and continuity for all types of Signage throughout the project for the mutual benefit for all tenants and the public. All Signage contained within the Foothill & Vineyard Project shall be consistent with this criteria and shall be submitted for review and approval to the landlord, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. I. SITE - PROIECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE A. PROJECT I.D. SIGN. 1. The shopping center may be identified by street oriented signs at the main entrance from Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Avenue. All Signs shall be in accordance with the criteria in this program unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the design contributes to the overall benefit of the project. 2. Sign Type A. Project Entrance Monumentation sign will be located at the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue entrances. This monument will display the shopping center name and may also be used to identify the major tenant. (SIGN TYPE "A-l" ) Page 3 of~ II. ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE (50,000 sq. ft. plus) A. Tenant shall be allowed to install one (1) wall mounted identification sign for each street frontage. One (1) sign on the sign fascia in front of Tenants space facing Foothill Boulevard (primary customer entry). Tenants which have street frontage on more than one street shah be allowed to have one (1) additional wall mounted identification sign for each street frontage. The total number of wall mounted signs shah not exceed three (3). Anchors may also be identified on only entry monument signs. B. Anchor signs shah be of a size which is appropriate to the exterior elevations of the proposed Anchor tenant. These signs will be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during the Design review process. The maximum sign area allowed shall be three hundred square feet (300 s.f.). C. Signs shah be in accordance with criteria contained within this program, unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex. D. Anchor signage shah be as follows: 1. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters, (2 neon illumination, (3) plastic face and (4) trim cap. 2. Channel letters shall be made of .063 aluminum returns with .090 aluminum backs. 3. Letters shah be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed within the individual letters or in a raceway located behind the sign fascia. Exposed raceways are prohibited. 4. All metal surfaces shah be primed and painted to match colors spedfled in design drawings. 5. Individual letter styles of Tenants shah be allowed, provided however that design, color and spacing of letters are subject to written approval by Landlord. 6. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 4 o%~ E. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. (SIGN TYPE "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. F. Promotional or special event signs, banners or flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. Page 5 of 2~~ III. MAIOR USER SIGNAGE - (10,000 to 49,900 sq. ft.) A. Tenant shall be allowed one sign per building elevation up to a maximum of three (3) signs per business. However, if the building elevation that faces Foothill Blvd. or Vineyard Avenue and has more than one entry, the Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per entry facing Foothill Blvd. In no event shall the total number of signs allowed per building exceed three (3). The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom. Tenants (Major Users) that require a larger sign area, height or length, must submit sign specifications and drawings, composed on the building elevation, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. 1. Two line signs shall not exceed 48" in total height including the space between the line and no line shall be more than 30". The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. 2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 48" including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 48". 4. Length of sign shall not exceed 70 % of shop frontage, or thirty-five feet (35'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as, storefront dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater. B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. C. Each sign shah consist of internally illuminated letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) plastic face, and (4) trim cap. D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. E. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shah be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shah be allowed. All major user Tenants shall be limited to the following Plexiglas colors: red # 2793 with a maximum Page 6 of 24 choice of two (2) of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214, white #7328, green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Tenants with a trademark/logo that is "registered" or a nationally recognized trademark may be allowed subject to review and written approval by Landlord. G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. H. Sign copy shall contain Tenants trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants nationally registered trademark or logo name, subject to Landlord approval. I. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. J. Promotional or special event signs shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission the City. K. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 7 of 24 IV. PAD OR RESTAURANT SIGNAGE A. Single users/Tenant in a free standing building pad. Each tenant shall be allowed one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard or Vineyard Avenue, and two (2) wall-mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. Or as an option, each tenant shall be allowed (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall signs may be used, however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. 1. Wall Mounted Signs - Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continuos line composed of right angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or other graphic representation. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: a. Two line signs shall not exceed 24" in total height, including space between lines, and no line shall be more than 18". The space between lines shall exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. b. Upper and lower case signs shall-not exceed 24" including downstrokes. c. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". d. Length of sign shall not exceed 70% of shop frontage, or twenty- five feet (25'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension or average lease of bay width, whichever is greater. 2. Monument Signs - This sign type can be either internally or externally illuminated. The maximum monument size shall be eight foot (6') long by four foot (4') high. (SIGN TYPE "A-2") B. Signing shall be in accordance with the criteria contained within this program, unless in the opinion of the landlord and, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex. C. Multi-Tenant Pad. In the event that there are multiple tenants in a free standing pad, signs shall be as shown in Shop Tenant Criteria (SIGN TYPE - "13"). D. Restaurant Pad. In the event that the pad tenant is a restaurant; It is recognized that restaurants have specific and unique graphic color and Signage needs. Restaurants may, if they wish, submit alternate monument designs through the Rancho Cucamonga design review process as long as colors and materials are consistent with the restaurant's architecture. Signs will be limited to the restaurant users name only. The use of brand names or logos, shields or crests will not be allowed on the sign unless specifically approved in writing by the Landlord. E. A registered trademark/logo, without adjacent individual letters, may be included within the calculated sign area provided the allowable sign area for the trademark/logo letters is reduced to thirty-three percent (33%) of the allowable area and that the logo may not exceed five feet in any dimension. Logo sign shall also be sized to be in proportion to the building face to which it is attached. This sign is also subject to approval by the Landlord. F. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a "registered" or nationally recognized trademark and is within the allowable area and size requirements. G. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters/logo, (2) neon illumination. (3) plastic face. and (4) trim cap. H. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep, sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. I. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. J. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. In the case of a single user for a pad building Tenants with a trademark/logo that is registered or a nationally recognized trademark may use their national colors subject to written approval by Landlord. All other pad Tenants shall use the following colors: red $/2793 with two of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214 white #7328 green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Pag~f~~ K. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter returns. L. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed. M. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vihyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. ( SIGN TYPE "C" ) The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within a display area incorporated within the overall architectural theme. N. Promotional or special event signs banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga s Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. O. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Pa_oe 10 of 24 V. SHOP TENANTS A. Tenants shall be allowed one (1) sign per building elevation with a maximum of three (3) signs allowed. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines (SIGN TYPE - "B")- 1. Two line signs shall not exceed 24" including the space between the lines in total height and no line shall be more than 18". The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. 2. Upper and lower case signs shah not exceed 2A" including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". 4. The length of sign shall not exceed 70% of Shop frontage, or twenty- four feet (24') whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater. B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with a least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated Internally illuminated individual letters shall of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) face, and (4) trim cap. D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. E. Letters shall he internally illuminate via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. Tenants with a trademark/logo that is registered or a nationally recognized trademark may use their national colors subject to written approval by Landlord. All other Tenants shall use the following colors: red #2793 with two of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214 white #7328 green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Page I I of 24 G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3,/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. H. Sign copy shall contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants trade name without Landlords Prior written consent. ' I. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style ) to provide store name and hours Information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. J. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by the landlord prior to submission to the City. K. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of ~he Landlord. Page 12 of 24 VI. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS A. Signage required to control and manage the movement of traffic and pedestrians shall be installed in accordance with the criteria of this program. Traffic signs shall be standard sizes, heights and colors and shall be in accordance with all requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California. Signs shall be mounted on fabricated metal sign backgrounds painted in colors complementary to the approved colors and materials or the center. (Sign Type "D") B. Traffic signs shall be installed in locations as needed by the landlord. Sign locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to installation and shall be reviewed again after one (1) year to determine if they are adequate in managing traffic with an acceptable degree of efficiency and safety. VII. GUIDELINES - BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR TENANTS A. General Requirements: 1. Each Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for written approval before fabrication, not less than four (4) copies of detailed drawings of the Tenants proposed signs indicating the location, size, layout, design, materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be submitted concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion, to show the exact relationship with the store design, Tenant's store location on site and the dimensions of the building frontage. 2. Prior to fabrication, detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and approval. These drawings must be signed and stamped as approved by the Landlord prior to submittal to the City. 3. Tenant shall obtain and pay the entire cost of all permits, and approvals, construction, installation and maintenance of its respective sign. No sign shall be installed until all required approvals and permits have been obtained. 4. Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all of these Sign Criteria to the extent applicable. 5. No Tenant shall affix or maintain upon any glass or other material on the storefront of within twenty-four inches (24") of any window, any signs unless such signs or materials have received the written approval of the Landlord, and comply with this Sign Criteria. B. General Specifications: 1. All primary identification of Tenant shall be illuminated. Secondary Signage may be non-illuminated if total allowable sign area is not exceeded in height and width. 2. Two lines of copy may be used as long as the total height of sign does not exceed maximum sign height for the applicable type of Signage and the design is approved by the Landlord. 3. The width of the tenant fascia sign (unless covered elsewhere in this program) shall not exceed 70% of the storefront dimension based on the Page 14 of 24 average lease bay width, whichever is less. Sign shall center on the storefront unless prior written approval is obtained from the Landlord. 4. Tenant shall be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of its own signs. 5. Tenants sign contractor shall repair any damage to the premises or other property in the Shopping Center caused by the contractor s work. Should Tenant's contractor fail to adequately repair such damage, Landlord may, but shall not be required to, repair such damage at the tenant expense. 6. Tenant shah be fully responsible for the actions of Tenants sign contractor. 7. Electrical service to Tenants signs will be connected to Tenants meter and shall be connected to a time clock supplied by Tenant. Time clock hours shall be subject to Landlord approval. C. Construction Requirements: 1. Landlords representative shall be given adequate notice prior to installation of all signs. Failure to notify Landlord may result in removal of sign to inspect penetration in building face. 2. All signs shall be fabricated and installed per UL and city standards. 3. Letter fastening and clips are to be concealed and be of galvanized, stainless, aluminum, brass or bronze metals. 4. No labels will be permitted on the exposed surface of the signs, except those required by local ordinance, which shall be placed in an inconspicuous location. 5. Tenants shall have identification signs designed in a manner compatible with and complimentary to adjacent and facing storefronts and the overall design concept of the Shopping Center. 6. Design, layout and materials for Tenant signs shall conform in all respects with the sign design drawings included in this criteria. The maximum heights for letters in the body of the sign shall be as indicated in these criteria. 7. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be sealed in a watertight condition and shall be patched to match adjacent finish to Landlords satisfaction. 8. No wood backed letter material will be allowed on the internally illuminated channel letters. D. Sign Installation: 1. All work to fabricate, erect, or install signs (including connection to electrical junction box) shall be contracted and paid for by Tenant and subject to approval by Landlord. 2. All signs shah be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with local codes and ordinances. All permits shall be obtained by Tenant s sign contractor, at Tenant s sole expense. 3. Signs not installed in strict accordance with previously approved plans and specifications shall be immediately corrected by Tenant, at Tenant's cost and expense, upon demand by Landlord. If not corrected within fifteen (15) days, sign may be removed or corrected by Landlord at Tenant's expense. 4. Erection of any sign shall be promptly and safely effected with as little disruption to business and traffic as possible and with minimum of inconvenience to the Landlord and to the other Tenants. 5. Upon removing any sign, Tenant shall, at its own expense, repair any damage created by such removal and shall return the area from which the sign was removed back to its original condition. All debris from removal shall be promptly removed from the site. E. Protection of Property: 1. Tenant's sign contractor shall design, install or erect Tenant's sign in such a manner that it will not over stress, deface, or damage any portion of the building or grounds. 2. Any sign, temporary or permanent, capable of exerting damaging pressures on the building due to its size, weight or design shall have its design examined by a structural engineer. Prior to installation of such sign, Tenant shall submit to Landlord such engineer' a written approval Page 16 of 24 verifying that no unsafe condition will be imposed upon the building or other structure to which the sign will be attached. 3. All exposed parts of any sign or sign support subject to corrosion or other similar damage shall be protected in a manner acceptable to Landlord. 4. Any sign on which stains or rust appear, or which becomes damaged in any way, or which in any manner whatsoever is not maintained properly shall be promptly repaired by Tenant. Landlord may remove and store, at Tenant s expense, any signs not maintained properly or not in accordance with sign program. F. Insurance: 1. Tenant shall cause Tenant's sign contractor to submit to Landlord prior to such contractor entering upon the Shopping Center, a certificate of insurance, evidencing that such contractor has in effect commercial general liability insurance and worker's compensation coverage as required by the State of California in an amount and issued by a company acceptable to Landlord. 2. All Tenants are to carry liability insurance naming themselves and Landlord as additional insured in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the lease. Page 17 of 24 G. RESTRICTIONS: All tenants are subject to the following: 1. No animated, revolving, flashing, audible, or odor producing signs will be allowed. 2. No vehicle signs will be allowed. 3. No formed plastics or injection-molded plastic signs will be permitted. 4. No exposed raceways, cross-overs or conduits will be permitted to be visible. 5. No other types of signs except those specifically mentioned within this criteria will be allowed. 6. Tenant will be required to remove any sign considered to be in bad taste or that does not contribute positively to the overall design of the center. VIII. Miscellaneous Signs: A. It is understood that there may be the need for additional signs for information and directional purposes. These signs will be reviewed by Landlord for consistency of design with the shopping Center. B. City, State and Federally required signs shall be installed as required by the governing agency. SIGN TYPE . "A.I" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS COLORS 2 6'-0" 2 60 s.f. 8" 10'-0" Ground-mounted flood lights or internally illuminated individual letters Podect name & Major tenants TO BE DETERMINED Note: Monument design to be determined PROJECT ENTRANCE MONUMENT SCALE 3/8"= 1'-0" FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$S~A! SIGN TYPE - "A-2" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER 51DE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS COLOR 1 per pad building 4'-0" 2 24 s,f. 6'-0" Ground-mounted flood lights or internally illuminated individual letters. Pad Tenants TO BE DETERMINED Note: Monument design to be determined PAD TENANT MONUMENT SCALE 3/8"= 1'-0" FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT [SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGNAGE USSSC)A2 PROGRAM SIGN TYPE - "B" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN TYPE OF ILLUMIN^TION PERMITTED USERS varies per tenant type varies per tenant type 1 varies per tenant type varies per tenant type varies per tenant type Internal or External Typical tenant shop tenants SIGN TYPE "B" TYP. STOREFRONT &: ENTRY .~~,~"STORE INFO, SIGN TYPE C STORE ADDRESS FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPB SIGN TYPE -"C" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE NOMINAL LETTER HEIGHT (1) Per tenant entrance (Not applicable) 1 (Not applicable) 3/4" for hours, 2-1/2" for address and store name MAXIMUM LENGTH TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS (Not applicable) None Major users, shops, pad tenants and restaurants TYP, STOREFORNT DOOR, ~ DOOR FRAME &: MULLIONS TYP. STORE NAME 2 1/2" MAX. LETTER ~]~t~TOR E HOURS~ VARIES tNrO SIGN ...3/4" MAX. ~'TTFR HE,GHT ~-"---..............~ -ryp. STORE ADDRESS 2 1/2" HrO~ N,JMBERS ~ J FIN,SHED FLOOR ~ ,,3~ 15" FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) ~AGE SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPC SIGN TYPE - "D" QUANTITY /v~0(IMUM HEIGHT NO. 51DES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMI'I-DED USERS (As required) 9'-0" 1 (Not applicable) (Per local or state jurisdiction) (Not applicable) None (Not applicable) '"'~ TYPICAL HANDICAP SIGN TYPICAL TRAFFIC STOP SIGN PAINTED STEEL TUBE FOOTHILL & VINEYARD (SOUTHWEST CORNER) PROJECT mACE 23 SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPD LOCATION PLAN FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) ~AC-E 24 SIGNAGE PROGRAM DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes April 15, 1997 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for a proposed Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211- 12 and 13. Background: This project has been considered on three separate occasions by the Planning Commission. Most recently reviewed by the Commission on March 26, 1997, the applicant requested a continuance to April 23, 1997 to allow the newly hired consultants on the project to prepare a Design Guideline Supplement worthy of consideration by the Design Review Committee. The applicant's goal was to have the guidelines prepared in a timely manner to that a review could be completed by the Design Review Committee prior to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, the updated Design Guidelines Supplement had not yet been received by staff. Once the guidelines are received by staff, they will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners and an oral presentation will be given by staff at the meeting. However, if the guidelines are not received in time for staff to provide a comprehensive review or the Design Review Committee ample opportunity to review the supplement prior to the meeting, this item will be held over to the next Design Review Committee meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the Design Guidelines and the draft Uniform Sign Program as presented. The Committee noted that the revised Design Guidelines appeared identical to those presented to the Commission on March 26, 1997, except for two renderings, which were not based upon the proposed Master Site Plan. The Committee did offer the following comments relative to the two documents: 1. Design Guidelines: ~,YH/~3 / 7- The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive, particularly to include a greater amount of text, explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities related to each other in the "big picture" (i.e., Thomas Winery, Klusman House and internally viewing the project as a whole). DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 RODRIGUEZ April 15, 1997 Page 2 A stronger sense of unity and a greater explanation should be provided to explain how the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness to the project, yet provide variation within the total overall theme. The Committee expressed concern with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed street furniture and lighting fixtures. Photographs and text on the Klusman House should be included to establish an important third example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings. The renderings are not based on the current Master Site Plan; do not accurately depict possible views of the future development. Current renderings of the project based on the current Master Plan should be included in the Design Guidelines. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the Commission that this project will be a high quality project suitable for this important intersection. 2. Uniform Sign Program: The Committee was concerned with the "boiler plate" approach to the program and noted that elements within the program would not "fit" with the specific architectural style shown for the Major Tenants and In-Line Shops by the renderings in the Design Guidelines supplement. Specifically, the Committee felt that the diagram for In-Line Shops could not work the with proposed architectural style because of the long, overhanging sloped roof element, which does not give any exposed wall area above shops entrances, and the Sign Program indicates wall areas above shops buildings where wall sign could be provided. b. The Committee asked staff to provide the applicant with written comments. The Committee recommended that the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and be rescheduled for Design Review Committee. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT March 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner FNVIRONMFNTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGU!=7 - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from February 26, and March 11, 1997). BACKGROUND: At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission further continued this project at their meeting of March 11, 1997. Since then, staff has been in contact with the applicant to discuss the Preliminary Design Guidelines prepared by the applicant. The applicant was notified about potential issues and it was recommended that the guidelines be expanded to include more information regarding the architecture for future buildings within the Master Plan area. Because the direction of the Commission to staff was only to prepare a Resolution of Denial, staff has not performed a detailed analysis of the Preliminary Design Guidelines. Staff's cursory review indicates that the guidelines are incomplete. The most cdtical component, "Architectural Theme," is blank and does not provide the required text and graphics indicating architectural concepts including style, vadous product types (major anchor, inline retail shops, freestanding pads), form, bulk, height, etc. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. In addition, the previously prepared Resolution of Approval is attached. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Preliminary Design Guidelines Exhibit "B" - March 11 & February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Reports Exhibit "C" - February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from February 26, 1997). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced project at its meeting on February 26, 1997. Because of the significant number of recommended Conditions of Approval and the overall lack of information on certain issues, the Planning Commission continued this item until March 11, 1997, for the purpose of having staff prepare a Resolution of Denial. Both the original Resolution of Approval and the new Resolution of Denial have been attached to this staff report. Staff has met with the applicant on two separate occasions since the last Planning Commission meeting to identify those issues which are being conditioned that normally would have been addressed prior to a request for Phase One approval. The applicant has indicated an interest in preparing a draft set of Design Guidelines for his project as soon as possible. Staff will present at the meeting any updated information from our meetings with the applicant. The applicant has stated his desire to work with the Commission and staff and address any unresolved issues. If the Planning Commission denies the current application, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year per Development Code Section 17.04.030.H. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Denial ,,.~ssioner McNiel stated the application is a straightforward zone change to reduce th~ ,~ , ~ty for m,,,;.~ing purposes. He felt the proposed development fits well in the n,'"..;,~,umood and supported th~ ;-?lication. Motion: Moved by McNiel, s,.,.-'~led by Tolstoy, to adop~i~,~solutions recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan Amena~,,-"~ 96-02, ap~--_ ~lng Tentative Tract 15796, recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan ,~ u6-03, and approving Tentative Tract 15797 and issue negative declarations for Tent=*"' v ~ and 15797. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: ~,,, NOES~qq~NE ~NT: NONE BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY - carried Eo ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed copies of a revised roof plan and equipment specifications for roof-mounted equipment which had been provided by the applicant earlier in the week. He indicated staff had determined the proposed parapet height and well depth should be sufficient to screen the roof equipment from view. He reported the applicant had also submitted revised grading plans the previous week and staff had determined that, with the conditions as written, the drainage should be handled satisfactorily. Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification of the drainage issues. Mr. Hayes replied that the issues had to do with the nature of the queuing of flows and the directing of overflows into the spillway. He noted that temporary measures will be taken with Phase One and the issues would be permanently addressed with Phase Two. He commented that Engineering staff felt the issues could be resolved pending approval of the Flood Control District. Commissioner McNiel remarked that temporary measures are included with Phase One with permanent solutions waiting until Phase Two. He asked the soundness of the temporary system, noting that Phase Two may not occur for possibly 6 to 12 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that with Phase One, there will be water flowing over raw land. He noted that staff felt the overflow concerns were addressed by the latest grading plans which had been recently submitted. Commissioner McNiel asked if staff felt it is a safe system. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if everything had been worked out or if it was still to be worked out. Mr. James replied that confirmation of acceptance had not yet been received from the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if concrete drainage swales will be used. Planning Commission Minutes ExF,'£,'-/",':" February 26, 1997 Mr. James replied they will be earthen swales with the overflows to be of gunite. He noted the grade of the spillway is lower than the natural property line. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., U.S. Properties, P.O. Box 281, Upland, thanked staff and the Planning Commissioners for working with him during the past year and a half. He agreed to all of the conditions with the exception of Engineering Condition No. 14, requiring the construction of the local storm drain in Foothill Boulevard to Cucamonga Creek. He felt the storm drain would only service the vacant property on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and did not think he should be responsible. Ray Allard, Allard Engineering, 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, stated that when the Thomas Winery project was built, a storm drain was constructed to drain to the south side of Foothill Boulevard where it bubbles out of the catch Basin and proceeds down the street. He said the pipe was stubbed out on the south side of Foothill Boulevard so that it could be connected to a drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard to drain over to Cucamonga Creek. He noted that the catch basin on the south side of Foothill is to be abandoned when the drain pipe connects to Cucamonga Creek. He proposed that the City consider placing the east-west pipe in Foothill Boulevard on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and have it placed in Foothill Boulevard when the property on the north side develops because the Rodriguez property cannot drain to the pipe. He said they will be participating in the master storm drain program by paying fees. Chairman Barker asked if staff had been approached regarding the proposal to move the pipe to the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the applicant had made the request a year ago but the idea had not been pursued. He noted the storm drain in Foothill Boulevard is a local facility, and would not be eligible for master plan funding. He stated the City has always required that local facilities be completed as frontage improvements by the first developer. He said the property to the north had also been required to put in the storm drain when a project was approved; however, that project had not developed. Mr. Allard apologized for his misunderstanding that their drainage fees would pay for installation. He stated that if they could drain their property to the line, they would not question the requirement to install the pipe; however, he did not feel they should have to install the line since they will not be able to benefit as their drainage will be to the south. Mr. James said the local drainage systems are considered as part of normal frontage improvements. He observed the applicant's property has the right to drain to Vineyard, but does not because of grading. He indicated that typically, properties drain to the street and properties to the south have to build drainage systems to accommodate flow from properties to the north. He was not sure if there would be any complications with having the drain pipe along the north side of Foothill Boulevard to connect to Cucamonga Creek. Mr. Allard said they would like to have flexibility. He stated that Cucamonga Creek is very deep and swift moving at the site. He felt that if they drained their site to Vineyard Boulevard, it might cause problems on Vineyard. He indicated they therefore met with the Flood Control District and the District did not object to having the property drain directly to the creek. Commissioner McNiel asked how much of the drainage system is currently in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the Thomas Winery site drains to a catch basin on the southwest corner where it bubbles out. He said the catch basin will be removed when the storm drain is extended westerly to the channel. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 26, 1997 Commissioner McNiel asked if Phase Two areas will be hydro seeded. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if the current policy is to require the first developer to bear the cost for local drainage systems. Mr. James confirmed that is the policy. Commissioner Macias asked if there is a precedent for this applicant to contest that exaction. Mr. James did not recall anything having gone up to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Ailard thought that if Thomas Winery wasn't constructed, it would be simple to drain on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. He thought it had been an arbitrary decision to have Thomas Winery drain to the south side of the street. Commissioner McNiel felt that the City selected the lower side of the street because typically most properties drain to the street. Mr. Allard conceded that generally systems are placed on the lower ends of streets. Mary Byer, 8167 Vineyard Avenue, #112, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she lives in the Villa Poloma condominium project across the street from the project. She expressed concern about the traffic flow and stated it is already difficult to get into the condominiums because the area is so congested, possibly from the gas station on the east side of Vineyard. She feared those vehicles trying to enter or exit the condominium project will be caught between different traffic patterns. She asked what an activity center is and whether a grocery store is planned for the site. She questioned if there is a law requiring fast food restaurants to have self-circulating air systems installed in order to prevent fumes from exhausting into the air and commented that the odors from In-N-Out Burger are powerful at times. Mr. Rodriguez, Sr., 1797 Melajo Way, Upland, stated they had filed the application for a fast food restaurant about two years ago. He said they originally sited Burger King on Foothill Boulevard but after spending thousands of dollars, the Commission suddenly indicated Burger King would have to be located on Vineyard Avenue. He thought the introduction of two new Commissioners had brought about the request to move Burger King and said he did not think it was fair. He said he had to renegotiate with Burger King because of the move to Vineyard Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had included a chronology of the project with the staff report and said that the location of Burger King had been a matter of discussion when the project was first submitted and the location was not changed as the result of the addition of new Planning Commissioners. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant wished to have the Commission delay action until resubmission of the plans with Burger King located on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rodriguez urged the Commission to approve the application as presently submitted with Burger King located on Vineyard Avenue. Headng no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller explained that an activity center refers to a hardscape plaza at the comer of the property; a people place, not a recreational facility. He said that Phase One will include Burger King and potentially a sit-down restaurant on Vineyard Avenue. He indicated no other buildings are planned Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 with the first phase. He stated that future phases are yet to be determined and were not being considered tonight. Mr. James stated that the project is conditioned to widen Vineyard Avenue and there will be dual left- turn lanes at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He stated there will also be a right-turn lane into the project so that southbound traffic can get out of the regular flow of traffic when entedng the property. Mr. Buller stated that staff feels the traffic circulation will be improved over current conditions. He indicated he was not aware of any requirements with regard to ventilation systems containing odors and said such a condition had not been placed on any other restaurants, either fast-food or sit-down. Commissioner McNiel noted that with Phase One, the Commission was looking at Burger King and a spec sit-down restaurant, parking, plaza and street frontage. Commissioner Bethel said that when he first saw the project at the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, there was no roof plan and no idea of whether the screen would cover the equipment. He indicated the equipment was changed from a 5-ton unit to two 10-ton units but they were the same size. He said DRC asked that the parapet be high enough to screen the equipment and the applicant has complied. He noted that a chimney appears to be missing on one of the elevations and he hoped the chimney has not been eliminated. He felt the project is in an emergency mode and staff has been trying to save it and move it forward. He stated he had never seen a project with so many conditions. He felt conditions should be for clean-up of a project, not a rework; and he thought so many conditions would mean that the Commission is opting out of its responsibility. He said he could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he liked the elevations but did not feel confident that was what would be built. He stated that Burger King was moved from Foothill Boulevard because it was first proposed to be located right next to the historic Klusman house on the site and the Commission felt there needs to be room around the house and a driveway should not be at the house. He thought that the parking area immediately south of the Klusman House should be eliminated. He stated that the Klusman House is an important historic structure and he did not want it to be emasculated by having parking or a building too close. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Burger King could possibly be located on Foothill Boulevard closer to the intersection. Mr. Buller observed that there had been a Pre-Application Review with the Burger King located near the intersection but it required a vadance because the plan violated minimum setbacks of the Foothill Specific Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the moving of Burger King to Vineyard Avenue was one of the first comments from the Commissioners and had nothing to do with the appointment of new Planning Commissioners. He reiterated that he liked the renderings but noted that many of the 48 separate conditions from the Planning Division require Planning Division review and approval, so he felt it was not really known what the City will get. He thought the issues should be resolved before the Commission approves the project. He did not feel it was fair for the applicant's engineer to make the statement that the Foothill Boulevard drain should be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard without calculations to show that the drain could be located on the north side. He did not think that question could be answered tonight. Commissioner McNiel concurred with the chronology of events with respect to moving Burger King from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue. He recalled that Burger King was not moved closer to the comer because it crowded the activity center. He acknowledged the project has been in process a long time but said that progress has been slow because there have always been loose ends. He agreed that the renderings are nice, but commented that the renderings for the McDonalds located at the southeast comer of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street had been very nice and he was Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 26, 1997 unhappy with the constructed results. He expressed concerns about the drainage and the use of earthen berms, noting that it is unknown when, or if, Phase Two will occur. He stated he did not feel comfortable enough to approve the project. Commissioner Macias felt the City needs to do a better job of making sure applicants understand that DRC concentrates on design and approval by the Committee does not guarantee approval of a project. He noted that DRC approval does not preclude new issues. He observed he did not say he would support the project, merely that he liked the design and the way the comer looks. He felt the design of the building will be complimentary to the rest of the City. He expressed concern about Phase Two and thought a master plan for the entire site should be considered. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding drainage. He noted there is a question of when Phase Two will be constructed and said he wished he could see Phase One in the total context of the site. He took exception to the notion that new Planning Commissioners changed the location of the Burger King. He observed that he had personally been involved in four to five meetings where the Commissioners requested information and the information was provided in a piecemeal fashion. He remarked that he had never seen an architect for the project. He agreed with Commissioner Bethel that staff had bent over backwards to expedite the project, but felt efforts have been unsuccessful. Chairman Barker asked if there had ever been any other project with this many conditions. Mr. Buller conceded that there is more being deferred on this project than on others. He remarked that pad buildings are generally not processed ahead of major tenants for a center. He said staff had tried to determine if there is adequate room for parking the square footage envisioned. He acknowledged that the biggest piece of the puzzle is not shown. Chairman Barker said he felt like he had seen the project forever. He admitted he was anxious to move the project forward because he liked the way the comer is shown. He thought all the deferred steps and conditions are proof that staff had gone out of its way to make the project work and he felt the effort was laudatory. He agreed with the other Commissioners that is not the most comfortable way of processing. He thought the drainage issue should have been worked out before the project reached the Commission and did not feel the Commission could comfortably make a decision to move the drain within Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant's engineer had pointed out that the storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He thought the condition gives the City Engineer the ability to consider what the applicant had proposed. Chairman Barker summarized that Commissioner Bethel was concemed about the large number of unresolved issues, Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about what the project will look like because of the large number of conditions, Commissioner Macias questioned what Phase Two will be like and thought a master plan should be required, and Commissioner McNiel was troubled by the temporary earthen berms and the loose ends and endless series of questions. Commissioner McNiel remarked that most of the issues that were before the Commission had been discussed countless times and there were still questions and no resolution. He thought staff had gone way beyond what is normally done to move the project forward. He said that if the project were approved, he wanted to go on record that the conditions were etched in stone and not subject to negotiation or relaxation by staff. Commissioner Macias noted that many conditions were subject to City Planner or City Engineer discretion. He asked what would happen if the issues could not be resolved with the applicant. Mr. Buller replied that the City Planner or City Engineer could forward the matter up to the Commission or the applicant could appeal any decision to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Commissioner Macias asked if unresolved issues would always come ,back before the Commission. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked what the applicant would gain if the project were approved at this time. Mr. Buller indicated that normally the Commission would know the architectural and landscaping theme before approving a project. He noted that the Commission was being asked tonight to approve two very different buildings on a parcel that contains a third historic building. He said that on most projects, better guidelines are established so that they can guide future tenants with regard to design and direction. He noted that the applicant must resolve many issues pdor to pulling the first building permit. Chairman Barker asked if it would be fair and accurate to say that the City would be entering into an agreement that the applicant can pull permits if he meets all the conditions. Mr. Buller observed that many of the conditions have milestones that prevent the applicant from progressing beyond a certain point without meeting the conditions. He said this provides safeguards. He confirmed the number of conditions was beyond what the Commission had accepted in the past. Commissioner Bethel felt the Commission was being asked to approve a process rather than a project. Mr. Bullet observed that the City would be getting improvements to Foothill Boulevard consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and an activity center. He said those were features that will improve Foothill Boulevard. He acknowledged that normally pad buildings are deferred and not put in first. Commissioner Macias stated the process had not been the best but he acknowledged that Mr. Buller had made an excellent point about improvements that would be made to the corner. He thought approval may be a way of spoon-feeding the applicant to get what the City requires under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Chairman Barker questioned if a condition should be added that the project would return to the Commission if agreements are not reached. He said he did not want to dump a bunch of problems on the City Council. Commissioner Bethel observed that the majodty of the conditions call for City Planner approval and he felt the Commission was dumping its responsibility on staff and setting a precedent for future projects. He asked if the next project would have 49 Planning Division conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to get a consensus on the parking located south of the Klusman House. He preferred that a planter strip be placed in the area. Mr. Buller observed that there is more than ample parking for Phase One without including that strip of parking. He suggested requesting that the applicant landscape the area and forward a plan for how it will be designed in the future, subject to approval of DRC. Commissioner Macias stated he could not support the project because there were still too many outstanding issues. Commissioner McNiel observed that if the Commission approved the project at this time, it would be approving two buildings within Phase One of the project. He said the Commission still had not Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 26, 1997 seen the other buildings to be included with Phase One, but the applicant could pull grading permits and building permits for those two buildings. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. He pointed out that Planning Condition 5 requires the applicant to submit a concept for the design of the other buildings and said it is to the applicant's benefit to provide such a design guideline supplement. He reported that Terra Vista has design guidelines for pad buildings and staff is able to turn around such buildings in four to six weeks. He noted that this project has different architecture on different buildings and felt it will be hard to write the design guidelines. He stated there is no unifying theme other than heritage architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would be more comfortable having those design guidelines before approving the project. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Bethel had said he would like to see most of the issues resolved before approving the project. He asked if Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with that approach. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he did. Commissioner Macias said he did not feel a lot of confidence with this project because there are too many unresolved matters~ He observed numerous conditions deal with large issues. He felt uncomfortable with approving the project at this time. Commissioner McNiel wished the project were built. He stated he likes the Rodriguez family and said he wished he could approve the project for them but he was concerned that the City is only ending up with a Burger King. He asked if Phase One would include the activity center, street improvements, and storm drains in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller confirmed that it would. Commissioner McNiel said he saw those improvements as good for the city but he did not think the project is ready for approval. Chairman Barker said it appeared the Commission was heading toward denial. Mr. Buller stated that if the Commissioners did not feel there was enough evidence to support the project, staff would request the project be continued to the next meeting to allow time to prepare a resolution of denial. He suggested the resolution of approval could also return to the Commission at that same meeting in case the Commissioners felt there had been some progress in resolving the issues. Chairman Barker said he was hearing concern about a number of issues. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the hearing should be reopened and the matter continued to March 11, 1997. Chairman Barker reopened the public headng and continued Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to March 11, 1997, to allow staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 8:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related File: Pre-~,pplication Review 95-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ao Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; Community Commercial South - Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Service Station and Condominiums; Community Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant; Flood Control and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial North- Commercial South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site currently contains the historic Klusman House and related on- site improvements in the north central portion of the property. The balance of the site is currently vacant, and curb and gutter exist along the entire property frontage. Parking Calculations: Square Type of Use Footage PHASE ONE Drive-thru Facility 2,900 Restaurant 5,548 Outdoor Eating Area 2,000 Proposed & Existing Pad Buildings 11,030 PHASE ONE TOTAL 21,478 Number of Number of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Required Provided 1/75 39 1/100 55 1/100 20 1/250 44 158 230 MASTER PLAN TOTAL 74,478 1/200 372 414 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 93-04 of the project on April 14, 1993; however, the scheme was considerably different from Conditional Use Permit 95-25. The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 95-04 of the new project on October 25, 1995. The Commission identified a number of significant design issues. Staff identified several setback deficiencies, (see attached Exhibits "J" and "K"). The applicant formally submitted their request for this Conditional Use Permit on August 29, 1995. Unfortunately, the originally submitted development plans did not address the Commission's concerns and required a Variance. During the public hearing for Variance 96-01, the applicant requested a continuance when it appeared that the Commission would not support the request. At the applicant's request, the Commission continued indefinitely the hearing for Variance 96-01 on April 24, 1996. The project was subsequently redesigned to conform to required building and parking setbacks. Attached in Exhibit "L" is a chronology of the processing of this project. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop Phase One of a larger shopping center with this application. The phase considered specifically under this application includes a Burger King drive-thru facility, a sit down restaurant with outdoor eating area and all related landscape and parking lot improvements, including the on-site improvements within the pedestrian activity center, as shown on the proposed phasing plan (see Exhibit "C"). As part of this phase of development, the existing parking area for the historic Klusman House (labeled as "Existing Building" on the Site Plan) will be modified and upgraded. Even though shown as part of Phase One, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are shown in concept only and are not proposed to be built at this time; they will be required to go through a separate application through the Development Review process. The primary vehicular access to the project is proposed to be provided from driveways off both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. A secondary service driveway access is shown in concept on the Master Plan; this ddveway would be intended to serve as access for large service vehicles only for the major tenants within the next phase of development. An extension of the pedestrian activity center is being proposed on-site near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The use of the diagonally spaced Crape Myrtle trees and special paving is incorporated into the project design along the public right-of-way along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway access. Within the on-site expansion area is a proposed fountain with seating around its perimeter and expansive use of special paving in a circular pattern. In addition to these amenities, the applicant has also stated that additional seating areas will be provided and tenants within the buildings flanking the activity center will be carefully selected to enhance the pedestrian use of this area. Burger King has been designed to be consistent with the Interim Design Policies for drive-thru facilities established by the Planning Commission. The building and drive-thru lane is set back 45 feet from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and a combination of low walls and landscaping is proposed to completely screen activity in the drive-thru lane from view of Vineyard Avenue. The vehicular circulation pattern proposed for the Burger King is similar to that utilized at the Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues; the drive aisle directly adjacent to the Burger King is proposed to be one-way so that traffic does not overflow into the main ddveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue. In order to make it more obvious that this ddve aisle is intended to be one way for southbound traffic PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 3 only, on-site directory signage and painted arrows on the asphalt will be used to properly direct customers to the drive-thru lane, the parking spaces lining the adjacent drive aisle have been angled at 45 degrees, and the planter islands at the south end of the drive aisle have been expanded by using rolled curbing and turf-block, thus narrowing the width of the access to the main east/west drive aisle at this location. The proposed Master Plan includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant (i.e. a supermarket) and shop buildings totaling approximately 13,750 square feet. These buildings are shown south of and adjacent to the main east/west drive aisle with the main entrances facing the field of parking north of the buildings. On the south side of these buildings are potential loading docks with service ddve areas for large vehicles. The Master Plan is not being considered at this time and is conceptual only. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this item on numerous occasions as courtesy reviews prior to staff deeming the application complete. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on February 18, 1997. The Committee determined that the applicant had not submitted the previously requested Roof Plan for Burger King nor provided sufficient information to explain the roof equipment. The applicant also wasn't sure whether the chimney element was to remain or if it was no longer functional and would be removed. The applicant indicated that his architect was not cooperating in providing plans. The Committee did not recommend approval and asked the applicant to provide plans and answer a number of specific questions regarding roof equipment, prior to tonight's meeting. Technical Review Committee: On January 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with .all applicable standards and ordinances. Grading Committee: The project was reviewed on several occasions by the Grading Committee but was rejected each time for incomplete plans and drainage problems. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 18, 1997. The applicant chose to drain approximately two-thirds of the site to a drainage facility at the southwest comer o; the site which consists of graded berms designed to direct surface runoff into a basin, which feeds into a 36-inch pipe connecting into Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed drainage system was rejected for the following reasons: The overflow spillway height is 3 feet higher than the berm at the southeast corner of the basin area; therefore, water will overflow the berms before reaching the spillway. The overflow would drain uncontrolled onto the property to the south. The applicant has not obtained a letter of acceptance from this property owner. If not maintained properly, the drain pipe inlet may become plugged with mud and debris which would result in water ponding up to 10 feet deep. Historically, staff has recommended no greater than 18 inches of ponding to avoid creating an attractive nuisance and safety hazard. The area could be enclosed with a 6-8 foot high wrought iron fence. Surface runoff from the southerly parking lot is collected into a graded swale along the south property line which is proposed to drain westerly; however, the grade is 5.5 feet lower than the basin berm height. The plans simply do not show how the site will be graded to get the water from the parking lot swale uphill to the basin. To achieve the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 ~ RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 4 necessary 1 percent flow grade, the parking lot would have to be raised about 9 feet higher than shown on Grading Plan. This would result in a fill condition of approximately 7 feet and create a 13-foot high wall along the south property line. At the time this report was prepared, staff was working with the applicant to revise the Grading Plan and drainage design to resolve these issues. The applicant was directed to submit a revised Grading Plan pdor to tonight's meeting. An oral update will be provided. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. A portion of the site is located with a fault study zone; hence, a geologic report was prepared. Staff found that although the project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment in several areas (i.e. traffic, noise, air quality, geology, water, aesthetics) the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with the recommended mitigation measures being incorporated into the project design and/or being monitored on a periodic basis by staff. All of the recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Refer to attached Initial Study for detailed analysis. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-25 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "B-2" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "F-I" - Exhibit "F-2" - Exhibit "F-3" - thru "F-5" Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" Resolution Site Utilization Phase One Site Plan Master Plan Phasing Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan Building Elevations (Burger King) Roof Screen Alternatives Burger King Roof Plan Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997, consecutively Building Elevations (Restaurant) Design Review Committee Comments Initial Study, Part II Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes Pre-Application Review 95-04 Minutes Project Chronology Photographs of Site of Approval with Co~~ ~ HAP VACANT LAND I !" ' '~ APLRT:,:E,NTS Ill "J..LI.I.I.J..Li.I.I.I I I I I I I ! I J, !1 PROPERTIES ~.o~th~11 boulevord ,.~ CONCEPTUAL M~f~r CONCEPTIIAI lANDSCAPE PIAN~ DATA © L DINING DRIVE i~_D~ ~ THRU WI s' /~. 5t ROOF EQUIPHENT PLAN ~ X 2g'..O' S'-~. _' ] DINING WINDOW RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1~97 City of Rancl~o Cucamonga Planning Division z DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 14, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard'~md Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from May 1, 1996) Design Parameters: The site is currently developed with a single family residence that has been converted to commercial uses. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The balance of the site is undeveloped with a gradual slope from north to south. The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) as an activity center. Background: On October 25, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application workshop on the application. The Commission considered a site plan almost identical to the plans submitted with the current application. The Commission felt that the location of the drive-thru facility adjacent to the Klusman House was not acceptable. Also, the Commission did not believe introduction of a drive-thru facility within the activity center was appropriate. The complete minutes of the Pre-Application are attached for the Committee's reference. Related Application: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant has submitted a Vahance application to address building and parking setback deficiencies along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Variance application was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on March 27, 1996, but was continued to April 24, 1996, at the request of the applicant. If the variance application is denied, the project site plan would have to be significantly modified. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the FBSP as an activity center. The intent of the activity center is to allow buildings to be pulled closer to the street to create a pedestrian friendly environment. The FBSP encourages public entrances to be oriented toward Foothill Boulevard. Also, buildings should be designed and sited to minimize pedestrians/vehicular conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian movements. The design provided by the applicant introduces the drive-thru lane for Burger King in the middle of the activity center block. Not only is the access to Burger King oriented away from Foothill Boulevard, but the wall necessary to screen the drive-thru lane inhibits pedestrian access across the frontage to specific points. 2. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been improved over the past few years and many improvements were made to the interior to accommodate commercial uses. As a local landmark, staff believes that the site should be designed to "show off" this local feature. The area west of the building has been maintained open to the drive aisle and, ultimately, to the street. A 40-foot landscaped setback is provided between the drive aisle and the structure. The applicant, however, has introduced a drive-thru lane and 4- foot high wall within 25 feet of the east side of the building. Also, the proposed Burger King is sited 15 feet closer to Foothill Boulevard than the existing house. The combination of the wall and the building location obscures visibility of the historic structure. The site should be redesigned to open up visibility of the Klusman House. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1996 Page 2 The current drive-thru policies adopted by the Planning Commission require drive-thru lanes to be screened from public view. The drive-thru lane can be screened through building orientation, a combination of Low walls, and/or landscaping, and trellis work. While the applicant is proposing walls and a trellis, the drive-thru stacking area is located parallel to the street, resulting in the highest visibility. The drive-thru lane is also located adjacent to the activity center which is designed with hardscape and formal tree planting - little oppommity for landscaping exists. As suggested in the Pre-Application workshop, the drive-thru facility could be located to other areas of the site where the stacking lane could be screened by the building and/or more extensive landscaping. While the Design Review Committee does not review the Variance application, it is important to note the design implications of the reduced setbacks requested by the applicant. Along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue the formal hardscape/landscape treatment required by the FBSP is interrupted. The double row of Crape Myrtle trees is reduced to a single row along the drive-thru lane and the restaurant building. The colonnade feeling of the double tree rows will be eliminated. The current drive-thru policy requires the drive-thru lane to be setback 45 feet from the face of curb. As proposed, the drive-thru lane is only 20 feet from the Foothill Boulevard curb. The plans should be revised to comply with the policy. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The architecture proposed varies between the drive-thru facility and the restaurant. The drive-thru facility is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails, vertical wood siding on the roof screen parapet, and a brown, flat concrete tile. The restaurant is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails in some areas, clipped eaves in other areas, and a terra cora barrel tile roof. While, individually the styles may be acceptable, the building(s) should be redesigned to provide a consistent architectural theme for the center. Additional architectural treatment should be provided to the south elevation of the drive-thru facility and the east elevation of the restaurant to break up flat stucco walls. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the activity center to extend from Vineyard westerly to beyond the Klusman House. Logically, the activity center treatment would stop at the Foothill Boulevard drive approach. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment of the activity center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) can be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on the 4-foot screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru facility. 2. Where river rock is proposed, native stone manufactured stone). should be used as the veneer (as opposed to DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1996 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends that revised plans be provided to address the concerns listed above. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review. Attachment: Pre-Application Workshop Minutes dated October 25, 1995 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the following concerns: The plotting of the Burger King building, as shown on the proposed Site Plan, was not acceptable to the Committee as previously stated in the October 25, 1995 Pre-Application Workshop. The building should be relocated to another area of the property such as west of the Foothill Boulevard driveway access or along the Vineyard Avenue frontage, possibly "swapping" locations with the proposed Zendejas Restaurant. Because it does not appear that the applicant has responded to the October 25, 1995 comments and because of time constraints other issues were not discussed by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to address this concern and revise the plans accordingly for further review of the Committee. The Committee agreed to hear this item again at the next regular Design Review Committee meeting if the applicant desired, however, the preference of the Committee was for the applicant to work with staff to address the Committee's concerns prior to further review of the Committee. 5:40 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes September 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot driVe-thin facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on May 14, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King be relocated to another area on the property away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the May 14th Design Review Committee meeting as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Site Plan has been revised to position the Burger King and Zendejas at the minimum required setbacks. In doing so, the field of parking south and west of the restaurants has been modified to a more standard configuration, without the pedestrian pathway that leads to the future Master Planned shopping center. The applicant has made these revisions in an attempt to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee without significantly modifying the Site Plan. However, it has been requested by members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee in the past to relocate the Burger King away from the Activity Center. Therefore, the Committee should determine if the setback modifications are significant enough to allow the applicant to move forward with the Site Plan as modified. Staff feels that the setback modifications still do not adequately address previous Commission comments regarding the re-positioning of the Burger King to another area on the property nor the potential conflict of having a drive-thru facility in such close proximity to the pedestrian Activity Center. Now that the Burger King has been set back 25 feet further from Foothill Boulevard, the historic Klusman House is no longer as hidden from view for westbound traffic on Foothill Boulevard. A low retaining wall is proposed to be constructed for the Burger King project that is closer to the street than the Klusman House, but it should not detract from the viewing of the house. The drive-thru lane is still proposed to be within 24 feet of the east side of the house, which is significant enough to insure that the existing trees on the east side of the house will not have to be removed. A majority of the east side of the house is already screened by existing landscaping. Therefore, staff feels that, with the combination of the Burger King DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 2 being moved southerly 25 feet and the existing landscaping on the east side of the building slated to remain in-place, that the viewshed to the Klusman House from westbound Foothill Boulevard should not be significantly altered. With the additional setback area between Foothill Boulevard and the drive-thru lane for Burger King, a better opportunity exists to provide additional screening of the lane, through the use of landscaping, berming, and low walls. The building and drive-thru lane have not been re- oriented, so that the stacking area is still the closest element to Foothill Boulevard and the Pedestrian Actiyity Center area. However, with the increased setback, staff feels that the concerns of having the drive-thru lane adjacent to the street and the Activity Center can be completely mitigated. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on both street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. The Committee should consider if the contrasting types of architecture between the Klusman House and the new buildings is acceptable. If the Committee finds the architectural style to be acceptable, then staff would recommend that the south elevation of the drive-thin facility and the east elevation of the restaurant be upgraded. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. 2. Where fiver rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the two new buildings should be modified, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Attachments DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee did not recommend approval of the revised Site Plan concept for the following reasons: The plotting of Burger King restaurant drive-thru lane creates an island that impedes pedestrian circulation contrary to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan goal to create a pedestrian oriented "activity center." The use is automobile oriented which is contrary to the intent to have "destination" land uses which generate pedestrian activity and a synergy between commercial tenants. No information was provided regarding the future use of the pad between Burger King and the intersection. A Master Plan is needed to show the relationship between uses and buildings. The latest scheme deleted the strong diagonal pedestrian access from the intersection through the site to the future major anchor. No information was provided regarding the impact of the latest site plan on overall par'king of the entire shopping center. Calculations were only provided for Phase I. The Committee repeated their May 14, 1996 recommendation that ifa drive-thru restaurant is to be located within this project that consideration should be given to locating it either west of the project entry, on Foothill Boulevard or south of the project entry on Vineyard Avenue. The Committee indicated they were willing to consider a third altemative which swapped the Burger King and Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives for their review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:15 p.m. Steve Hayes December 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Commtmity Commercial designation of the FootNil Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on September 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King restaurant be relocated to another area on the property away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the September 3rd and May 14th Design Review Committee meetings as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation for Phase 1 development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Master Plan - The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The main entrance driveway from Foothill Boulevard should align with a focal point (i.e., tower element on Major Anchor, plaza, major landscape element, etc.). The Master Plan does not indicate that sufficient par'king is being provided for Phase II at ultimate build out. The distribution of parking in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will consume all of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of par 'king to serve the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. There is no loading area capability provided at the rear of the first future retail building west of Zendejas restaurant. Also, parking rows should be revised to eliminate dead-ends. go Ten foot wide planters, at a minimum, should be provided along both sides of the main north-south drive aisle to Foothill Boulevard entry,. The new' Site Plan layout shows two smaller buildings flanking a circular hardscape and activit-y area on-site that acts as an extension of the pedestrian Activity Center. Building 2 has a circular element on the side adjacent to the Activity Center. These buildings are proposed as part of a later phase of the Master Plan and will not be developed at this time. Hence, the type of tenants anticipated for these buildings is also not known at this time. Staff feels that the concept of these buildings at the Activity Center could promote and stimulate pedestrian activity in this area but questions the reality of getting appropriate DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December ~ _~, 1996 Page 2 tenants and buildings oriented in this manner. The Committee may wish to consider options or conditions that would guarantee pedestrian oriented buildings and tenants in this portion of the site. The original schemes showed a strong diagonal pedestrian connection from the Activity Center area at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the major line of tenants. This pedestrian connection has been revised to a small sidewalk behind the Burger King trash enclosure and requires customers to cross the drive-thru lane twice. Staff feels that a stronger pedestrian connection between the Activity Center and the major tenants should be introduced back into the Site Plan. (The Committee directed the applicant to incorporate this element back into the Site plan at the last Design Review Committee meeting). 2. Burger King The Burger King restaurant has been relocated to be on the Vineyard Avenue frontage, consistent with past recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning Cornmission. However, staff is concerned that the right turn into the drive-thru lane from the Vineyard Avenue entrance is too tight and the stacking area in the lane is limited such that the flow of traffic may be impeded entering the shopping center. An alternative drive- thru lane layout should be considered by the Committee. Adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings for quick service restaurants has been successful in many communities across the country. Attached for your consideration is an article that references several examples. The Committee may wish to consider and comment on whether the Klusman House may be a viable structure to house a quick service or sit down restaurant. The Burger King restaurant is oriented so that the elongated portion of the drive-thru lane is the closest element to the street. Screen walls and trellises are proposed to screen the drive-thru area. Given that the required setback is being provided along Vineyard Avenue, there should be ample oppommity to provide sufficient screening of the lane through the use of dense landscaping and berming in addition to the elements already provided. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on both street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 2. Additional areas of special paving should be provided throughout the project. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activig, Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. The Burger King restaurant trash enclosure should be relocated to a place where it would not have as high of potential to interfere with vehicular circulation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 3 o Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern property line to screen the proposed parking lot, as well as any future loading and unloading areas from view of the residentially zoned land to the south. The offset 4-way intersection on-site near the northernmost Vineyard Avenue vehicular access location to the project should be modified to that the offset is eliminated. The driveway throat for the southemmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue should be elongated to avoid blockage of parked vehicles related to stacking of cars leaving the site. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. 2. Where fiver rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend that the site plan, building elevations and all other required plans be resubmitted for formal review and consideration of the project as a whole by the Design Review Committee. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the building(s) should be modified or if the adaptive reuse of the Klusman House has validity and should be pursued, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Also Present: Staff Planner: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Councilmember Paul Biane Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the Site Plan be revised and the project return to the Committee as a full item, along with the building elevations and revised Grading and Landscape Plan~ consistent with the revised Site Plan. Requested revisions to the Site Plan are as follows: The Master Plan should be revised to reflect that the shopping center as a whole meets the minimum parking requirements of the City. The pedestrian connection from the Activity Center to the major tenant in the Master Plan should be completed by providing a north/south walkway along the east side of the main vehicular entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Palms and decorative paving should be used to denote the main pedestrian routes throughout the project. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 4 The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building should be revised as follows: ao The drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King should be made for one-way travel only (southerly) and the southern end of the drive aisle should be enhanced to discourage any northbound traffic by necking down the width of its access by extending the planter south of the entrance to the drive-thru lane. b. Turf block and a rolled curb should be used in the planter extension area. Special paving should be provided in a raised manner in the drive aisle between planters and in the two locations where the pedestrian spine crosses the drive-thru lane. The parking spaces should be angled accordingly on both sides of the drive aisle west of Burger King to promote the one-way traffic scheme. Signage should be strategically used to denote proper vehicular circulation in the area of Burger King. Seating should be provided in the main on-site extension of the Activity Center area to promote the use of the Activity Center for patrons of Burger King and other future users in the immediate vicinity. The north/south drive aisles west of Burger King and west of the restaurant should be aligned to form a 4-way intersection south and west of Burger King. All other Secondary and Policy design issues shall become recommended conditions of approval for the project. In addition to these comments, the applicant agreed to eliminate the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue to address concerns raised by the Engineering Division. This area will now be landscaped. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:50 p.m. Steve Hayes December 30, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) last reviewed the project on December 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the area around the Burger King be upgraded to include elements to provide safer vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the building. See attached minutes. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Also, it is intended that the architecture be reviewed formally for the first time during the review process for this project. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation for Phase One development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. MASTER PLAN: The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The Design Review Committee specifically requested that the Master Plan be revised to meet the minimum parking requirements of the City. The Master Site Plan is still 60 spaces deficient, based on the required ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet of building area. Please note that the parking calculations shown on the Site Plan are incorrect: the project requires 452 spaces and 392 are provided. The distribution of parking in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will consume most of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of parking to serve the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. The 4-way intersection on-site near the Vineyard Avenue vehicular access has been aligned, per the request of the Design Review Committee. As a result of the alignment and the drive aisle west of Zendejas shifting westerly, the amount of hardscape on the west side of the building has been increased greatly. The Landscape Plan shows a majority of this area being landscaped, but the Site Plan shows it 'as hardscape. Staff would recommend that the area be designed consistent with the Landscape Plan. do The north/south pedestrian link from the Activity Center to the Major Tenants has been incorporated into the Site Plan along the east side of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard, per the request of the Design Review Committee. The southerly driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue has been eliminated, per the request of the Engineering Division, and the area labeled "Not-a-Part", since it is a separate parcel under different ownership. It is anticipated that the applicant will attempt to purchase this parcel and develop it as part of the shopping center with development of the Major Tenants. As a result of this modification, a landscape planter should be provided at the very southeast comer of this phase of the 9roject, west of the "Not-a-Part" parcel. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 2 The applicant desires to have all other applicable comments related to the Master Plan from the attached December 3, 1996 Design Review Comments placed as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. BURGER KING: The following issues should be discussed regarding the development around the proposed Burger King building: The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building has been revised consistent with the direction of the Design Review Committee, as follows: The drive aisle west of the Burger King has been made one-way and the width of the planter at the south end of this drive aisle increased to discourage northbound traffic. During peak times cars waiting to get into the drive-thru lane will obstruct the parking spaces adjoining the west side of Burger King. The Taco Bell at Milliken and Highland Avenues solved this problem by having parking only on one side (opposite the entry). b. Turf block and a rolled curb are being shown in the extended planter area c. Parking spaces have been angled on both sides of this drive aisle d. The location of all directional signage has been indicated on the Site Plan. However, staff would recommend that the parking spaces be placed at more of an angle and any "dead" space at the ends of rows of angled parking stalls be landscaped. Also, the requested raised special paving is not shown on the revised Site Plan. If acceptable to the Committee, staff will place this as a Condition of Approval and staff will work with the applicant on how the special paving application will occur. Finally, the seating situation in the main Activity Center area should be identified better so that staff can verify that adequate seating will exist to promote the use of the Activity Center to patrons of Burger King; this can also be placed as a Condition of Approval if acceptable to the Committee. 3. ARCHITECTURE: The following issues should be considered regarding the proposed architecture: Additional architectural treatment should be provided on the south elevation of the Burger King and the east elevation of the Zendejas restaurant to break up flat stucco walls. Secondary and Policy Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary and policy design issues: Reduce height of the Zendejas wall sign on the east elevation, measures 48 inches. In situations like this, where building is at setback line, the Commission has limited signs to 18 inches. Further, the Commission has reserved 48 inch high letters for major anchor tenants. All applicable secondary design comments (comments 1-5 from the attached December 3, 1996 comments) and all applicable policy design issues are recommended to be placed as Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant has agreed to this direction. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised Site Plan and building elevations acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended that the applicant revise plans to address the following design issues and submit for further Committee review: 1. Master Plan. Revise the total square footage for the major anchor to address the deficiency in the required parking spaces. The applicant agreed to modify the Site Plan to be consistent with the Landscape Plan. Increase the width to a minimum of 10 feet for the north/south pedestrian link on both sides of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Increase the width of the landscape planters at each end of two pedestrian links. Provide tree wells with tree grates along the two pedestrian links. d. Revise Master Plan to address any technical issues. 2. Burger King. Do Provide 45 degree parking stalls for the parking bay (double loaded parking spaces with a drive aisle) located west of Burger King building. Provide a double white or yellow line to show two lanes for one way direction. One lane is to be signed for the drive-thru lane. The row of parking spaces immediately west of the building should be striped for handicap spaces and a loading zone. Provide landscaping to the "dead" space at the ends of rows of the angled parkang spaces. Show location of direction signs for the drive-thru lane. Provide additional architectural treatment to the south and west elevations. Examples of architectural treatment are but not limited to recessed areas with metal trellis and vines, additional windows, surface treatment to the building plane, etc. Consider reducing the height of the parapet wall and the chimney, and design them to be more integrated with the building design. d. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Page 4 Zendejas. a. The Committee recommended further discussion on mixing or maintaining a variety of architectural styles within a shopping center and providing a policy direction to staff and to the applicant on this subject. b. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. c. Provide additional architectural treatment to the east elevation. The applicant has agreed to address all applicable secondary design issues and policy issues of the December 3, 1996 Design review comments. DESIGN REVIEW COIVI2MENTS 6:10 p.m. Steve Hayes January 14, 1997 RNVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Comments from this most recent Design Review Committee meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, revised plans had yet to I~e received by staff. An oral update will be presented to the Committee at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The applicant was unable to submit revised plans for Committee review prior to the meeting. The plans the applicant brought to the meeting were incomplete in that a grading plan was not included as part of the submittal package. Furthermore, the Burger King elevations have not yet been revised to reflect the currently proposed configuration of the building and outdoor eating areas on Vineyard Avenue. The item was continued to their next meeting on February 4, 1997 contingent upon submittal of complete sets of revised plans by January 23. DESIGN REVIEW COI~CVlENTS 8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February 4, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. The item was then scheduled for the January 14, 1997 meeting with the understanding that the plans could be revised in a timely manner to allow staff and the Committee ample opportunity to review the revised plans prior to the meeting. Given that the plans did not arrive until af[er an item on the meeting had already started, the Committee did not have time to review the plans and therefore; did not formally review the project on January 14th. Comments from these most recent Design Review Committee meetings have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The revised plans should be reviewed to determine if the direction from the two most recent Design Review Committee meetings has been adequately followed by the applicant. Specific issues are as follows: Signage for the Burger King has been reduced in size to be consistent with the new Jack in the Box at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, but the location of the sign should be removed from the proposed roof screen element; The roof screen on the Burger King has been changed from a wood sided to a stucco element to be more consistent with the building architecture; No information regarding the roof equipment and plan has been submitted to staff at the time of preparation of these comments. An oral update regarding this issue will be discussed at the meeting; Street dimensions still require correction as deemed necessary by the Engineering Division; and Revised grading plans had not yet been submitted the time of comment preparation, any oral comments regarding the grading plan will be discussed at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations consistent with the direction given to the applicant at the previous meetings, then staff would recommend that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with Conditions. DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 4, 1997 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff.Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee directed the applicant to return to the Committee on February 18, 1997 with a specific roof plan that show all of the necessary roof mounted mechanical equipment and a more detailed solution for the roof screen parapet. The Committee also recommended that all other items included in the above comments as well as previously referenced comments from past design reviews that have not yet been resolved will be incorporated as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Brad Buller February18,1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on February 4, 1997, where the Committee directed the applicant to have a specific roof plan and possible architectural enhancements for the proposed roof parapet available for review at the next meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, the requested roof plan had not yet been received by staff. An oral presentation will be provided at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the February 26, 1997 meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brad Buller The applicant was unable to submit a Roof Plan for Burger King and did not submit revised elevations which accurately depicted the roof elements. Further, the applicant stated that the chimney element would probably be deleted. The Committee did not recommend approval of roof screen Alternatives A.B orC. The Committee did not recommend approval and requested the applicant to address the following, prior to the Planning Commission meeting: 1. Submit a Roof Plan for Burger King. 2. Submit revised elevations for Burger King which correct all inconsistencies. Explain why the chimney, that was previously indicated by the applicant as functional, is no longer necessary? DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 18, 1997 Page 2 Submit documentation that the four condensation units can fit onto the 5-foot x 5-foot platform indicated and meet manufacturer's specifications for proper air circulation around the units. 5. Verify the dimension of the 10 ton A/C units, particularly the height. The applicant was also advised of the Grading Committee recommendation to not approve the Conceptual Grading Plan. The applicant was reminded to submit a complete set of colored plans, including the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and elevations, as well as, 8 ½ inch x 11-inch reductions of all sheets within the development package. I:~STEVE~CUP9525.ENV City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND '1. Project File: CUP 95-25 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 95-04 3. Description of Project: Shopping center Phase I including 2,900 s.f. Burger King and 5,548 s.f. restaurant on 3.7 acres at SWC Foothill and Vineyard. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.S. Properties 759 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: Community Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the north, south and west. Service station and condominiums to the east. Existing single family residence at SEC of site (not a part). The project site includes the Klusman House a local historic landmark. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 Control District 10. Other agencies 'whose approval is required: Caltrans, San Bernardino County Flood Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, including "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (x) Geological Problems (x) Water (x) Air Quality (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (x) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Aesthetics (x) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed:~~Brad Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues anci Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Lass PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo tmDact tncorl;)oratedImpact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) c) Potenbally S~gnificant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than Signif'~..antMitigat~nSignificantNo Impact Inco~:)oratedImpact Impact Would the proposal.' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Iml3act Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () () () (x) () () () (x) (x) () () () () () () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) Comments: a-c) The northwesterly portion of the project site is located within the City adopted Special Study Zone for the Red Hill fault. A geologic report was prepared for the project site (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996) and reviewed by the City's geologist (Reeder, December 5, 1996). The geologic report concludes that no faults cross the site, and further concludes that none of the following are expected: ground rupture, landsliding or other slope stability hazards, or liquefaction. The geologic report concludes that "severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected within the next 100 years from an earthquake along the Cucamonga fault." The report contains a number -3f recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A ~'evised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. The geologic report concludes that "surficial materials on the site are considered to be moderately susceptible to erosion by water." The report contains a number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. Issues and Supporting Information Sources WATER. a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Potentially S~gnificant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Incorl;)oratedIrnoact Impact Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) The proposed project will result in changes to the absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff through increases in developed area, buildings, and paved areas. The project will result in a surface water runoff of Q10o=18.0 cubic feet per second for the majodty of the site, which is proposed to drain southwesterly. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe that will connect into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel. Permit required from San Bernardino County Flood Control District for all work within their property or easement area. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 f) The project will pave over 3 acres of land thereby reducing percolation into ground water. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe connected into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel, which ultimately drains into the Prado Basin spreading grounds where it can recharge the ground water. Issues and Sul:~oorling Infomlabon Sources AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially Signif~..,ant Irnpac~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than SlgnifmantM~igat~on SignificantNo Impact Incomoraled Irnl~ac~ Iml~act Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) The project will generate vehicle trips, as well as car idling in the drive-thru lane, which will contribute air pollutants. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon air quality. The land to the south is planned for residential and the land to the east is developed with residential condominiums. There are no schools, hospitals or convalescent home facilities nearby. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic pollutants upon sensitive receptors. Impact considered less than significant. The project include development of buildings and paved areas which will act as a heat sink increasing temperatures at or near the site. The project design includes extensive landscaping, particularly shade trees around buildings and within parking areas, to reduce this heat sink effect to a less than significant level. Although the project includes parking areas and a drive-thru restaurant which will produce vehicle exhaust that may be objectionable, the level of emissions produced is not considered significant in comparison to that which will be produced by vehicles traveling on the two major streets fronting the site. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Issues and Supporling Information Sources: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) 0 Would the Potentially SignScant ImDact Potentially Stgmficant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigabon Signif-mant IncorporatedImPact No Impact () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project includes 19,748 square feet of commercial space which will increase vehicle trips on both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and impact the intersection thereof. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. The project design includes completion of both streets to their full width across the full frontage; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. The project design also includes a bus turnout on Vineyard Avenue to support the use of public transit. Issues and Supporling Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Potentially Sglnificent Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than Signify. antMitigationSignifyant No Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 Issues and Supporting Infonmabon Sources: c) d) e) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland r, abitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Potentially Significant Impact Potenbelly S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () (x) () () () () () () (x) (x) Issues and Supporting Informebon Sources ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal: a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) Potentially $~gnlficant IrnDact Potentially S~gn~cant Impact Unless MitigetK)n Incorporated () () () Less Than S~gnhrmant () () () No Impact (x) (x) (x) Issues and Supf:)ort~ng Information Sources: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ,Potentially S~gnificant Impact () () () () Potentially Signifyant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated () () () () Less Than S~gn~cant Impact () () () () No Impact (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Potentially S~gnrf~.,ant Impact Less Potenbaily Unless Than Significant M~tigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () () (x) 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Signff~c. ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Signify. ant No Impact Incor~3ra~ed Impact Impact () () (x) () () () (x) () Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for the existing residence at the southeast comer of site and the land to the south that is planned for residential. The project design includes a 6 foot high screen wall along the common property line with the existing residence to provide buffer and reduce noise to an acceptable level. b) The project includes buildings, outdoor dining areas and plazas near both street frontages which could expose people to 'traffic noise. The City's General Plan indicates future noise levels at build out of the community at greater than 70 Ldn, and acknowledges that the outdoor environment will seem noisy. The General Plan does not require sound attenuation mitigation measures for exterior areas. The General Plan does require a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and incorporation of needed noise insulation features in the project design; however, indicates that conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. An acoustical study should be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to address interior noise levels of all buildings within project prior to issuance of building permits. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 11. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Potentrally Significant Irnpact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Potentially Signdicant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigabon S~gnificant Incoroorated Impact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 12. Issues and SulAoOding Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially S~gnificent Impact Potentrally S~gnifmant Impact Less Unless Than Mit,,gat m,'l Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentrally S~gni~mant Impact () Potentially Significanf Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No Incoq~orated Imoact Imoact () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potenhally Unless Than Srgmficant M~tigation Significant No Impact Incoroorated Imoact Impact () () () (x) () (x) () () c) The project will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, in particular the existing single family residence at the southeast comer of site and the property to the south which is planned for residential. Light fixtures should be shielded and directed away from residential areas, A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, should be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. 14. Potenbally S~gnificant Impact Unless M~bgation Incorporated Leas Potentially Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: S~gn~'.ant Signif~'.,ant No Impact ImPact linDact CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: c) The project site includes the Klusman House, a local historic landmark of considerable significance to the community. The project has been designed to preserve this landmark structure as a major focal point at the main entrance to the site from Foothill Boulevard. The nearest proposed structure lies 43 feet to the east. No alterations to this landmark are proposed with this application. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 15. Issues and Supporhng Information Sources: S~gn~c.a;~t Impam RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Potenbally Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gnificant Incoq~oratedImpact No Impact () (x) () () (x) 16. issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially S~gnificent Irnl~act MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populatic~ to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) . ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially S~gmficant Impact Less Unless Than Mibgabon S~gnificant tncorl:~oratedImDact No Impact () () (x) () () (x) () (x) () () () (x) U. $.P~OPERT[E$ ~14~8~0 P. 01 SENT BY: R CUCAMONeA COU DEV; 2-1D-97 3;30PM; 909 477 2847 => 7149850950; #14/14 Initial Study for City of Ranc~to Cucamonga Page 13 CUP 95-25 .. - . Cerements: c) The proJaot will generate traffic, vehicle emiss~ons, noise and light, These effects were analyzed by the City's General Plan EIR and Foolhill Boulevard Specific Ptan EIR and were found to be not signifioent or were found 1o be significant but irreversible and a etatemen! of overriding consideration was adopted, EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adeCluately anaJyzed in an earlier EIR or Nags§re Declarelion per Section 15063(c)(3)(D), The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed In the following earlier document(s) pursuant to eppiic. able legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures ~ on the earlier analysis. The following eadier analyses were utilized in completing this II~ltiel Study and are available for review tn the City of Rancho Cuca~or~a, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civio Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the t969 General Plan Update (SCH ~6020115, c. erlified January 4, t989) (X) Foothill Boulevard SpeCifiC Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September I6, 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Stucty, I eclmowledge that I have read this Initial Study end the proposed mltlgation measures. Further, I have revised the pmjecl plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to Ihe proposed mitigation rrmasums to avoid the effects or mitigate Ihe effects to a poir~ where cleatty no ~ignificant e~vironmentai effects would occur. r"n ffl 40' 0 40' Scale: 1" = 40' ,";J)t'ciaJ .k;ltitJics /.Illit.' (icuh~gy t~y I'llj I)[aflctl b)' I'A(i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 14, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Convnission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 93-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of site plan for a proposed grocery store, existing historic structure, and related pads on approximately 10 acres at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-05, 12, 13, 14, 15, 38, and 40. An introduction to the project was provided by the applicant, Gil Rodriguez. He explained that the proposed grocery store would most likely not be built because of the approval of the Smith's Food and Drug Store on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He did state, however, that they still desired comments on the plan from the Commissioners in the event that another user expressed interest in the project site. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that at this point, they are anxious to utilize the Klusman House as an office building and want to proceed with this before going forward with the entire conditional use permit for the corner. He explained that they are interested in pursuing the 5,000 square foot proposed building fronting on Foothill Boulevard as part of Phase I. He indicated this building would be utilized as a delicatessen and specialty food store. Staff presented the main points regarding the site plan to the Commissioners, who then made their comments. Commissioner Melcher felt the site plan is beautiful, however, 'probably not workable because of the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard to the main tenant. He thought the Klusman House should have a more enhanced setting to the south which would create a more appealing sense of entry into the building. He also felt that the parking along the west side of the main building would be virtually worthless. Commissioner Vallette stated that she would support moving the building back if it could make the proposed site plan more workable. She felt there are other options for the major tenant besides a market, such as a theater. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the designer did a nice job on the site plan but he was concerned with the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the site plan should be opened up to increase visibility. He felt that relocating the free-standing building from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue might solve the problem. He also felt the parking along the rear could provide a buffer to the residential area to the south, but would probably not be used. He cited the example of the NuWest center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue as a similar condition. Commissioner Chitiea said the project was very innovative, but she voiced concerns regarding the lack of view corridors into the center. She thought perhaps one of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard could be shifted to Vineyard Avenue to provide greater visibility. She liked the pedestrian connection from the corner to the main building. She felt a buffer of some sort is needed on the south side of the project. She thought the parking along the west side of the project site could be workable if additional connections to the front of the site are provided. Chairman McNiel stated that the front of the building is more oriented towards Vineyard Avenue and that he did not have a problem with visibility of the structure to Foothill Boulevard. He liked the innovative concept of the site plan and thought it might be able to work with another tenant rather than a grocery store. He thought the Klusman House needs a better setting along the south side. He indicated that he would support a reduction in parking spaces if it would provide additional area to upgrade the back of the house. Bob Schmidt, Historic Preservation Commissioner, indicated he was participating in this workshop as an observer and remarked that he was pleased with the project and agreed that the rear of the Klusman House would be addressed. Mr. Rodriguez concluded by indicating that he felt in the past, anchor tenants would drive retail sites, but that is not the case in today's market. He felt all tenants are of equal value and that high visibility of the anchor tenant is not an absolute necessity. He observed that a traffic/view study was conducted from both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue indicatihg that visibility was not a problem. He felt that rear parking was acceptable since there is a connection to the front of the site. (Staff noted earlier in the presentation that the site is deficient in the number of parking stalls provided.) He indicated that employee parking is proposed for the rear of the site. Mr. Rodriguez was informed that he could proceed with the utilization of the Klusman House as an office building by processing a Minor Development Review. The Commission concluded that the concerns noted and the technical issues mentioned by staff need to be addressed. P C Workshop Minutes -2- April 14, 1993 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P C Workshop Minutes -3- April 14, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 95-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of a proposed fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) and restaurant pad in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., the applicant, gave a brief presentation of the project. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff issues and concerns which included the following: 1. Consistency with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a. Building setback b. Parking setback 2. Master Plan requirements 3. The Planning Commission drive-thru policy a. Drive-thru lane setback b. Distance from intersection of the drive-thru lane d. Potential revisions to the policy contemplated by the Planning Commission subcommittee reviewing the policy. 4. Relationship to the K!usman House Vice-Chairman McNiel asked what was anticipated for the future pad identified as ~multi-use." Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a building will be permitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the pad would be used for special seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc. Commissioner McNiel stated that rarely does fast food contribute to an activity center other than introducing cars to the area. He felt the fast food restaurant does nothing for the intersection. He acknowledged Burger King's desire to be at the corner but he did not feel that was the appropriate location because Burger King would dominate the corner. He suggested locating Burger King on the west side of the Foothill entry. Commissioner McNiel liked the location of Zendejas restaurant and the future pad. Commissioner Melcher stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the Master Plan should be the first item complete~ to market the project. He felt the architect had done a good job disguising the Burger King; however, Burger King does nothing to respect the Klusman House. He thought the proper setting is essential for the Klusman House and the setback provided on the east side of the Klusman House should match the west side of the building. He felt the diagonal pedestrian walk through the center is the boldest and most imaginative attempt presented to the City. He did not think the parking lot layout is workable because there are an excessive number of turning movements over 120 degrees that would be necessary to pull into the parking stalls. Commissioner Lumpp indicated that if Burger King feels it is essential to be at the intersection, the more appropriate location may be along the Vineyard frontage. He suggested the Burger King and Zendejas' locations could be reversed and such a switch would make the drive-thru less dominant. He thought the orientation might even allow some pedestrian play off Burger King into the activity center area. He acknowledged Burger King probably wants to be on Foothill Boulevard because of the greater traffic volumes; however, he felt Burger King should not be located adjacent to the K!usman House. Commissioner Lumpp stated that if Burger King had to be located on Foothill Boulevard, the building should be on the west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by Commissioner McNiel. He felt the architecture was acceptable, although he believed Burger King should be designed more consistent with the Klusman House. He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning Commission Subcommittee studying the drive-thru policy; however, he reiterated his desire to see Burger King relocated to the Vineyard frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the site design approved for the Christmas House on Archibald Avenue results in a very hemmed in appearance. He felt the same situation will occur with this project if the site plan is approved as submitted by the applicant. He thought Burger King should be relocated to the west side of the Foothill entry or closer to the activity center to share seating with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good alternative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable. PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activity center and the link into the site. He had not given much thought to relocating Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt that Burger King might be interested. He suggested the Planning Commission should look at the 19-foot setback proposed for Vineyard Avenue and provide direction to the applicant. He liked the architecture proposed by the applicant. Chairman Barker stated that the Burger King on Base Line Road and Haven Avenue has a serious circulation problem with the drive-thru lane obstructing the pedestrian access to the building. He indicated his support for another large, outdoor plaza/eating area. Mr. Rodriguez indicated he has been working with Burger King for the past six months on various design schemes. He observed the location on the west side of the Foothill entry is not desirable because the trees within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District block visibility of the site. He said he had reworked the site to make it economically feasible. He stated that the contrasting design between the Klusman House and the Burger King was intentional in order to set the two structures apart rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner Melcher stated that when working with a large parcel such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice the minimum standards. He observed that streets are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater dedications and improvements are required than will be required of this site. He stated that Wohl Properties had a willing tenant for their site on Foothill Boulevard but it is not the right site for that tenant. He said that Burger King may be proposed on this site but that does not mean it is right. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He felt sufficient land is available to accommodate the design. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifted southerly. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacent to the Klusman House. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building setback everywhere except the activity centers where the setback is reduced to 25 feet. He thought the applicant needs to adhere to. that criteria. He observed that if the Planning Commission approves a variance for a reduced setback, it would clearly set a precedent for future actions. He did not think shifting Burger King to the south would be good for the Klusman House or for the activity center. He stated that Burger King is not a point of destination with the nature of the business being that people get in and out of the facility quickly. Brad Bullet, City Planner, recapped the Commission's discussions. Me stated that Burger King was not acceptable next to the Klusman House and other options should be considered. He noted there was no support for a variance for building setbacks because of a shift in the street centerline. PUBLIC COMMENTS PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 April 14, 1993 - August 29, 1995 - Sept. 21, 1995 - October 25, 1995 - November 30, 1995 - February 13, 1996 - February29,1996- March 12,1996- March 13,1996- Chronology of Rodriguez Project CUP 95-25 Pre-Application review presented to Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction regarding major issues. Application formally submitted to City. First incompleteness letter mailed to applicant; suggested that another Pre- Application review on new site plan and elevations occur with the Planning Commission to discuss major design issues relative to site plan. Pre-Application review workshop with Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction on how to addresss site planning and architectural concerns. Applicant requests time extension to address completeness items raised by staff in 9/21/95 letter. Staff informs applicant via letter of acceptance of time extension on 12/7/95. Applicant resubmits plans. Design issues, technical problems still not addressed as previously raised by staff via letter and by the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review. Second incompleteness letter sent out by staff with numerous second requests for identical information and or to address identical design issues identified in the first review 5 months earlier. Applicant submits Variance request for numerous setback reductions for proposed next phase development along Foothill Boulevard. Variance agendized for March 27, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. One of the Completeness items, a Geologic study, submitted by applicant, which was originally requested on 9/21/95. Letters requesting a second review by registered Geologists mailed out by staff. March 27, 1996 - Variance reviewed by Planning Commission but continued to April 24, 1996 at the request of the applicant. March 28,1996- Staff selects geologist to conduct second review of plans and asks applicant to submit deposit ($350) to cover cost of review. April 24, 1996 - Variance again continued at request of applicant. April 30, 1996 May 14, 1996 - Sept. 3, 1996- Sept. 9, 1996 November 7, 1996 - December 3, 1996 - December5,1996- December 30, 1996 - Application scheduled for courtesy review (application still incomplete) for Grading Committee, DRC and TRC on May 1, 1996. These items were continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant, who made his request on April 29, 1996. Application receives courtesy review by all three Committees (TRC on May 15, 1996). All three Committees provide specific direction regarding revisions to plans and any other issues and recommend that the applicant revise plans and have project return to Committees once deemed complete. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis by Grading and Design Review Committees. Previous direction regarding major site planning issues (first passed on at the 10/25/95 Pre-Application Review) still not addressed and DRC reinterated these concerns. Staff prepares third incompleteness letter to remind applicant of all outstanding completeness items and other technical and design related issues, including need for $350 deposit to have geology study reviewed, first requested on 3/28/96. Staff receives check to review Geology study. Geologist selected and information mailed to geologist on 11/24/96. Other incompleteness items from 9/9/96 letter still not addressed. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis (still incomplete) for third time by DRC. Major site planning issues starting to be selectively addressed by applicant, but embellishments necessary to Master Plan and area around proposed tenants which require furtl/er review of Committee. Staff receives comments from our Geologist and FAXes comments to applicant and original geologist same day. (As of 1/17/97, staff has yet to receive revisions from original geologist thereby making application still incomplete). Application reviewed on a courtesy basis again (Still incompleteness items) by DRC and Grading Committees (and TRC on 1/2/97). Site plan, Master Plan reviewed again by DRC. Some specific issues from 12/3/96 DRC meeting still not addressed regarding Master Plan. Architecture reviewed for first time, minor revisions requested and information needed from applicant before a recommendation of approval could be forwarded. Grading Committee deems plans incomplete and requests additional information previously asked for on May 14, 1996. Applicant states that modifications to plans can be made in sufficent time to allow staff, Grading Committee and DRC members to review for 1/14/ 97 meetings. January 2, 1997 - January 7. 1997 - January 9, 1997 - January 13, 1997 - January 14, 1997 - January15,1997- January 16, 1997 - January 21, 1997 - January 22, 1997 - January 23, 1997 - TRC reviews plans and has repeat comments of information that should be shown on plans from previous 5/15/96 TRC meeting. Staff meets with applicant to go over DRC and Grading Committee action from 12/30/96 meeting. Reminds applicant of incompleteness of application and asks him to check on status of Geology study revisions. Staff gives applicant deadline of 1/9/97 to get revised plans to staff for review and distribution to Committees (one week less review time than usually requested for other projects). Applicant leaves voice mail message approximately 5:20 p.m. saying that revisions are being worked on. No plans reveived by end of day. Staff reveives one copy (eight sets requested on 1/7/97) of plans. Grading plan reviewed by Grading Commitee on January 14, 1997 and information specifically requested at staff/applicant meeting on 1/7/97 still missing. Scheduled for Grading Committee review again on February 4, 1997. Applicant submits plans 45 minutes before item is to be reviewed on courtesy basis by DRC (application still incomplete). The DRC meeting has already started, as another item is being reviewed, so DRC members have no opportunity to review plans ahead to time. Due to this, DRC recommended that the item be scheduled for the next (February 4, 1997) meeting. Applicant sends FAX to clarify issues and submittal deadlines of plans for 2/4/97 meetings. Staff responds back via FAX immediately, adding several issues to applicant did not include. Applicant sends revised FAX incorpoating items staff included in original FAX previous day. FAX looked accepatable and accurate to staff. Called to verify submittal dealines for 2/4/DRC meeting with applicant. Talked to engineer and informed him of changes and submittal deadline (end of Day - 1/22) to remain on 2/4 Grading Committee. Site, landscape and architectural plans received by deadline given to applicant (end of work day). This deadline was established after 1/14 DRC meeting and acknowledged by applicant in 1/15 and 1/16 FAX. However, revised grading plan not received by deadline. Left message for applicant early a.m. to check on status of grading plans. January 28, 1997 - Janua_D' 30, 1997 - February 4, 1997 - February 5, 1997 - February12,1997- February13,1997- February18,1997- Applicant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by tomorrow (1/29). Grading Plan finally received. Project reviewed by DRC and Grading Committee. Neither Committee recommends approval; addittional information previously requested by both Committees not yet received. Despite this, staff still keeps item pre- scheduled for February 26th Planning Commission hearing. Staff informs applicant of opportunity to review project at the February 18th Grading Committee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of February 12th for additional information. Staff writes DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for Planning Commission meeting. Staff calls applicant regarding status of requested submittal information. Not received by end of day. Staff receives DRC information and revised Grading Plan in early afternoon. Final submittal requirements for Planning Commission not received, even though due on this date. Grading Committee and DRC again review project and do not recommend approval. However, Conditions of Approval incorporated into the Resolution of Approval to cover remaining issues. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP RECEIVED C.U.P. 95-25 City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 1504g (D 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC; PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13,. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, and continued to March 11, March 26, and April 23, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on February 26, March 11, March 26, and Apdl 23, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a portion of Phase One improvements, which includes a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down restaurant, and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and d. The application contemplates the removal of the interim parking lot for the existing historic Klusman House as part of Phase One development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Apdl 23, 1997 Page 2 e. The balance of the buildings shown in Phase One around the on-site pedestrian activity center area will not be constructed initially and will be required to be reviewed under a separate application through the City's development review process in the future; and f. The application indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual Master Plan as being the balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant, such as a supermarket, and approximately 13,750 square feet of shops space. This portion of the development will also be required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, 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. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 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. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 3 Planning Division 1) Approval is for Phase One development only, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. The remainder of the Master Plan is shown in concept only. A new Conditional Use Permit or Development Review application (as applicable) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission or City Planner (as applicable) for all buildings within future remaining phases. 2) 3) Temporary fencing with a green mesh or similar matedal shall be provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan, prior to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall be within its parcel. A detailed construction activities plan showing the area for storage of earth materials, building materials, the staging of construction equipment such as skip loader, excavator, etc., the construction traffic route, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall not negatively impact any business activities at the Klusman House. 4) A Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center, indicating provisions for major tenants, other in-line tenants and pad buildings, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. The standards shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the shopping center. The size of the sign copy shall be visually balanced and proportionate to the buildings and the architectural style. 5) A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the shopping center, including, but not limited to, major tenants, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee, prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan. In addition, a uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment, including trash receptacles, freestanding potted plants, trellises, special paving, bicycle racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be utilized for the shopping center and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be included in the Design Guidelines supplement. 6) Parking lot light standards shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other pedestrian level lighting used within the Activity Center area along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet above finished grade. Details of the parking lot lighting shall be included on the on-site Photometric Lighting Plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Apdl 23, 1997 Page 4 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) There shall be provisions for the following design features in the trash enclosures to the satisfaction of the City Planner (the exact location for the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, pdor to the issuance of building permits): a) Architecturally integrated into the design of this project; b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors; c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins; d) Trash bins with counter weighted lids; e) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; and Chain link fencing on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: a) Trees framing the main focal point; b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the project; and c) On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The final landscape and irrigation design of the 10-foot wide landscaped areas flanking both sides of the main entrance off Foothill Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, pdor to issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. A pedestrian walkway incorporating the special paving scheme used throughout the project shall be provided on the east side of the drive aisle to provide a continuous pedestrian access route from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the front of the major and shops tenants, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan. All slopes and any area disturbed in Phase Two, on the conceptual Master Plan, shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included within the Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural program established, as determined by the Planning Commission and City Planner (as applicable). A Secudty Patrol Plan for the shopping center shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 5 12) 13) 14) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) A bus shelter on Vineyard Avenue shall be installed with Phase One improvements. The final design and location shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. No restaurant use (other than that proposed with Phase One) is proposed for the center. If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by food service uses, one additional parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor area used for food service shall be provided. Likewise, if a cinema or offices are proposed, then additional parking may be required. Truck loading and unloading zones shall be properly marked to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The pedestrian Activity Center shall be continued for a distance west along the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the first driveway and south along Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway. The final design of the on- site extension of the pedestrian Activity Center, including the art piece, pedestrian fumiture, and focal elements such as a water feature, shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. A portion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be completed with Phase One development, including the plaza between Buildings 1 and 2. The final design of the Activity Center and the phasing of improvements shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. The final design of the enhanced storefronts and the focal point within the Phase Two Master Plan area shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee, pdor to the issuance of building permits for any development within Phase Two, as shown on the Phasing Plan. An art piece at the Activity Center plaza shall be installed within 180 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either building in Phase One, whichever occurs first. The final design of the sidewalk connections from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the pad buildings, where applicable, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each Design Review application for the development of the pad buildings. The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center. Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 6 23) 24) 25) 26) Placement of newspaper racks and other street furniture may be allowed if consistent with the approved street furniture guidelines and subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day. The entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debris remain on the site for more than 24 hours. 27) Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. 28) Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. only. 29) The business shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: 30) 31) 32) a) Noise Levels: All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. b) Loading and Unloading: No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Any outdoor displays of merchandise shall be limited to specific areas that will be considered as pad of Phase Two development, as applicable. Berming, low walls, dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs, or any combination thereof, shall be provided to sufficiently screen all parking areas, drive-thru lanes and any other vehicular activity areas from public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plans shall indicate compliance with this requirement. The applicant shall resolve any Building Code compliance difficulties (with construction of canopies, property lines in relation to walls and other openings, and roof tile installation to withstand severe winds) with the Building and Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 7 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided on the property in accordance with current City regulations. Security racks shall be provided for each storage space and shall be located near the main building entrances in highly visible areas to minimize theft and vandalism. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the storage spaces with a minimum width of 5 feet to the front or the rear of a standard 6-foot bicycle parked in the space. The final design, material use, and height of the parapet and chimney on the Burger King building shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. The Burger King building and drive-thru lane shall be shifted westerly 3 feet to comply with the minimum 45-foot setback from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue. Since this shift will cause a reduction in the amount of landscaped area on the west side of the building, the final landscape and irrigation design of this area shall be reviewed as part of the detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plan, and approved, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. The parking spaces along the drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King building shall be angled at 45 degrees and painted arrows shall be used to identify the proper travel direction, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Directional signage shall be used to properly direct vehicular traffic to the drive-thru lane and one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Rolled curbing, turf block, and raised special paving consistent in design with that used throughout the shopping center, shall be used at the narrowed (south) end of the one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The landscape palette along the southerly and east property lines shall be selected so as to provide a dense landscape buffer between the shopping center, the existing residence, and any future development on the vacant residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Additional areas of special paving shall be used throughout the project, especially at all vehicular entrances to the site, key pedestrian routes across vehicular drive aisles and to demarcate primary pedestrian walkways and gathering areas within the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. This shall include the circular "compass rose" pattern treatment where each entrance driveway intersects with the first interior drive aisles (see Exhibit "D" of Staff Report). The formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center shall extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Amenities used within the Activity Center such as benches, a fountain, etc., could also be used in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 8 42) A decorative cap shall be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 43) Native river cobble shall be used (as opposed to a manufactured rock veneer product) in all areas where rock is proposed on the building and wall elevations throughout the project. 44) The final design of the radius curve south and west of the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Fire District, pdor to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. 45) A uniform hardscape and street furniture including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed design shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 46) Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete or a combination of them. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 47) All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plan shall be included in the Landscape and Irrigation Plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 48) Revise southerly parking lot to provide a minimum two-way drive aisle width of 24 feet in all drive aisles. Engineering Division 1) The project as proposed will require the processing of a Lot Line Adjustment. Note: All conditions referencing project frontage or APN's are with respect to lot lines subsequent to the Lot Line Adjustment. 2) Along Foothill Boulevard a total of 64 feet is required as measured between the street center line and ultimate curb face. Additional right- of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. The right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during Technical Plan Review. 3) Along Vineyard Avenue a total of 35 feet plus an additional 11 feet, to accommodate a bus bay right-turn lane is required for a total of 46 feet as measured between the approved survey line and ultimate curb face. Additional right-of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 9 4) 5) 6) 7) S) 9) The Activity Center pedestrian corridor along Vineyard Avenue shall include two rows of tree wells, similar to the corridor as shown along Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling, pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a minimum spacing of 10 feet is required between center line of tree wells. In addition, a minimum distance of 6 feet is required from center line of tree well to curb face to allow for a 2-foot minimum planting area. Easements will be required for the cross-lot drainage and any proposed on-site drainage facility. All on-site drainage facilities are subject to review by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions. A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the Foothill Boulevard median island, per Engineering Public Works Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits, and shall be constructed thereof. The developer may request a Reimbursement Agreement to recover one-half the cost from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. Said Reimbursement Agreement shall be submitted within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, or all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. However, if Caltrans does not allow the construction of a median island, and subsequent landscaping, then an in-lieu fee as contribution to one-half of the future cost of constructing and landscaping said median island shall be paid to the City, pdor to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be as determined during Technical Plan review times the length of the project frontage to the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Full frontage improvements shall be constructed across the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages. A right-turn lane shall be constructed for the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The ddveway on Vineyard Avenue shall be constructed as a bus bay right-turn lane. Driveways shall be standard commercial type, per City standards, with no ramps or pavers. All right-of-way necessary to construct right-turn pockets, bus bays, driveways, and transitions on Foothill Boulevard and/or Vineyard Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed as a part of this project, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the north side of Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the project's westedy boundary. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding and/or previous undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the KV electrical) on the east side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 10 unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to the project's southerly boundary and/or the reimbursable amount for the previous undergrounding improvements pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, whichever is applicable, at the time of payment of the in- lieu fee. 11) A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of construction of special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be based on the calculated amount as determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 12) The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan fronting Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and Caltrans. 13) Modification and relocation, as necessary, of the traffic signal at the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be the responsibility of the developer. The modification and relocation shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. 14) Construct the local storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the existing connection at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Creek to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15) "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the southwest comer and conveying the drainage flows directly into Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood Control District approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the drainage for the whole site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a sump condition, a secondary overflow is required. The sump condition shall pond a depth of water no greater than 18 inches. Building and Safety/Fire Protection District 1) Submit comprehensive foundation soils report, pdor to issuance of grading permits, including recommendations for existing uncompacted 2) Assembly-type occupancy uses within building will require additional and specific review and comments. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1) A final geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and accepted by the City's geologist, prior to issuance of any PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ Apd123,1997 Page 11 permits. The applicant shall pay the cost of the review by the City's geologist by depositing funds for this purpose. 2) The recommendations of the final geologic report shall be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to the issuance of any permits. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: a) No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the approximate restricted use zone as shown on Plate One unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds this portion of the site to be free of active faulting. The recommended restricted use zone applies to proposed structures only. The restricted use zone on the site can be used for purposes other than the placement of human occupancy structures, such as parking areas. b) The southeast boundary of the recommended restricted use zone shall be surveyed. This restricted area zone shall be shown on all site development plans, including Grading Plans. c) Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided, as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. d) The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be two horizontal to one vertical up to a maximum height of 10 feet. e) All cut slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to minimize erosion, as material on-site may be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. f) The final Grading Plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist, pdor to any grading. g) The trench backfill was not compacted. The suitability of this material for future use shall be determined by the geotechnical engineer if any man-made use of this area is planned. 3) A detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, pdor to issuance of building permits, to address interior noise levels of all buildings within the project. 4) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide proper shielding of adjoining properties from light and glare. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 12 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 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 23rd day of April 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 BURGER KING AND 5,548 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT U.S. PROPERTIES SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD & VINEYARD AVENUE 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 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. 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, the Foothill Boulevard 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. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. SC - 10/96 Proiect No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 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. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / 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. / / 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. / / 11. 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. / / 12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. / / 13. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter of APN: 207-211- 05. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. / / SC - 10/96 2 Fo Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) Project No. CUP 95-25 Coml~letion Date All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area, If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. Trip Reduction 1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. 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. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slopes of 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 SC - 10/96 3 Project No, CUP 95-25 Coml~letion Date control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All pdvate 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. if. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. if. 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 multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. / / 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 is required along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue per the Activity Center guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 10. 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. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 12. 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, Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. H. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes and their design shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / / / / / SC - lol96 =PLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) ,.;OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Project No. CUP 95-25 Com131etion Date 477-2710, FOR I. 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 commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. 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 ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Please see Enaineering Division's Special Conditions in the Resolution. / / Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. / / 3. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided. / / SC - 10196 Project No. CUP 95-25 Com~)letion Date Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. / / Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / Curb & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Foothill Blvd. ,/ b / ,/ / V' / e Vineyard Ave. b V' ,/ ,/ ,/ e SC - 10/96 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Activity Center. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and intemonnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 6 / / Project No CUP 95-25 Completion Date Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. / / Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. N. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Foothill Boulevard (see Special Conditions). A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Acitivity Center). O. Drainage and Flood Control A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / / Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the / / SC - I0/96 7 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2.000 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 pdor 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. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X Special provisions would be required for rolled curbs in FIRE LANES. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. SC - 10/96 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $1,290.00 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. 11. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. S. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). b. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 47'7-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: '"~ Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. U. Security Hardware 1. 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. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. Wo Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, and continued to March 11, March 26, and April 23, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter 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 headrig on February 26, March 11, March 26, and April 23, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and c. The application contemplates development of Phase One of a two-Phased shopping center. The major tenants for the center are not part of the proposed Phase One development. Phase One includes a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land. The total land area of Phase One and Two is 8.9 acres; and d. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires compliance with community design guidelines and that streetscape and architectural palettes be sensitive to and attempt to create a "heritage" statement along Foothill Boulevard. This application does not give any indication that this statement will occur since Master Plan Design Guidelines for the majority of the two-phased shopping center, including all potential major tenants, as well as the buildings flanking the proposed on-site pedestrian activity center, have not been provided with the application; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ Apdl 23, 1997 Page 2 e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan specifies that special landscape and architectural features should be provided at major intersection locations. Elements such as changes in paving materials, plant materials, lighting, and the siting of major structures within and around the pedestrian node area are recommended and encouraged to be used. While an area has been specified on the site plan to receive this type of treatment, this area has yet to be conceptually designed to the level that will give assurance that the specific proposal will comply with the goals and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and f. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that a Conceptual Master Plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval, together with any development proposals and shall address all other parcels as they relate to the Master Plan. The "Conceptual Master Plan" submitted in conjunction with the "application" is, in fact, an illegible reproduced copy of the "Conceptual Landscape Plan" with only the title changed, and does not provide the comprehensive development scheme, in words and drawings, required by the Development Code. Specifically, the "Conceptual Master Plan" does not indicate, beyond Phase One, conceptual grading and drainage for future phases, areas to be used for landscaping and plazas, and does not include a statement of architectural intent and/or conceptual elevations indicating the architectural concepts including style, vadous product types, form, bulk, height, orientation, and materials. Further, the Uniform Application and Initial Study Part I, as submitted by the applicant, includes only those parcels affected by Phase One: ^PN 207-211-12 and 13; and does not include those four parcels in future phases: APN: 207-211-14, 15, 38, and 40; and g. The project would be contrary to the City's goals for Histodc Preservation specifically as it relates the existing Klusman House. The KJusman House was designated as a local historic landmark because of its architectural significance as one of the more outstanding examples of high style architecture in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and as the foremost example of a domestic interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean style which has stood as a significant element to the Route 66/Foothill Boulevard streetscape since 1928. The house is a potential State Landmark and is eligible for the National Register. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that any buildings identified as architecturally significant should, where feasible and if necessary, be restored and integrated into the development. The project proposes to construct a row of parking spaces along the entire south elevation of the landmark structure; however, the area between the parking and the landmark has yet to be designed to assure a proper setting for the landmark, including, but not limited to, sufficient setback. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ April 23, 1997 Page 3 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 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 23rd day of Apd11997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES - A request to reduce the minimum and minimum average front yard building setback requirements in City adopted Development Agreement 89-03, for a previously approved County subdivision annexed into the City (Tract 13835), which consists of 78 lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast comer of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 225-501-01 through 78. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a request by Sheffield Homes, the owners of Tract 13835, to reduce the minimum and minimum average required front yard setbacks within the final phase of this subdivision. The applicant claims that because of several unique circumstances associated with this project, they have not been afforded the same rights as other developers in surrounding adjacent areas to develop their lots in the most logical and marketable fashion and is asking the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council to amend the official Development Agreement for the subdivision to allow for more flexibility in plotting the residences in all future phases of the Tract. For further information from the applicant, please refer to the Applicant's Justification Letter (Exhibit "A") included within the staff report. BACKGROUND: This subdivision was originally approved by the County of San Bernardino on December 19, 1988. Subsequently, a Development and Annexation Agreement was adopted to annex the property into the City and to establish development standards for the subdivision. The Development Agreement stipulated that the project shall be developed under the Basic Development Standards for the Low Residential Development District, with certain design criteria incorporated that would give the project the flavor typical of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The local residential cul-de-sac streets were designed with a reduced 50-foot right-of-way while the other streets within the subdivision have a standard 60-foot right-of-way. Street widths are an identical 36 feet for both street types; it is the parkway width that provides for the difference between the two street types (7 feet versus 12 feet, curb to property line). Sheffield Homes received approval of the Development Review application for this Tract from the Planning Commission on January 24, 1996. A Minor Exception was granted for front yard setbacks for 2 lots within the subdivision by the City Planner on May 6, 1996. Since that time, staff has met with the applicant to discuss the applicant's basic concern of having too small of fiat rear yard areas for the type of home provided, causing a marketing problem. At that time, the applicant expressed ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES April 23, 1997 Page 2 a desire to pursue a possible Amendment to the Development Agreement to reduce the required front yard setbacks to create larger rear yards, essentially "sliding" some of the most critical units forward. Staff offered, as a courtesy to the developer, an opportunity to present this concept to the Design Review Committee. On November 5, 1996, the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the applicant's request and recommended that a different alternative be pursued to avoid a congested appearing streetscape. However, the Committee did note that an application to amend the Development Agreement could be formally submitted for review of the full Planning Commission. On February 6, 1997, staff met again with the applicant and one of the City Council members to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was determined that another Minor Exception application for Phase 3 (the next phase of development) would be submitted and that the formal application to amend the Development Agreement would be submitted to cover development for the balance of the subdivision. On March 26, 1997, the City Planner approved Minor Exception 97-03 to allow 7 more lots within the 16-1ot Phase 3 of the subdivision to have up to a 10 percent reduction of the required front yard setback. Currently, 20 of the 78 lots within the subdivision (Phase 1 and the model complex) are completed. Phase 2, which consists of 15 lots at the northern end of the Tract, is under construction. The 16 lots within Phase 3 are proposed to be developed as considered under the recently approved Minor Exception. The remaining 27 lots at the southern end of the subdivision would be the lots that are proposed to be developed under the amended development standards that are being requested by the applicant. Please refer to the Site and Phasing Plan for an exact location of all phases and the highlighted area that is proposed to be developed under the new standards. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to amend the adopted Development Agreement for this subdivision by reducing the required minimum front yard setbacks and overall minimum average front yard setback. The proposal would affect development on the southernmost 27 lots that are undeveloped within this Tract. The specific Site Plan (Exhibit "B") for the remaining lots indicates that the proposed Amendment would affect unit plotting by moving 24 of the remaining 27 units forward to setbacks not currently allowed per the existing Development Agreement. Currently, the required minimum front yard setback is 22 feet from property line and the required minimum average front yard setback is 25 feet from property line. This setback translates into a 29-foot minimum, 32-foot average from face of curb along the 50-foot right-of-way streets and a 34-foot minimum, 37-foot average from face of curb for lots that front onto the 60-foot right-of-way streets. (For the purposes of consistency and comparison, all setbacks from here on out within the Staff Report will be measured from the face of curb). The applicant is proposing to reduce these setbacks to a 22-foot minimum, 25-foot minimum average along 50-foot right-of-way streets and a 27-foot minimum, 30-foot minimum average along the 60-foot right-of-way street frontages. These proposed modifications would then make the overall average front setback for the entire subdivision approximately 3 feet less than the 33 feet currently required by the adopted Development Agreement. The primary issue to consider with this proposal for reduced front yard setbacks is the impacts to the streetscapes throughout the subdivision. The lots and current setback criteda are most similar to that under the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code. However, given that the location of the subdivision is close to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area, elements of this document were incorporated into the Development Agreement to give the subdivision the flavor of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES April 23, 1997 Page 3 the Etiwanda North area when developed. Besides architectural styles, the Development Agreement included a provision that at least 50 percent of the homes shall have a varied garage design to that of a typical front-on garage attached to the house, which is also a provision within the Etiwanda and Etiwanda North Specific Plans. The developer has met this requirement with the Plan 4 model, which has a side-on garage and is used on 39 of the 78 lots within the Tract. With the side-on garage, the garage has a much more subtle appearance from the street and the front elevation of the house has more interest by having more movement and a more aesthetically pleasing treatment on the street side elevation of the garage element. Of the 24 lots where the applicant is proposing to move the houses forward on the lots with this Amendment, 14 are the Plan 4 model. These 14 homes with the side-on garages are typically the ones shown plotted at the minimum requested setbacks; the other 13 within the undeveloped portion of the subdivision have front-on garages and average 29 feet from face of curb, which is 3 feet less than the minimum front yard setback allowed under the Basic Development Standards within the Development Code. On the proposed Site Plan, them are four lots (Lots 49, 50, 52, and 58) with a driveway depth less than 18 feet, as measured from the face of the garage door to the back of sidewalk, which is the minimum depth required to park a car in the driveway without obstructing pedestrian access to the sidewalk. The Planning Commission has required as a policy that all residences with front-on garages have enough depth in the driveway to park a car without blocking sidewalks. However, the Development Code does allow for reduced driveway depths if automatic garage door openers and roll-up sectional garage doors are provided on the units. Staff feels that, on two of the four units in question (Lots 52 and 58), adjustments can be made to obtain the minimum required driveway depth without changing the building footprint on the lots. The other two lots (Lots 49 and 50) will require the plotting of a different unit type to meet the minimum driveway depth and required fiat rear yard area depth. Staff feels that the situation does not warrant a modification of the current Planning Commission policy regarding driveway depth and that a solution should be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division that complies with the 18-foot minimum driveway depth requirement for these lots. Staff has included a Condition of Approval in the attached Resolution of Approval regarding this issue. The subdivision is located between the smaller lots of the Caryn Planned Community to the west and the larger lots within the future Etiwanda North Development to the north and east. To the south is a portion of the Victoria Planned Community that is undeveloped at this time. Homes within the Caryn Planned Community are allowed to be located at a minimum setback of 25 feet from face of curb, which is comparable to the applicant's request. However, there is no provision within the Caryn Planned Community requiring a variety of garage types; therefore, homes with front-on garages are allowed at the minimum setback. The Victoria Planned Community has an incentive that allows for units with side-on garages to have a minimum 10-foot front yard setback. The applicant is asking to be as close as 22 feet from face of curb for units with side-on garages only and a minimum of 25 feet from face of curb (identical to Caryn Planned Community) for units with front-on garages along the streets with only 50 feet of right-of-way. The 25-foot minimum setback for a front-on garage house is being requested on only 1 lot within the subdivision. Since these lots are in between the size of the lots within Caryn Planned Community, the surrounding undeveloped areas of Low-Medium Residential land within the Victoria Planned Community, and the future Low Density Residential lots of the Etiwanda North area to the north and east, staff feels that the subdivision should act as a transition between the different types of residential lots in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES April 23, 1997 Page 4 CONCLUSION: In staffs opinion, the applicants request for reduced front yard setbacks falls within the appropriate area and will provide for a logical transition between the smaller lot and larger lot single family residential areas. Therefore, staff feels that, because of the large percentage of residences within the Tract with side-on garages that help provide for a more interesting streetscape and because the applicant's request is proportionally acceptable and provides a logical transition given the lot dimensions and the vadety of lot sizes existing or allowed in the immediate area, the applicant's request is justified. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has 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 recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed Amendment to Development Agreement 89-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan (original approval) Exhibit "C" - Site Plan (proposed per Amendment) Resolution of Approval Sheffield Homes March 3, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Development Agreement Amendment, Tract #13835, Sheffield Homes LLC, Lots 1-78 (Average Front Yard Setback), Lots 37-43, 48-67 (Minimum Front Yard Setback). Gentlemen, Due to the unique nature cf our existing lot configurations, the Etiwanda North Specific PI~ Design Guidelines. and the requirement for 50% side-on garages we are requesting that an amendment to the existing development agreement regarding the front yard setback standards be granted for Tract #13835. The amendment we are requesting poses no adverse affect to the adjacent lots or the adjacent existing/proposed uses. We are in compliance with the sl:ecific plan guidelines with respect to all architectural design standards and feel that the amendment which amounts to an approximate (5'-7') reduction from existing standards for minimtan front yar:J.~ and a (5') reduction from existing standards for average front yard setbacks does not interfere nor detract from the surrounding area. Existin~ front setback per Development Agreement: (50' Right of Way Streets) 29'-0" minimum from face of curb (22' from property line) 32'-0" average from face of curb (25' from property line) (60' Right of Way Streets) 34'-0" minimum from face of curb (22' from property line) 37'-0" average from face of curb (25' from property line) Proposed amended front setback: (50' Right of Way Streets) 22'-0" minimum from face of curb (15' from property line) Side-On Garage 24'-0" minimum from face of curb (17' from property line) Straight-ln Garage (60' Right of Way Streets) 27'-0" minimum from face of curb (15' from property line) Side-On Garage 29'-0" minimum from face of curb (17' from property line) Straight-In Garage Overall minimum average front setback (78 Lots) 30'-0" from face of curb 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 325 Riverside, Ca1~606 {909) 682-5352 FAX (~09} 786-6199 Please see the attached exhibit with regards to the page of the development agreement which we are referring to in this request, Page 8 of 15 of the Conditions of Approval 12-19-88, SUB/87- 110/W119-62/TR 13835, Paragraph 47, Article A: The following building setback lines shall be delineated on the composite development plan: A. A variable front yard building setback line of at least 22 feet and averaging at least 25 feet The Development Agreement Amendment requested would now read: The following building setback lines shall be delineated on the composite development plan: A. A variable front yard building setback line of: (50' Right of Way Streets) 22'-0" minimum from face of curb (15' from property line) Side-On Garage 24'-0" minimum from face of curb (17' from property line) Straight-In Garage (60' Right of Way Streets) 27'-0" minimum from face of curb (15' from property line) Side-On Garage 29'-0" minimum from face of curb (17' from property line) Straight-ln Garage With an overall minimum average front setback (78 Lots) 30'-0" from face of curb Utilizing the amendment process and working closely with the cooperation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division, Sheffield Homes feels that this amendment will greatly enhance the livability oft he lots as well as provide a solution to a difficult set of constraints bestowed upon this site through the overlay of County Conditions of Approval, City Conditions of Approval, Specific Plan Design Guidelines and the existing Development Agreement. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Dave Schaffer, Vice President Project Development ~ ~T _ --R ECE! V~~ iVlANAGE ENT DEP MENT Arrowhead Avenue San Be,nardin.. CA 92415-0180 . [714l 387~ I q~,.~.,~ January 20, 1989 Expires: December 19, 1991 Jeff Blackmon Blackmort Homes P.O. Box 5269 Riverside, CA 92517 Lockwood Engineering & · Surveying Co., Inc. P.O. Box 396 Rialto, CA 92376 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY JOHN N. JAQUESS OF PLANNING W. Hightower OFFICE OF SURVEYOR Clauae O. Te~msen. County Surveyor OFFICE OF BUILDING AND SAFE~ La~ty L. ~chollko~f, Coumy Bunting RE: 745WVLB8004251DC01 W199-62 745WVL88004251TT01 TR 13835 Dear Sirs: This-will advise you that after completion of the environmental review process, and due consideration =hereof, the above-referenced project was conditionally approved by =he County Board of Super- visors a= its meeting of December 19, 1988. Said project was found to be in compliance with County policies and regulations and was approved subject to the conditions as set forth on attached pages 1 of 15 through. 15 of 15. In accordance with the San Bernardino County Development Code, Section 84.0205(i), all requirements specified on the attached sheets shall be me= ~%t ~iD..~r~Lr~1 x....(~)'.~.~th~after .=he of =his 'let=at ~"~.'.'.~;';~'"'*'~ ..... , . ' ':; .. - _ , :.. ? ..~-,...~. ~'~, 0~d-~:i_9.Aa~-.. App=o~..~S~_~.oi~. One (1) ex=ension":-o£-'t[~'e" n~E ~=~ ~'~'~-~ed ~hree (3) years may A writ=on request must be submitted, with the appropriate fee, the Public Information Counter a= the address above, prior to the' date of expiration. PLEASE NOTE: This will be the only n~tice given for =he above specified expiration date. The applicant is responsible for initiating extension requests; Sincerely, EPWA/LAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PLANNING TERRI RAHHAL, Associate Planner Wes= Valley Planning Team CC: Surveyor/Land Der. Division Environmental Health Svcs. Building and Safety TR:rb cc: County Special Districts County Fire Warden County Sheriff XAT!ON AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "B' BLACKMON HOMES SUB/8?-llO/Wllg-62/TR 13835 PAGE 8 OF Conditions of Approval 12-19-88 44. Developer shall provide for street lighting within the tract as follows: A. Low intensity, energy-efficient street lights at all intersections; B. Install underground conduit with a pull cord (for future ins=alia:ion of additional lights) through tract; C. Deposit monies with the Special Districts Department to cover all installation and connection charges for additional stree= lights per adopted County Policy regarding light pole spacing and location. D. Prior to recordation, the tract shall be annexed to the 5. appropriate district to provide street light maintenance. Subdivider shall present evidence to the County Survey~r,s Office .that he has tried to obtain a non-interference letter from any utility company that may have rights of easement within the property boundaries. 46. Easements of record not shown on the tentative map shall be relinquished or relocated. Lots affected by proposed easements or easements of record which cann or re__located, shall be ot be relinquished --~'-- ~ , redesigned. 47. The ~- - -- ~-~u~=e ~evelopment plan: A. 'A variable front yard building setback line of at least 22 feet and averaging a~ leas= 25 feet. B. A side yard adja_.cen_~t to building setback line of at least 15 feet. side streets on corner lots. ,. ~e. or_Plann~ng review and a--royal. · ~ u=~= ~an=scaDe Plan snail include the following. The required slope planting. Slope planting shali be required for the surface of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than (3) feet in height. Sai~ _~ ........ t~ree against dama-o ~ .... ~_~ ~u~ snail ~e prote~=ed ~- -z =~un by planting with grass or ground cover plants. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15)'fee: in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten (10) feet on centers; or * NON-STANDARD CONDITION(S) **ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES i :~ "' BIGHORN PEAK,.CT. '~'. · [,~. ,~.... '.'_,..~..,.~.. .,.,...~.., ........,~ L .~ . - ,~ ~ .....,~ :~ "- -':'' 'I" : ~ I .. I ' . = ".-~. ~. ~.:~' .,~.. t~ ' ' : -..%q. ' ,: ri.~. i i: 'l,' ..... ~"!:.L-7-"!", ,~ ".,.: ': ;' , ..'~ '--tt.-~---~:.cm .Im-m'r"~'!-;'~ ~ ,~1 .u:' 'i: "! F ' .....,.._..- .<.. ......,.....,:_:.,.._.:.. ....... I .I'T' . TIMBER MOUNTAIN CT. [-~\,~. ....~..,......<: ......~,..,.:..;_;..~; ....~_...~ ' . ...~";,,'Co'" -. J ~' '1 ;' , , / ! '- ~ ' ". I '"N~'*u~--.:L.= =--'; -,'.- =--='- ~,==_-,= ~.--=--~ '; *. ~ ~ ~-~'--~'~- -r' I ..-'~-. ~ - - -- ~""~'-' ....' " ,~ Ii .lz'"h "-' 1~ -'/.....F~.._.~I;! ,~1 .-~.~-4....I ,-h--~. Ik~ _L:. i ............ " "1';'".LJ_. ' ;; .-.~....,.-..<~ ; ../~u_---~-- .::. VINTAGE DRIVE ~ - .. .... 77' ~../,,d_ ':{:.--:--~m-'"'~q...'. '~m-"~':' _...~ l :___~':",'...r--'"::~ ---- I ::;'::"~, .... ,. ,,'. "' '.. .,.~.~. ~ ~.~.~-.."-'~'ri':""':'Tr-'.:"t.. ....r:'~' =.-...:'"?: """ - ' ""'"' .'/:' .i.~,? L_J~ .~_ . . : ! I. ~U-:~ i ........ I ,.--.'-/..,-; ...., ~:"7::",'~.-.: .....,,.:~..: :.~:,, I::I:: [ i"' "" '"."-' , :,'--'T-;' "- '.. - ' · , ..... NGA Project: TRACT 13835 Title: SITE P! AN C.i~Exhibit: B-1 Date: .J FU. TURE FREEWAY 30 HIGHLAND AVE. _. Project' TRACT 13835 Title: _ - SrrE PLAN 12/95 LONE PEAK DRIVE ,o' Z 57 58 ~ 59 80' DAWSON "°"~ so s,.~, PEAK .ou~ ~os,.~, COURT t0- .... i~w -In 1~OW. EXHIBIT 66 PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ---hFX,4-- L I~X)E]. 2.1R ~E~T PE~K 85' HOUSE -TO HOUSE ! I ~o YARD, ,- q 3 HOUSE 149 ....TO. _iI~-i-~----'-- HOUSE r,,. L IdCX)13. ~.IR ~ · · ~r- I ~AI,.,r,, '/ 50'STREET cOURT R.O.W. - 5' SIDEWALK EASMENT FRONT · SETBACK 91' HOUSE TO HOUSE I I I 30' I 'I 1 l 1 1 I Z 27', FRON' I, SETB~KI STREET R.6.W. 32' · II' I L '1 66 31.64' 65¸ 52.11' REAR YARD 64- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 89-03, FOR A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM AND MINIMUM AVERAGE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN CITY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 89-03, FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COUNTY SUBDIVISION ANNEXED INTO THE CITY (TRACT 13835), WHICH CONSISTS OF 78 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-501-01 THROUGH 78. A. Recitals. 1. Sheffield Homes has filed an application for an Amendment to Development Agreement No. 89-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Agreement Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of April 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty 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 on substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 23, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast comer of Highland and Rochester Avenues with a Rochester Avenue street frontage of approximately 1,330 feet and lot depth of approximately 620 feet and is presently improved with the first two phases of development including all related public improvements; b. The property to the north is vacant and is zoned Low Residential within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the property to the south is the vacant right-of-way for the future Route 30 Freeway and a San Bernardino County Flood Control District detention basin, the property to the east is vacant and zoned Low Residential, and the property to the west is developed with single family residences within the Caryn Planned Community; c. The application contemplates the reduction of the required minimum and minimum average front yard setbacks for the purpose of providing a deeper and more usable rear yard area on 24 of the remaining 27 tots within the final phases of the subdivision; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 89-03 - S, ,r-r-rl~-LD HOMES April 23, 1997 Page 2 d. The existing Development Agreement requires a minimum of 50 percent of the units within the subdivision to have a side-on garage for the purpose of providing a more interesting streetscape and vadety to the front elevations of the residences. The applicant is in compliance with this condition by providing 39 Plan 4 models with a side-on garage within the 78 lot subdivision; e. The application contemplates moving the 14 remaining models with the side-on garage condition forward as well as 10 of the other 13 models within the final phases of development. The 13 homes with front-on garages average 29 feet back from face of curb, which is 3 feet less than required under the Basic Development Standards for the Low Residential District within the Development Code; f. The provisions within the Victoria Planned Community allow for a reduction for homes designed with a side-on garage condition down to a minimum of 10 feet from the street in certain conditions; and g. Within the Caryn Planned Community to the west of the site, residences with front- on garages are typically set back 25 feet from the face of curb, which is consistent with the request of the applicant under this application. This condition is proposed in one situation in the application and the remaining homes with front-on garages will average approximately 29 feet from face of curb, or approximately 4 feet greater than allowed within the adjacent Caryn Planned Community. 3. This Commission hereby specifically finds that the Amended Development Agreement conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. This Commission hereby recommends approval of an Amendment to Development Agreement 89-03 to modify Condition No. 47 to read as follows: 47. The following building setback lines shall be delineated on the composite development plan (as measured from property line): A minimum front yard building setback line of at least 15 feet for units with side-on garages and 17 feet for units with front-~n garages. An overall average front yard building setback of 30 feet (as measured from face of curb), A side yard building setback line of at least 15 feet adjacent to side streets on corner lots. In no case shaII the garage door setback be less than 18 feet to the back of sidewalk. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 89-03 - SHEFFIELD HOMES Apdl 23, 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 23rd day of April 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR - The design review of 264 apartments on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane -APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12 and 13. BACKGROUND: On March 5, 1997, the City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Tract Map; however, reversed the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the design review and sent it back to the Planning Commission. The Council action states that the Commission should "consider a design more compatible with the architecture represented in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the adjacent neighborhood." ANALYSIS: The developer has revised the project design as follows: 1. Roof material changed to fiat grey concrete tile which is common to the area. Exterior colors changed from white stucco to three shades of beige. Building fascia, trim and windows will be off-white. Decorative metal color changed from rust to green. This color scheme is very similar to the Lewis Briarwood project at Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue. Landscaping along Base Line Road changed to delete Palm trees and conform to Victoria plant palette. New color elevations of the three building types, plus a rendering of the Base Line Road streetscape, were submitted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the revised design through adoption of the attached Resolution. BB:DC/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Elevations of Building 2A Exhibit "B" - Elevations of Building 2B Exhibit "C" - Elevations of Building 2C Exhibit "D" - City Council Resolution 97-029 Resolution of Approval ITEM D FRONT & REAR ELEVATION I Exterior Elevations - BidS 2A 'El' · · 602-991-91~ 9508 LoJ~ No. 51DE ELEVATION FRONT & REAR ELEVATION ~~~ J E~I~Ho~ El~v~Jion~ - Bld~ ~B DI~SlGN GI~OUI~ 602-~)1-~I]! 9508 Lo~ No. +~ SIDE ELEVATION ARCHITI~I DBSlGN G~ 602-991-! FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS Exterior Elevations-BidS 2C 9506 ., Lo~ N RESOLUTION NO. 97-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF F:(ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15766, A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT FOR 264 APARTMENTS ON 22.2 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND THE VACATION OF RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND THE EAST COLLECTOR STREET KNOWN AS HANLEY AVENUE, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 96-13, WITHIN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227- 091-14 & 15 AND 227-111-12 & 13. A. Recitals. 1. Mark Taylor, Inc. has filed an application for the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15766, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 1 and December 10, 1996, neighborhood meetings were conducted by the applicant to explain the proposed project to area residents and solicit their input. 3. On November 13, 1996, and continued to January 8, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application. Following conclusion of said hearings, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolutions 97-01 and 97-02 approving the application. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolutions was timely appealed to this Council. 5. On March 5, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. occurred. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City °uncil °f the city °f Ranch° Cucam°nga as f°ll°w': Resolution No. 97-029 Page 2 1. This Council ,~ereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on March 5, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to property located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane, on property zoned for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), with a street frontage of 800 feet and lot depth of 1,100 feet and which presently contains an abandoned vineyard; and The property to the north of the subject site is a 40-foot wide strip of vacant land known as "Railroad Avenue South" proposed to be vacated, to the north of Railroad Avenue South is an unused rail corddor that is 100 feet wide, and beyond are single family homes; the property to the south consists of a winery; the property to the east contains apartments and a shopping center; and the property to the west has a mini-storage facility; and The application contemplates the development of 264 condominium units, which the applicant has stated are intended to be rented as apartments for an undetermined length of time, at a density of 11.9 dwelling units per acre; and The project is proposed to include a vacant parcel owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency along the easterly boundary, which includes an easement for a rail spur proposed to be vacated; and The project design includes a 7-foot high sound attenuation wall along Base Line Road consistent with the acoustical analysis (Bricken, August 22, 1996); and The project design is consistent with the Victoria Community Plan including, but not limited to, the use of the Victoda Community Plan's theme wall treatment along Base Line Road; and go The vacation of Railroad Avenue South and the east collector street, known as Hanley Avenue, is consistent with the General Plan; and The project design includes a private drainage system to collect all surface water runoff into catch basins that will connect with the public storm drain system; and The affected school districts have submitted written comments consistent with the recommended conditions of approval requiring Resolution No. 9¢-029 Page 3 the developer to participate in the high school Mello-Roos District and payment of school fees to the elementary school district; and The application, as proposed, conforms with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, Victoria Community Plan, and Development Code: (1) The proposed density of 11.19 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan and the Victoria Community Plan's designation of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (2) The site plan arrangement provides a compatible transition of unit type and density from single family residential areas. The subject property is physically separated from single family residential areas by an unused rail corridor that is 100 feet wide. The site plan has been designed with buildings having a minimum 200-foot setback from the nearest single family residence and pad grades 11- 12 feet lower than the single family residences to the north; and (3) The project design includes a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer and 6-foot high decorative wall around the perimeter; and (4) The project design meets or exceeds all development standards, including 57 percent common open space and 58 percent usable open space. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and The design or improvements of the tentative tract are consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the pro%d subdivision. Resolution No. 97-029 Page 4 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council dudrig the public hearings, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5 (c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Mark Taylor, Inc. that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mark Taylor Inc. at the address identified in City records. 7. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, this Council hereby approves the application, other than design review, subject to the conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-01. The decision of the Planning Commission on design review is reversed and the staff is directed to retum the matter to the Planning Commission to consider a design more compatible with the architecture represented in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the adjacent neighborhood. Resolution No. 97-029 Page 5 AT'TEST: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Alexander, Biane, Williams Curatalo, Gutierrez None William J. Al~l~nder, Mayor' Debra J. Ada~s, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of March, 1997. Executed this 6th day March, 1997, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adam~i CMC, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15766, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LANE IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-14 AND 15 AND 227-111-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Mark Taylor Inc. has filed an application for the Design Review of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15766, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 13, 1996, and continued to January 8, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application. Following conclusion of said hearings, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution's 97-01 and 97-02 approving the application. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution's was timely appealed to the City Council. 4. On March 5, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following conclusion of said hearing, the City Council adopted its Resolution 97-029 reversing the action of this Commission regarding the subject Design Review request. 5. On Apdl 23, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised Design Review request. 6. 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on April 23, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane, with a street frontage of 800 feet and lot depth of 1,100 feet and presently contains an abandoned vineyard; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is a 40-foot wide stdp of vacant land known as "Railroad Avenue South" proposed to be vacated, an unused rail corTidor, and single family homes; the property to the south consists of a winery; the property to the east is apartments and a shopping center; and the property to the west is a mini-storage facility; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766- MARK TAYLOR April 23, 1997 Page 2 c. The project is proposed to include a vacant parcel owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency along the easterly boundary, which includes an easement for a rail spur proposed to be vacated; and d. The project design includes a 7-foot high sound attenuation wall along Base Line Road consistent with the acoustical analysis (Bricken, August 22, 1996); and e. The project design is consistent with the Victoria Community Plan, including, but not limited to, the use of the Victoda Community Plan's theme wall treatment along Base Line Road; and f. The project design includes 57 percent common open space and 58 percent usable open space; and g. The proposed density of 11.9 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan; and h. The vacation of Railroad Avenue South and the east collector street, known as Hanley Avenue, is consistent with the General Plan; and I. The project design includes a private drainage system to collect all surface water runoff into catch basins that will connect with the public storm drain system; and j. The project design includes a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer and 6-foot high decorative wall around the perimeter; and k. The affected school districts have submitted written comments consistent with the recommended conditions of approval requiring the developer to participate in the high school Mello-Roos District and payment of school fees to the elementary school district; and I. The project has been designed with a minimum 200-foot setback from the nearest single family residence and pad grades 11-12 feet lower than the single family residences to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on April 23, 1997, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; and b. 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. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. 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 and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 15766 and adopted by separate Resolution of the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766 - MARK TAYLOR April 23, 1997 Page 3 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every conditions set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planning Division 1) Approval of Design Review for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15766 is granted subject to the applicant's obtaining ownership of Railroad Avenue South and the property to the east, Assessor's Parcel No. 227-111-12, and the vacation of the rail spur easement located thereon. 2) Provide 225 square feet of private open space within patios for ground floor units and 150 square feet for upper story units (RCMC 17.08.040. C). 3) Provide 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space off patio area or within garage/carports (RCMC 17.08.040. R. 1 ). 4) Provide washeddryer hookups inside all units (RCMC 17.08.040.R.2). 5) Within garages, each car space shall be separated with a solid wall except where two or more spaces are designated to a single dwelling unit. For single garage car spaces, the inside dimension shall be increased to a minimum of 10 feet by 20 feet for convenience of use (RCMC 17.08.090.C.4.b). 6) All appliances and fixtures shall be energy conserving (RCMC 17.08.040.1.2). 7) All required visitor parking spaces shall be clearly marked with signs, such as pavement markings and freestanding signs. A minimum of 66 visitor parking spaces shall be provided. Visitor parking shall be provided within 150 feet of all units (RCMC 17.08.040.L). 8) RV parking spaces shall be clearly marked with signs, such as pavement markings and freestanding signs. 9) Provide a site directory monument sign at both project entrances to direct visitors and emergency vehicles to buildings. The signs can be up to 12 square feet in area, a maximum of 8 feet high, and must be illuminated for legibility 24 hours a day. Contents shall include building locations, driveway locations, address of each building, and fire hydrant locations (RCMC 14.20.080). 10) Any common mailbox structures shall be designed to architecturally match buildings. 11) Provide climbing vines along northerly wall with small openings in base of wall to encourage vines to grow on north side of wall to discourage graffiti. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766 - MARK TAYLOR April 23, 1997 Page 4 12) Construct sidewalk connection, with lockable gate, for access to future Community Trail planned along the adjoining rail corridor to the north. 13) Provide decorative cap (i.e., stucco over) on stairways to match patio wall cap. 14) Replace vinyl lattice on carport ends with 2- to 3-inch metal tubing espalier. 15) Carport fascia profile and texture shall match apartments. 16) 17) 18) Garage door pattern shall be varied. Replace wood lattice on Building 2A with 2- to 3-inch metal tubing espalier. Base Line Road landscaping shall be consistent with the established theme, including Magnolias and Canary Island Pines as primary and secondary street trees; and Crape Myrtle and Liquidambar as color accents at the project entry and corner. Engineering Division 1) Railroad Avenue South and the east collector street, Hanley Avenue, shall be vacated and incorporated as part of the project. 2) Verification of ownership change or letter of intent from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency stating approval and pending ownership change for the property to the east, Assessor's Parcel No. 227-111-12, under current ownership of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, as shown within the project boundary. 3) Construct Base Line Road full width from Day Creek Boulevard (future) to the existing limit of full-width improvements at Hanley Avenue, including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, asphalt paving, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, median island, bike trail (Class II), and all necessary transitions both east and west of the project limits, pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Also, provide the following: a) Median island construction shall also include full landscaping in accordance with the Base Line Road Master Plan. 4) b) Traffic Signal Improvements - install conduits (with pull rope), including interconnect conduit, pull boxes, and poles for future traffic signal at Base Line Road and Hanley Avenue. Construct Hanley Avenue full width including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, asphalt paving, sidewalk, street lights, and street trees, pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Parkway improvements may be deferred on the easterly side with the exception PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766 - MARK TAYLOR April 23, 1997 Page 5 of street lights. The existing secondary access to Base Line Road shall be abandoned and the access realigned and constructed to Hanley Avenue as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Right-of-way dedication of 66 feet, including the cul-de-sac, as shown on the Tentative Tract Map, shall be provided. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements along Hanley Avenue, as shown on the Tentative Tract Map, and, if he/she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, at least 120 days pdor to submittal of the Final Map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 5) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all new street lights during the first six months of operation, pdor to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 6) No median breaks will be allowed between Victoria Park Lane and Day Creek Boulevard (future), except at Hanley Avenue. 7) Gated driveways are to be in accordance with the City's gated driveway entrance design guide for turnaround area. 6) Base Line Road and Hanley Avenue to be posted with R 26(s) "NO STOPPING ANY TIME" signs. 9) The sidewalk along the Hanley Avenue cul-de-sac shall be property-line adjacent. 10) On-site drainage shall be collected by a private drainage facility to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Connection to a public drainage facility or outletting into the public right-of-way shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Building & Safety Division 1) Provide private drainage easement at the north property line. No drainage over slope is allowed (see Section A-A); collect and discharge. Submit final hydrology report prior to issuance of any permits. 2) Proof of right-of-entry to do work, if there is any work on surrounding properties, shall be provided prior to issuance of grading permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766 - MARK TAYLOR April 23, 1997 Page 6 3) Positive drainage away from buildings shall be provided. Environmental Mitigation 1) Extend the existing storm drain in Base Line Road west of Hanley Avenue to connect with the catch basins at Victoda Station and remove the existing interim storm drains across Base Line Road. 2) Tree Removal Permit No. 96-13 is hereby approved and shall be valid for a period of 90 days starting from the date of Final Map recordation or issuance of any grading or building permits, whichever comes first, subject to extension by the Planning Division. Developer shall replace removed trees with Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum), minimum 15-gallon size, and spaced at 8 feet on center to maintain the windrow character along the northerly boundary. 3) Developer shall follow all recommendations of the acoustical analysis (Bricken, August 22, 1996), including, but not limited to, constructing 6-foot high sound barriers on all south facing private balconies of the five buildings along Base Line Road and special glazing for windows and sliding glass doors in certain units. 4) Install a stop sign for egress at the project's main entry to Base Line Road prior to occupancy. 5) Provide minimum 25-foot radius curb returns to Base Line Road at its intersection with project's main entry and with Hanley Avenue (Street "A"). 6) Provide a minimum 150-foot inbound left turn lane for eastbound left turn traffic at the intersection of Base Line Road and Hanley Avenue. 7) Construct Base Line Road full width on the northerly side from Hanley Avenue to the westerly tract boundary. 8) Developer shall contribute a fair share towards area-wide improvements. 9) Project shall be subject to Mello-Roos Community Facilities District requirements for fire services. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 15766 - MARK TAYLOR April 2:3, 1997 Page 7 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary for 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 23rd day of April 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 DEVELOPMENT OF 264 APARTMENTS W/CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION MAP MARK TAYLOR, INC, NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LANE 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 Coml~letion Date 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. / / The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. / / 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 territory 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. SC - 1019~ 1 Site 1. 10. 11. Project No. 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. 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 Victoria Community 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. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 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 pdor 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. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 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. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the DR for VTT 15766 ComlHetion Date / / / / SC - 10/96 2 Project No DR for V'T-I' 15766 Completion Date City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall prohibit recreational vehicle parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated recreational vehicle parking areas. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. / / 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 / / SC - 10196 3 Project No DR for VTT 15766 Comoletion Date 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. A minimum of 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24- inch box or larger, and 80% - 15-gallon. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. / / 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 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 multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 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 Base Line Road. 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. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. 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. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. SC - 10196 4 Project No. DR for v"r'T 15766 Completion Date Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. / / G. Environmental A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. 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: I. 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/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. 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. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 5 Project No. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on Base Line Road for Right Turn Lane 66 total feet on Hanlev Avenue including cul-de-sac Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Base Line Road. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City, Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. L. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Base Line Road X X,b X,c X X X X,a X X Hanley Avenue X X X X X X X DR for VET 15766 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. See Special Conditions. SC - 10/96 6 Project No. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. DR for VTT 15766 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 7 Project No M. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Median island on Base Line Road. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Median island and parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Base Line Road. N. Drainage and Flood Control Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. O. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,500 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. DR for VTT 15766 Completion Date / / / / SC - 10/96 8 Project No. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Pdor 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. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: 1994 Uniform Building Code. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways. X Other: See attached Ordinance No. 22 for access/width requirements. 11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 12. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. 13. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept tdmmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 14. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: X Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). DR for V-I-l- 15766 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - lO/96 9 Project No 15. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 16. Plan check fees in the amount of $_.0.. have been paid. An additional $125.00 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. 17. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, U FC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. R. Security Hardware 1. 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 doom. 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 doom shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. S. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. T. 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. U. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR for V-F/' 15766 Completion Date / / / / / / I / / / / / SC - 10/96 10 Project No At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Division. All developments shall submit a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department. DR for V'I-I' 15766 Completion Date / / / / SC - 10]96 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner USE DETERMINATION 97-01 - WALGREENS - A request to determine that a drive- thru pharmacy is similar to a drive-thru bank and is a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial District in the Terra Vista Community Plan. ANALYSIS: Background: Walgreens is interested in building a drive-thru pharmacy within the Central Park Plaza at the northeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway as shown in Exhibit "D." In reviewing the applicant's proposal, staff pointed out that a pharmacy is permitted, but the land use category does not specify a drive-thru. Because of this ambiguity, the applicant requests a Use Determination to clarify if a drive-thru pharmacy is similar to a drive-thru bank and that a Conditional Use Permit would not be required. Exhibit "A" is a copy of the applicant's request. Current Codes: Staff reviewed and compared the land use categories of Drug Stores and Pharmacies, Fast Food Restaurants, and Banks or Financial Institutions from the Development Code, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and Terra Vista and Victoria Community Plans. Staff found that the land use category of Drug Stores and Pharmacies does not specify drive-thru. However, the land use categories of Banks or Financial Institutions and Fast Food Restaurants does specify drive-thru. Staff also found that Drug Stores and Pharmacies and Banks or Financial Institutions are permitted but Fast Food Restaurants with drive-thrus are conditionally permitted in the commercial zones. Exhibit "E" is comprised of examples and excerpts of land use tables from the various documents. Should the City Require a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Pharmacy? Drive-thru is not specified in the land use category of Drug Stores and Pharmacies because it is intended for major anchors such as Sav-On, Longs, and Payless Drug Stores or a submajor tenant such as Gemmels Pharmacy. In reviewing the applicant's letter and the project design as shown in Exhibit "D," staff found that a drive-thru pharmacy is not unlike a fast food drive-thru restaurant. It has site and building design issues similar to a drive-thru restaurant. Examples of such issues are: the distance separating from another drive-thru facility, the retrofitting of a drive-thru facility on a building pad not designed for such use, the integration of the drive- thru lanes with on-site circulation, the screening of the drive-thru lanes, the orientation of the building and the small size (1,900 square feet) of the building. Also, the business operation is similar to a drive-thru restaurant because it involves an ordering and a pick up window. iTEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 97-01 - WALGREENS April 23, 1997 Page 2 The patrons using the drive-thru may create several peak times for ordering and/or picking up medicine. The volume of trips for a drive-thru pharmacy may be less than a drive-thru restaurant; however, the cars may need to queue along the drive-thru lanes longer because it may take longer to fill a prescription than getting a "Mc meal" from a fast food restaurant. A Conditional Use Permit requirement would afford the City and the public an opportunity to fully review such proposal so that any site, design, or operational concerns or any unknown issues could be identified, addressed, or mitigated properly. Further, staff believes that the Conditional Use Permit process is appropriate in this situation because it constitutes a change to the master plan for the shopping center. Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that a drive-thru pharmacy should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Drive-Thru Policy: The Commission has adopted their Resolution No. 88-96 establishing design goals and policies for all businesses with drive-thru facilities (see attached Exhibit "F"). Aside from the use determination, any development of a drive-thru facility must comply with these policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the Use Determination that a pharmacy with a drive-thru is conditionally permitted within the City. This Use Determination applies to the land use category of Drug Stores and/or Pharmacies as contained in the Development Code; the Terra Vista and Victoda Community Plans; and the Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda, and Etiwanda North Specific Plans. City Planner BB:NF:jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" Applicant's letter Trip Generation and Parking Information - Walgreens Central Park Plaza Master Plan Proposed Walgreens Pharmacy Land Use Tables for Development Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Resolution No. 88-96 (Drive-thru Policy) Resolution of Approval March 26, 1997 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Re.' Walgreens Proposed Drive-Thru Pharmacy/Located at Northeast Corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway East, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Builer: On behalf of our Client, Evergreen Development Company, please allow this letter to serve as a request for a "Use Determination" for the proposed Walgreens' Drive-thru Pharmacy located within a neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway. The one-story Watgreens Drive-Thru Pharmacy v,'ill be located at the corner of an existing project/commercial site that is anchored by Ralphs (grocery, chain). Ace Hardware. Carl's Jr.'s fast food. Pomona First Federal Bank, Tarbell Realty and smaller support shops. The proposed pharmacy will have a total floor area of 1,900 S.F. with a Group M type of occupancy. There will be 512 S.F. of Retail Sales Area, 882 S.F. of Off. Space and 506 S.F. of Storage or Stockroom area. From a previous study prepared cn occupancy loads. the known total of this building tTpe is less than 30. which qualifies for a categorical exetnption under Section 15303 (c) of CEQA. (See Attachment regarding Occupancy Loads: Walgreens Site in Long Beach, California. ) The Walgreens Drive-Thru Pharmacy has also both an order and pick-up drive-thru windows. The drive-thru operations are generally done in a counterclockwise fashion to facilitate the dropping off of orders and picking up of prescriptions. The project site will also provide thirteen (13) standard size parking spaces and one (1) designed according to regulated handicap standards. It is understood that the City of Rancho Cucamonga does have certain code standards and restrictions for "Drug Stores and Retail Uses". The Code. however, is unclear on how to address a pharmacy with drive-thru windows. The use is not unlike ti~at of a bank, but with a less intense use. Fast food restaurants also generate 2 - 3 times the amount of traffic of a pharmacy with drive-thru windows. Presently in the City, there is a bank building (located west of Archibald on south side of Foothill) that was converted to a drive-thru pharmacy. This Mr. Brad Bu!ler. City' Planner March 26. 1997 Page 2 project conversion to a drive-thru pharmacy was handled over the counter and approved Administratively. Walgreens has approved the site subject to the inclusion of drive-thru windows. similar to the other stores that it currently operates in neighboring communities and counties throughou: Southern California. Walgreens is deeply committed to customer service and the drive-thru window is a convenience feature truly appreciated by their customers, especially the elderly. disabled or ill and parents with sick children in the car. This use will generate less traffic than other possible alternative uses of the property and will also provide a nice. "clean" use for what is now a vacant commercial corner. The use is fully consistent with the General Plan and is similar to other permitted uses in the NC zone and is wholly in keeping w'ith the character of the surrounding uses. We request that this item be added to the April 23rd agenda for review by the Planning Commission. We request that the Planning Commission agree that this Use and its Determination be exempt from CEQA and will require a Development/Design Review Process and not the Conditional Use Permit Process. We have included for your reference eight (8) 11" X 17" sets of reduced plans that are for your reference only (not for review or approval). These plans (elevations/signages) are to be revised before submission with the completed application. Also included for your review is a Traffic Study/Letter prepared by RKJK transportation consultants. Thank you for your cooperation and coordination in respect to our request. Please inform us of the date you have scheduled this item before the Planning Commission at · ~ our convenience. Very truly yours, Hardy M. Strozier, AICP Enclosures CC: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Laura Straub. Evergreen Development Company ROB[RT kAH%, iOH", k~,:N ASSOCIATE.~ INC. August 5, 1996 Mr. Brett Heron EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1300 E. Missouri Avenue, Suite A-200 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Subject: Walgreens Rxpress Traffic/Parking Characteristics Dear Mr. Heron: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has been involved in reviewing several Walgreens Rxpress Pharmacies throughout Southern California. Our traffic reviews have included an evaluation of the projects trip generation, drive thru queuing and parking requirements. Our analysis has been based upon actual field data collected at the existing Anaheim Walgreens Rxpress. The Walgreens Rxpress are generally located on a relatively small corner lot and consist of a building of approximately 1,900 square feet with both an order and pick- up drive thru windows. Walgreens Rxpress also has an internal sales area, however, they stock only a limited supply of over-the-counter medicines. Drive thru operations are generally in a counterclockwise fashion to facilitate dropping of orders and picking up prescriptions. Typical sites include approximately 10 on-site parking spaces. During the last year, RKJK has collected substantial traffic and parking oata regarding Wa!greens Rxpress. Atypical facil;W would generate approximately 450 trip-ends per day 1225 vehicles visiting the site) with nominal traffic during the AM peak hour and approximately 45 trip-ends per hour d.~ring the PM peak hour. Two trip-ends is equivalent to one vehicle visiting the site (one trip in and one trip out). A comparison of a typical Walgreens Rxpress to a typical fast food restaurant with a drive thru, is included in the attached Table 1. As can be seen by Table 1, a typical fast food restaurant of comparable size would generate approximately 1,350 trip-ends per day (675 vehicles visiting the site) with 105 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 70 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Fast food restaurants wo~!d generate substantially more daily and AM,'PM peak hour trips than a ty,oicat Walgreens Rxpress. Another item that has been reviewed for Walgreens Rxpress is the potential queuing within the order or pick-up windows. RKJK and other consultants have completed extensive evaluations throughout the day of typical queue lengths at both the order TRANSPORTATION PLANNING · -':0! Birc~ Street. Suite 100 · Nevvpor~ Beac't. C-~ F~'. Phone 71.4-~ ~,'--08C. 9 · Fax: '14~ -t7-t-0902 Mr. Brett He:on EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY August 5, 1996 Page 2 and pick-up windows. Generally, the longer of the ¢'aeues occurs at the pick-up window, and the order window has very little queui"g. For a typical Walgreens Rxpress a queue of 1 to 2 vehicles occurs at the pick-u~ window. A site plan which provides for 2 vehicles to queue is typically adequate for a Walgreens Rxpress. As shown in Table 1, fast food restaurants will have a queue of 6 to 8 vehicles in the drive thru lane. Parking requirements for Walgreens Rxpress have also been viewed in several RKJK traffic studies. The typical parking demand for a Walgreens Rxpress is approximately 6 spaces. At peak times this could increase to up to 8 or 9 spaces. Typical parking provided per City parking code is generally 10 spaces or approximately 1 space for every 200 square feet. Fast food restaurant parking demand varies greatly depending on the type and location of the fast food restaurant. Typical parking demand ranges from 19 to 25 spaces throughout the day. City parking requirements are usually based upona requirement of 1 space per 100 square foot of building or approximately 19 spaces. As noted in Table 1, Walgreens Rxpress req':ires substantially less parking than a typical fast food restaurant. RKJK has completed substantial field reviews of Walgreens Rxpress. A summary of this information is provided on Table 1, which also compares the typical trip generation, drive thru queuing and parking requirements for fast food restaurants with drive thru lanes. if you have any questions regarding th:s information or need further review, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (71-~) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal ,'". RK:kgd/6046 JN:726-96-002 Attachments TABLE 1 WALGREENS RXPRESS COMPARISON TO FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TRIP GENERATION Walgreens Rxpress Fast Food Restaurant~ I Difference SIZE 1.9 TSF3 1.9 TSF 55 PEAK HOUR~ AM PM IN I OUT IN I OUT NOM NOM 20 25 50 35 35 DAILY~ 450 1,350 -900 I Walgreens Rxpress Fast Food Restauran¢ DRIVE THRU QUEUING SIZE i TYPICAL QUEUE 1,9 TSF 1-2 Vehic!es 1.9 TSF 6-8 Vehicles MAXIMUM QUEUE 3 Vehicles 1 2 Vehicles PARKING REQUIREMENTS SIZE Walgreens Rxpress I 1.9 TSF Fast Food 1.9 TSF Restaurant4 TYPICAL PARKING DEMAND 6 Spaces 19-25 Spaces PARKING PROVIDED PER TYPICAL CODE 10 Spaces 19 Spaces All ~eak hour ~; -~es rounded to the nearest 5. All daily trips rounded to the nearest 10. TSF = thousand square feet W~th drive thru lane ~.ASE LII~iE ROAD VISTA / Project: -- T~tle: Exhibit: Date: ::11'IN=I^V N=I)II9911N d 0 0 Elevations REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ,_ ~-~..-.:_ LEFT ELEVATION PRO,IE C ~ N.E.C. MILLIKEN & TERRA VISTA RAtiCHO CUCAMONGA CAUFOf~h~ EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT CO. Thomas P. Cox: AR(.-"~11I C I'_-~, INC ,,~ 50, ~ 9~o~o " Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.10. 020 & ! 7.10. 030 .... compatible to and harmonious with the character of surrounding residential or less intense land use area. General Commercial District (GC). This district is intended for general commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature. These uses would be located primarily along major transportation routes and would include major shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, major financial and corporate headquarters which are designed to serve the City or the region as a whole. Section 17.10.030 - Use Regulations Uses listed in Table 17.10.030 shall be allowable in one or more of the commercial districts as indicated in the columns beneath each commercial district. VVhere indicated with the letter "P," the use shall be a permitted use in that district. Where indicated with the letter "C," the use shall be a conditional use subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. In the event there is difficulty in categorizing a given use in one of the districts, the procedure outlined in Section 17.02.040 shall be followed. Table 17.10.030 - Use Regulations for Commercial/office Districts Use OP NC GC A. Offices and Related Uses 1. Administrative and executive offices. Artist and photographic studios, not including the sale of equipment or supplies. ~ ~ Clerical and professional offices. /¥' 4. Financial services and institutions, including ("1 drive-through banks. ~ ~ ~ 5. Medical, dental, and related health services (non-animal related), including laboratories and clinics; only the sale of articles clearly incidental to the services provided shall be permitted. Prescription pharmacies, (also when located within a building containing the offices of 5 or more medical practitioners) Public buildings (city and county buildings, special districts, and post office). 8. Public utility service offices. P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit required 17.!0-2 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.10. 030 Use Parts and supplies. Tire sales and service (no outdoor storage). OP NC GC P P P 9. Bakeries (retail only). 10. Barber and beauty shops. - p P P P P 11. Bicycle shops. P P 12. Blueprint and photocopy services. P P P 13. Book, gift and stationary stores (other than adult related material). P P P 14. Candy stores and confectionaries. P P 15. Catering establishments. 16. Cleaning and pressing establishments. 17. Carpenter shop or cabinet shop. 18. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge, tavern) including related entertainment. - p P P P - p 19. a. Operated independent of a restaurant. b. Accessory to a restaurant. Commercial recreation facilities. C - C C C C Indoor uses such as bowling, theaters, billiards, etc. Outdoor uses such as golf, tennis, basketball, baseball, trampolines, etc. C C P C C C 20. Dairy product stores. 21. Delicatessens. ~.~pa rtment stores. 23. Drive-'~n businesses, i~heaters. (other-- than fast food restaurants). 24. Drug stores and pharmacies. P P P P P = Permiffed Use C = Conditional Use Permit required 17.10--4 - p 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. ! O. 030 25. 26. ,-"'-'" ~,._.._--.~CR's) s~and service. V ~ (- 27. Fast-food restaurants. ~ · k'--'-'-'""'2~FeedFFa ck stores. 29. Florist shops. 30. Food stores and supermarkets. 31. Furniture stores, repair and upholstery. 32. General retail stores. 33. Hardware stores. 34. Home improvement centers. a. Material stored and sold within enclosed buildings. b. Outdoor storage of material such as lumber and building materials. 35. Hotels and Motels. 36. Ice Machines (outdoor). 37. Janitorial services and supplies. 38. Jewelry stores. 39. Laundry self-service. 40. Liquor stores. 41. Kiosks for key shops, film drops, etc. in parking lots. 42. Locksmith shop. 43. Massage establishments. 44. Mini-storage for public use (no outdoor storage). 45. Mortuaries and cemeteries. Use OP NC Equipment rental yards. - Electronic goods (i.e. TV's, stereos, radios, C P GC C P P C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C P - P P - P P P P P P C C P P P P - C - C C C C P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit required 17.10-5 3/96 Sports equipment rental Sportswear sales Sporting goods store Pro shop Eating and drinking establishments, including but not limited to: Sidewalk cafes Coffee houses Frozen yogurt or ice cream parlors Snack bars or kiosks Specialty retail and service businesses, including but not limited to: Art galleries and studios, indoor or outdoor Crafts and hobby shops Flower shops Health food stores Gift shops Public or private facilities for the performing arts, indoor or outdoor, including but not limited to: Little theater Amphitheater Outdoor assembly or performing arts area Grocery stores, general, convenience, and/or specialty (CUP) Community facilities as specified above Shopping centers subject to provisions as specified above (CUP) Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily incidental to the above uses Other uses which are found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the spirit and intent of this land use classification Uses Permitted in Areas Designated "NC" The following general categories of uses shall be permitted: Retail businesses, including but not limited to: Grocery stores Delicatessens Bakeries and other specialty food stores Clothing stores Variety stores Hardware stores Plant stores Gift shops Service businesses, including but not limited to: Beauty parlors and barbers Printers Dry cleaners and laundries Travel agencies Locksmiths Pharmacies Administrative and professional offices Restaurants (other than fast food), including serving of beer and wine but without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing Restaurants with entertainment and/or serving of alcoholic bevera~es_(CUP) ...__.. ast-food res nts REVlSED~Amendment Noe. 3, 5 & 6 Ba k d th f'n s t~ to health clubs and studios (CUP) Automobile service stations (CUP) Convenience markets (CUP) Wine and liquor stores (CUP) Community facilities as specified above, including institutional and governmental uses Shopping centers subject to provisions as specified above (CUP) Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily incidental to the above uses Other uses which are found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the spirit and intent of this land use classification Uses Permitted in Areas Designated "MFC" The following general categories of uses shall be permitted: Residential uses as permitted in High Density and Medium High Density residential areas Retail ~/~'~ businessesl ~,/, /,/, ./?.~/~//~/~,/ ~ ,./~ ' ~('~ /~' ~//;' Restaurants ~";/ ,1 r' ('~ ;t':) " '~(/ ~ "~ ~ Administrative and professional offices Restaurants with incidental se~ing of ~er and wine but witho~ a c~ktail lounge, bar, ente~ain~nt or dancing. REVISED Amendment Nos. 3, 5 & 6 V - 24 Banks and other financial institutions (including drive-thru) Service businesses Institutional and governmental uses Automobile service stations Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities Community facilities as specified above Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily incidental to the above Other uses which are found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the spirit and intent of this land use classification Uses Permitted in Areas Designated "MHO" The following general categories of uses shall be permitted: Residential uses as permitted in High Density and Medium High Density residential areas Hospitals, clinics, and other medical uses Medical offices Other uses accessory or related to the above, including but not limited to: Retail businesses Administrative and professional offices Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part I~ Section 9 RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES Cocktail Lounge(bar, lounge, tavern) including related entertainment Commercial Recreation: a) Indoor uses such as bowling and billiards b) Outdoor uses such as C C tennis and basketball Convalescent Facilities & Hospitals Curtain and Drapery Shops Day Care Centers Delicatessens and Specialty . ~ F~;l...~res / Druq Stores and Pharmacies ...) over 10,000 sq. ft. ) Pharmacies with or without specialty retail under 10,000 C sol. ft. Electronic~ Sales and Service (TVs, Stereos, radios, P computers) Educational institutions. Parochial, Private (including colleges and universities) Farmers* Markets p Floor Covering Shops P Florist Snaps p p p Furniture Stares P p Hardware Stores P Health and Athletic Gyms and C P Weight Reducing Clinics Hoboy Shops p p Ice Cream Stares and Soda F:~unta~ns P P Janitorial Services and Supplies P Jewelry Stares P P Laundry (Self Service) P Leamer Goods and Luggage p p Stares Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea T,hree Subarea Four SO CO O MR P SO CO O MR MHR SC CO CO LMR MR U MU CO RRC MR LI3 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p P C C C C C C C C C C C C C C p p p p p p p p p p2 P P P P P P ~ c P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P C P C p p p2 p p p p p p2 p p p p p p p p2 p p p p2 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p P C Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (tSP) IV-5 4/96 Foothill Bozdev'ord S~ecific Plon Parr II, i Section RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC Subarea One CC 0 t MR P SC Subarea Two CC O MR Libraries and Museums, public and private Liquor Stores C C C C Messenger and Wire Services P P P P Mortuaries and Cemeteries Music, Dance, and Martial Arts C P C P Studios News;~a~er and Magazine Stores P P P P P P Nurseries and Garden Supply p p Stores within enclosed area Office, Business Machine and P P P P Computer Component Stores Office Supply Stores P P P P Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper p p Stores Parking Facilities (commercial where fees are charged) Parks and Recreation Facilities, public and private Pet Shops P P P P Photocopy (Xerox) P P P P Poht~cal or Phdanthropic Headquarters Public and Private Clubs and LoCges. including YMCA. Y'WCA, and similar Youm Group Uses Record and Tape Stores P P P P Recreabonal Vehicle Storage Yards Restaurants (sit down): a) wtth entertainment and/or C C C C C cocktail lounge, bar b) incidental serving of beer and w~ne (without a cocktail P P P P P P lounge. bar. entertainment or dancing) MHR Subarea Three SC CC CO LMR MR u MU Subarea Four CC RRC MR LI3 C C C C p p p p2 C P P P p p p p p p2 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p2 p p p p2 P P P P P O C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P -) care hm~ted to 20 seats _ _ p ..... ,,'""- I(.J.~c.g.~goutdoor seabng) -- ' ,,/ d) c ........ ~ .~._ c c c L without drive- p p p p p p 3 All industrial uses and development stanciards snail be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plcm Part I[( See[ion 9 OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATWE USES Administrative, Business, and .X.x.Banks, Finance Services and ins~nc~uding drlv~e-thru Business and Office Services Interior Decorating Firms Medical/Dental Offices and Related Health Clinics Optician and O~tometrical Shops P P P Realtors and Real Estate Offices P P P Travel Agencies P P P Suoarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Suoarea Four SO OC O MR P SC CO O MR MHR SC CC CO LMR MR U MU CC RRC MR LI3 O p p p p p p p p p p p p2 p P P P P P P P P P P P P P~ P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p p p p p p p p2 p p p p p p p p2 p p p p p p p p p p2 p p p p p p p p p p2 p RESIDENTIAL USES S~ngte Family Detached Single Family Attached (duplex, tr:piex. fourptex) Muld-Family Dwellings An=diary Residential Uses a) Home-care Facilities (6 cr less) o; On-s~te Private Recreation Facdibes Accessory Uses. a) A=cessory Stru~ures u) Home Occuoa[ion Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four .,SO CO O MR P SO CO O MIR MHR SO CC CO LMR MR U MU CC RRC MR LI3 O P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PUBLIC USES Transit Facihties Pu:::c Utihty Instaliabons Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three SC CC O I MR P SC CC O MR MHR SC CC CO LMR MR U P Su,harea Four MU CO RRC MR I L,~ tO C ==,',~ RRC(2) Semion 992 footnotes ..... r tO industrial uses and development standar3s snail be as provided in Sub-area ? of tt~e Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-8 4/96 RESOLUTION NO. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane; and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive- thru facilities as follows: Section 1: Goal Statement The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City standards for building and site design. The goal is to provide high quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by this type of land use. The following design standards and guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities typically including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or auto service. Section 2: Development Standards Ae Location - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be 300 feet away from any intersection and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street, except within a shopping center or Master Plan. Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or district boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 2 Be Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have a minimum I acre net land area. This minimum land area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center through the Design Review process. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant may be modified through the Design Review process. The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios, shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of public right-of-way. Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45 feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and as deemed necessary during the Design Review process. Section 3: Design Guidelines Ao Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall be identified early in the review process to avoid retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation. Building placement shall be done in a manner to create new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall orient the public entrances toward the street. Building layout should be oriented to screen the drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened through building orientation, the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should be provided. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary stacking of cars. The stacking distance shall be determined through a parking study as stated in Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be separate from the circulation route necessary for ingress and egress from the property or access to any parking spaces within the site. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 3 0 Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor seating shall be subject to the same parking requirement. Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscape open space to promote safe and convenient pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway between buildings. The design should discourage a need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru wherever possible. Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive- thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must have architectural style consistent with the theme established in the center. Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building planes shall have variation in depth and angle to create variety and interest in its basic form and silhouette of the building. Articulation of building surface shall be encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project a formal entrance through variation of architectural plane, pavement surface, treatment, and landscape plaza. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in the center. Section 4: Performance Standards Special performance standards for restaurants with drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a manner which does not interfere with the normal use of adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being violated, the violations shall be grounds for reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding conditions to control the violation. Performance standards include, but are not limited to the following considerations, which, where appropriate, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all use permits as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 4 (1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. 12) The premises shall be kept clean, and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive- thru restaurants or other uses which typically §enerate trash or litter, adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. I3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. (4) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. (5) The on-site manager of the use shall take whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along side the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COMMISS~ION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry I. McNlel ~C~airman ATTEST: ,~ / .~~ I, BradyBuller, Deputy 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 11th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING USE DETERMINATION NO. 97-01, DETERMINING THAT PHARMACIES WITH DRIVE-THRUS ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THE APPLICABLE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE; TERRA VISTA AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLANS; AND THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ETIWANDA, AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLANS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Walgreens has filed an application for a Use Determination No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Use Determination is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of April 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 April 23, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The use in question is of a similar nature, operation, and intensity as a fast food restaurant, which is conditionally permitted in the same district. proposed. The use in question meets the purpose and the intent of the district in which it is c. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the Use Determination to require a Conditional Use Permit for pharmacies that have drive-thrus within the applicable commercial districts of the Development Code; Terra Vista and Victoria Community Plans; and Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda, and Etiwanda North Specific Plans. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. UD 97-01 - WALGREENS April 23, 1997 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 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 23rd day of April 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: There is currently a vacant seat on the Trails Advisory Committee for an equestrian member-at-large. As directed by the Planning Commission, the position was advertised through press releases and letters to all equestrian groups in the community, including the Equestrian Patrol of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. Applicants were required to be residents and at least 18 years of age. Desirable qualifications included extensive knowledge of Rancho Cucamonga's trail system and horseback riding. The Planning Commission Subcommittee (Bethel and Tolstoy) and the Trails Advisory Committee Chairman, Dan Coleman, interviewed four candidates for the equestrian representative's seat on the Trails Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDATION: The Subcommittee recommends that Sue Rabone, a long time resident and equestrian advocate, be appointed to the Trails Advisory Committee by minute action. Respectfully_su bmitted, City Planner BB:DC/jfs Attachments: Application to Serve Submitted by Sue Rabone ITEM F NOV 0 ~ 1996 CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON City o4 Rancho Planning Division TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga invites applications for a member-at- large to represent the equestrian community. This Committee reviews proposed development projects to advise the Planning Commission on the location and design of equestrian trails. The Committee meets o~ce a ..month on an .n.s .n. eeded bas.is. NAME: ~'-~,~. ~. 1. Briefly describe your horse riding experience (i.e., ~pe of riding, miles per week, years experience): 2. Why ar~u interested in sc~mg on th~s 4. List all equestrian organizations you are actively involved inT-~L~r~/~ ~< ~'~ C ~, 5.' What hours on Monday'through ~urs~ would you be available for Cornmince me ti gs. .