No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/01/28 - Agenda PacketL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MI1G',JTES Regular Meeting .3..nuary 28, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission meeting, held at the Lion. Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7:10 p.m. Following the call to order, Chairman Dahl led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeffery Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Lommuni.ty Development; Paul Rougeau, Assistant_ Civil Engi.naer; :Michael Vairin, Senior. Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam, Director. of Community Development, announced that a number of items had been held over from the January 26, 1981 mee'-ing or. the General Plan and would be taken up after ''e regular agenda at this meeting. Those items were: Enero-Y, Co- iservation; Community Design Elt ;cent; Land Use Designations in the Cucamonga Area, the Fourth and Archibald and Turner south of Foothill locations; Tentativa School S'.te Locations and Policies; and Wineries. Mr. Lam also announced that a letter had been received from Mr. Zicarelli requesting that Item "A" of this agenda be withdrawn. Mr. Hogan announced that there would be a continuation of Items "C ". "E ", and "F ", of this agenda to February 25, 1981 and that ltem "D ", would be removed from this agenda and readvartised to appear on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items on this agenda. PL'ELIC HEARINGS Chairman Dahl. opened the. r.>>: 1c hearing. TLere being no c.m.,manr..s for or against the:,.: t:s, the public hearing wac closed and Chairman 'Lahl asked for a motion to contir -o-e Ttens• "C ", "E". and "T" to Februixy 25, 1981. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconced LY Rempel, carried unanimcusly, to continc_ thasc items. Notion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unsair,:)usly, to remove Item "D" From this nf,eada. is It * .., * A. EN 1yTR.OIv14FI-ITAL ASSESSMENT AND TjyCT DIO. 10001 - ZYCARFLU - A residential subdivisinn of 9.52 acres of land into 22 .Lots in the R -•1-15 zone, generally located on rixe nort!: >iCe of Lemon A,,:snue, appvc,cimately 600 feet east of Archibald. (APN 2til- 25i. -09. This item waS wi tbdracm fr-; ' this agei.da . i.• ,k •Y ,Y r B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV _TRi +iT NO. 11625 - 'rq. -" ROFEETS GROUP - A tota.'. residential aevelonment for th•. develonmeur of 1.01 condominiums or :.:� acres consisci.ng of two (2) lots, v tliir. the R -1 -8,500 zone (pending PA) located on Oie northwest corner of 19th Stree *. and liermcsa. (AFN 202 - 1'•010) Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, presented ti,(-- staff report. Pe indicated that a letter had been sent to all property otmers uho requested notification of this project and that noth1mg, had been rerei.vsd by the Planning Department in response to the notification. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Ms. Tony Quezada, representing the Roberts Group, introduced their architect, Pcte Potasi, who explained the revisions that were made to this tract. Mr. Potasi stated that the garages on building C have bzen eliminated which produced the same effect as was reque: -ted by the Design Review Committee in reversing the building types. Further, the whole series of buildings on the north were setback to incorporate the palm tree in the landscape area and tc increase the landscaping. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the berming that wa: to occur at the corner. Mr. Vairin responded that the berming would be incorporated and that through the modifications to the site plan, there would be a great deal more landscaping, including the retention of alluvial rock in the design. rurther, a conceptual drawing had been f•lrnished to show what will ue achieved. El Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 28, -961 .l1 The Planninr_, Commission asked abou'L sidewalks and a retaining wall for flood protection.. Yr. Roi eau ex ianed that this r:ojcct could make use of the walls rear the sidewalk to assure flood r-tection. ComndssionAx Tolsioy stated that one of the conditions should be that the curb be ,' -i and if more height is needed, a small retaining wall be bail; in back of -.he sidewalk. Mr. Vairin expiair,ed that a condition has been imposed to that effect oecaur Hermosa is a water carrying street and additional curb height is nccussaty to increase the capacity for flood control purposes. Thera were no further comments either for or against this pi:oject and the Public hear-.rig was closed. Commissioner Sceranka advised that the developer of this project has e0ne as much as possible to conform to the wishes of the Design R-� lew Committee and that he felt that this would be a very good project for the City. Motion: Moved by Rzmpel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -07, to zpprove Tentative Tract Nu. 11625, and approve the Enviror:mental Assessment for this project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11460 - LE4IIS - A request for conversion of 172 existing apartments into condominiums, located on a 12 -acre site on the north side of 19th Street east of Carnelian. (Sunscaa� I). This item was continued to February 25, 1981 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11369 - ALTA LOnA MEADOWS - A tract subdivision of 65 lots on 15.8 acres within the R -1 -8,500 zone located on the east side of Carnelian, north of 1.9th Street. (APN 202 - 221 -042) This item was removed from this agenda. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11531. - INVESTMENTS - A custom lot subdivision of 40 single family lots on 10.8 acres in the R- 1- 8,500 -T zone generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland. (APN 201- 214 -05) This item was continued to the February 25, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 28, 1981 F. ENVI1;O*1ENTAI, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10277 - SARMAKIAN A custom lot subdivision consisting of 30 lots on 7.4.36 acres of land in the A -1 -5 zone located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carne ".1an Street. (AFN 1061- 17'�-02). zone Change 80 -12 (A-i-5, to R- 1 -20). This item was continued to the February 25, 1981 meeting. Chairman Dahl advised that the Commission would move Item "G" to coincide with Item "L" on this agenda. Mr. Hogan, City Planner advised that it appeared that the applicant was nor present and asked if the Commission would go on to Item "H" and then come ba-k to the other items. The Commission took up Item "H ". H. EPIVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP N0. 6617 - DAOIQ - A commercial subdivision of 17.65 acres of land into 3 parcels within the M. -2 zone located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route. (APN ]08- 351 -13) Mr. Paul Rou.geau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff r eport. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a requirement that street improvements are to be built. He asked where they would go. Mr. Rougeau replied that that is the only remaining requirement and the median. will go from Arrow to the new street, Sequoia, and will be about a quarter mile in '.. 19th. Commissioner King asked how access will be limited off of Haven. Mr. Rougeau explained that 2 driveways that would come off of Parcel No. 1. He felt that restricting to less than 2 driveways would be a disadvantage and indicated that the spacing would be consistent with the access policy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that since this is a planned project, who has the review right_ of what is built on thi.s site. if a piece of property is split, how are controls of the master planning carried out. Mr. Hogan replied that Mr. Corrigan of the Daon Corporation could better answer this. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Daon Corporation has CC &R's for 290 acres and that they have an active review committee to review projects that come before them before they come before the Planning Commission for review. Further, that this includes the entire 290 acres. is Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 2E, 1961 There being no further comments for or against this project, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded' by T61.stoy, carried unanimously, Co adopt Resolution No. 81 -09, approving the Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map No. 6617. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAI) NO. 6636 - STEVENS - An industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres into 2 parcels with the M -R zone located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 433 feet + south of 9th Street. (APN 209- 013 -24) I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECiOZ REVIEW NO. 81 -03 - INT (DEWAYNE BUTLER) - The construction. of four (4) industrial b totaling 49,528 square feet on 6.77 acres of land in the M-R zone located at 8787 Hellman Avenue. (APN 209 - 011 -43) Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, stating that a note was to be added to the map prior to recordation that would say that, future extension of Lion Street may be required. That way, he stated, no further dedication would be needed on the parcel map for parcel Nc. 2 below the extension of Lion Street. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if what Mr. Rougeau was saying was that parcel. No. 1 would be improved without extension of Lion Street and then parcel No. 2 when developed, would bear the cost of the improvements at a later date. This would have to come before the Commission for their approval. Mr. Rougeau replied that this would happen in any event. Further, that any development of parcel. No. 2 would have to come before staff and the Commission prior to development. Mr. Lam stated that of the two ways that this can be done, the offer of dedication is the stronger. The offer is obtained up front whereas, on the other condition, it Is set forward. He further added that depending on which direction the Planning Commission wished to go they could make their selection of one over the other. Mr.. Rougeau advised that one option would involve possible problems for the City in the future. If the development occurs on the large parcel to the south it would preclude the type of circulation that they envision. He added that the map that was attached to the staff report shows one possible concept of the circulation in the area.. Commissioner King asked if you assume that Lion Street will be extended, what will the distance be east to Wilson. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be approximately 150 feet. Commissioner King asked if that was enough to do things with. Planning Con.ni.s -ion Minutes -5- January 28, 1981 Mr. Rougeau replied that it would blend in w -th those to the south. dEL Mr. Rougeau a'Go explainer ',,at ti ".i: ii,te that was to be added would appear. on Parcel No. 2 so that there would be no possibility that anyone 9eveloping would be unaware that there is a requirement for the extension of Lion Street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not notice a requirement for an easement appurtenant to Parcel No. 2. Mr. Hogan replied that it is not specifically stated, but on page 1 there is a rr�qui.rement by the City Engineer that could be used to achieve necessary easements and that it is really pertinent to Item 1, and y ^.rhaps the Commission could take ection on that item at the time it is addressed. Commissioner Rempel stated that two weeks ago, the Commission had a requirement for sidewalks and then it was changed back agai.r to sidewalks oa one side of the street. Mr. Rougeau replied tha.t since Hellman is a secondary street and not a major thoroughfare, the requirement fur sidewalks on both sides would be inappropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that there should be a requirement for sidewalks along Hellman. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he felt that sidewalks in the industrial area should be a requirement for people who will be taking a bus to work anc: those in ,,'ni -car pools who would walk from the car pool to their place of work. Mr. : ::c stated tLat perhaps the Planning Commission could give staff direction on how comprehensive a plan they would like in the industrial area. Commissioner Tempel stated that it was known that Hellman will be heavily travelled if the water is controlied on it. Further, that any street of that nature should have sidewalks on one side. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it would be appropriate to look at pedestrian routes from future transit stops. He indicated that there is no way that people can get from Arrow except along this street and that is not an example of good planning. He further stated that he would like to look at individual streets in conjunction with transit and that they should see if transit stops will occur at those points. Mr.. Lam ssked if a sidewalk policy should be implemented of having sidewalks on one side of streets down. to the secondary level. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 28, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there are times when he feels that smaller streets should also have side,.-olks on one side. However, he would certainly be in favor now of saying that secondary streets should renuire sidewalks on one aide. Chairman Dail opened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Corrigan stated thn.t he would like some clarification from the Commission and staff at this time and asked if there would be any different consideration from tt•- Planning Commission and the City si.nr_e in their master plan they were required to put in sidewalks on both sides of the street and the discussion now centers on putting in sidewalks on Only one side. Chairman D.'.1 replied that the comment was that they be at least on one side of .he street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his feeling is that on secondary and major streets they should be required because he does not want to see people jaywalking the street_ in order to get to a sidewalk. The smaller streets will probably i.1-t carry as much traffic so as to preclude people from crossin.- the street to get to a sidewal.k. There being no further comments, the public portion was closed. Am The Commission then went on to item 1, with Barry Hogan, City Planner reviewing the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked if condition No. 5 is only a request to change the landscaping by t applicant or if it is a part of the staff condition. Mr. Hogan replied that it is not a condition of the applicant but a staff suggested condition. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the material is on the north side of the property that will buffer it from the adjacent property. Mr. Hogan replied that no fencing is proposed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that north of this is Carisma Spas, with a great amount of unscreened storage. He further stated that he cannot conceive that any other user could appreciate locating below without some protected view. He stated that he would like to see some des .e landscaping or screening along these two properties. Barry 'Hogan replied that the screening on the existing property should have been taken care of by the County; however, if denser landscaping was desired by the applicant, it can be done. AML Planning Commission Minates -7- January 28, 1981 Commissioner Scerania stated that he was not saying that r. fence or a block wall was needed only that screening was required and that he would prefer to see dense screening as part of the protect. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. DeWayne Butler, 15202 Downey A-ienue, Paramount, addressed the Commission and stated that he had net received the staff report and therefore did not know what the staff recomnendacicn was. Mr. Hogan provided Mr. Butler with a copy of the report. Mr. Hogan then reiterated the: conditions contained on the parcel map requirli;g Lion Street at the time of development of t'sae parcel and emergency access from parcel one to parcel two off of Hellman. There being no further comments, the public portion -oas closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission mast be strong up front and not pussyfoot around. He further stated that Lion Street was needed and should be dedicated at this time and that "he Commission should state that it: is. Commissioner King stated that he had not problems with the parcel split and .agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy on the offer of dedication. Further, he indicated that sidewalks should be required on Hellman. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he knows that it is difficult for WN people who live and work in the area to get around especially in the rain and especially out of the driveways on Hellman. He stated that he dial not like the idea of a parcel. map being submitted to circumvent a. problem that still exists. As a City official, he stated, l.e must do something to ensure that the problem is alleviated. He stated further that there must be secondary acce!;s in this project and did not know what that might be but would not approve it without it. Mr. Rougeau replied that the secondary eccess will be approved by the Fire Department to involve properly compacted material for the driveway .nd surface and blend la with the vacant land. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a barrier at the south part of Lion Street that would have to be removed and that he has no objection. to the emergency access as long as it can be used by employees. He further stated that he did not feel it appropriate for the parcel map *o go through unless there is access. Mr. Hogan stated that the access off of Lion Street has been provided by the condition. Further, that if the Commission concurs with the stipulation on the Director Review, the Commission can state that it can come back before Design Review to see how that will work. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 28, 1981 s: i El F There was further discussion rei.itive to the offer of dedication and the possibility that Lion Street may stub. Mr. Lam stated that it would be possible to ask for an offer of dedication on the parcel. map and then condition parcel 2 to guarantee that it will go thror ;h if needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City should be put in the best position it can. Mr. Lam explained the emergency access easement. Following further discussion, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -09; to accept_ the parcel split and offer of dedicaticn of Lion Street to Hellman; a condition for sidewalks; the resolution of emergency access; and the deletion of condition No. 7 with the addition of condition No. 8. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Sceranka, King, Rempel, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing on Item I. There being no co mnents for or against the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King stated that he did not feel comfortable with the elevations as shown aad did not think it rbould go through. Mr. Hogan explained the elevations to the Commission. Commissioner King replied that It appeared that there are some discrepancies that go beyond the elevations. Following brief discussion, it was moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt- Resolution No. 81 -10, and that the entire project be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and be subject to their approv.l without- coming back before the Commission. The concerns expressed by the Commission to be examined by the Design Review Committee, were trash receptacles, driveways, parking, .lay out, building elevations, and aisle widths. AYES: COMMISSIONERS :TOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission Minutes Rempel, Tolstoy, Sceranka, Dahl King None - carried- -9- January 28, 1981 Commissioner King qualified his no vote as having greater concerns than those that were mentioned. 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 4:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvenec.. x .4. * * DIRECTOR° ?SPORTS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE DETERI•fINATION 174. 81 -01 - SNAPP - A self -serve car wash within the C -1 zone. Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Following this, Mr. Lam stated that the Commission will be making a judgement as to whether a car wash is :0.1.owable in a C -1 zone under certain conditions. Conanissicner Tolstoy asked if a detailing area would be allowed at the car wash and if any noise would. result. Mr. Vairin replied that there would be an outside detailing area. Mr. Lam stated that the Co m1i.Esion is only examining whether a car wash is allowable in the C -1 zone and not whether this is an appropriate site for a car wash. Mr. Arnold Anderson, the applicant, indicated that Ice felt that the operating area would be shielded from view of the apartments that presently exist on the site and that there would be no appreciable increase in noise. Commissioner King stated that he thiuks that wl -tat the Connnissicn is dealing with is a resolution_ that will allow car washes in the C -1 areas. A specific parcel has been brought before design review and there were some reservations with the appropriateness of design. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that• if the site is appropriate f,,r a car wash he did not see why it coull: not be put in that kind of zone for that use. Commissioner Sceranka agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Chairman Dahl stated that he agreed but would like to see a CUP on it- Further, that with a good operator, the car wash could be handled well.. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed. Further, that it was ridiculous to drive it into an industrial rune which is the only other place you could have it. 7 Planning Commission Minutes -1.0- January 28, 1481 11 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -11, allowing a mar wash in a C -1 zone. AYES: CODV.ISSIONERS: Tolstoy, King, Sceranka, Rempel, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- * K. RESOLUTION OF PROJECTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMM UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PP.=SS Mr. Lam requested th:.c this item be placed later in tte agenda. L. GENERAL PU,N ITEMS SCHOOL-SITE-LOCATION POLICY Mr.. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner., proai.ded information on the location of schools and designations on the proposed General. Plan map. Further, that tl.: tentative location of schools cn the map are designated through the use of upper case letters, E for elementary schools, J for junior high schools, and H for high schools. Mr. Beedle stated that it was not intended that these designations bc. interpreted as a permanent location, but that it expressed a need for a school in a particular area. Mr. Beedle provided a policy statement which could be.inserted in the text indicating that the sites are tentative and asked the Commission to consider this recommendation and the map exhibit. Mr.. Beedle stated that this would then be inserted into the General Plan text as a graphic. Mr. Floyd Stork, representing the Alta Loma School District, advised of the school sites that were currently available and indicated that some of those shown on the map we -e not, in fact, readily available to the school. district. Further, that a site could not be purchased t.y the school district until the State had certified that a need exists. He further indicated that it might be possible to sell a current site and purchase another, however, clarification was needed en that. Mr. Stark stated that it is a lot easier to acquire a 10 -acre site than a 20 -acre site and that the school district will need to have five more elementary school sites. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the J shown on Wilson Avenue. Mr.. Beedle replied that this site was not removed as staff was waiting for the Commi.ssian's action. He further stated that that particular site is a preferred Alta Loma School. District site. 9 Planning Commission. Minutes -il- January 28, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Story, if he would be comfortable with a junior high school either adjacent to a high school or with a park in between. Mr. Stork replied that he would not like to see the schools adjacent to each other but with a park In between. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this was something that. the school district would like the City not to perpetuate. Mr. Stork replied that if there is a choice for the school district to make them keep the schools apart as this is good educational plann"Eng_ Mr. Story: also related the number of studentF. chat could be handled by this district. Commissioner King asked Mr. Stork If the only site not being used is the one on Beryl. Mr. Stork. replied that there is one on Wilson but basically, within two years, there would be a need for a school. but there are no plans for a school at that location. Commissioner King asked about the submittal of housing units to the school district. Mr. Lam explained the notification procedure to the school district. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tol.stoy, to show school sites IF on the map and change the text as entered under the recommendation portion and have it apply to the school site location map in lieu of the tent in that portion sbotni on Exhibit "A". Commissioner Rempel stated that he hoped the Commission realized that as soon as you plug in the map people will see a school site next to where they want to purchase a home and wtll expect that a school will be built there and become very upset when it isn't. lie felt that the existing schools should be shown on the map but. did not know if the tentative sites should be shown. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that he couldn't imagine how the word tentative on a map could be a problem. Mr. Lain explained that this is really not as complex as it may seem. Further, that in order for school site purchase to occur, it must be shown on the General Plau. The issue was, did the Commission want any statement that these are not the exact sites and relate to the need of the school district. Commissioner Tol..stoy stated that he agreed and that the statement must be made and that they needed to be marked. The motion made previously carried unanimously. is Planning Commission Minutes -12- Januari 28, 1981 FOURTH STREET AND ARCHIBAL',) AVENUE SITE Barry Hogan, City Pl7nner., reviewed the staff report, prcviding the options relative to this parcel. a, ._ti.ng that option No. 3 would be the one that is favored. Commissioner. Sccranka aske• determination had been made by the Park and Recreation Department that a park would be required on this property. Mr. Hogan replied that staff would s!e;;gest that it be considered as it was shown en the John B7.ayrey elan co be a five -acre park. Commissioner Sccranka asked if staft realized the close proximity of the Cucamonga Guasti Park, to this site. Mr.. Beedle replied that staff had discussed this with Mr. Holley and he indicated that a park, is needed on that particular site. Commissioner Sccranka replied that it is difficult to know what you mean by defining a conceptual plan for the remaining arreage. Mr. Hogan replied that the applicant will be coming in with a plan telling what he wants to do in specific terms. Further, that what they are trying to do is have some thought given to the remaining project and how it Tail]. fit. He did nor. mean detailing in setback and size. but in concept. It would be similar to Daon project and its types o1` uses. Mr. Lam stated that it the past we have had a pubjic hearing and people want the best use possible for the area. Further., that there is desire on the Planning Commission's part to com^_ up and plan this area and have the property owners have some voice. From the City's perspeezive, he stated that there was concern. They want adequate cornmerr_ial possibility and that they have a proposal that will take in as many consideration; as posrible for that land use. Thi2 other issue, he stated is how much agreement there is on a master plan for that site. If everyone has a conflicting idea, it will not wori.. Chairman Dahl asked if it would be possible to also consider a certain amount of use of this property. Mr. Lam replied that the Commission will have to consider thir, tonight_ and that they can pet into the issue of master planning. Further, there is also the possibility of more p :,cise designation. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission will have to des.gnate general uses on the plan. Mr. (Sill Patton, 210 Santiago, Newpa'rt Beach, provided the Commissior with a report: and map and indicated that lie had contacted as many propert, owners as possible relative to his plan for the area. He indicated that 92% of those he had contacted were in agreement and read a letter from the Lusk Company, which had been included in the Planning Commission's ptcket. lie showed a map as to property owners who were represented by it. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 28, 1981 He indicated that the Lusk Comp.nv was requesting medium and high land us;: and asked that this be read into thcz reLord. He stated that in another letter ht had requested commercial at the bottom of the rap. Mr. Patton stated than because the Planning Commission :.sked for a meetirg between the rreperty owners they had to considar not only the land use but the long - range uses of the property. Be indic...ted that his family was in fanning and was not thinking, about relocating at this time. Further, that lie was only a representative for this group, but he felt that there is a need to buffer the existing properties from any new residential. lie spoke of his thoughts relat .'ve to land.scs,.ping Luis area to act as buffering. Mr. Paul 'Burns, representing Marlborough Hames, 2029 Century Park East, Los Angeles, slated that they are residential dc- 7el-opers and would like to see an much of this area as possible designated for the medium and bip,h residential. land use. He further stated th- -[ he felt that hey can provide the best opportunity to represent the need for the area and the City. Additionally, that tYcy would be willing to work farther in coordination of certain developmert. He felt that then° were a majority of p=roperty owners that can and will work togcther. Commissioner Scer-anka asked if Mr. Burns thought there should be pry residential on Archibald 'itself. Mr. Burns replied that the only way to handle residential. would be with some very effective noise buffering as this is a very busy street. There was considerable discussion on the type of coamtercial and how the plan would he developed using the Patton concept for this area. Commissioner Sceranki asked if what Mr. Pat.too was stating was that he was not opposed to master planning, as long as the land uses are as they should be. Mr. Patton stated that he considerel what they proposed a maste-- plan. Mr. Burns stated that he felt the plans were similar and felt that they will hold on to their property because of the time feasibility from a commercial standpoint. Chairman Dahl stated that they have a design to have hotel, motel and dinner houses coming in. He thought they will be needed much sooner than. what the owners are willing to cone in. He felt that the services will be needed and was not sure that they were even considering them. Mr. Burns stated that their marketing people did not think commercial was feasible on this property on any large scale. Planning Commission Minutes -]k- January 28, 1981. Commissioner Sceranka responded by saying that there are two problems iswith Mr. Burns' plan: one has a park and no residential and the other t ro park. plan la! •- Mr. Lam sondethehat General the Commission was starting to get into areas and scope bey Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Lam if the present designation along Archibald and Fourth carries hotels and motels being allowable. Mr. Lam replied that it did. ,,ommissi.oncr Sceranka asked for a brief break. ; p,m. The'Planninf; Commission re- ,;sed. 1).:t�5 p.m. The Planning Commission rec�nvened- i Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by To toy, carried unanimously, Co continuo beyond the 11:00 P.M. curfew. Chairman Dahl asked if there were wasycfurther comments and there being none, the public hearing portion center on this site. Further, that he has been Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not want to see a 7 -1 store or neighborhood =.opping working on in.di•zrial and thiuka that is what they want to see on that shouldcbeidesignatedcindu ,trialtparktande the areaadirectly adjacentrtor ^identi.al . the SEC of 6th and Hellman ' = nation in this Commissioner Rempel stated he felt that r sidential d is what this should area is wrong and that an industrial park be throughout. He stated further that he suggested two changes. line of. 1, That the industrial park directly follow the property any property that abuts Archibald and come across as shown on 4th Street. 2. Change the residential designation leaving the park to the medium density designation. All the infield and Hellman Avenue have medium density. Commissioner King asked for clarification of use^ under the 3ndusrxi.a1 park desi;na.tion. lied that restaurants, banks and land uses you would find in a ortive commercial, would be the types of uses. Mr. Lam rep v store and professional setting, and supPnatior. would Preclude a 7 -11 type Mr. T.am stated that this desig general retail uses- Commission January 28, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner. King stated that he was in agreement with the comments of Commissioners Sceranka and Rempel of the types of use:: aln:x Fnurr.% and Archibald and also the irdustrial r1c doni natio n. fur -111--Z p u�%., i ni aeu that he was not thinking of a park line the Vanguard. Center, but in terms of what he would consider supporting user, like hanks and t estaurants. Mr. King continued that he would like to see that blor_•k be a regionally - oriented type of use by businesses who use the airport. Purther, that he did not think residential appropriate anywhere within the block. For the rest, he felt that it should be more along the lines of office and believed that some sort of master plan would be nice in getting what the Commission wants in developing the 120 acres. Chairman Dahl stated that along 4th there needs to be some cotioeir._i;..l.. Further, that the City is losing dollars every day by commerci.a ?' going w into 4th and Vineyard. IIe stated that if that were in here, he would be fn 1007. He is for light industrial bueiness park along Archibald ar He stated he could move the co7^me:cial o.cr to the western- most portion of 4th instead of the intersUcrlon. Mr.. Pahl stated that he would like to see :nedin•:. or low-medium dereity as buffering for the tract across the way. The rest of the area he would like to see i.ndustrial park of office type application znd it must be master pl.anred. He felt that some commercial was need,--L: along the way. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he has a problem with ronm:,.rcial On the corner only because he doesn't know -what you will get. He stated that he would like to see industrial part: and office desiCna':ion because you can then have the kind of concnercial that yov want. Tiat would preclude the 7 -11 type commercial. He stated that ne is for industri.al parr all the way around the site and that '.:e has a real. problem with residential. He stated that it is unfortunate that it I,, there and did not wart to perpetuate it. He felt that it might be possible to have residential above 6th with buffering. he ielt thst: if residential goes across 6th.. It must be special. fie felt that the entire project should be pla.rned all at once and for the center section he would like an .1 dusttial use of some type. Chairman Dahl stated that he ;tad to agree with what Com:aiseioner Tolstoy said and that this site should have emphasis within the General Plan text that this is a special area. Motion: Moved by Secranka, to tclk,a the area of Sixth Street directly to the northeast point of the park straight down to the tip of the industrial park designatioi, and everyt1?ft;..g to the right. i. dustri.al park with commercial on the corner. The property to the viert of Luis woe medium density residential with planned .levelopmant. Chairman Dahl said he woul(i ;; ::ond the mori.un if something ,were put in the text to include motel., hotel and restaurant as this would be desirable _ °or. the City. planning Commission Minutes —i6- Sstuary 28, 1981 a 11 n Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would prefer not to include e,,at .dim in the motion. _..,a �orn"rl the motion because it Cemmissioner Ren:peh stated that it ��� -- -- -- will go to the hig Commissioner King stated he thought it would be appropriate for cot needs in at 1ie21man and rouofhresidential on the northwest tquadrant eofs office and perhaps some type the site. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Rempel i _ COMMISSIONERS: King, Tolstoy, Dahl 1`OL� -failed - ABSisP:7': COMMISSIONERS: None Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to make the whole thing an industrial park designation. AYES,. COM?MISSIONrRS: Rempel, Sceranka, Tolstoy YCo• NOES- CONLT'iISSIONEFS: King, Dahl • -carried- ABSENT: CO^%LMISSIONER5: None TURNNLR SOTITH or BASE LINE planner, reviewed the staff. report and recommendation. Barry Hogan, C itY Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing portion. 1•lr. Poland Sanchez, property owner, spolce of alternative 'housing in the area. There being no further comments, the public hearing portion was closed. to Motion: Moved 'by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried g unitsuper,acrego along with a medium density a circulation of of wing the staff recommendation and that a iequiremant of the circulation following be followed for this site. Tolstoy, Dahl Sceranka, ring, Rempel, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: r0%MISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: * * * * None None Planning Commission Minutes -17- - carried- January 28, 1981 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by K'-ng, carried unanimously. to continue with the Energy Conservation and Community Design Elements. IMF City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff revort. Commissioner Sceranka stat-!d t an page 111, first Taragraph, "last sentence of the text he felt the verbiage was tc^tally out of context and would prefer that it not be used. He also felt that the word l.egibl-11ty was not clear and should not be used. Further, in the middle of page 112, "maintain and provide public facilities without social dt.srupti.on to existing communities ", he did not see how public_ facilities cculd disrupt the community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement in that if the lang.age is so obscure, the public will not be at--' -n use it. Commi:,bioner Sceranka stated that iic. ...shed to add the words "physical" and "social" as areas that it serves. On page 120, Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not see how you could concrete line channels and still retair. their character. Mr. Hogan explained what this statement meant. Commissioner Remipel stated that on page 126 the statement "change public transit network ", shculd be changed to minimum and not reduced. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Community Design Element as amended. ENERGY CONSERVATION ELEMENT Motion: Moved by Tol.stoy, seconded by Sr�ranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Energy Conservation Element. WINERY Mr. Hogan stated that there had been considerable discussion over the winery issue at the time of the .John Blayney Plan hearings and that a statement had been added into the text and stated that there should be such an addition in th.[s text "that wineries play o significant role in the culture and heritage of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Existing wineries that operate for the purposes of selling bottled wine or are a historical landmark, should be allowed to continue to operate and expand v' their operation to include restaurants, retail. wine sales, gift shops, y or related activities ". It is not meant to encourage new wineries to begin operating. Planning CowAssion, Minutes -18- January 28, 1981 L Mr. Hogan statt( aZlowedntheirtuse shouldsberthrough aaConditianal Use Permit - that if they and not through the Geseral «• that this should he done through zoning to preserve winery (V•. a.i ..., Plan. He further stated business andlfollow it with a winery. and not get some ongoing Commissioner Scerarlsa asked that the words selling, processing and /or distributing wine or as an historical landmark, be added. Motion: Moved by Reml.el, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the amendment. signed Commissionsr Tolstoy sta.ted that he had received a ce y of a memorandum i that he dial not recall that by Chairman llah7. requesting that the HistorLcal Commission consider Opic, Winery as a historic:. +.l landmark and. further, the Planning Commission ss a whole had made that request - Chairman Dahl replied that Commissioner Tolstoy had stated no ws�ioner had the other ageeedsked ab lettercbe scntato the aHistori.caldCrnmnission- Comm Commissioner Dahl. further explained that he bad majority consensus in having the letter sent - that he did not remember this. Tolstoy stated Comnliss-Cne. - Commissioner ;ceranka state that atea�letterrwouldsbessent•of the OPici winery but also did ao their Chairman mntDabutstatedhthat lalsodaeledatha an letter abe sentratethe meeting- agre Commissioner Tolstoy stated that something of this natu a was no be done at a public meeting :,nd carl. objecting to the fact that it was not done in that manner. He further stated that he dial noL`faepublic meetingthxee planning Commissioners should do this outside o Mr. Ilo;;an stated that Item "K" remained to be considered- G.Idelines for Planninf Commission Under the Development Review process- A unanimously, to Motio -z: Moved by RemPel, adopt this resol1 -Ition- ADJO"RNMENT seconded by Tolstoy, -19- p7anning Commission Minutes carrie January 28, 1981 I �� it / • / / .f ` ��!.: +r � I i� • Moved • • carried unanimously, to I d ly Planning • M/1 fi Respectfully submitted, r . jAQC LAN, Secretary •�r y Lr r l: yl' .ry ✓I �A r';I .I f "• •I,r. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1981 l • I �t' JJ elf • r•- I ) r �r' � I" 0 1rl i l I 1 i?I 170 'r �' ... , Ih 6 •+