Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984/04/11 - Agenda Packet0 CITY OF R .NCHO CUCk%10 \GA $A ANT1ii�'G l,G�`Ii�vitSSiC� T AGENT 1 WEDNESDAY April 11, 1984 7:00 p.m. 1971 LIONS PARR COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMG-24GA, CALIFORNIA A C T I O N S L Pledge of Aliegiance M Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Juarez —77' Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel X *Commissioner Juarsz Teft the meeting at 3:30 p.m. III. Announcements 17Y. Consent Calendar 4-1 -0 to deny the time extens-ioo. Approved 5-0 -0 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, if should be removed for discussion A. T111E EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE 'TRACT 11781 - 0 �VYLRIJ vnv'vr - h LOLal re51WF[Ela1 aereiopmep_t or 76 condominiums on 6.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential (4-14 du /ac) District located on the west side of Hermosa, approximately 330 feet north of 19th Street - AFN 202 -171- 29 & 38. N FOR TENTA' - n t....,, --- single iamuy units, 81 patio homes and 202 townhouse units on 57.7 acres of land located between Haven and Hermosa, approximately 660 feet south of Wilson - APN 201- 181 -12, 13, 14, 02, 63, 65 and 69. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENGA - - APRIL il, 1984 Page 2 Approved 5-0 -0 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME nr.rinrr opt -us - uyrsntt: - -lne oeveiopment of a izu,uuu square foot warehouse / distribution building on 6.1 acres of land in the General Industrial. category (Subarea 11) located on the southwest corner of 7th Street and Cleveland Avenue - APN 209 - 411• -08, 09, 10. Approved 5 -0 -0 with con- D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11893 - C/L sideration of existing BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of 17.2 acres of land roofs in neighborhood. into 35 lots in the "V)," District, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street - APN 1043 - 411 -01. approves -u -U with E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9540 - DEER CREEK - The riodifi;;ations. development of 23 single family detached homes on existing one -half acre lots in the "VL^ District, on Jennet Street, Turquoise Avenue, and Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia Avenue. Approved 5 -0 -0 F. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9589 - �.nr.nnr file development Oi iJ iamuy Homes in ine LOW Residential District, located north of Red Hill Country Club Drive and west of the Flood Control Channel - APN 207 -60 -8 thru 18 and 32 thru 35. V. Public Hearings The following items cre public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. please wait to be receoized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opirions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Approved 5-0 -0 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AMENDMENT 84-01 - RMA-W nn - a iieveiopment vistrict Amendment from Medium Residential (8 -14 du's /ac) to Low- 16ediuin Residential (4-8 du's/ac) for 16.3 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow Highway, north side of 9th Street, between Baker Avenue and Madrone Avenue - APN 207 -261 -02 and 07, 207 -132 -01 thru 37. Approved 5 -0 -0 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS£SSMEh n AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12621 - RICiiWOO6 - A residential development of 29 duplexes 58 units on 7.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential district (Low - Medium pending) located on the south side of Arrow between Madrone and Baker - APN 207 - 251 -07. PLANNI!JU C014MlSSICN AGENDA APRIL 11, 1584 Page 3 Denied 4 -1 -0 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -01 - WEST - The development of a coin operated car wash on .45 acres of land in the. General Commercial district located on the southeast corner of Foothill and Helms - APN 208 - 261 -54. Continued to 4/25/84. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12532- ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - The develooment of 111 zero lot line homes on 14.5 acres ir. the Law - Medium Residential District, located between Archibald and Ramona at Monte Vista Street - APN 202- 181 -05, 06, 15, 16. Approved 5 -0 -0 K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-04 - XIARKWEST - A request To- locate a caretaker's quarters of 801 square feet in conjunction with a light industrial storage facility located on the south side of 9th Street on both the east and west sides of Flower Road (8755 Flower Road). This site is located in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan area - APN 209 -013 -42. VL Director's Reports Continued tentatively L. REVIEW OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PUD W 113-61 - to 4/301£4. CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Approximate-11- 8 °0 residential units at the northeast corner of Milliken and Highland in the City's sphere of influence. VII. 1-1411 "; Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do net already appear on this agenda. VUL Adjournment 10.10 P.M. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 pm. adjou.-nment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. "CA ?*I r,A -C.UAS 60 CC UM! V IFGIOMpt Op IT 0WANIO IRIERWIO.At u00001' CSTY OF RANCHO C2?C�A a Y OF RAINCHO CUQXN10\GA PLANNING CONE E IISSIONT AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY April 11, 198.7 7:00 P.M. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LIRE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNL9 L Pledge of Allegiance 11. Roll Calms Commissioner Barker Commissioner Juarez Commissioner McNiel III. Announcements IV. Consent Calendar i Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Stout The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non ciintroversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one tame without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11781. - RO F.f ?TS GROUP - A total residential develcpm -nt.of 76 condominiums on 6.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential (4 -13 vaiac) T)L-_rict located en the west side of Hermosa, approadmatcl_ 330 feet north of 19th Street - APN 202 -171- 29 do 38. B. "r ?ME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10826 - LOWY DEVELOPMZNT - A total residential development of 27 single famiiy units, 81. patio homes and 202 townhouse units on 57.7 acres of land located between Haven and Hermosa, approximately 660 feet south of Wilson - APN 201- 181 -12, 13, 14, 02, 63, 65 and 69. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 11, 1984 Page 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-03-- GABRIC - The development of a 120,000 square root warehouse dlstributiun building on 6.1 acres of lend in the General Industrial category (Subarea 11) located on the southwest corner of 7th Street and Cleveland Avenue - APw 209 - 411 -08, 09, 10. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11893 - C /T, BuiLDERS - A custom lot subdivision of 17.2 acres of land into 35 lots in the "VL" District, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street - APN 1043- 411 -01. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9540 - DEER CREEK - The oevelopment of 23 one -half acre lots Turquoise Avenue, Avenue. F.' DESIGN REVIEW F >ingle family detached homes on existing in the "VL" District on Jennet Street, and Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia - LAS P W L.lil my - one aevelopmenL oI i.7 Iamiiy nomes in the Low Residential District, located north of Red Hill Country Club Drive and west of the Flood Control Channel - APN 20".-66-3 thru 18 and 32 thru 35. V. Public Hearings The following items are pubEc hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their oririon 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. -G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND L,evesupment iriSLrict Amendment from Medium Residential (8 -14 du's /ac) to Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du's /ac) for 16.3 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow Highway, north side of 9th Street, between Baker Avenue $,-Id Madrone Avenue - APN 207 - 261 -02 and 07, 207 -132 -01 thru 37. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE 16"" - K1(:HW U'J1) - A residential development of 29 duplexes 58 units) on 7.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential district (Low - Medium pending) located on the south side of Arrow between Madrone and Baker - APN L{f [- GDL -67• PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 11. 1924 ._ Paae 3 I. ENVIRONP!lENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-01 - WEST -The development of a coin operated car wash on .45 acres of land in the General Commercial district located on the southeast corner of Foothill and Helms - APN 208- 261 -54. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 - ARCFiIBALD ASSOCIATES - Thz eeveiopment of 111 zero lot line homes on 14.5 acres in the Low - Medium Residential District, located between Archibald and Ramona at Monte Vista Street - APN 202 - 181 -05, 06, 15, 16. K. CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT 84 -04 - MARKWES T - A request to locate a caretaker's quartets of 801 square feet in conjunction with a light industrial storage facility located on the south side of 9th Street on both the east and west sirle° of Flower Road (8755 Flower Road). This site is located in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan srer_ - APN 269- 013 -42. VL Director's Repor- ts L. REVIEW OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PUD W 113 -61 - �M" L ♦v LL V ZJLWrIVIZIV L 4V air u-41 - LHpproximateLy u�:Pt1 residential units at the northeast corner of Milliken and Highland in the City's sphere of influence. VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear an this agenda. VIIL Adjournment The Planning Commissiaz has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment !ime. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only -vith the consent of the Commission. VICINIT Y [V[•rn•�4• -f.UKH C ^uvn vFUCN <I •sv< / CNTARIC INfERNATICNIL }UVC6T' CITY OF RIU*CH0 CUCAMO"C -& R . _. E El L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT :2 _ ( z TO: CSairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate- Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT. 11781 - R05ERTS GRCUP - A to *_al resil6eatial development of Y6 condominiums on 5.4 acres of land in the the Medium Residential 18 -14 du /ac) District located on the west side of Hermosa, approximately 330 feet north of 19th Street - APN 202 - 171 -29 & 38. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a 12 -month time extension for Tentative Tract 11781, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1981. The current expiration date is April 22, 1984. The developer is requesting a 12 -month extension to April 22, 1985. This is the final time extension that may be granted for this map. All phases of this map must be recorded prior to the expiration date. This project is located within the 19th Street Corridor Study area boundary, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ". The approved project density ;s approximately 12 dwelling units per acre. This study is currently undergoing further analysis by the 19th Street Corridor subcommittee and staff. II. ANALYSIS: Since the - )proval of this project, the new Development Code was adopted. Therefore, in order to consider a time extension, this project was reviewed for conformance with the Development Code requic-mientn. Based upon this review the followina inconsistencies w t� the Optional Development Standards for the Medium Residential District were noted: I. Energy Conservation - the Development Code requires an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units arni for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy was intended to be the primary energy system. The conditions of approval for this project require preplumbing for solar; however, the project did not include a solar water heating system. A, ( ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Time Extension /TT 11781- Roberts Group April 11, 1984 Faae 2 Recreation Area /Facility - Recreational amenities are required in conjunction with common open space areas such as, but ndt limited to, swimming pools and spas, court facilities (e.g. tennis, basketball, volleyball, etc.). In adSitian, an enclosed tot lot area with play equipment and a large open lawn area is required. Further, all recreational areas or facilities are required to be maintained by a private homeowners association or private assessment dist-ict. The site plan, as sl-,own on Exhibit "8" , does not indicate any recreation facilities or amenities. 3. Interior Site Boundary Setback - A 20 -foot setback is required along the project perimeter, whereas 10 -feet has been provided as shown on the site plan, Exhibit "E ". However, this discrepancy only occurs adjacent to the flood control channel or the Foothill Freeway corridor and is not considered significant. 4. Hermosa Streetscane Setback - A 45 -foot landscape and building setback is require from the curb face along Hermosa Avenue; however, only 37 feet has been provided. 5. Drivewav 'Width - The parking regulations require a 29 -foot wide driveway Between garages, whereas only 24 feet has been provided. However, if the garage apron is calculated into the driveway width, the ,project exceeds the 29 -foot requirement. Items 1 and 2 would have a significant effect on the appearance of the project, therefore it is recommended that, with consent of the applicant, additional conditions of approval be added to the project to require compliance with the Development Code provisions. Items 3 -5 are not considered to be significant and would not significantly alter the appearance of the project. III. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has two alternatives to consider: gain the consent of the applicant for these discrepancies to be modified through new conditions of approval consistent with the new Development Code requirements; or, (2) deny the time extension if the Cc.inission feels that the tentative map is in conflict with the direction of the new Development Code. Respectfully submitted, rl / Rick ;Gomez - Cityj Planner RG:DC:jr 11 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Time Extension/TT 11731 - Roberts Group April 11, 1984 Page Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C -1 and C -2" - Elevations Planning Commission Resolution. of Approval 81 -42 Time Extension Resclution of Approval: Time Extension Resolution of Denial IN THE ROBERTS GROUP. 'INC. 1584 '71g�o�n�lliylii~ 1v�i151b :-Iarcn 13, 1984 City of Rancno Cucamonza to C -r.:.. R o x bU7 Rancho Cucamon, ^a CA 91730 ATTN: ?lanninE Department RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT #11781 Gentlemen: The Roberts Group, inc.. ^espectfully requests that Tent- ative Tract T11781 be c-xtended. Please extend the subject tract because The Robert6 Group. inc. needs more time *,o finalize the tract map and engineering plans. Thank you 1 -or your time and consideration. Sincerely, - Bruce Tripp �'S President, Land Division BT /kf - I, 1 r. :L I 1 7 t l`...... E J "it : m i 'JI S if s'iai fie' I� 1 Ii i SAM on so ONJM. ..I� 'I i� r Sl FC 1 jr r q- •�r`l�'�'- Lu � T = i iOere�me�_mi ®�letl lrt .0 t _I, 1 r i kill I r. t .1 4 4h CT I_u-_�:.. SJI �' tlf4 - -tjl� )i 1�:.�.. �U._ f 110 � � STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SCALE , a i$ 4h ST. CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF ITEM: f! LIU r'L,:CA.L IONGA T1TL-L: A-omA'mn PLAN N i.w t:." IES N LK1f 1 1T= _AS._ cr ;: a NORTH f9C Fcv ` c f P. _r ,LL F°eo:vvfki �vF- l= ��cij2. G L r IC'iYrfGAC .-N-1 R Sd n. _l n CITY OF ITEM i: Rtlu\CI -10 CUCA.MONG e PLANNING Dl\r ()\T EX iIGiT`• �_ c�LE: -.4r ?.- L � ' (, ! j( {c r -. mat .�1 ME i� y1� k n . � NORTH CITE' OF ITL\I: RANCHO CI_ &k',\,IO. GA TITLE: PLAN DI\,r&,ON EX.T;iSIT= � i SCf%LE A 7 � NORTH CITE' OF ITL\I: RANCHO CI_ &k',\,IO. GA TITLE: PLAN DI\,r&,ON EX.T;iSIT= � i SCf%LE A 7 Ll I J -- Jul LM Cc T-11 Em, CITY OF RA-NCI-1FI0 KJ \G,-� PLANNING DjT%'jS4T().,,� S TITLE- LX 11. 81 T: SCI, LE: 701- NORTH 11 E E E n t RESOLU7I0N NO. 31 -42 A RESCLU TION OF :nE PLANNI ^:G COMMISSION OF TU3 CITY OF RAN,ruo CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT VIAP NO. 11781 (P.D. 30-14) 1, rDCn Tentative r F N 8 hereinafter "Pla 1Hc .�5, T. act trap .,o. 117,,_, herei^ ^.art .._p' _ibmitted by The Roberts Group, Inc., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 6.4 acres of land located on the west side of Hermosa, north of 19th, consisting of 76 dwelling units, end being divided into 1 lot, regularly cam;:e before the Planning Commission for public hear5na and action or. April 22, 1931; and WHEREAS, the City Planrer subject to all conditions set forth Divisions reports; and has reco.:�„ ended approval of the Map in the Engineering and Planning WHEREAS, the Planning Couvnission has read and considered the Engineering >nd Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NO-W, THEREFORE, the Planning Con.ission of the City of Rancho CucLmonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Co=aission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11781 _ and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent :with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvemerts of the tentative tract is consistenf-- with all applicable interi-m and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is nut likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoida!:le injury to humars and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; tf) 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 proposed subdivision. M1 Page 2 j ' �9) That this project will not create a dverse impacts s on the envirnnnent and a `nn�t9��o nc�l�r,°.t:.nn cd .;_7.._ l5 155uc�. SEC7I0'1 2: Tentative Tract Flap No. 11781, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved sr,bject to all of the follrnving conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLA;NI.;G DIVISION I. Low profile rock walls shall be incorporated into the "landscape design along Hermosa Avenue. EN I ;c.cHIf;G DIVISID 2. Design and installation of improved channel for Alta Loma Channel from westernmost tract boundary to Hermosa Avenue with adequate inlet and outlet control shall be required per San Bernardino County Flooa District's standards and specifications. The construction cost of the channel shall be credited to the storm drain fees for the project, and a reimbursement agreement will be executed per City Ordinance No. 75 to cover contributions which exceed the amount of these fees. 3. Structural adequacy of the existing wall located easterly of Hermosa Avenue across the channel outlet shall be investigated and necessary reconstruction of the wall if required, shall be done to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District. 4. All required on -site and off -site right -of -way for the channel shall be dedicated in fee to the Flood Control District. 5. A lot 'ine adjus =rent to redefine tract boundary between tentative tracts 11781 and 11625 along the channel right - of -wav shall be ccmpieted prior to recordation of the final map. 5. The portion of the proposed State Highway 30 corridor dt the northwest corner as shown on the tentative tract shall have a lot designation a, determined by the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED IS 22 "u DA` OF APRIL, lgfii. PLATTING Col ^..1ISS1O`1 Cr" THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA "10P ;GA ktcnard Dahl, Chairman. I Resoiution no. t -�2 Page 3 t ^T—^ �� J °C(e Lard o1 {, :i,, I: anning Co- .-,jiss-,c.n. 1, LAM, Secretary of the Plannin; Cor ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify >nat the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adontec by the Planning Commission of the City Of Rancho Cucanonga, at a regular mmeeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of April, 140-1 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COP'ISSI ONE PS: INC ES re.1 TSSIONERS A- SE':T: COVNISSI.ONERS Rempel, Sceranka, King, Dahl NO-e Tolstoy 79- f G� 4 L G c O — 7 {IJ (Z 'Z7 9 G _ s V w � c O C m cc = c > O na _ w N UI 1 _o z 7 r - - ^ G C O r, O L L G"J •n _ r - O` O • I � C i T V N> i�7 �_- C C — = a - ^�- O Y — L• er — -.f ra b? V r _ L L � L o on u — ` •� L C n v+ O {IJ (Z 'Z7 9 G _ s V w � c O C m cc = c > O na _ w N UI 1 _o z 7 r - - ^ G C O r, O L L G"J •n _ r - O` O • I � N ry C T V N> i�7 �_- C C — = a - ^�- O Y — L• er — -.f ra b? V r _ L o on t — F G C _ •. fj _ _ O _ N ry N � V O u LJ rM N ry i NI � I C T V N> i�7 �_- C C — = a - ^�- O Y — L• er — -.f ra b? V r _ L o on O _ Cti Y? _ l= u L •_ L fJ y V r = - _ — — a •n � ` � C V N � V O u LJ rM N ry i NI � I r LJ V N> i�7 �_- C C _ L r LJ 11 72 C I 1 0 6 t O C 7 l c. C � C' O c`ol i R � u r L C I� G V 4 < V O cc „o �o _ � o r O — T�•�� acG r J N e > q u Z O r-• � " Cif - _V _ „ — �O� —CEO„ •^C 'aO .�-_�. CC •^V =._ C - _�C J 1 ul 1 G U O C 7 l c. C � C' O c`ol i R � u r L C I� G V 4 < V O cc „o �o _ � o r O — T�•�� acG r J N e M - 1 �OV A I LC �. G 0 C• L _ C • � C C L � — O 4 > " c „ U - o = vc_ G O _ V L COQ GG � U •+ ` 9 V " 0 0 = c � J � C o is C = J C G: T \j E > q u Z O r-• � " Cif - _V _ M - 1 �OV A I LC �. G 0 C• L _ C • � C C L � — O 4 > " c „ U - o = vc_ G O _ V L COQ GG � U •+ ` 9 V " 0 0 = c � J � C o is C = J C G: T \j E c _• • • _ I � ..nom s_ [�v t:: <c _ _ (2C i +Y V✓ V�� O _ G _ O 2 �a ._ V C m� � O 4 J M _ IN Zz fa N ^I a •, I � I '� T c z z; cl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTTOl OF THE: RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11731 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a tirne extension for the above-descr-lbed project, pursuart to Section 1.501,83(b) of Ordinance 23-5, the Subdivision Ordinance; and 'wq'H E? E AS, t 6 e- Planning Cor-mi ssi on conditionally approved the ab.-ve-des-l-ibed Tentative -tract Map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereoy grants a time extens'on for: -ract AnDl i cani Exoiration RoDerts Group April ZZ, i98b SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has determined To- conditions are the minimum conditions needed to make the that the Vlowinq 6 project sub;tantially in conformance with the Development Code and the applicant, Roberts Group, has voluntarily agreed to comply with them: 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling t:nits and "or heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy shall be the primary energy system unless ot�er alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Recreat4onal amenities are required in conjunction with common open sp�,ce areas such as, but not limited to, swimming pools and spas and court facilities. In addition, encicsed tot lot facilities with play equipment and a large open lawn area are required. Details shall be included in final landscape plans. All recre�tion areas/ faci I ities shall be maintained by a private homeowners association or pr-1vate assessment district. Proof of such maintenancc shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuanze of building permi ts. -?'�f 1 -1 Resolution No. Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1934. PLANNING CO " ?'dISST0N OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIOMGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Dep;lty Secretary 1, Rick Gcmez, Deputy Secretary (,f 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 Commissicri held on the 11th day of April, 1934, by the following vote—to.-wit: AYES: CO1t1ISSIUNERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f? I q E RESOLUTIO'7 N0. A RESOLUT "'7 OF TE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, DENYING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATTVE TRACT 11781. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.33(b) of Ordinance 28 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described tentative tentative tract. WHEREAS, The Rancho Cucamnng, Planning Commission finds that the tentative tract described herein is in conflict with the directions of the City's Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby denies a time extension for Tentative Tract 11781, Roberts Group. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1984 ® PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Scout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, 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 or, the 11th day of April, 1954 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 7il 19 E E ;iT�" OF RANCHO CliCA11UG STAB F RuIPORT -� 191 34 TO: Chairman and Members of '_he Planning Commissior FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner sU; jzr i : `:'aE EXTENSION FOR TENTF;TI�'E family units, 81 patic hones E7.7 acres of :and located approximately 660 feet south 13, la, 02, 63, 65 and 69. ial development of zi sirg;e and 202 townhouse units on be *_weer. Haven and Hermosa, of Wilson - APN 201 - 181 -12, I. BACKGROUND: The applicant, formerly Lesny Development, is requesting a 2 -year time extension for Tentative Tentative Tract 10826 as described above. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1982. During the pu ;lic hearing and review process the major concerns identified were related to traffic and drainage impacts. The current expiration lots is June 9, 1984. The applicant is requesting a 2 year time extension, to June 9, 1986. Should the Commission grant a 2 -y-ar extension, this would be the final time extension that may be granted for this map. All lots and phases within this tract must be recorded prior to the expiration date. Furt 'ler, the applicant has submitted a new tract map application for this project site whici3 consists all single family detached units. Therefore, the applicant intends to keep Tentative Tract 10826 "alive" pending future ae:•roval of the new tract :nap application. 1I. ANALYSTS: Since approvai of this project, the Development Code was adopted; tnere; ore, in order to consider a time extension, this project was reviewed for conformance with the new Development Code requirements. Based upon this review, the project meets the Basic and Optional Development Standards for the Low and Low Medium Residential Districts except for energy conservation. The Development Code requires an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for the townhouse units and foe heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy is intended t„ be the primary energy system source. ine project as appro•,ed does not include provisions for solar water heating. UP ITEM B PLANNI'7G COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Time Extension /TT 10826 -Lowy April 11, 1984 Page 2 Staff considers this deficiency significant, therefore it is recommended that an additional condition of approval, with consent of the applicant, be added to the project to require compliance with Development Code provisions. !Ii. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has two alternatives to consider: ( ) gain the consent of the applicant for this discrepancy to be modified with a new cond`'.ion of approval consistent with the new Development Code requirement; or, (2) deny the time extension if the Planning Co.—nl ssion feels approval of the tentative map is in conflict with the direction of the new Development Code. R,espectfu s ubmitted, /45✓ iRi� en, City Planner RG:DC:jr Attachments: Letter From Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan and Phasing Plan Exhibit "D" - Illustrative Site =tan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibits "G -1 thru G -5" - Elevations Exhibits "H -1 thru H -3" - Floor Plans Exhibit "I" - Natural Features !gap Exhibit "J" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "K" - Haven Streetscape Exhibit "L" - Sections Planning Co;,Tnissi0n Resolution, of Approval 82 -60 Time Extension Resolution of Approval Time Extension Resolution of Denial 4 -:�' El 2 4 Ll r PACIFIC LIGHTING PROPERTIES INC. 15 BROOHNOLLOW DRIVE. SANTA ANA. CALIFORMA 92705 - (714)$4S-4861 March 14, 1984 Mr. Can Colf- an, Associate Plarmer PI a;L"]1. ^g 'Dep r u =Tit Cit�r of Ranchc C•acm- 'xic_a 9320 Basel :ine Road P.O. Box 807 Ra..=c Cucamonga, Califo_-rLia 91730 Re: Tentat�ae 'Tract 10026, Have AK)cd Ranch - Planned Develo Zrsxzt =82 -02 Dear Dan: nie g.:raose of t'i_c leer is to request a twa year extersic-m on Tentative Tract 10826. Attached is a ahe&. to take care of the filing fee for this e:t,ersion; in the a mmt of $62.00 payable to the City of Pancho Caczmrn:ga. This extension ir, no uay indicates a chance --Ln our inritJons to proceed hat new applicatim of 11-ntative Tract 10827 (s&-ne site) ,ddch you are now reviewing. Our interest here is to extend th s old rep as a safety meas-are should ve run into major difficulty in our a_alication for Tenta- tive Tract 10827. Please process this extension realest as soon as possible. If you have s• —cific questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Steve Parry Project lfanager : Paul dvards, The Rev -olds Group Frwk Williams, ASSOCiated Engineers Everett Rjerulff A SUBSIDIARY OF PACIFIC LIGHTING CORPORAMOX I r vlvft G`i� 1=j 1012THH CITY OF n 'Ti- %I-RANCHO CL'CA.NLIC� \NG-k TITLE: _�.�� I PLC `: \I \G Di \'i.Si0� - --- f.. \t tIPT. �____ SG -ALE- �J —= R. E 11 I' -_ I � ' +...�..i-/�°'1- tom• {., \.f�' � ...�'r."...- �^"r��e 7Z I tt CITY OF RANCHO CUG-k ONGA PL -VN, TNI \v ©INrM.\T _ I NORTH ITEM: !!�14 Q2Jp TITLE R J ,esrare rqMes ((C((fr(Y YftllLltT • •1V1K l.(M1 O@lw� Tra CIT4' OF R,`� CHO �J CL;C NIG\GA PL %-\, 'N[ \G DIVISION r rr. wE 11EN1: TTL.E: E.XHi ,rr scALE° f3 Lo E o w �ES NORTH n �- -' J — ESTn:E M04R5 CI'T'Y OF RAINCHO CUCANIONGA PUNINNENG DIVISION M1V[M.000 R.Q11 — lOwwgMES V ?FORTH ITEM-. � �� TITLE= EXHIBIT:' XHIBIT- SCALE: B -7 COl4TRucnw PH SM SUMMW t_w V ?FORTH ITEM-. � �� TITLE= EXHIBIT:' XHIBIT- SCALE: B -7 'R ~' 'J -14 Jl�y�j�ii'G��j rL'�. ?'�`��`�_✓�x3��r•~1.�.-�� .�1�ia.� h - 37��z jw PLANTM LEGEND i �� tty'��`= s.�'^�iF�"— +Yr��,* ��'_ .�V..i,_�1..•, �a' ��: �. �.;7��'iv�;�3r.L�5,�`�;�"�^��y `• .n•e . ` .._ ��i} Ri i �� -- �-- �cj ��•�. ��, '� `." � ^) r� � ;�= rte.. �° Y� mn....ws �__: �'�. �� -- • � � _J 11a�io.�.°°°'��°°.a � - �. _ .� iGij +uw.w � --- ..vi e y.•. r v V NORTH CITY OI= tTE.NI- _ !r 1a$Z�,, RANCHO CHOP C.CA.'LMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DIZ'ISIO \T SrA LE- 2 .N[M�OOC m� CSTATE 113MES Y [JISM CMIr OF Milk qp RAINUM0 CUCANMUNGA PLANNING Dl\,rlSlo.\T r "arm C:�� NORTH ITF-%I: r )Q7 TITLE: v MZ F-Xlli)rr:. SCALE: Tvplca� SECTS" [JISM CMIr OF Milk qp RAINUM0 CUCANMUNGA PLANNING Dl\,rlSlo.\T r "arm C:�� NORTH ITF-%I: r )Q7 TITLE: v MZ F-Xlli)rr:. SCALE: 11 4 27 z4 44, F.T Si QG7 La ddr- 'S.�' 7A�m Hcmc�y✓ 1:5 V N(KTH CITY OF ll,r:.N!- , — ir ocuo RANCIJ0 CUANIONGA TITLE:— MZlvWVA4rl6 Ae PLANNING DININON EXII 1111IT: -C4 �f SCAU: 11 i \h 11 44 - �.' f. (,T. StDGjzpJ'fT slJe AVM I CITY OF Aft qp RANCHO CUC -VNIO GA PI-.,'L:\' \I \G DIVISION c� N(DP.TH meat- _ -IT Can 2 TITLE: - r* EXHIBIT: _ SC',LE= � 11 Ile 115 015wm pct"es CITY OF RANTCHO CUTANIONGA PL AINNKNG DIVISION ITI-% I: - TITLE: EXHIBM SC%,LE- 11 11 NORTH - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - ------ avi i J90 994 :194 aUs L L) .Z: .7 7,11 L I'll's 1'.. a., • 01. TOWNHCPV� CITY OF RANCHO CUCkNIONGA - y Dp%rjSjo PLANIN V Ilk N c� NORTH ITEM: /OITZ4�r I TITLE: 44- E ill 'IT: _at 3 a. . 893 393 i 193 I 871 i 80! CIT`I OF RA. NCI-10 CUC- VNIQNGA PLANNING JIVIS10\' "T'HC�m MWr ITr�I -_ dt l��Z�a TITI = E.\1i113IT= SGaLE- fS 14 11 NORTH E 1 1L �1C - :1:1t • 1. �+YJ1a �uj {l�:Git f d u fr r dd SL•t�.d i 1 (1 �Wiire c -1 �4 i Y ter•.,. ;;- AdW at y j i29 CITY OF RA \C. -O CI:CAMO\GA PL--':`'\I\G DIVEON Y r' • � IlL'",f la�nR '�• — WYE T :9• �"SiKJ tlY1.lY l I ter - - -v _.._..• _� . ... a ._. t.:.:.i -- 1: Vol 54WTS {I v \ORTH TITI-E: EXHIBIT: �_�__ SCAT.£; �'°'° i - :Si l i 1: rJi.�J y -tut I 1� 1 _,1 -ur_ \� a II�IfIY il•1� ' ! I t 1tJ 11�Y.)! I _J� • 12 - • .. -- 9! PlIt 1JL1 Y — Ii, -j •,1,.• I I � Jir NORTH CITY OF I-F NI__ z4 R. 1 L\C --liO CGA\ IO \GA nj-L,�: PiAVNI. \G GItjFj().N �xiP >*T 'lam? sc.Atg +.._. - E J El Ll I • ::1], \t • 161-::41-1 �'• ^•'T • � •� 1 I . �•. -.� � - • {�f �- -�� -rte .-11 L LL[ , _ \ •1�+�! I 1'1.1[ -L � - i 1.1 .A ;�•.� 1.11 T �__' � I.IV �•3 � _ \ t -1 • .t:•� r a.l t„T –�'$ •,[. —p� j- t �'v:uu� 1. 1. �.- .;.a+1 :- �t � - I JI La . – - —T �,•- =�z --' ;...:. �. ass' �.._� vas' CITY OF R:A.\CHO Ct ;'C -V iCNGA PL.A \�i \G DID Lc?4 gro E HHMT: -J ! SOLE- 5� NORTH • : i m m ti 0 \ MYR 6 TH CITY OF 1-FIRM: V 70 f> RANCHO cUc -k1I0.'\'G k -nTr -E: Nom, , VMA6 PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT = To Sc, kLE= 1? 1 � El -77 .`_'i I � , I . .,: j �. r. • l a I R. o f s � l � � t \ � S.•q�r...e•.�dY t I I LK :Y1.i RN It Iwr _ I NORTH C F1- Y or- ITEM: ft" 1 Uii(✓ ® RANCHO CL C ANL IO)\GA TITLE: k c P'l MAT7L%.l -M-4p PLkN -NI \G DIV!C?ON 2 E \Iill3T= _Z-SC.1LE- �-- ref �Yi♦ r ( --rw•� CITY OF RANCHO CUG�.%IOZOA PI..ANNU1G DIVISKYN V NORTH TITLE: E.tI-'Rn- - �- ( S�t.E- lac E 11 l I 11 t A CITY OF ® RANCHO CLCN-I'VION'GA PI MNNING DINgSION ITLNI MTr josus TITLE-.. seCi f�1 c�4!5 E.XHIGIT- L-WO-0 SC ALE CAI FORTH ttQ 11 t A CITY OF ® RANCHO CLCN-I'VION'GA PI MNNING DINgSION ITLNI MTr josus TITLE-.. seCi f�1 c�4!5 E.XHIGIT- L-WO-0 SC ALE CAI FORTH Resolution 'to. c2. 40 Page 2 i 1� rt That this nrn icrY ;;il on the environment and issued. ^.pt Crate advi:. impacts a Negative Declaration is SECTION 2: Tentative Tract '1ao Rio. 10226, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to al of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. This approval shall become null and subdivision map is not aporoved and building permits issued when no map within twenty -four (24) months from this project unless an extension ha by the Planning Co,„ission. void if the final recorded or is involved, the approval of s been granted 2. A Coasunity Trail shall be provided along Haven Avenue in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, is accordance with City trail standards, shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Planner arior to approval and recordation, of the final map. 3. All units with a driveway apron fNr the garage less than twenty (20) feet shall be provided with auto- matic garage door openers. 4. The patio homes shall be provided with front yard landscaping and an appropriate irrigation system, to be installed by the developer in accordance with submitted plans. Said front yard landscaping shall include ar average of two (2) fifteen gallon size trees, in addition to street trees. 5. Details and typical Elevations of walls and fences shall be included in the final construction, package. E. Trees shall be planted between garage doors in the townhouse portions of Lhe project. 7. Directory signs shall he provided throughout the project to the satisfar_ty -n of the City Planner, and appropriate sign permits shall be obtained. f "�'3 I\ "ESOLUTIOV No. 82-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COr1tilISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO ?.GA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROUINC TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10826 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map Rio. 10826, hereinafter "flap" submitted by}Lesny Development Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing he real property situate" in the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State Of California, described as a subdivision for a total planned development of 27 single - family horre- and 202 t-"—' Pa units on 57.7 acres in the R- 1- 20,000 zone] R -2/� horses, Pending), located between Haven and Hermosa, south of Wilson, ( (R-2/P.D. lots, regularly came before the Plannin^ Commission into hearing and action, on June 9, 1982; and ssien for public hearing subject WHEEAS. the Planner has n thecEn approval Of the. tap Divisions reports; and g' WHEREAS, the Planning COMMission has read and considered .he Engineering and ?lann;,o evidence Divisions reports and has considered o *her presented at t-: -- public hearing. NOU, THERFFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Cormiission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. IO826 and the fap thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific pians; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The desion cf the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access throuqh or use Of the pro within the proposed subdivision. perty I . L.J 11 r4uC ,) j i t11GINEERING DTVISION o. The developer stall orovide storm drain system through the project area within a dedicated easement to convey storm runoff to Alta Loma Basin. The alignment and design of the system shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to map recordation. 9. The developer shall make provisions to accept drainage runoff from the north by means of stubbed pine at locations shown on the tentative map along the north tract boundary and connecting the same to the -air. line storm drain. Other means of drainage conveyance from the north may al_c be acceptable at the discretion Of the City Engineer. 10. A drainage inlet connection -) Al"- Loma Basin to inter - ceot runoff from Haven Avenuc shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 1I. The median islands at the entrances to the project shall be set 5 feet back :,f the right -of -way line. 12. The interior private streets shall be designed with crov,n sections. 13. The structural pavement soctions of the interior streets shall be desioned based on public street criteria. Collector street criteria shall be used for Street "A" and local street criteria for all other streets. 14. Developer within 60 days from approval shall meet with officials of Chaffey College and the Citv Traffic Engineer to discuss and develop, if possible, a coordinated Haven Avenue access between the project and the school and report their findings to the Planning Commission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 91-F DAY OF JUNE, 1982. PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI�ONr,' 6 -Aq- 1. 11 C1 C Pace 4 z InV -"tart' of I Commission O:ie ct O RanLnO , � - -- - Planning . I Cuca -onaa, do hereby certify that the Toregoina Resolution was duly and recuiarly Introduced, passed, and adoptea by the Planninq Commission nl the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at regular -meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June, 1932, by the following vote -to- A' : AYES: COMMISSiOPdERS: Tclstoy, Stout, Rempei NOES: COMISSIMERS: None ASSE IT: COPLMISSIOP:EP.S: King �C.J�b Ll Ll — O ° t A v O O L L O r` V •_ — n L. r E, L - ."i> c o _ ISL V _ _ xI til xI �I 1 � � i xi Yi _l I I I L1 I '• x O j O _ j „O IVi -- C •-„ v b �I = P L c mr_ c° F.,t nn .. .. o Vc c LC Ly — z O CI y _ s0 �d L _•_ >Pia OC L Gr 0... I _� eL_- a iuo zf G Gtr .n4� q LVr _4rn � l.<G Nq0 J—C OI <V anI I I XI XI I I Ll Ll G' C' -_ G Vy _ - O- _ •S i � 'S cr - - _ C, _ u, _ •v C �' _ i, CD �r aE� vQ o.. e ` • -- "L'• .`-� ^ mCt J ✓° O W _ n D S ' C V' n y U, 9 _ C c C 6 G -r � V I C` n _ ro n __ O r L I •+ _ 'n m L G �-O O _ r. O C.r F� �E� C_VG 'Cfn __- -I u - :] u � u0 l _ _> _� -✓ V OV e - U m O .• - O C u - > O vl x' XI ><I 7•C I I b GI x, I ,� e O f W C O - `i E � - O - = �V 'O .. O_ � C < Y _r C O •> q C C r!. G O =rLi = •Car = `'.G` u u P „D �` n 9 V � L � C� •r, - C L i. � u V - [C.. O m L L C ro O r L U .•1 ["n � v V _ _V -_ C g O C rn � O •a �_ Y O rrn = G d C a O ' b V`> - V C r = ro C+ _ •n lr L O a N V C.J �� r C C y l € Y> -- _> � —G _c -E _� 9•y �' —EEC -u �� 4 o °c .. c L q a L_ dunc c cc -`_° ur_ L _cr L'., �• .. c:= � ro C' N - •J _J _ N G� C r C .n C G li.. V L _ L „J _ ro L _ CC V✓ ' l L L = � j J O V ^J ` V j � C C � 9 0 y c V C O ro 9 �> C C C l O m 1' "f _ N C u G L G � u O L D O •n O~ C V .'- O L N _P �� > O'~ N O>` r^ V w O u V C t C c �' C V✓ .' C <^ '_ C v V y v O L- S t �� S r rOn r 0 C� -~ � 9 0 L Y`• ' O N C- C C j �✓ O r� Y� ro ` Y r C� N N� S ]+4N � � C`S P•!CG r0 co Crr -:. �• ••C• -Ju y ✓ O C Cm V_ rrL` C L v m7. O d V C =?`.0 C t .. - r', r .. .. - < V O W < < G r i � � � L T • ♦ L O Y. _ r � � = > y = � •^O 2L udV Pr ✓O _ Nyv.+ v r � <r'nP 6Q CY�Lwr�n E�CL <LOL N � r � L O L .n • V O � d _ VI M c _•n _. zo -__ _- w -,o ? ^_ -mac - � - n <-.n �o - � iW p_p L ^OA = ='V V Cr•n U_Y d..• AM�V OL �'OA 3 _- � �V rt J= .� � am- •-.n S_ � O� V O G` P � � V O � J C > V u' U •n G r - L C - L 7 yr rC'n.G _ AO L -.- \. -L <a >•_ � V C� nM JA = VV `� -u S° r O L U �- - l u C C u V' � u L U a' V •- = 7 4 C - 'a. - - C r 7 -..•� rd C � -� -0_- N A - G. O J V d `T` CTC `T_r _• .... y0 •"i> MV �_ VOCP �L Q ._ NV c•_ 4 L T F GC LU u7 > • GC C ��`•r SP 4 A.Jq -J 4�.� y °v N UP _cYSm^ •. oe� ' -"_ •..c. y 5c = °•• n' °op - be m c.n - - ._ >o JC••� A ` '.O -y „ ` O ✓`O G C =0 =6 GJ i - �C >A ^ ^II L"J c PLC °_L,c ^cu `- �.. - -G-� =o -...._ - of ^- L'• � - - -r �A - .ter Z' 1 C 7Z, [ pVU Gr V_� � A- ✓i[ � •n > OT J��u -_�= ( � u.N .nom C.Ga �J � i� c` ° ~ ., c°.. �i:�� ° � ou •O c -n s o es - ca _. uo.. cG �� N N G G. r I� G C I �= U V `� G �� V 4 � r u) J O. d _ '.' n G - G C ti u� aV.• u l >_ J�� _ r O •n C O V ,� C V V _ M •n w- L J 9 L G � L i. -^ J r r- N C •o T L r ..• V ;1 ^ ^ a N rl I ^ ~ M i i � ✓li I 1 T 1 C- � J / V C T u V v %c — '+ G G 9 v � I Li vl - xl e ✓ u n_ G .n C O� L O ` O _ I O l _ a.- a =— z= ° ( _ NI < cN �_ `_ ci ✓� _? � - I —� i _ _JC ° � C O. C .. V n l S •=r. o ` P_ I I _ _ �� `.'rrt — �V O �4 G GC Sra V'✓ � '� V— r9 v L w� C G O� _ I - O C u 7 _ ✓ I n 4 L V G I I G C G 1u E ^ C . 11I 11 j_ b _ J j w 4 n 7 ; _ V 4 .n •r0 V > ' _— y C C y _� I I I I C G u• G •n � 2 J a C 1 P I _ I I I Y J 4 — O _ _. _ I fJ I __ _ 7 O C ✓ .- r0 rc o is � a — _ - � I � I �— •'_— _ _ _ o _ - - wG rT ? �c �L2� rC<r �' O •.j rr — I GI I 1 ..r r V � 7; —r _ .r. c`r ` •n "i ° i J 'c !"•" 1 1 I cV vu r or` n i ..o- c_`�>,. r r r ✓ O �+ � C U � L V P u L 2 i�`�� r � O °_ C n F = _ j G C _= _ L S r J •n O c ' 'I i ° L� ` c CO — _, C � _ O. I J G � w < < = � = I � � G .O.r J C cC. �. _ M V G 4 ^ t •r" C_ .n V .1 G; Q I I _ N L� G � •n O O •� r .I !� r v V r .� 1 �' • 1'i CJ C- � J / V C T u V v %c — '+ G G 9 v � I Li E al E El _v E al E El q r� ✓ _ __ C �Ld �_ t OI rq T_ ✓ C_` p � - — J _ I p4 ✓ T O L u U r r ' J _.. G✓ T .�_ _V - V - _ -�O r0✓8 Cp Owe c: J VV�NO - °co .~.I v ` CT N L Vq -_ C+TL '• 4✓ u � C V_ C •. ^I • 3a ti ^ M .o r. x �I 133 � E al E El I .. E a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF T'nE RANCHO CU0.1XVIGA PLANNING CO'•1M13SION, APPROVIIG THE TIME EXTENSi0% CDR TENTATIVE TRACT 10825 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant ;'o Section 1.501.33(`) of Ordinance 28 -8, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- describea Tentative Tract t11ap. SECTIOM 1: The Rancho Cucamonga ?fanning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tract Apnlicart Expiration 10825 Lowy Development June 9, 1986 SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has determined that the following condition is the minimum condition needed to make the project substantially in conformance with the Oevelopfr._nt Code and the applicant, Lowy Development, has voluntarily agreed to comply with this condition: 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide do^estic not water fo- all townhouse units and for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy shall be the primary eneray system unless other alte- native energy sys::ems ire demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. Details shall be included in Lne building plans and shall be reviewed and approved prior i:o issuance of building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED 7dTS 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Kick Gomez, Dep:ty Secretary � j I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolition 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 April, 1984, by the following vote- to -:iit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ;NOES: COMMISSIONEPS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 0 R3C �` I RESOLUTICN NO. 4 RSD ION O TH -Al �NTPG CO"MISSiDN, c-1. .. DENYING THc TIi4E EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10326 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.33(b) of G °dinance 23 -3, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally above - described tentative tentative tract. WHEREAS, The Rancho Cucamonga Plannina Commission finds that tentative tract described herein is in conflict with the directions of City's Development Code. NO'wl, THEREFORE Commission hereby denies Pevelopmen.t. PLANNING COMMISSION 3Y: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman, IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning time extension for Tentative Tract 10326, Lowy ATTEST: _ pick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, 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 Cucamcnga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the Ilth day of April, 1.984 by the following vote -to -wit: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: E 11 E CITE' OF RANCHO CUC_ .MO GA STAFF ¢ n )84 1477 70: Chairman and Members of the Planning Cormission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner B'f: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -C3 - GABRIC - The development of a 120,000 square foot warehouse /distribution building on 6.1 acres of land in `.he General Industrial catenory (Subarea 11) located on the southwest corner of 7th Street and Cleveland .Avenue - APN 209- ,111 -03, 09, 10. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reouested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration B. Puroose: Construction of a 120,0 00 square foot warenouse /distribution building C. Location: South -west corner of 7th Street and Cleveland Avenue D. Parcel Size: 6.1 acres E. Existino Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 11) F. Existira Land Use: Vacant C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial; General Industrial /Rail Served (Subarea 10) South - Vacant; General Industrial Suubarea 11) i _st - Vacant; General Industrial ( Subarea 11) West - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11) H. General Plan Dzsionations: Project Site - GEnerai Industrial North - General Industrial /Rai; Served South - General Industrial East - General Industrial Wes*_ - General Industrial G1 ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION OR 84- 03 /Gabric April 11, 1994 rage 2 STAFF REPORT 1. Site Characteristics: The site slopes uniformly to the south at approximately a 2 percent grade. All street improvements and utilities are existing, except driveways and sidewalks. Vegetation consists of scattered brush with no trees. IT ANALYSIS Part I of the Initial Study has been completed and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assess., -.ent and found no significant effects on the environment as a result of this project. Development of the project will not cause significant impacts. III. RECOM`1'cNDAT101: Based upon site analysis and the thiS project will not cause significant adverse environment. If the Commission concurs, issuance Declaration for this project would be in order. RG:GC:jr Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Initial "A" - Location Map "B" - Site Plan "C" - Grading Plan `D" - Elevations Study Part I Initial Study, impacts on the Of a ,Negative E ►] E LSJ C- 11 �� - 23 24 �7 i •j �•- �C,C�Ci3A��• � I •I 1 ! +S IG.tn" !1!I dd i 1 . I 14 a IQ r C'j ! 1 K1497CiKE -1' Qj i tea- F CFrY OF RANCHO CT.:CAMG \GA PLANNING DIVISION G� NORTH ITC\ t: TITLE: SCALE.- e---- e- 3 Ll I .fit � a o •' e I � � ! I I U •�o < i~ �.....� —.,' .I !.. 'S • u:.wwuur:�,l I I� AGE A TABULA, 1" CCVEG/n5C :JL' V NORTH CITY OF I T LA I= �� q � - �' RATNO-10 C'V :(%_'LA%vIO \GA TITLE= 42) T6 P( PLANNING Ch" - ' �--aN EXHIRT =_ F> SCALE= G9 11 u n. y1 i� .'� yt. .y'.• .v uas a _ a CITY CSI RANCHO CUCAL'XIONGA PLAINNING DINrNCXN V NORTH TITLE: F_XHIBIT: _ SCALE--.~_ (L C(-1:7 - I t UI 4 -el --3 E INITIAT. ST>rD'J PART I - PROJECT INFORK.:'%T7_0N SHEET - To be cc -n feted by apo_ ! ic.-..t Enviro- _rental Assessment Yeview Fee: �8 DD For all projects req _, -r -nC review, t: _,s form must be completed and f;ub pitted to the Develc_--.an= Review Co ^ittee throu-h tai• de =ar=ena where the project a1 plication is _ -lade. C7pon receipt of .._s application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Palt TI Of the Zn1t131 S`l _v. 7. e Develcpment Rev_=. Cc.z,'ttee will meet and take act -on no later than tel: (10', days before the public meeting at which time _n-_ prof =ct is to be heard. The Co:=-.ittee will make one c= three determinations: 1) The project will have no ficant environmental ir..pact and a Negative Declaration well be filed, 2) The prcject will haze a si_nifica -t environmental impact and an Env.ir._�n-entsl Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional infcf -ation rep_=_ should be supplied by the applicant giving f•_r_ "par _- _.._ora- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TT_*_:E: ?ndustria7 3uildino for Leed- Cuca�onca !II APP? :CAN S NAXE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: 2101 S: th ATlantic 5oulevard - Los Anc N,t.N! Z, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CO`T.,CTED CONCE'MING THIS PROJECT: Breck Ule - 2101 South Atlan Lns Anceles. Califc,nia (21s) 2E5 -1242 ar ' - LOCATION OF PRJ ECT (STREET ADDR=SS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) SWC 7th and Cleveland Streets - Rancho Cucamonga. Parcels 8.03 10 _ P.M. iio. 01947 LIST OTFEP. PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCHS„ REGIONAL, ST %7Z AND FEDERAL AGENCIES A'4D THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PEP�SITS: Building Permit, Graaina permit, Utilities, --ire Deoartnent L 1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF' PROJECT: One •recast concrete tilt -uo industrial build;na Ll ACP,EAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND Sv.'n. FOOTAGE OF E -I. TI:w ,.::D PROPOSED SliI DISGS, IF A—NY= Land = 6.0_2 acres Proposed buiidina: 132,442.5 s.f. DESCRIBE THE E ".VIRO`::fEVTA? SETTING OF T 7— PROJECT SI ^_E ItiCi uDI:: ON ON T0-0'G yPH I PLANTS (T ?ES) A1I��IS, A_-NY CULTURAL, HIS^-CR.ICAI, OR SCENIC ASPrCTS: Uz: OF SURROUNDING. PROPERTIES, ANN THE DESCRIPTIO:: O"F Ac, E: {I STING STRUZ7U FEE S i.ND THEIR USE (i TT:%C:H `:EC. S SARY S "r. =_ S; . The project is1 ccaced within, plannEd industrial park. All stree :; and util_i_ti2s are existing. The topoaraonv slopes centiv from 7th Street to soetheriv pr.:)Derty line. Vegetation consists only of s, :attered b%, h; no tree!:. There are no calAWk or scenic aspects tr. the site. There are, at present, no contia ous Is the projec-t- part of a larger project, one of a series of cu_-'actions, = .actions, Which although individually snail, may as a whole have significant environmental i ^pact? :/A I- -2 3 Ll I ?_ =CRTti:T: If the project 4nvol Tes -he construction of residential units, c=–zlete the form on the next page. h1..L T -IJ P- OJL_i: data and 4-nfo=ation requirec for this initial evaluation ' Y ES NO infor^ation presented are tr'.le and correct to t}.e best of ^y knowledce and belief. I fu—th °_r --. ^.derstan d t':ai adds ti.^r r. al information may be required to be submitted before an adequate Y 1. Create a substantial change in g_o,- -nd Date 2/3/84 Signature 11^ L° contours? iOMISLAV GABIRC Title Owner /Architect 2. Create a substantial charge in existing noise or vibration? ' 3. Create a substanti-al cha-ae in sewage, etc.) ? K 4. Create C__ ^..ZnC ?s in the exists zoning or — general plan cesi_ at:ons? — x B. Re7iove any existing trees? ...... '•3-, ._ X 6. Cr-sate the need ror Ise cr diz: csal o= suc_n as fl—isles r e_;tics_..s? of 3^ ='S 3n.;we --s above: I ?_ =CRTti:T: If the project 4nvol Tes -he construction of residential units, c=–zlete the form on the next page. C ate.,._., _e ^«- CERTT ?I�<ATICN: I hereby certify th. -t the sr_ - , furnished sbave and in the attached exhibits present the data and 4-nfo=ation requirec for this initial evaluation ' to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, a -,^- infor^ation presented are tr'.le and correct to t}.e best of ^y knowledce and belief. I fu—th °_r --. ^.derstan d t':ai adds ti.^r r. al information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluoticn can be made by the Devolo -ement Review Co =ittee. Date 2/3/84 Signature 11^ L° iOMISLAV GABIRC Title Owner /Architect C J CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMO \GA STA FF REPORT DATE: April 11, 1984 TO: Ch an and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY. Curt Johnston, Associate Plummer SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENT ?:LIVE ?RACY 11393 - C/L GUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of ,7.2 acres of land into 35 lots in the VL district, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street - APN 1043 - 411 -01. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a twelve-month time extension for Tentative Tract 11853, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Plannina Commission on April 14, 1982 as a one -half acre custom lot subdivision. Tentative tracts in Rancho Cucamonga are valid for a maximum of four years with the appropriate extensions per the Subdivision Map Act. Since this tract was originally approved two years ago, it is now eligible for the first of two possible one -year extensions. II_ ANALYSIS: The Development Districts Map designates the property as Very -Lew Residential. In addition, the site is located within the Equestrian Overlay District. A review of the Tentative Map was conducted to-determine compliance with the new Development Code standards. Two minor inconsistencies with the Basic Development Standards for the Very Low Residential District were noted as follows: 1. The average lot size within the tract is approximately 21,500 sq. ft. versus 22,500 required; 2. The minimum lot depth of 150 feet is short approximately 15 feet on Lots 13 and 21. Although these mirror inconsistencies exist with the Development Coed, the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood since TT 11893 and the adjoining tracts were approved under identical standards of the old R -1- 20,000 Zone. Considering the circumstances, staff does not view the site plan discrepancies as significant. Dl ITEM D J SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENT ?:LIVE ?RACY 11393 - C/L GUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of ,7.2 acres of land into 35 lots in the VL district, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Street - APN 1043 - 411 -01. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a twelve-month time extension for Tentative Tract 11853, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Plannina Commission on April 14, 1982 as a one -half acre custom lot subdivision. Tentative tracts in Rancho Cucamonga are valid for a maximum of four years with the appropriate extensions per the Subdivision Map Act. Since this tract was originally approved two years ago, it is now eligible for the first of two possible one -year extensions. II_ ANALYSIS: The Development Districts Map designates the property as Very -Lew Residential. In addition, the site is located within the Equestrian Overlay District. A review of the Tentative Map was conducted to-determine compliance with the new Development Code standards. Two minor inconsistencies with the Basic Development Standards for the Very Low Residential District were noted as follows: 1. The average lot size within the tract is approximately 21,500 sq. ft. versus 22,500 required; 2. The minimum lot depth of 150 feet is short approximately 15 feet on Lots 13 and 21. Although these mirror inconsistencies exist with the Development Coed, the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood since TT 11893 and the adjoining tracts were approved under identical standards of the old R -1- 20,000 Zone. Considering the circumstances, staff does not view the site plan discrepancies as significant. Dl ITEM D PLANNING r_.OMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 11893 /C!L BUILDERS April 11, 1,084 Page Two Regarding consistency with traii standards, an equestrian *_rails plan was approved prior to Plannina Commission review in 1982. A 25-foot wide equestrian easement is provided along the westerly tract boundary and all other lots have rear access to a 15 -foot feeder trail. A copy of the original Resolution of Approval with Conditions, the Planning Commission minutes of ;larch 24, 1982 and April 14, 1932, are attached for your review. III. RECOMMENDATION- The Planning Commission has three alternatives to consider: 1) Approve the time extension without further modifications, (2) Gain the consent of the applicant for these inconsistencies to be modified through new Conditions of Approval consistent with the new Development Code requirements; or (3) Deny the time extension if the Planning Commission feels approval of the tentative Tap is in conflict with the direction of the new Development Code. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez . City Planner R"v:CJ :ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Original Resolution, of Approval Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes Time Extension Resolution of Approval Time Extension Resolution of Denial Da with Conditions I] 11 11 E E- J NORTH CITY OF ITEM: af,/QF - : r lleZ-7Fs RANCHO CUCA NIO\GA TITLE= m,,+,a PLANNING DINTSIO : EXHIFim SCAL.E: D3 2 1 City of Raac -o Cuca_^cnga Pla-nin.- Depart -eat 9320 -C Baseline ?oad Rancho Cuca ^onga, CA 91:01 Attention: Dan Cole=a-, De-- Dan: h 1� `larca Zi, 1954 Re: Tentative Tract 11893 - nclosec please find our check in the amount of S62.00 for an ® extension of the tentative a-:oroval of the above referenced tract. It is our understanding that this will extend this approval to A ?r4-1 14, 1985- If you have any questions, please contact me. GD: ! mlh Lncicsu:e Sincerely, C/L BUILDERS- DEVELOPERS, INC. 'Z5.1-/ i =arm n. hir..es C:Jce ?reside -t EUILDERS - DEVELOPERS D S 521 No. Mountain Ave., Suite A • UP:cnd. Coi;Tcrnlo 9' • Teieo - one (7141 9c.•10 =1 :'i W, 1 \' 1� S R: :.t M l� +: nrxe ,-nit � \ •.. l.Mp `\1 1\ i / -NORTH CITE' Or ITL`= x93 P� � �CI -jO - LCi fii3lT- .-- b4 1 ..*1_1 RESOLUTION NO o2 -40 " . -OLUTION OF THE PLANITNI ?l0 COQ:'.'; OF Ss',TT , n .1F THE CAN C D CUCANMGri_ CALiFOR'.iA, CONDITIO NALLY TV7 t NAP NO praR G1 l l TE f Tr i All 11 93 !JEREAS, Tentative Tract 'tap No. 1159_-. hereinafter "'map" sub'citted by C/L Builders - Developers, Inc., applicant, for the puroose o. Subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonca, Count_! of San Bernardino, State 'of California, described as a custom lot/ tract subdivision on 32.2 acres of land, located on tho cn„ +c. �;A r 'a,J -T" Avenue, west of Sapphire Street into 37 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on March 24, li,32; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Flap subject to all conditions set forth in the Engi Planning nearing and Plig Divisions reports; and - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NONI, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucas,onga does resolve as fellows: SECTION 1: The Planning Co, issicn makes the foilo:�ing findings :n regard to Tentative Tract No. 1'_ °93 and the flap thereof: (a) The Tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The desicn or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable 'nterim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is net likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict r:ith any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the prooerty within the proposed subdivision. U to E Pace 2 UA (Q) That this aroierc wi i nn *_ ^rem +e °^ c�sc i- ,Cis on the envirormer.t and a Neoative Declaration is issued. S =C71ON 2: Tentative Tract ".ap No. 11893, a cepy of rrhich is . at +_ached hereto, is hereby aopr,vt -d subject to all o' the following conditions and the att`:cheo, _'tandard Conditions: l;r_ 'J.J. :'J:a f`Fte_n (15) foot equestrian, easement shall be desio- nated be njeen lots �U ana lU to provide trail acr-ess for lot 9. 2. "1 .ots shall meet the minimum width of 90 fee*_ at the require.' building setback line, except on corner lots e,here the minimum width shall be 100 feet, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions shall be established for Tract 11593 and shall include similar provisions which are contained in the CUR's of Tract 9350 including, but not limited to, a minimum square footage of each dwelling unit of 1800 square feet and a provision for tile or wood shake roofs S. The LM R's shall be submitted to and approved ty the City Attorney and Planning Division prior to recordation of the final map. 4. During the grading and installation of street improve- ments, the southern terminus of Peridot Avenue shall be fenced to prohibit any access for construction vehicles or workers. Construction traffi,: shall be routed along Banyan to the frcnt of the subject property. S. The developer shali employ all known meticds to minimize reptile and rodent displacement to the existing neigh- borhoods during construction, of this project. o. The design of each home within Tract 11893 shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Co,...ittee, if any, for Tract 9350 for their review and input to the City's Desicn Revietir Committee. If there is no active Archi- tect_ral Cc--ittee for Tract 93-550, the Design .. -,e. �e•�y Shen g Review Co--.- ittee of the City shall be responsiLle for the review of each individual design. The Corm;ittee's review shall ensure that the homes will be architecturaliv compatible and of equal quality to the homes that exist in the area. L> � Lets 1-7 shall be redesigned as wider shall be accorolashed by eliminating nd ny the remaining. The easement along 1•.ns - -35 shall be reserved for equestrian usage of t7: .raft and adjacent tracts. These trails provide vita; connections relative to L. the city's master trail plan, and shall not be ob- structed. These restrictions shall be clearly out- lined in CC3R's, which sha.li be reviewed and approved o_v City Attor. ^.e; "ior to approval of final map. ENGI'IEERING DIVISIO Applicant shall provide end of Banyan Street as Engineer. temporary cui -de -sac at determined by the City Applicant shall reconstruct =he existing temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Peridot Avenue with standard street section including but not limited to curb, gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk (if required) and relocation of street light. Applicant shall contact the property owner of lot 13 of Tract Map 9350 prior to removal of the temp- orary cul-de-sac adjacent to the said lot. The remaining portion of cul-de-sac easement after re- construction shall be graded to match the existing front yard of the said-lot and groundcover planted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Aporoval of final map will be subject to any re- quirements made by San Bernardino County Flood r. rn I- ,I - i<,_ „;.-� in regards to lot A. A letter of compliance from Flood Control District shall be required prior to recordation of the map. Provision shill b_ made the Old Cucamonga Creek project to the existing west of the project. ADOPTED THIS MV,IISSION OF THE in grading pian at northwest of inlet structure Resolution No. 22 Pace i qr__- Secretary of the Plan-inc Cor.».�ssion 1, JAC': LA.M. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucal0n.a, do hereby certify that the fore COinC Resolution 1•:a5 dU1✓ ani: re,ularly introduced, passed, and adooted by the Plannirc Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning ComMission held on the 14th day of April. 1go2, by the lollo:,ing vote - to -wi t: 'YES: C'OM!lISSIONERS NOES: C06tMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMIrlISSIONERS E ul Tolstoy, P,empel, King None Dahl, Sceranka D9 s s 1 v 1 n° o� v_o El r i 9 r J C J r- C O 0 O .0 n S., m r _� yJj I 6 n i O_ y n r• N J N o } v v v c.'oo= O 's c IN °f .. o__o °.,. o�'•- °- n j> ...cn .-m 0p ov. na r _ O 9,9 r O w O p + F n — Z- -2-,Q r0 3 O = J �_° •CG > = S.E3 ?N _ _LI Pn n G J =— _-'� •J° ^J O r 4 �- Sr�IC 7 l- -.MUN �'! q �` \� .° -_ � • _ ^ r O J - r O r � 6_ ' •J C G �� E I 1 v _• O .� O a 4 a ^ o_�_ _ - _ - _a• _ _ __ -_- � 7 C C - � 7 r 72 C_. rWi - J O O q V _- r S J v u - O c c _ r •^ I �, o _ , p Y ' S C j J G c'• �O ,y 1 S � O � � - � J - � - � R � n �'� � Y Y •« u_ ^ O O � S� 0 0 n 1 O [Y.. �. � V 7 � c J 1~ Y iz _ _ ° n .-- O w _ q r V I E 77-�- - - - - - - - — - tLZ7- �L ez cz Z7 - Z7 2w Z7 i Z7 -Z fL 77 t: Z le� 4a Ql0 E- Z. Z7 Ic- an =7 a Z; 71 -AD O t FIN Iz ;7 t ZT f -2 Iz O Qn 0 G 7 O N 1- �A I= 1 S r- O f V = M n L c O 1 = O C n = O O � ^ i . p o — Ll C~ 1 ll. � 1 _ ^ v 0 G 7 O N 1- �A I= 1 S r- O f V = M n L c O 1 = O C n = O O � ^ i . p o — Ll C~ 1 ll. CO>L`".ISSICNERS • XON had been provided for and _ "at _ „is addad Conciticn could be eli.irated. 7250 - ir.E Commissioner `L�NyER. Remr,el stated that sandblast texture ..ould be preferable to COiTORATiOS - A residential subdivision painting the building. This would provide a better looking building into aestaeticai'_y for a longer period of time. There ::ere no _ur':her public conv=ents and the public hearing was closed. Roure and . "otion: ?coved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstov, carried, to adopt the Avenue - Reso' -ution anpre-.ir.: Conditional Use Permit 3:-01 with the deletion of A N 290 -091 -5 and E. tae conditions requiring a color band around tie building and landscaping alonZ tae eastern property line. YES: CO:DSISSIO::ERS: SCERA.'KA, TOLSTO , R^f?EL, KING the Staff Report. NO2S: CM2- IISSIO\7RS: FO \'E 23SE':7 CO`L�!ISSIOSERS: DA::L CO>L`".ISSICNERS • XON E Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Seeranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7280. AYES: CC�PIISSIOVZRS: RE :E-, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, TKINCZ %:S: CO`IMISSIO:TcRS: tiO::E ABS -%T: CO'DIISSIONERS: DAHL 23S7AI ?1: C'0 _`!ISSIOSERS: SO %E -. E: LTIRO %' r!Z' TAL LSSESS >T%T AND TEST;,T "`'E TRACT 11393 - 0,'L B1'IT 7� =RS - A custom lot subdivision cf 17.2 acres of land into 31 lots in the R -1- 20.000 and R- 1- 12,0.00 zones, located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire - APN 1043- 411 -01. Planning Covmnission Minutes -7- Dra March 2L, 1932 D. '.>C'IRO "_ ' =`iTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL },ILP 7250 - ir.E ROBETZT `L�NyER. COiTORATiOS - A residential subdivision of 23 acres into 2 lots, located on the southeast corner of Arrgv Roure and Turner Avenue - A N 290 -091 -5 and E. Shintu Bose, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. ;.here were no public co=ments and the applicant was not present, therefore, the public hearin- was closed. E Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Seeranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7280. AYES: CC�PIISSIOVZRS: RE :E-, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, TKINCZ %:S: CO`IMISSIO:TcRS: tiO::E ABS -%T: CO'DIISSIONERS: DAHL 23S7AI ?1: C'0 _`!ISSIOSERS: SO %E -. E: LTIRO %' r!Z' TAL LSSESS >T%T AND TEST;,T "`'E TRACT 11393 - 0,'L B1'IT 7� =RS - A custom lot subdivision cf 17.2 acres of land into 31 lots in the R -1- 20.000 and R- 1- 12,0.00 zones, located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire - APN 1043- 411 -01. Planning Covmnission Minutes -7- Dra March 2L, 1932 El Crrt Johnston, assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff n Chairman ling opened the public hearing_ Bob Nastase, representing C /T_ iuilders, addressed the Commission statin- that C;i has held this propert,., for a number of years and with ccnstructian of the Cucarorga Creek, it is a more viable piece of property, and thev wish to proceed with this subdivision. Thomas Velnoskv, '173 Peridot Avenue addressed the Co.-- ission in opposition to the project stating that his main concern :.as with the continuation of Peridot Street. After having lived or, - .- street w.th through access, he had decided that we would prefer to raise his family in an irea •;r no thr DLL ,3 ' s traffic and had selected his hone on Peridot because it was On a cul -de -sac street. He was also concerned about the va.-iatinn in elevations -,:rich would result from the custom, lot subdivision. Co=issioner Sceranka asked Mr. Velacsky if he had spoken to the develover Prior to this meeting. =r. Velnoskv replied that he had not spoken to the developer, but had eceived a notice by certified mail and had called the Planning Division to discuss this tract with a Planner. Don aachan, a resident on Indigo Avenue, addressed the Co, issi r. that he c statir.� sted the wav that the Master Plan had change-_4 the project °mom a nark site. He further stated that he objected to houses being constructed on that site which mi ;ht obstruct his view for which he paid a pre=iu .. Jack Ambe aoker, s:is P�ridet Court addressed the Commission that stating he was also concerned about the cortinuatior. of Peridot. Dave Chapin, a resident on Peridot, addressed the Com=ission staling twat he was also concerned about the continuation of Peridot. that by staggering the lots to not obstruct He felt rile view of the exist_ng homes, the building of homes would not be objectionable on that site. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Chapin if he would tell hi.•� the approxi- mate time those homes were sold. C Mr. Chapin replied tnat it was ap roxf- aatley thr ee years. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Chapin what he thought the intc%ded of the adjacent property was going to be. - use Mr. Chapin replied that he was told it would be a park. Commissioner Rempei asked if Peridot now ended in a Cul -de -sac. Mr. Chapin replied tht.t it does end in an asph_,lt curb. Planning Cczrm.iSslon Minutes `!arch 24, 1SS2 (J f to � 1 Co- missioner Scerarka asked Mr. Chaniz if he would object to a Dark site being at that lccatio• with access on Peridot. "`.r. C apin replied that he did not see where it :aoul_` nave to have. access on Peridot, but rather access woad cc -e from.. Ban-:a=. Cc-- issioner Scerarka asked Mr. Chapin what use he would su_sest for that site. `_r. Chapiu replied -that he saw no other use than a Dark site apprcoriate. Co :=4Ssioner Sceranka stared that the prcperty was private property and the Co =iision could not state th,it there was no lard use for that site and that a lard use would have to be established. Co.- issicner Rempel informed the homeowners that the General Plan desicna- Cc =issioner Rempel asked __ there was a concrete curb to determine that It ::as rot ac ,;all_ do A:Cned to dear] eTd nn = last year. He stated that he was not = -:plying that they were Mr. Chapin replied .hat when the i:emes were purchased the builder informed them the propert_c was invaluable and could not be built on and that it was Ccurt; proper -. to be maintained for flood cor.t -c', purooses. Co- missioner Scerarka asked Mr. Chaniz if he would object to a Dark site being at that lccatio• with access on Peridot. "`.r. C apin replied that he did not see where it :aoul_` nave to have. access on Peridot, but rather access woad cc -e from.. Ban-:a=. Cc-- issioner Scerarka asked Mr. Chapin what use he would su_sest for that site. `_r. Chapiu replied -that he saw no other use than a Dark site apprcoriate. Co :=4Ssioner Sceranka stared that the prcperty was private property and the Co =iision could not state th,it there was no lard use for that site and that a lard use would have to be established. Co.- issicner Rempel informed the homeowners that the General Plan desicna- Bob Nastase submitted a letter to staff whic he sent .c 'dark III regarding the lot 12 directly adjacent to C /L's site to attempt to work something out for the temporary turn -- around since it does not have an adequate access. lie stated that he did not know how he could deal with the proble^ of the street being designed to go through. it had been plotted far as it was designed to go through and the City had cotsaitted it as a throutin street. Commissioner RemDel stated that it was the County and rot the City_ that had co=.itted the street to a through street. There were no further public cc dents and the public hearing was closed. Chairman wing asked if the purpose of Peridot going t`.rou,th was that of f` -re access. Ric', Go-e=, City Planner, replied that it was one of the or_ iral Cc- d;tior.s of Approval and a concept that is being continued into this subd ?vision by providing t' rou4h access as ner the fire district requirements. Chairmaning asked if there were a wav f„r Peridot not to continue 0 Planning Co=.ission Minures -9- March 2•, 1082 1) 1 i tion for a park in thu location was not in existence when they purchased their homes three years ago and that was cnly established as a park site last year. He stated that he was not = -:plying that they were not told that a park would be at that location, but the argument that General Planned as a park site when they purchased their homes it was was not ` valid argu .en t. Bob Nastase submitted a letter to staff whic he sent .c 'dark III regarding the lot 12 directly adjacent to C /L's site to attempt to work something out for the temporary turn -- around since it does not have an adequate access. lie stated that he did not know how he could deal with the proble^ of the street being designed to go through. it had been plotted far as it was designed to go through and the City had cotsaitted it as a throutin street. Commissioner RemDel stated that it was the County and rot the City_ that had co=.itted the street to a through street. There were no further public cc dents and the public hearing was closed. Chairman wing asked if the purpose of Peridot going t`.rou,th was that of f` -re access. Ric', Go-e=, City Planner, replied that it was one of the or_ iral Cc- d;tior.s of Approval and a concept that is being continued into this subd ?vision by providing t' rou4h access as ner the fire district requirements. Chairmaning asked if there were a wav f„r Peridot not to continue 0 Planning Co=.ission Minures -9- March 2•, 1082 1) 1 i 0 1 threu,h, Yet still provice for ire depar ^eat access. lac k La-, C ,M -..-: _t Dcveiopment Director. re ?lied that ary c an aiternatIV to this solution a --scussion o_ lion would have to ve reviewed with the Foothill Fire District. Co:-- issioner °emoei informed the property oirers that the developer did not have to subtic his SujClvision for half —acre lots because the General Plan designates 1 c also staled that had south o. Barvan I ^_,000 square foot lot area. He did not feel that *_heir concern that all of the residents in the new development would be traveling on Pe^ dot was valid. The shortest route for Host of the residents would be to 0 north. Hat south on Pericnt ana . hcn jac , to 3anvan. Co:n- issioner Sceranka asked Chairnan King if he could once again open the public hearing so that he could nose the question to the property owners if the [raffle caused b..• twelve or thirteen Peridot u - een homes t- aveling on would be a significant enough i:.pact that they would want the Project denied. Chair 'an King opened the public hearing. "r. Velnosky t rcp_iec to Cw•:•zissioner Sceranka`s state ent by stating that the nit wo of homes would a1mcst double the amount there no.• and he felt that L would be a significant i ^pact. He also f that there were no sidewalks t.--se elt that the fact aims on . streets was a major concern. Chair -an King closed the public hearing. Ccmmissioner Re-pel stated that the new development wool, have sidewalks or, at least one side of the street. He also info ^ed the p p roerty owners that they could approach the Cit.; with a request :or sidewalks. Co^^issiorer Tolstoy stated that his concern was for streets in the City which were long and cul -de -sacs and that by keeping Peridot a cul -de -sac it would not be good policy for fire safety reasons. Coi'.missioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see the project con- tinued until the nett meeting if it was agreeable with the developer so that he could meet with the property own- ers to discuss t eir concerns and give them information on how they were doing thi:gs and whv, 5',�, Xastase, of C/L Builders, stated that he would be a i meeting with the ho-eowiers and wi �'eeab_e to s,.ed to have staff and the .ire District ?resent at this r..eeti -g. Moticn: Moved by To'_stov, Tentative Tract 1,S93 to A ,eel that it was necessary r..eeting. seconded by Sceranka, carried, to continue r l 1 _', 1952; however, the Cor..::ission did net for staff to be present at the horee:-ner's Planning Commission `Unures -10- q, March 24, 19S2 u L 17i E 11 L] M•L `:OES: Cc'.MSSIC :ZERS: 5 ill.. C0.'2.ISS1M;ER.J: { lOLSLOl, SCcZi ?Iii ?mil :.G D A.:L Coa- issio•er Re -net voted No on this continuation as he did nct feel that- the map needed to be chanted and did not feel that anything would be zalned b.: the cont_...:ation. x c: ' ?. -. The Planning Commi c io: Recessed 9. m. The Planning Co-unissicn Reconvened r . =`.' :IRO�;�* =_.T L�4SSRSS` 1^i• A -D CO %ING Or 1NA ;CF. A.`TFh -o E 82 -03 - r_ ending C -1 ana r -2 zones to allow arcade uses sunject to review and approval of a ruitionzi Use Permit. :icl Go -ez, Cit- Planner, hewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka as..ed if t has staff's intent not to prchibit or res cict these kinds of machines V-)m liquor stores. Mr. Gomez replied that the Ordinance ouid allow u three p to machines in unspecified areas within the C -1 and C " -ones. Commissioner Sceranka asked if thought hae been given to making an exception fir. the cases of liquor stores. H felt this was not a desir- able place for young people to gather to plav awes. Mr. Gomez replied that liquor snores had not been \ngled out as an exception to being allo,ced to have machines. Co -m issioner Tolstey stated that he snared the concer\Occh or..mi ssioner Sceranka in that liauor stores were not a good place ildren to be playing these r_aghines. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that he had worked clo lv with Assistant Planner, Dan Coleman, in drafting this Ordinance. ?n_v had come up with the condition in the Ordinance that there must be a supervision in establishments at all times where these r..ac. iaes we placed. He further stared that trey could not come up with a solid foundation `or stating that liquor stores s; ,.d not be able to have Video games. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was a definition of a liquor store. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 26, 1982 D 1I COSSE ::T C',LEVDAR Motion: Moved by RennPI, sec adopt tre Consent Calendar_ A. P :rce .lap 3797 man 6395 PI"BL IC 1 °1�GJ Tolstv'., _.-..1ea unanimously. to _0i C. E:vIP,O:dME`:TAT .kSSESS:-EN ASD TESTATIVE TRACT 0. 11893 - CiL BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of i7.2 acres of land into 36 lots in the R -1- 20,000 and 3- I- 12,000 zones located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire - APN 1043- 411 -01. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the discussion that took Dlace at the April 6, 1982 meeting between the homeow:hers and City staff statin, that the seven issues which host concerned the homeowners were listea on the staff report. Mr. Yalrin further stated that also ncluded within the staff report were conditions that would best *ritigate the concerns expressed by the homeowzlers and indicated tl.at 'Ir. Bill H 11ec, Director of Co,.^unity Services, was available to ansler an-., questions r ^_la Ciye to the park issue. Mr. Vairin reminded the Commission of the t4—;.le limitation for a decision on this subdivision, stating that n v 12 is the final date, and anv alteration of that date would have to be through voluntary continua tion by the applicant. Bill Holley, Cotm_nity Services Director, apprised the Commission of the memorandum he prepared regarding the meeting he held with the homeowners. He stated that the residents felt that a mini park would be appropriate in this location and he indicated in his memo that such a park would be i of easible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the time of discussion or. the General Place, the Co- mission had made it quite clear that any designated sites shown on the map were not fixed but that th ev were floating. Additionally, since this ° site is not viable beca,ce of money and terrain, he asked that Mr. Holley show tale Commission where ogler alrernate sites might be ocatec_ Mr. Holley pointed out two other sites, one around Almnrd on the south side or Sapphire and the Heritage Part: site He further indicated that the area adjacent to the DeMens channel could be used °or trails and Planning "ommission Minutes - April 14, 1982 D a� E J r LJ Chairman Kin orened the pu`�lic hearing. Mr. Bob Sastase, representing that Mr. Vairin has discussed as a permanent access road by District and he had no way of condition as stated by Mr. Va the developer, C /L, stated along the western, boundary ,-he County of San Bernardi knowing whether they would iris. that the roadway will be constructed :o -load Control agree to the Mr. "airin retlied that Mr. Nastase had told him that this would be an access road. Mr. Sastase stated that they had agreed to an easement 'out he was unsure if they would agree to region_ wide use of this. Mr. Fairin indicated that the major concern is that this area remain is unblocked. Co=nissicner Tolstoy stated that in this City there is a con ^itment co rails and if t -e right-of-way along this easement is blocked, it would seem to him that this tract would have to provide an easement for trails. Mr. Sastase stated that he did not mean that the easement could not be used, only that this would 'nave to b-2 reviewed by the Countv. Commissioner Tolscoy asked what would happen if the Flood Control District did not agree to use of the easement for trails. Mr. Edward 'Horse-, assistant City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the Flood Control District would object to this and the =,R's would say you can't build fences across them cr place obstacles in front of -the trails. Commissioner Tolstov stated rhat he wished to make sure that whatever occurs, the integrity of the trail system be protected. Co. ^issioner Re =pel stated that the nther answer is that if they consider blocking the trails, the City will have a let of problems along all the Flood Control Channel. He indicated that this should not be of that much concern. Planning Co=ission Minutes -3- April 14, 2983 ray Mr. t'a__.n i- dicatad that star' net s:ith the Equestrian Cemmitt•,e this afternoon to look at -,hat they viewed as a potentia'_ problem with the raster plan of ,..ails in t::is particular a-rea. He nointed out on the tract map the west boundary, now the creek veers to the left towards the Cit of upland. He indicated that the best wav to alleviate a problem would be to include within the CCaR's a condition thar easements along lots 24 through 36 shay_ be reserved for ecuestrian usage of the tract and adjacent_ tracts because they provide important linkage to the C_i s master "rail system and shall not be obstructed. Chairman Kin orened the pu`�lic hearing. Mr. Bob Sastase, representing that Mr. Vairin has discussed as a permanent access road by District and he had no way of condition as stated by Mr. Va the developer, C /L, stated along the western, boundary ,-he County of San Bernardi knowing whether they would iris. that the roadway will be constructed :o -load Control agree to the Mr. "airin retlied that Mr. Nastase had told him that this would be an access road. Mr. Sastase stated that they had agreed to an easement 'out he was unsure if they would agree to region_ wide use of this. Mr. Fairin indicated that the major concern is that this area remain is unblocked. Co=nissicner Tolstoy stated that in this City there is a con ^itment co rails and if t -e right-of-way along this easement is blocked, it would seem to him that this tract would have to provide an easement for trails. Mr. Sastase stated that he did not mean that the easement could not be used, only that this would 'nave to b-2 reviewed by the Countv. Commissioner Tolscoy asked what would happen if the Flood Control District did not agree to use of the easement for trails. Mr. Edward 'Horse-, assistant City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the Flood Control District would object to this and the =,R's would say you can't build fences across them cr place obstacles in front of -the trails. Commissioner Tolstov stated rhat he wished to make sure that whatever occurs, the integrity of the trail system be protected. Co. ^issioner Re =pel stated that the nther answer is that if they consider blocking the trails, the City will have a let of problems along all the Flood Control Channel. He indicated that this should not be of that much concern. Planning Co=ission Minutes -3- April 14, 2983 ray Auk Chairman Kin, asked how the ,e;,ocia *_ions relative to this portion, of the Flood Control Channel differ from anv ocher area Mr. Vairin indicated that th had ere is not that much difference and if they provided use in other places they would hate to do this as cell. Chairman %ing stated that _,. and CJIIC?pL on this the Ci^ is corking vic..1 the. same basic theor: at is used on all other easements. 'Ir. ''astase stated that the O%`iership will be to lots and the people will retained by the individual have easeme,r, and not fee title. He 4 further that as long as the Flood Control allows their easement indicated Public utilization, it is all ri =ht ,ith he disagreed ;:it'n. the staff reco P `, `.r. Nastase rnm_ndation an_ a ^ stated that through seven be = 'e-ul. ion that lots one redesigned to provile widez lots. unjustified, he said. This Condition is Don Drachand, 6056 indig elf and the o Avenue. speaking for hins People in the audience, stated that many had paid a premium for their lots to ensure that they have a view. He indicated that the site under consideration. by the Commission tonight had been designated a Dark on the General Plan and that the developer had also indicated that a Dark would be located here. The first indication, that it would not be,•was two weeks ago. Mr. Drachand indicated that the meetings witi .1 the COT.^un-4 ty Development and Community Services Departments had been com- mun_cative and cooperative, that they tried to help the residents as much as possible. However, he stated that the park site would lave r.,ore access ul the south side than what had been stated by Mr. disagreed with the maintena..c Fio-�ey and e estimates for upkeep on the mini park. He provided the Co rniss4on with a letter indicating the steps he felt could be taken to secure a park. to develop Crowell, developer, stated that they did everything they could P Park site with the City. He indicated that this property had been purchased about 4 -5 years ago and that it bad been desil-rated single family. Further, that all production had been stopped on this property pending outcome of the General Plan. He felt that this sub- division shoud be approved by the Conrnission at this meeting and that willing to sell a portion of this property to the City for a Pzrk_ Iie asked that this be approv previously outlined. ed with the conditions that had been Mr. Tom Velosky, 6167 Peridot be done with the addition of asked that if this tract is approved conditions as outlined in the staff it report. There being no fu- --her co —nents, the Public tearing was closed. Chairman i, stated that he would begin cc• -rents with the park issue. He indicated that the paric site is still available for a City park and that he had no problems with the conditions of had been add approval as outlined that added by staff along pith the condition relative to the eoues- Planning C ^- ^- _::ission'Unutes April 1�, 1432 a� 11 E �J 11 11 11 E trian trail easement. Clair -lan King stated that he sac: three thincs azainst this area having a park. He indicated that there is a disproportiora *_e area in Alta Loma that have parks as they -elate to the rest of the community- He indicated that if people view the General Plan as it :s presentl; desi^ated, most Of the property north of Banvan have one -half acre plus lots and then_ is more private open space which cuts against the placement of additional park sites in this area. ,ldditional'_y, he indicated that there was an individual who talked about mini narks who wanted to have one in this area. Chairman King indicated that it had been stated by Mr. Hoilev that the City does not wish to have a cumber of mini par::s and by granting the OppOrtL'nit 07 9 mini �'_L, �w......loaivn :: v:: id z v2 setting a precedent for this policy throughout the City. He indicated that; he did not feel this would be appropriate for a park site and felt th.c the reasoning given by Mr. Holley should be adhered to. Char .,gin :ling stated again that he It exists with the conditions added sys tern. has no proble -:s with the proposal as by staff relative to the trail Commissioner Rempel stated that this area has open space that is access- ible to the residents by way of the trail system along Cucamonga Creek and the spreading ground that is adjacent. He indicated that this is area that the people can use. He felt t.ia: the County would not allow it to be used. Co- cnissioner Rempel further stated that the people in this area have a view in both directions and that this subdivi�_on will not detract from this view. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that both Comraissicners have spoken well or. the issues and he agreed with four of the five conditions outlined in the staff report. However, he did not understand 'now there could be anv mitigation of reptile and rodent displacement. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that thev would like to see a park in this area but that thin is not an ideal park site. He indicated that he did not see how the Commissicn could do anything else but approve this subdivision. Commissioner Rempel stated that Chairr..an King had touched briefly• on the inability of the City to purchase more parks and other areas 41 the City a-hich needed parks more. He indicated that there are other gays to acquire parks, staring that the homeourners can negotiate for this land and purchase it themsei•:es. Mr. Hopson stated that there is a delicate balance in state and federal con _ t -.'utional law in terms of exactions that municipal bodies can make on a developer. He indicated that You cannot take somebody's property caitheut paying for it. He indicated `at you can nave exactions for the benefit of the genera population and have a developer pay a fee but the law strikes the balance. In this case, he indicated that the developer must pay a fee for the development of this site and since this is done and is a maxir,.um, the City may not take anvthir.- more without pacir. for Planning Commission Min,-tes -5- a April 14, 1932 am. 1 it. Mr. "OoSLn in_A:Cated ti' tha ^ Ccun"'" - "-t'' decision on t.:hat ;Is set tees and made a will be purchased be these fet;. Further, that it has not been decided as a policy -letter to take pr-operty for additional _L }• . power t0 con_er.2^ Cite park sites. '4r. Hopson stated that the City c--+.- will approve - - ..ot say - dedicate 3.4 acres asu we your tract , necause it tae,: do this, the Ci tv mast Dav u:hatever is recuired. ' :'fr• I.- rip stated that Item M -? sitoul ..a also .c checked as a condition to recuire the Cit-. ney to review the Lracr. <'at COL Ci'i a'G Chairman King reopened the public r. 7erry Palies. 6067 Indigo, expressed concern relative to the cor..pa ction of lots one t1v -cu -1h seven. He indir.ated further that the lots in the area are all of 130 -150 foot frontage and he felt that, as proposed, the lots in this subdivision would be ircompatibl.e with the area. Mr- 1 =arr_: Crowell stated that the deletion of a lot to accom —odate wider _`yenta'es would add $40,000 to the rest of tee Droject. He stated that he does net see the advant..ge of this, since the proposed frontages are 97- 93 `ret:-:hick he felt are adequate. There being no f:,rther comments, the public hearing was closed. Moticn: }loved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, tO adopc Resolution No. 82 -40 approving Tentative Tract \o. 11893 and issuing a negative declaration, with the c,nditions added in the staff report as well as the provision of an equestrian easement and the addition of item %_2_ 7.50 P.M. The Planning COmmiSSitn recessed 7:59 P.M. The Planning Co•aaission reconvened 1 ^IRO \_' tTAL ASSESS„EVT Alpo PARCZL �!.,P 735n - _ %CHO Li \D C'MT y d'- vision of 10 acres into 2 : within an Indust— al area loop the south rest corner of 6th and � Utica Streets - :1PS Mr. Paul Rougeau, SeniO. ^evil crtzineer, r.vi awed the star_ report. Chairman King opened the public 'earia�. 0 Planning Commission Minutes -6- Ap _, 14 to 2 8_ D a �- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TT 11393 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 1.401.1.2 of Ordinance 23 -8, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the PIannino Commission conditionally approved the above - described Tentative Tract ilap. SECTION 1: Tne Rancho Cucamonga Planning Ccmcnssion has made the foilowing findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for residential projects. B. That current economic, marketing, acid inventory conditions make it unreasonable to record the Tentative Tract Map at this time; C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations wujid not he consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detri-ental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or ;materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: time extension for: Tract 11893 The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a Applicant CJL Builders Expiration April 14, 1984 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary U f� � 1 Resolution No. Page Two I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary cf 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 Plannina Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11Th day of April, 1954, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSI07ERS: NOES: COMM ISSIOIERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ID --� lG 11 LJ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE ",%CHD CUCAMONGA PLANNING C0MMISSION, DENYING THE TIME EXTEN�IGN FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11393 WHEREAS, a reouest has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.33(b) of Ordinance 28 -3, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning CGmmission conditionally approved the above- described tentative tentative tract. WHEREAS, The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Com- sission finds that the tentative tract described 'herein is in conflict with the directions of the City's D=evelopment Code. NOW, THEREFORE SE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonca Planning Commission ::ereby denies a time extension for Tentative Tract 1-1893, C/L Builders. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1964 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,® BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, 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 Aoril, 1984 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �1 L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 11, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner f Associate Dl. -Me. I or: Curt Johnston, n »��u�� SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9540 - DEER CREEK The de- eiopment of 23 single family detached homes on existing one -half acre lots in the "VL" district on Jennet Street, Turquoise Avenue, and Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia Avenue. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reauested: Approval of precise architectural designs B. Puroose: Construction of 23 single family homes C_ Location: Jennet Street, Turquoise Avenue, Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia Avenue D. Parcel Size: Twenty -three (23) half -acre lots E. Existina Zoning: Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du /ac) F_ Existina Land Use: Vacant Lots G. Surroundina Land Use and Zonina: north - Single family subdivision on half -acre lots, zoned "VL" South - Single family subdivision on half -acre lots, zoned "VL" East - Single family custom homes on half -acre lots, zoned UV! 11 L West - Single family homes on half -acre lots, vacant property, zoned "VL "; Cucamonga Wash, zoned "FC" (Flood Control) H. General Plan Dosianations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du /ac) North - Very Low Residential South - Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low ke•:idential, Flood Control L-1 ITEM E PLAiuNINIG COMMISSION STAFF REPCRT Design Review For TR 9540 /Deer Creek April 11, 1934 Sit= Characteristics: Street improvements Tire installed and rough grading of the lots has Occurred. 4 Eucalyptus windrow exists along the boundary of the northern most lots and will b-i preserved. eneral: The proposed units are identical to Tract 9263, .ahich is nearing completion and located south of iitson between Amethyst and Archibald. A cape cod style of architecture is proposed. Exterior materials include generous use of wood trim, lap siding and concrete shake tile roofing. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Co,7mittee reviewed the project and reco-nnended approval with the condition that bright colors such as yellows and blues shall not to used on lots 3 -7 (west side of Turquoise Avenue) for consistf:ncy with the adjacent existing homes. Instead, earth tona colors including gray, white, and tan, etc., shall be used. Trails Committee: A I5 -foot equestrian easement exists at the rear or a c Tots. The Ec?vestriun Committee req• ested, if possible, that the applicant provide additional trail improvements to link the community trail, as shown on Exhibit "C ". Since the map Is aiready recorded with equestrian trails, staff wi11 seek compliance from the developer for revisions to existing trails. RECOMMENDATIM the project with concurs, approval Respectfully Rick:' Gawez City Pldnner Attachments Design Review Commitee recommends approval of conditions as indicated. If the Conmiss = the attached Resolution would be appropriate. E 'i1 i•: .. C- � /- /L"�.�T..[� t_i!l� x`_. ��.i�. T 1' *1 ^Y� ��,.,\�y �r • ',.� `- L If -1z L� t-' J�� I a I ` ---------- 17 ! i j i` --- 1 .i' t �! CITY OF R.A. \CHO tCUC- MMONCA PLANNING DIVLSIaN TITLE- ^�'�►( dA/iQ� EXI iIBIT: --A— SCALE- �• E 3 NORTH - j i °-wt� irnt ?oVcJ•�iEta� �=+�' T Nic tip-+ — "f�G / ✓� G�7 - L-- �i�:T!c+i i-E 7�c�oic r-,`•� � Y• � � .. 'tier �. �r� ti•�-_ � • . - ��r � • � - <y`j- °' �' �� . L � � �� a j'' '� ' y ' Alk L V Al � i A�:.c^•- ice.`: "'-�'t � • � _1-'-!:� :. � - -�•.� �I �. •�`-/ r 7 -. i^ ��i //�} a c ,�,•...•-- �--- • --- -�. . +:� -�-�, ' :.a �— .�,�..�..,,1•_ •. �r � "rte • I - 1 , t ; — +. f.- Imo• �\ } -- - - >- � a� 3' ti 1 �WJ-- ./��- � -t - -�/ / /'f.. F \`�} ` _'.li �. C M•!UC r8"� Y .�fa•�+��G T,S- ^v-.�. 'i- 1. tii ._�..__. iY.�:J- j —,�Y♦ '� iwuEL - �...=. - Ste ci T •:- �. ll - �,...._ - � .�--T �� C ': sl"l�Yl�.a/ .T�.� _ �'- -tom- r� ---�•A SEE SMET IS-Z. CITY OF RANCHO CUC- k,\,IO- G.AL PLANNING DRISIO\ TITLE�L4 u T LOT 3 , L _I - - -'- - -- - -- -I kL, Uri r, y�,a,� CITE' Or- RANCHO CL:C.- VUO\GA. Pi.ANNI \G DIVISION 1TE.\ : T=v&pbj fm/and 7M.15-40 TITLE= SM 1"-- M E_ViIRM S- - SCALE.- _ E Z- ALM HILLSIDE SANY immmm ®ssommmm�mmsom�m mmmmmros�o�aes ■i � I! 1• ima TRAIL SYSTEM EXISTING COMMUNITY • 0.0 •PROPOSED COMMUNITY L*run,nn,nREGIONAL MULTI — SYSTEM S AF CITY OF RANCHO CL;CA- N 10\G: \, PLANNING DINISIQN Lu CL a a CITY OF RANCHO CL;CA- N 10\G: \, PLANNING DINISIQN 11 C� u dC II; s• � . I I , r Ili � X. kC. I EI li I I I I I � a: J ( ,1 t-- . r rt�I,1.1 Ur I • �' u Ilri fl l�Ih'yd i 'r tln tl:! �'ra w I r f,! C 6 dYa C � — f 1 0 z I % A I. 'I lu U. r 4r 4M I 1 I 1 1 � I 4 �� •' L 1 1 III "-/ crr• [- i; e I l "T ��I � I L• � � 1I 1 11 � ' I � 41 ,III II + I t i �1 I I Iil I�. is t•I' I ��.I —a ^^��~ 11 I- I � IC -- E- I c E LLL II ri j` 1 if VI i �,:J! �7-t� I . -. - -- - -- -III y {I - =T !I ;• 1 , ® r - u I , 4 ;�F � �/ �� 1 �li �!� � III I I'•ii'I I� I. i�l � ��I'I� P..µ , I i 1 hi,Y � �. / � II � r,r� -- -li •{ 11 E i 1 II 7'. V. I I I 1 li'I JI -- M i 1 c , Ili "II I.— I C I � p 11 - -- • i mW Ita iIIII 'F ��_•',i c i 1 \4 V. l i1 9 I Iry c , Ili "II I.— I C I � p 11 - -- • i mW Ita iIIII 'F ��_•',i c i 1 \4 i3 V. I Iry i3 jE I{ I I 1 I Ifl •� �,��f: I I r t I i e CIIF - i � ��.= .•..tea: f I ��•al. I '� "I'I I�, , It Lti I� ati I� p n iI I tla" i' I Q, 1 C1� � e> L L� I� i n L. r. . L: J L-17 E �ffi ti z , 7-7- ILA �,i� �• F R t T� �./ S-- IA F6% - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------- �./ S-- IA F6% I _ 'fin T 7 PC � i r IIF e I ' r .T1 � I E lic' u E 11 I i r w I ,t �'•1i I � I �-� 1 r d1s 'i I �L f- f4^ 1 ! 1'I rl i Q II (. 1 v I iT i 2 wy j a I I I 7 1�1 Ia 1 Ij I�V� r� y. Im I� I I c: c v 4 F ;i 11 I i r w I ,t �'•1i I � I �-� 1 r d1s 'i I �L f- f4^ 1 ! 1'I rl i Q II (. 1 v I iT i 2 wy j a I I I 7 1�1 Ia 1 Ij I�V� r� y. Im I� I I c: c v 4 F I 4 k _ E— ; 1 A IA • +�� ,�� - + 1I fir• � I ^I Car MIJ IP`- r ' f 1, _ter. I 1 � t /Y7 I • 11 � ,111.,1 1•�'' it 11111 n ., ICI •1 1....,,j •1 Tom,\ 7LI t ^� I `•� � I I � I 1u dc Q; i FL�zm I �y � i� 11 11 11 1 i tr I L ;i.� 7 ILI 1N, 1 i F-::- ;q in I L F-::- ;q in r I Z. 11 1. •\ I � I III. , � I r I I i �' .. �I • 1 _ L �. i= � ' ,.,I I I ice' � .) � •� ` I . r I'� '� '' • Ili' I Ir VIII I ii ,�� .. 4 IL I �I �I •. I yi � pp 11 _ I AFN \h I® 11 0 77 1 j I �. � i I ',III I� •'I � I I � � J .I f _ = I Y I ' r I i I I I " I C_ ' l A 9 1,9 IS 17 .E Ul u. $3 old El L-1:11 m Ll 144 i I j 4 L 7 71' $3 old El L-1:11 E RESOLUTI077 ^:0. A RESOLUT101 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO "MISSION APPROVING DESIGN: REVIEW FOR TRACT 9540 LOCATED ON JENNET STREET, TURQUOISE AVENUE, AND INDIGO AVENUE, NORTH OF GARDENI^ AVENUE IN THE "W' DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of March, 1964, a complete application was filed by The Deer Creek Company for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 1!th day of April, 1164, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described oroject. follows: ,NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga ?fanning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: Findinas: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development, together with the Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan. 2. The design and layout of the proposed cevelopmen.t will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and will create a harmonious, orderly and attractive development. 4. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, "texture and color and will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonable adequate level of maintenance. 5. That the prcpose•i project is consistent with the objectives of the � °neral Plan. 6. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in w`:ich the site is located. 7. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. c .y3 aaae . 7,...... `J 8. Th: ie proposed use, together with the conditions app -le thereto, will not be detrimental to the pub: neaith, safety, or welfare, or materially injarious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: Tnat Design Review for Tract 9540 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Per Development Code requirements, the front yard setbacks shall be increased to an average of 30 feet. Also, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 15 feet on the opposite side shall be provided on each lot. A revised site plan with the appropriate corrections shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. For compatibility and consistency with adjacent homes, bright coiors such as yellows and blues shall nog be used on homes on Lots 3 through 7. Rather, earth tone colors such as gray, white and tan sail be used. Color samples and /or the appropriate notes on the construction drawing shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF April, 1984. PLANIING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG.A BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, 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 April, 1984, by the following votz -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Is NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �O- V �.a ✓_ Nom. _ Tmc d.Na tic= :._ - b`C .'�OV -0✓ C V b rtv J_ CV_. .' s b_ _N .Vi. �a �� LV9 V.r.� = -V ✓N =N �Np V >� ...r_.OL CO _ <.n> x-L.. •O GnCJ Gyn CG' V 7 - y-� O f `- .r. . -.. L- b s V P N LL, -• O N.L.. � ��, t- .J � N O N= 9 •.. L V q � C � n� ✓� M1, C V_ 9 N Q _ ✓C-> Ecb ooc _ 41 x a� L O .n l C 'r C V✓ N L .� -. r 6 r N L. S E ✓ G 9 v ✓ - t- G N q_ T V q= b T_ 6 V O L? V= r `-` C�✓ �.Oi. q.-.rT ✓i e C pP� ' OTw J6�0 P =6 O C V y JO � P✓ � O t 9� N „ -t_ .d. 6- <- S L ti C u C 6= N -_ �� .✓.! N' N o r ^v -G _-L PF- V� NCr Lr V F_N- ;T`'M 6V WO` •- VxJ N -C bah- PC cl =V `` QT v ✓c.0.` ..�qc. ✓co _ 4.N.r� Ln °. a .�° L.d.c° S G ��N VO W �E`= N` b V -• O C _. V E P 6 V a. Cq rT _ C_ y @- _ .On < n_ .n t C F 2 6j O ^P ✓- l y 404 JE ¢N_OV ¢ObO L�,.rj 62uGU 461 <N°y 64�m <J f•6M �r4 Iz AI V _ b T°4 �C QY s.9 7 OG � L 4 9 V O .O O O y ✓ L C O � O C O 4 � 0 J N J E •' p C ✓` r1�`( y q O W N:�. rR. f!''� : ✓' MPs N_ _a+. � G- n< N mil{ I O �L." >6 -• < _ V 6G SL VS C r 1 \�1/ < b N - d V✓ 4 C r � < u. .rte N NN NI 6J9 VEV6 VSG �6L4 �..� O �O 6V.-+ N G C C 6O J v mod u_c. ^. .d L _ •c ..n L �' oc o ♦ '� r r = L �. 4 r C r G .J !f C C_ C � d Lr 1 i _ � ^v N F r > � r i_ _ • _ �_' c --�� c _ T.' O r - -� :,r V qL,i N � G� i c'L •nL� n�..c .. i G q_ -Lam cc•L - GOCt=c� = o,S >`o .'.r u u_e ..� � a• TNr JL a:.Cc wcru iL °r a6V"c�TU.nr L.y o c -_- cDd= LLC= _' `a O •• '• 'I `_ -m ubv. of .,Er •"c"ci°�yo ° =`a .Ge` d C d cC F.LC.S w' dC—i•r v— OC.a..VrJ �rr 3.rO ✓� C — ri. C r E V r�} L c � r C C• ?�� n � r - c �VJ r a o O^ I � r �. O r NI ^ a 6t rJ >.LN� rV•J ' �Q� C Grr ``Cq -2 .J. v. a _NwT.O LO V -7`.r 'r ^ Fa ao_ro -oO ° i;C- g_VCdc 2 • =� I C T a o.E r- C rC _G �« OC ey Er6 7 LL GOL 6u L— iNgNL.O+� ML'aT� Lr Vq GrJT .— ��.Vi.L T 67N Q Ni C4 6 0 cV w.dCVN _ C CTV U T y..raN n of y > Z ory s V c q L.. c Tq 6G YdT Wr GN N V `L G.L'.F .E erd yi P6 C a;— "_emit.. � q c F= V d ^ o H O N r L J L o cJ L o � c E l .� e .0 z G 9 C q• al P G O e o C - '-.2 .n a gccL L6 C a q9y co C n r N C. P i'. • G q g C S E t N T N N C d q r= 7= 0g - 1 G o = ✓ C O ti .I- Cc C � _ C `C CO N C N 6 y, y� O 1i L_ L lj .L•V TIC lr�C.rn =G�« CNe�GE C.GC. CJ ...— 3rt.0 a a L w� L S .^ S� a v r C w. r n t N O✓ V r� = 2 � C V' C N iV O V C C C ^ T O r` g q > d N r r N L N O V \C'Gse .. I V y H P�CC c`c_ OCre R�_. V L�O Gd i.L+P� ��+a wcn C6�¢V n ycFCG .Cn� C' 6v E ✓ P A c° d A n" V d � N O c o� P 9 E c d E � A C L a c u L Nov r ° P y L L n i yL u o c y NI C n S 7 vA N V n u a N c 6 c O L d A P d Y Q f C c G O O 6 n d y a A _d N c � J d s o a -F5 c A n 0 U Pi 6 Ln,L r - V L Y V � u L Ynu V C — P N N C d J y r d O q - N y L L cc` q ° c — r A C V O— V = G= r C r L u ` o V = t V j .Li ry c �i qn moo; P d C 6— O O r r Pn r u n = G O n O.` T' c ar p+ A L S A = f O L W . G o A n CI <N no ✓1 0 eiJ W O 6✓ u D i M — V V r ` L C N= a E L y O yPV Np M1 C d� rl A N C L N r c+GL qq OnOOgCK C'� q C N G+ C C n G P V C V s - °ems` NV CJ� ` T C V r i n r E c r V y. L L � 2 .�• � V N g P C^ V L V 0,&7 U _ Z: V p+r L r 7 L l r ✓nF � r P L - c o r "w M W N O t Y L N V O .G.. d C n. I a d 7 G NC d — P 20 y y T K i L C Ipj N N p € E N V C u O V C Cn6 c?��L A V y ✓ r 25 L N N O — A O = c A =.2Z L P q O r 9 G — C J N Ac —y` d w r A$ o .n Cj q r G -n ` r � nNN N N r N O L L u N n f N \b C': __L^ r ✓^ 'A� rV NO CC dui L o -O — .+ O Q y u __ 6 V^ — '� •ri r r U G L L 'n N L �r > G `n G V q v 7' I �� u O^ U 7 L✓ r. n .Ln /] — O �✓ J'±M i°L Tdoy nn d o vdA i _' -°,v d�A Lw:- ' '✓ N n r_ 9 d N A v d Vj l r N _j V L C C J Urd� N PVr •l wYT1 ..rVC ddNi ^n a0 ^C .rCC_ `d _ V i� C a N >� J •na V q a� G nr q J V P� N O_ V C� V 6 9 V !1 - >•r n L d V V N T y O '- O q U VPr. C(3 �CdAO PAY. �O g•.. '?`= Loa, 'O T.Vi. r >L T.` vL dV a.".rA -- cc C — L c C C P A C V— r ` C u E 2-- V i ✓� —a .Vi•r.u✓ N`V A —CEO V O Y n N_W at P N I W 1p E ✓ P A c° d A n" V d � N O c o� P 9 E c d E � A C L a c u L Nov r ° P y L L n i yL u o c y NI C n S 7 vA N V n u a N c 6 c O L d A P d Y Q f C c G O O 6 n d y a A _d N c � J d s o a -F5 c A n 0 U Pi 6 Ln,L r - V L Y V � u L Ynu V C — P N N C d J y r d O q - N y L L cc` q ° c — r A C V O— V = G= r C r L u ` o V = t V j .Li ry c �i qn moo; P d C 6— O O r r Pn r u n = G O n O.` T' c ar p+ A L S A = f O L W . G o A n CI <N no ✓1 0 eiJ W O 6✓ u D i M — V V r ` L C N= a E L y O yPV Np M1 C d� rl A N C L N r c+GL qq OnOOgCK C'� q C N G+ C C n G P V C V s - °ems` NV CJ� ` T C V r i n r E c r V y. L L � 2 .�• � V N g P C^ V L V 0,&7 U _ Z: V p+r L r 7 L l r ✓nF � r P L - c o r "w M W N O t Y L N V O .G.. d C n. I a d 7 G NC d — P 20 y y T K i L C Ipj N N p € E N V C u O V C Cn6 c?��L A V y ✓ r 25 L N N O — A O = c A =.2Z L P q O r 9 G — C J N Ac —y` d w r A$ o .n Cj q r G -n ` r � nNN N N r N O L L u N n f N \b C': 6�GLtrN 6�n�p Y P t C. L f oLy_ Lc `r C L ✓ C o= q.y `c r<� °Lu �GEVP c�lC, i 0 qv ✓ ✓c p g V NCw__yr ` r L p c •-•— v.o .V zNv c' grYN —° •c V 4 •^ ✓ O L V V V L ✓ O y V d V� r 'J n ✓ C� •� d V F C_v r _ C C• E ^� £ d Q..G _ d _ c ^ C y � O ? ✓ C oqa. -� €ssr c+ v •� a d Q�d C JL O V O n r 7 r V E q rO •� O O✓ �O L C 00� 6�GLtrN 6�n�p Y P t C. L f Lc PU = o= q.y `c °Lu o c v i 0 qv ✓ ✓c <"q V v.o � u —° •c V 4 •^ ✓ O L V V V L ✓ O y V rr 'J n L.•' _ CrjCG d V F C_v 7_P q L c+ v •� a d Q�d JL l d L 7 ^ C C y �' ✓ Y n =° ` V q L i C c V�C _ n sc. O O _•' C G N y G ^y n ^r �✓ r C o✓ J W y O�^ q `2 ` ad — c` N � y pG d L a C G6T 1 c •' u .+ 6 C O C q T C C• - Cr V. V t V V PN C C l g ^ C V gLUdi O I L O✓ ^ d u n I I I I •� � O VI 6 • L C C• � 1 � V I M+ C V W L 'J •' V rl i� n✓ L� rn V P ° V C O �• N P G l O y •u S ^ a q G rLL P✓ G d P✓ J °q. d L�P� rr LC V PY. o O d e ��JJ I Y � j ^ VVr�N VOV J T � i I C q n 2+ •L.r N L G' p V O'7 6V.0 WN9 wyU �p UL'�pSG✓ QPV q 6. 6�V-O 00 O^ V `L OrE lVC O Gd< "J L O S C G y M 11 o c v i 0 qv ✓ ✓c <"q V v.o � u —° •c V 4 •^ ✓ O L V V V L ✓ O y V rr 'J n L.•' _ CrjCG d V F C_v 7_P q L NWO d Q�d l d L 7 ^ C C y �' ✓ Y n =° V q L CO C V�C O O G ^y n �✓ r C C J W y O�^ q q Lrr T V ' d C l L a C G6T 1 •° C .+ 6 C O C q T C C• - Cr V. V t V V PN C C l g ^ C V gLUdi O I L O✓ ^ d ri c- 7 n I I I I •� � O VI 6 • C C• � 1 � V I M+ C V W L 'J •' V rl i� S a d �i „d O— nn� r✓..� L O O W q 6. 00 O^ V `L OrE lVC O Gd< L O S C G M W E S 6 d r ¢ pr CI Q rl r n h ZA 11 o c v 0 oz c V v.o � u —° •c l V O y V ✓ V CrjCG 7_P q l r U I 1U+ C C ' = C ✓^ q G C O O ^y n �✓ r C C J W y O�^ q q Lrr T V ' O 6..0. G6T 1 n,1C C q T C C• - Cr V. V t V V PN C C l g ^ C gLUdi -N. <m Lac ri c- 7 l I I I I •� � O VI 6 • C C• � 1 � 3 L. L. ✓qi G N C V W L rl i� 11 �I �I rl NI S a N c sY` - V• c C V • C y G C C O Y V Jac Sz ro O d C �r °` yN- O _ � C q E d a c S °gym L r Y G `•ar -r � q c ANc pN U � e N A i A G C- y ° G T � o u M1 A M O q F f O cr E � 6 L r N c c G E P G C C 0 1 � i •c I i <o I I O l V c G u - rN 1 N ¢a o: 06 OJ 1 N> V y K� tl W 6 r V 1.J 6 i N I y I O P v A t C I - ° L q� ♦r0 �q rrr d 0 ~JNp G O - °� L P E I C O L A ° y •'n ° I N A C N d v -N u ° ri 4° -� I i a qi.° Lug r u� � °�vo y•Jn� d Nam r E u I �_ C I N � � �p �• c °C N N P SS�C`^O •TJ V I �E N O n ^ I _ O. d ?•C.r NA -dpLC �•.• I r � "JU C o I iG Nd m Nc ��u„4 I I .•J`JO Lam: i mm c °cA cV e - L I° - -E° +•�O a+ °�✓ L q O O y C O O N � V I`4 dG•_y N 1A GCC d= Wy T I O A` d N V� J .•N. 'e V L Y. C O N S g G A O ° d O d u O• •^ O L r d G�LI TIC E.� r V V u w cA d'r t Lq c � C•N,. ro.•`L W = C 4 � tL .O.• n i p G V r C S 6 Q L i uc O - •O n OJ P jf �I �I rl NI S a N c sY` - V• c C V • C y G C C O Y V Jac Sz ro O d C �r °` yN- O _ � C q E d a c S °gym L r Y G `•ar -r � q c ANc pN U � e N A i A G C- y ° G T � o u M1 A M O q F f O cr E � 6 L r N c c G E P G C C 0 1 � i •c I i <o I I O l V c G u - rN 1 N ¢a o: 06 OJ 1 N> V y K� tl W 6 r V 1.J 6 i N I y I O P v A t C I - ° L tt: q� ♦r0 �q rrr d 0 ~JNp G O - °� L P E E J ,J• L A l C l y cNd moo` 4n � N d v -N u ° ri 4° -� I i a qi.° Lug r u� � °�vo y•Jn� d Nam r E u T c °C N N P SS�C`^O EO �dy`y7 •r O' I Q V L ?•C.r NA -dpLC �•.• I r L i mm c °cA cV e - L r=„rr C O N S g G A O ° d O d u O• •^ O L r d G�LI TIC E.� r V V u w cA d'r t Lq c � C•N,. ro.•`L = uc - i C O N d V AIA T �- - V C •Ci � A d C l i •T. A G A C j dV� O• C Ur N .O N Cq T CC C� C� C •'• dr` ` i � �� T N CO- C� u -ya�+I C O M A d • N V � c I N� � I I O^ l A O� u E �• i C' L c y d r O n_. P P p c •� � J C C C� O N A r I n .CC_ °O N °CU J rV�.T• = YuM 1. !- M1� C N C i O N T N S L' J _• N =`'-• O r V r V° ° T r OOV O In K e 0 c O G- E �• L v m L L 4 0 V O P A v p � = I ; A A i C; I ; `- ° d �O ��jj 11 I �•Li� • 6 A a V O� VC GI OI f l ^� CI tt: V 9 T} d c o`q p cr<.Gy J q V > C C O - a ' ' a C_ - G C � �• _ G C C V C N y G G I I ' 1 i ✓�GL .- C� w N Or O N NV •� C_ � �� L _ � G V N O> 6 I �' L O •V C G_ 4 d' � _ C _- V - C C C i I i I L ... c.. NI o V 9 T} d c o`q p cr<.Gy J q V > C C O - a ' a V C N G G I I ' 1 i ✓�GL .- C� w N Or O N NV al ' 1 I I 1 Ll 9 T} d o`q cr<.Gy J q V C C O G G I I ' 1 i Ll a w Y L CJ _ V _Pi ld •O.r 1 i p_�� o r ." I r ri• _ � I O ° � ' I O U= •n O d � O >. � d C � � V V_ I• I � 7 c_ G. o _ tj z I UV L,n r� Ny•O.. rI 4 � V _ CU p•� G� �� I 7p �r G'� GV U N u C� _I E TO. F Rvf: CITY OF P.A\CE0 CUC .MONGA STAFll RFY'aRT 11, 1904 ly" Chairman and Members of the Plannina Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Nancy Assistant ni. SU6JECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 9539 - LAS PALOMAS - ,DEER CREEK COMPANY) - The development or 15 single family homes in the Low Residential district, located north of Red Hill Country Club Drive and :vest of the Flood Control Channel - APN 207 -60 -8 thru 18 and 32 thru 3=. I. PROjKCT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Ac;.ion Reauested: Approval of eieVL ions and plot plan B. Purpose: Construction of 15 single family dwellings C. Location: North side of Red Hill Country �lub Drive, west of Cucamonga Creek 0. Parcel Size: 4.5 i..res E. Existinc -onina: Low Residential District F. Existina Land Ilse: Single family homes, vacant G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - single *ami ?; homes, Cucamonga Creek, elementary school; Low Residential South - Sinaie family homes, railroad tracks; Low Residential East - Single family homes, G:ca ^onga Creek; Low Residential 'Nest - Single family homes, Country Club; Low Residential H_ General Plan "Oje� cL Slte North - Low South - Low East - Low Alest - Low )esignations: Low Resi,:en Res:dentia?, Residential, Residential, Residential, tial Flood Control, Elementary School Railroad tracks Flood ;'ontrol Golf Curse I. Site Characteristics: T'ne site slopes to the southeast at approximately an 8 percent grade. The lots were previously graded and are ready for construction. The eucalyptus windrow located along the northerly property line of t"is project is designated to be saved. F71 ITEM F PLAIIING COMMISSION STAFF Tentative Tract 9589/as April 11, 1984 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: REPORT Palomas (Deer Creek Company) A. General: This project is a portion of a recorded tract, Tract 9589, which received Planning Commission approval on March 14, 1979. Tie ori5ina] approval included 30 lots on approximately 15 acres; t:venty of the lots were developed by tue original owners. The new develo"oer is reauest;nn cnorifir approvai for designs on the remaining 15 lots at the northerly and easterly portions of *.his trait. The elevations have been designed with a variety of exterior treatments, as shown on Exhibit "C ". 8. Design, Review Co*enitt?e: The Committee recommended approval subject to the r"o lowing: 1. The east side of plan 1905 C wont elevation should have ±:lc same architectural trimmings tc match the remainder of the building. 2, Lots 8 -13 should have greater front yard setback variation. 3. The two corner lots (lots 28 and 31) should have the side elevatir,n Tacing the street upgraded with additional wood trim around :windows and rood siding or plant -ons, where appropriate. 4. Landscaping should be provided on the wall adjacent to the firepla;e for Plan 1.005 C, D, and E. The applicant has agreed to incorporate these changes which W511 be refie -ted in the final construction plans. III. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider al material and elements of this project. if the Comission, concurs with the Design Review Committee recommendations, approval of elevations and plot plan through adoption, of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectful �y�sinm i tted, Rick'Go:rei ' City Planner RG:NF :jr r r— -A- [ 11 E J Ir PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT tentative Tract 9589 /Las Palomas (Deer Creek Company) April 31, 1984 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location trap Exhibit "S" - Site /Gradina Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Resolution of Approval F's n CITY OF RANCHO CUCA`IO\GA PL kINN \G DINrISION NORTH qhB� TITLE - Lam, A-rttO I I'De: ,w)WrA r E \HiBIT= SCALE - -- 1 _ lc F �F �.*I E,-- WWII .4 —AAI f-:�z at n CITY OF ITEM: g5gy RANCHO - UCANIONGA T-iTLE cL--- PL N.NNNING Dl%rISIWN EX I i I BUT: SCALE-- IC �,- Eg NOR -rH JL j 1I 'i I tj .j IL: iJ ITLN 1: TrrU7 E-Xl UBIT: SCALE: El E 11 E 11 I 1 ` ` 4 ! i � 1 y. I \I IA � .y . f � 3 r 1 7 ;1 t Ji C:3 �\\ �` I' "�I ter: -•._ � _ i 1 I f � 3 r 1 7 ;1 t 7 1 C. I ry - i ti a[ vi uu s y I LM: TITLE: ITLE- tA'af /G S — Y!/ITfY I7 (J I( — Et.I IBIT: \I SCALE- T— � 1 7 ;1 t I LM: TITLE: ITLE- tA'af /G S — Y!/ITfY I7 (J I( — Et.I IBIT: \I SCALE- T— � 11 I 7-7 1 t i� 71+ E: Ell ITEN i: TITLE: 90skl< — E �J 61 i I I - u� a � 9 � I , vi ,y w 4 i -i.V E\)ilR i= SCALE -_ '= I LI r ' --v r- r I i . II . I 3 .I.:m I `a I x t -- - - -_ ITEM: - -- MLE= L \I €iB, -r. t► �� ALE. F- ! c 'C ITEM: - -- MLE= L \I €iB, -r. t► �� ALE. F- ! c T i. ii LL 14 L--- TITLE: EXHIBIT; 4, SC: %,LE: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLU-rm%i OF THE RANCHO CUC"'MONGA PLANING COJdV_SSIO'd APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRarT 9589 LOCATED NORTH Or- RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, 'ti'EST OF CUCA ?"ONGA CREEK IN THE "L" DISTRICT :vHEREAS, on the 2nd day of filed by The Deer Creek Company for r "i'_.EAS, on the 11th day Planning Commission held a .meeting to Mar :n, 1984, a complete application l:as =_vie,.a of the above - described project; ana Of April 198?, the Ranrnn Cuca.'=9_ consider the above - described project. follo?•s: NOW, _-HEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION, 1• Findings: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development, together with the Conditions c` Approval, is consistent with the apolicable elements of the City's General Plaa. 2_ The design and layout of the proposed daveluiomer,t will not unreasonably interfere wit, the ise dud enjoyment of neighboring existing or faj -"re developments, ana will not create traffic cr - adestrian `•azar ds. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and will create a harmonious, orderly and attractive development. 4. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting publ as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color and will remain aestheticaliv appealing and will retain a reasonable adequate level of maintenance. S. That the proposed project is cc -listen` with the objectives of the General Plan. 5. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which *_he site is located. 7. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of cne Development Code. F_ Ll Resolution No. Page 2 3. That the proposed use, together :rith the conditions applicable_ thereto. will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or ;mprovements in. the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Dec'--n Review for Tract 9589 is approved subject to the following conditions and attac�,,ea Standard Conditions: PLANMING DIVISION 1. The :eft side of the front elevation of Plan 1905 C for Lots 9 and 15 shall have the same architectural trir=ings to match the remainder of the buildina. 2. The front yard setbacks of Lots 8 through 13 shall vary a full 10 feet per Development Code (25 feet average ±.5 feet). 3. The two corner lots (lots 28 and 31) shall have the side elevation facing the street upgraded with additional .:ood trim around windows and wood siding or plant -ons, where appropriate. Landscaping, including appropriate trees and shrubs, shall be provided on the well adjacent to the fireplace on the front elevations for Plan 1905 C, D, and E. 5 All of the above conditions shall he incorporated into the revised sits plan and elevations and shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF April, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSIO`: OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3Y: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman A TEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary 11 F i3 Resolution No. Pane 3 1, Rick Gomez, 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 Cc=..ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular me=ting of the Plarninc Commission held on the 11th day of April, 19841, by the following vote —to -wit: APES: COXMISSIONERS: NOES: c0?1mm iuNERS: ASSENT: CO'' IISSIONE'.S: r iq- C C LI ..1 .O L E 1 � » L c�G z r -o.J = C C c V q V Ea 6= O � r V p 6 y ` n •L GL = O P N E O L c rnv Pr �� c�N q>a O c G O C E V N M � O O O T O L G Oq` _C- S T VJ N V c °e °6 UGV o f N O G O v ° m c n e vcTJ o.e l N O Gi L C C c^o ud q P nr c 6 O q O C— .] N I v I 1� �f I 1 cl )r1ci C O C C N MI 1 I r < u u 0 C NU < 7 P C .^s . O C V ' q a_ o � u c N V r� ^O L T O C r C N 7 c nC' U a N q p Y G C _O C Q d r C N T VC'O �o N:Ls `� Cr O c a < GL N V� Q�l Z O M 6y O C = �I O €¢ O_ .1 C� >_I Ci GPI r 0 C N 2 O J O 6 O 6 V V Oy r J N V T 7 d J q E=• E � _ - -r c L r Pr ti7 l'JO � O C• N V G T L U V c <GG w.�qG d V O V > c C O O a r N c G V R G 6 a V p N T V C O N O G J r O ^J CC b v 0 O t7N � 6N o> P rG r V C q r d � r o rn� � = O 9_ L pN = a � O N V d J a C' V.L.G < 0 V Y 'qJ V J " L u C I N ` 9 C E L O N M Pe> r O � QL G V C V Q J 6 d £ 6 N � C S � 2 p U Q � v V C CCC c q v C 6 6 0 T c .cm h ICV V d.. _aG O � y y C G�T A.e dJ C Cr =O q y d �GQ V r F. o Cq e G O cz g L U L 6 � ^• CQJ O N r q C O qc ro L L Y O V V an C C =N . d j G �O L O q0 °C= � C � ^ C� G N c - -E q V p C= C J6.1 f =c_ T V r a > O O u 1 ' d q L a p G V C q C_ Gr C V J E q N.^ ^C� � G = Z c -• c _ r V i c- C C _ J —6 L z c G C T E V N a r 9 C 9 q 2 O T 7 = T n � qc C n c 6 ` .V. V N �J C C r� o �• c q V L U i' ui C bl N� 0 T i C' v V � r V G q C C GG C S n G C n a O c q E Z 6 � P C L. 0 V O � � r O .+ V j q C a C ' � O v M Q � N G q = b � � C c � > G V 6 V � I fT T� � d Pr _ d_ t Y_ u L- _ c - r ✓ _ `i= j G .rY�� -CU ✓GC 7G � L d cce c.o o c n c,ca:c. `..� `•c -� � o __- •� Su'_^^ Y -�G d� ✓TG d_ -..CL VE�LG V•G. �' ^V� qp I - _ _ � o E -_ V c s` - __ d ✓-- ,".ors _ = _ _ a o � q c�_� y M` r i y F o ✓._ � -° i Y- � c _- � z a c o ?„ y wEr Eor - -cG � �1''C -. - - _ -_ r_n- ✓ r N T V .d 15 nC GCn.Ly - LLL5 SLC yP= n' =TG- oF:5 =V Va �J ✓'aV Nmid -iL =2^' ..Cu N V r l✓ - _ O J d_ _✓ c L ` C➢` - -_ .... O 4� T V r C. TG T ✓_j _J�i�N D• ^6 G CV.fNiC Lr L C C✓ r u c T T � L C L- N q � C V L T. V- ° i r J V >. -'. L., a V r N O L � C= rt• v O > U � O Q I C C � 3 �= n�" P O q V C_ y C d J d N C r V ° V V G M i C .r ✓� L 1° �' vt C C - -4 nnvo- cc -°i � r ✓AC = -_ r ._r..o _c'c� J _cq I 4 °- - - - VCNM1•L t -7 tq�IVj OC��YJE VC'l �f 6N - V �' c N .n -- c O O O N rri F C_°. i✓ C 'J N-.. _ 4 L- •_ U .On C:C E�6 LLO .r'iL ✓y✓.Ni� L N -4'5 Q 60 L G n 6- 2 N L - y- V q na 2 ✓�. -2 vi \� •1 1 1 1 _ 1 _ cl c -`vi L L >co"sori = '^r °L' ru✓ - c n °c a N2T - 66 N�yr dr OCOC M-Vit _ q __ L C 2 a zr L 7 O n .�..N q€ V i O O e C✓ S c V `^ rr a N a L = N P 6 `n � 9 H�L•r Er �`�- C L ° INVN O O - ✓ ~ T y C _ V nG• .^cC OC CC = yr -O'e N G' aVU_6 O grLC G F 6 C r y `CO r 0 2 C r 4 C C Y T J ✓ - L �V "y OcE C �Zz! G O V i r y` G T g N� N G > n O C✓ P 2 = �r d V =rdP VGL n ', .n -LS Nq '''PC -U..`i Y a C6CC ZS 6.E � ✓p�C� _N �.__ C V_� n VC✓ L ._nr O C N 2 � N C V =' L_ T O q V C C- C' L✓ - C` _.. _ L= -- c oo >Y _> = >� C'❑ �1 - - Oa✓N 3 - a L ^ `� s r S C r- as V L - .L_- a. LO• p' n_ Ga P- ✓ NCq !-6✓QU 2 r_ N C___ _I � A� 1 1 �• 1 ^I RI U 11 N N c 9 9 r l• � N r V J c ` J� N r C C n �_ G - T' 4 ✓ F S to •1 C V _ - U .j O = zi O NC ND e'• Lr0 •n! 1 _ ^ V L U D L C '- C ^� C J r •n O` V � PD _ U C V "• Y. N Y _ J L C - �• F ^ `� � _ N a C L N 6 V N .� N i L` c_ 6 j} C C 6 r C q r - C'_ J7 N r =T6'- nPV L d CS_N O LN LQ NO_ cLN N r Nan u cu_O S� r ^Dqq_� p_ Tu 'L ^ N c•e p -N CJ •. v_... r._ vW _r H_ rc y.ev °c,J ccr" —' Cdca c_N= �✓ G O TAO Tu 9 S CSC �O £�G TJ dLq N ran Vd� ^_ ^JN q r q�rCd cam` r tPP LCE Cf C.rO `uv �� -'�rC lu 9 V ^� PTC Vr `CL VO _u `qD_u• .erC NOV C7 r- -� I I NI I V L? D O 9 L w G L Y G � O c 6 w N V V L L` S ` r V V •+ � �_ V V E is a `a •'_— —° cr Cr ooP} ^N =o rxo c L —D No y.0 u r•.L 6 L4 _OQN ON u n5 PC ? n VTOL CLC -dCV NC d` C YPr�`NO O u ^J L C _ r '> C q n _ � C _� N_ •�. t S r � >� O -41 n d O f C r C O d OS�� P GU d � u � C U c C> ` l 9 _T N .'. U N C S •^ nG U = y J P V 7 S C n q ✓ = E G S.L.. r_ N = c ^'a - i� u n o u O q � O• = .r ^ O E J v L ^j M L L L •O.r ` ✓ -o LC P u N C N O C S 1-0 ^ u C V G d L c !U V N Cm t... O > N _ I V � •� V_^� O y P .Li. C O r t • �� C Y d J P L .LU L S N^ O n 1[ O c D d d N H C`OL rN�- PPO.L �Tr r 5 �= GPI =CC ^.`c�L r L a J - •c -c^Y —. u -J n o.rr t <O oN .c C; 6Npn �.d NO Sig/` -N 6N•- <a 6N3NaW c r7 a- - _V T -- Tr V= -O G C *1 �I O b C - N •�_ " ♦C/. y P O V O F C a c.ppDG✓V+ yG TAO v♦ N o. vD V O uu,� a6 CIO pTG .-. 6rn� <�V'O a � 7 y - r V I _ p i♦ C D u i -O C G T y � M O = V G a ZE C d V EC V O I C V.rG V P i 0 � � ♦n V_ ¢ O I _ � ♦Or V �' : u a- � O .i. c r .a. d p. E q= T7 L J b •J N ♦- N C `i T r U G l C .C♦. V u f C C T •l -_ S �✓t t c�-r<f �aC` OL I Vd �j0_ r -♦ r _ O �� i COrCI CdC - C OC Ty TO.-.+ Ac --C �VST = UV PV♦C>^ -_ �i _- N cl c � �= wFS� �u c°.c G`�r.c _ co i+c T:c °••• 1 � — c c� c '� ♦� i m o i c y ° °¢� c c = a. o u _ I I I m e c �� c� u o - <c ♦ ANC C -VUi =i I I of _��I � i I I �• G. El ELI O V v U G t_J 9 L e a L C W qq ,.yOrl =A u c _ _ V �• -.c i rd `i c aid`.•c °ovo c cca _ _ p _ C✓ jCOq ^ uOS� d,9> ~ONTgP - G V < q L V n� I V L_ C O P L 6 E � 1 CP I CiLL V dC .. C-J.•r ` i _ C� q = I O c L r'. I N N O N rtl^i u j C V 6u �• I l q 1 I y V a L u c _ L p N P 1 a � r E E .moo d C• N o� b 7i N � C � V_ •_ w0. I � I N m J q Te J P 6 O M V I V Y 60 I I = C ^ _ OI _ 411 a E_m � I u. I 11 Y O �''J I j N �_ .� N ✓ V I VC�^OrE V= CrC Vu vE O_. dOV �CU qd CCU Y 0 afl b ^I CfI P I I I I 9 L e a L C W qq ,.yOrl =A u c _ _ V �• -.c i rd `i c aid`.•c °ovo c cca _ _ p _ C✓ jCOq ^ uOS� d,9> ~ONTgP - G V < q L V n� I L O tea-• C O O C r� u c ? N C y V O u O T C ^VJ � O N`CI Tip �Z ' O ^ N T V N C ^ _ C CN .^ N CLyC C q C V V G O V C CC ^2CrCJ C I`on nq <o oPq C d t r V L_ C O P L 6 E � u O ` u _ c ^o O N j C V 6u �• I l q V I y V a L u c _ L p N P 1 a � r E E .moo d C• N o� b 7i N � C � V_ •_ w0. I � I N m J q Te J P 6 O M V I V Y 60 I = C ^ C: OI 411 a E_m � I u. NI I I I j N L O tea-• C O O C r� u c ? N C y V O u O T C ^VJ � O N`CI Tip �Z ' O ^ N T V N C ^ _ C CN .^ N CLyC C q C V V G O V C CC ^2CrCJ C I`on nq <o oPq C d t r I � I I I i I i I .I I 1 C W q I r I' n I ( T non � p p O � ^ V c d ,glgl O 9 i i O U E U n i I _ I I c p I O I= , q P 9 P c I z 1= iC C 9 7 O n V a C r C t O M P c� � c O V 9 1 I I V7 V L_ P L 6 E � u O ` u _ c ^o C E a L u c _ L p a � r E E .moo d C• N b 7i N � C — it Te O: V n u p = C ^ C: OI 411 a u. I � I I I i I i I .I I 1 C W q I r I' n I ( T non � p p O � ^ V c d ,glgl O 9 i i O U E U n i I _ I I c p I O I= , q P 9 P c I z 1= iC C 9 7 O n V a C r C t O M P c� � c O V 9 1 I I V7 El 11 °-r-' o e F - - is _oath p Mbo 2 _ VIA A _ `C >r �W� ^� N o 02 —•O C �M�yr — OCl uG r� y C NVr Nt� q j Nc rn zZ N r M P o W _ '•� o � e d L u � .L°`° dC u - q T _c V p N^ G P P s I d,.•, -^J .. n 1 I= r M N= U N c '- d � ' O SUN N F. _ E' v' I .L... c n N P d r q C L ✓ b � T i V V O >. G N - d V = N Y. y C IS rtVi q YdV �- Cdr OY nP0 V VC 1rj 6 ^L C� F.°..O_ �•.-. C�O �V�qV G C V i C P W ` one toG OL = PTO` JLPC ?�4G Q GT u V V ^ q C aJ C V O V I I G t 4 L� U C •- ` J r E c � n N I I � - v o - u _ - s _ _ l .L.s u` Pr O I L Y •^r uc+L �+� REV°• � u !'� C ��Eru V —_ YEN ^tyV Fa �� iT ^r-.- •n s, °I: c Tc� =.'A n L c _ N g O E V C "t ~ d P 9 L L C q S Y N_ V— •J P •_� ]+ P V ME O X15 V+O L Nu .°.r ` �� 7 r c•: v V ILTt O�� q 'n n� �cC VN OV p_ dV� oto N� Fq •m NC �c a A —j q r - d: � L ad_ - it C� Go c e o L L- a�e- - - L a r - _. _ - o L <V IE p.nV Npuq� Q�N NOrO NNV 6�r QU 6� WrN�LV 36 VO C = F A c ^I •1 P rI ^! NI C� I I i -� O El 11 °-r-' �wZ is _oath p Mbo 2 -1 VIA A `C >r �W� ^� N o 02 —•O C �M�yr — OCl uG r� y C NVr Nt� q j Nc rn zZ N r M P o W d Ad:_ '•� o � e d L u � .L°`° dC u - q T _c V p N^ G P P s I d,.•, -^J .. n r M N c L O SUN N F. .L... c n N P d r q C L ✓ b � T i V V O >. G N - d V = N Y. y C IS rtVi q YdV �- Cdr OY nP0 V VC 1rj 6 ^L C� F.°..O_ �•.-. C�O �V�qV G C V i C P W ` one OL = PTO` JLPC ?�4G Q GT u V V ^ q C aJ C V O V I I G t 4 L� U C ` J = 2,q= V ^ N l .L.s u` Pr O I L Y •^r uc+L �+� REV°• � u !'� C ��Eru V —_ YEN ^tyV Fa �� iT ^r-.- •n s, °I: c Tc� =.'A n L N g O E V "t ~ d P 9 L L C q S Y N_ V— •J P •_� ]+ P V ME O X15 V+O L Nu .°.r ` �� ° V _P r c•: v l W �� y V O— u u n� WG1 dr 6n� p_ dV� oto N� Fq •m NC �c a A —j q r - d: � L ad_ - it C� Go c e o L L- a�e- - - L a r - _. _ - o L <V IE p.nV Npuq� Q�N NOrO NNV 6�r QU 6� WrN�LV 36 VO C = F A c El 11 V C.t O 11 I e s.� c =4 � d c �L o E E i ` O � 9 v O C C C O C C 4 N C N U G C 9 C`t C 6 � C C G °a�✓ osca o %Gc 1JJ OI n N � c q c •`. m a C C = d _ _ N E C C C O O C q E _ 7 n c y L Ni V F c e— d L I e s.� c =4 � d c �L o E E i ` O � 9 v O C C C O C C 4 N C N U G C 9 C`t C 6 � C C G °a�✓ osca o %Gc 1JJ OI n 7 7 E CITE OF Rx' NCHO CtiCAMONG A STAFF REFO$t i DATE: April 11, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plannino Commission ti c� i;z 197 FRO,1: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan. Coleman, ;ssociate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -01 .JEST- The development or a coin operated ca wash on 45 acres of land in the General Commercial district located on the southeast corner of Foothill and Helms - APN 208 - 261 -54. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Conditional Use Permit, site plans, elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Puroose: Construction, of a coin, operated cuin wash. C. Location: Southeast corner of Foothill and Helms {Exhibit 'A' D. Parcel Size: .45 acres. E. Existlnn Zoninq: General Commercial F. Existing Lana Use: Vacant. G. `:urroundin Lund Use and Zoninq: Plorth - Conrnercia ; Genera Commercial South - Woolworth Garden Center; General Commercial East - Perry's Market; General Commercial West - vacant; General Commercial H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Commercial North - General Commercial South - General Commercial East - General Commercial West - General Commercial ITEM I PLANNI`JG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 84 -01 - ;JEST April 11, 1984 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: Site Slopes to the south at approximately a Zro grade and is vacant. Curbs, gutters and pavement improvement exists on Foothill u Helms. This parcel is the remainder of parcel map 'ot split that created the Woolworth Garden Center to the East and South. J. Aoolicable Reaulations: The Development Code permit: coin -op car washes in the General Commercial District; CUP required; 1S parking spaces required. TT_ ANALYSIS: A. General: Because of its unique operating characteristics, coin - operated car washes were conditionally permitted in the new Development Code subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process is intended to afford an opportunity for broad public review and evaluation of the site development requirements and operating characteristics of certain uses which require special consideration in order to operate in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. The Plannino Commission is authorized to gran*_ Conditional Use Permits to achieve these purposes and impose reasonable conditions to ensure that all site development regulations and performance standards are provided in accordance with the Development Code and General Plan. Typical conditions may include requirements for special setbacks, buffering, fences, screening, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress, regulation of hours, or other characteristics of operation. The primary issue for this request is the compatibility and appropriateness of the coin - operated carwash use for this particular location and at an intersection along a Special Boulevard. The Planning Cummission should review the size, shape, access and topography of the sits to assure that it is appropriate for the development of a coin - operated carwash facility. Op L J 11 PLANNING 00MMISSIN CUP 54 -01 - 'h S! April 11, 1934 Page 3 STAFF PEP..RT The project site is less than 1/2 acre in size and is approximately 1906 feet deep and 100 feet -.vide. The new Development Code '.could require a minimum site area of 40,000 square feet except for parcels created within shopping centers where a mas -_n plan has peen developed and appropriate easements granted for reciprocal access and parking, During the review of the 4:oolworth's Garden Center and related parcel map, a conceptual cor..er site plan (Exhibit "G ") was developed which indicated a 5,000 square foot building located on the corner. The proposed site plan for the carwash as shown in Exhibit "H" is substantially different from the previously approved corner site plan. To minimize potential traffic conflicts on Helms, the Engineering Division recommends that the northerly drive approach on Helms Avenue be located a minimum of 100 feet from Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "B ". However, this would result in only 23 feet between the two driveways which could create further confusion and traffic conflicts. Therefore, the Engineering Division recommends that a only a single 50 -foot :aide drive approach be provided on Helms, as shown on the alternate sketch, Exhibit "D ". This is intended to reduce traffic conflicts on -lms ,Avenue caused by stacking of vehicles if the carwash is full. The conflict occurs where northbound traffic ar. Helms Avenue attempt to make a left tern onto Foothill and cars making a right turn from Foothill onto Helms attempt to enter the carwash. To offset these vehicles, the Engineering Division recommended the single drive approach at the southwest corner of the project site. However, this results in interior circulation problems on the site during peak use hours. The carwash has seven car washing bays and the site could accommodate a stacking of approximately five or six vehicles on the west side of the building. Additional patrons would be forced to wait in line ou: into the driveways and onto Helms Avenue, park in the detail area along the east property line, or park in the 'Woolworth's parking lot until a car wash bay became available. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CU? 34 -01 - WEST April 11, 1934 Page 5 C. En•.ironmental Review: cased upon the initial study, staff has• ceter^zneo that this project may have a significant impact upon th environment in terms of creating an aesthetically offensive S;. To mitioate this concern, the applicant has provided screen walls, landscape berms, and an architectural style �ocipati�ie with the Burr ,)undino area. Ill. FACTS FOP, FINDINGS: Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: 1. That 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. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or u�alfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies -with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Coce Further, the Planning Commission should consider whether the size, shape and topography of the subject site is appropriate for the proposed use. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a Public Hearino in The Daily Report newspaper. The property was posted and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. The adjacent Woolworth Garden Center has objected to this project on the basis that it is not appropriate for this particular location. No further correspondence has been received either for or against this project. V. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission, may select from the following options: 1. Approve the CUP. 2 Continuance to allow for revisions. 3. Deny the CUP. PLA.N'11 ?�G COMMI'SION STAFF REPORT iCUP 34 -01 - WE5T April 11. 1934 Pdae . L The second issue iE the visibility of car wasting bays from Foothiii 2ouievard. Past Planning Commission policy has been to require automobile service station bays, repai- and tire shoes, carwashs and other similar uses to be designed with the service bays faring away from intersections o- Special Boulevards. The applicant_ intends to provide a 4 -foot high stucco screen wail with berming and landscaping along Foothill and Helms Avenue. However, Foothill Boulevard sits three to four feet higher than the pad elevation of the carwash facility. Therefore, the eftect of a screen wall would be minimal for traffic on Foothill Boulevard. Further, the drive approaches on Helms Avenue provide additional visibility into the carwash bays. The size and shape of the property precludes reorienting the building to mitigate this concern because tare building is open on both sines. The Development Code requires a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaped strip alone; the south and east property lines. Ibis planter should include at least one 15- gallon size tree per each 3 stalls. Along the east property line, a 4 -foot high wall would separate this project from the planter in the Woolworth's parking lot. No on -site planters are provided, as shown in Exhibit "B ", along the south and east boundaries. B. Desian Review Coomnittee: The Committee expressed severe concern with the appropriateness of the carwash use along Foothill Boulevard, however deferred the consideration of this issue to the full Planning Commission. The Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the site plan layout, roof design, and screening. The site plan has been revised to provide a minimDmr. of 20 feet of landscaping as measured from curb face z.long Helmc Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "B ". The Committee recommended that extensive mounding and landscaping be provided along both street frontages, in particuiar, berming against the screen walls with creeping vines or shrubbery along the l alls facing streets to discourage the possioility of graffiti. The roof design was revised to repeat the small mansard roof element on the north end of the building, Exhibit "F". Colored renderings of the project as viewed from Foothill Boulevard will be available at the PUL)Iic Hearing. = - (I/ r1 1 — u^ PLANNING COMINISSION STAFF RcPCRT CUP 34 -01 - WEST April 11, 1934 Page o VI. RECTIMEfDATION: It is recen erded that the Planning Commission consider all -material and elements If this project. If after such ccnsideration the Coy mission can support the Facts for Finding and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached resr.iution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. if the Coar+ission cannot support the Facts for Findinc and Conditions of Approval, a Resclution of Denial has been provided. ResDectf�lly s;r mittea, or Ri ck./G &Le2 LI Planner RG:DC:r.s '4ttachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map :::hibit "3" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Alternate Site Plan Exhibit "E -1" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E -Z" - Section AA Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "6" - Previously Approved Corner Site Plan Exhibit "H" - Proposed Corner Site Pldr. Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Denial 1 — u^ TO CC .... ...ISZ -10. .._.i A o_` t1.4 s 1 st weeh '-ad the opportunity ^ meet it h Desic_n Revie-; a_ ,. Devel^p_ -ent Revie:. cc itti_s. F_ased on these meet- us it is an:agent to me that I :ave :e sane desiros as does the ci _ of ?.anch Cucamonga to protect ,..,.e�intec - �1 the cite by building only noteworthy cevelc�. dents on Foot: i'_1 Boule- Ca_TC . In t:e last three years I have ta'r_en great time and effort not to mention invest -ents to chan7e the i ^age of most coin- o.-erated car was.-es that have been developer in t e earl%- GCs and 7C.s. I :lave and will continue tc build only the state of the art coin - o?eratcc car washes to prcve th_t t::ev car. be a desireable and com- patible asset to not only the driving public but to add to the quality of the city that I have the opportunity to build in. In the recent -ast I have obtained three conditional use neirn. -ts in areas that were thought to be only designated for high quality com- mercial buildings but I have proven that the type of buildings that house the car washes are very clean and attractive and therefore are very apeealing to not only the city but to the customers that patron- ize the �acilit^ l . is with every endiv1cual project it has certain detriments that must be overcome in order to be a successful business. In meeting wit. the Design Review and Development Review not only are their thoughts and co. —erts appreciated but easily accc:- iodated with plans that I have in mind. Great care and planning has been put into t:i, project includ- ing the thought, of customer stacking and parking, ti -e spent in the car wasL_ turnover of the car wash, and based on our market study and feasibility- study, we have added two additional car wash bays in + order to eliminate excessive stacki_na in waiting by customers in order to keep cars and traffic down to a minimum and provide a better ser- vice to our customers. A very important asset to the car wash and business is to be able to have t'ae approvai of the Planning Commission and Traffic Depart=ient to allow two access driveways on Helm Street in order to keep the -flow and the conjestion of the car wash off cf t'he street and to eliminate any off street parking. Fgain, care has been taken to create a visually attractive building as you can see by the rendering. But maintenance, unkeep and repairs are as important as an attractive building. It is gen- erally accepted that the amount of business received is directly re- lated to the time and monev the owner is willing to invest. The car wash must be managed and maintained in a condition suit- able for this area and the city in general. and in regards to vandalism I have found that 90 percent of all vandalism in this type of business stems from equip^ent failure. If the customer puts in his or her money and it does not work, properly, they have a tendency to tare it out on the building. So, il- is -mper- tant to have an on -sight attendant to help, manage are protect our investment. Therefore, the above facts and statements and my belief in the car wash industry are strong justificat ions for the approval of this req-,:ested Conditional Use Permit. Ste. rely � P sideat on West r CITY Or L RANCHO j Tr.WEGT srrE CUCALMONGA PL�NNK \G DI %WiO\l L ITEE I= .7 0 U 111, cer., tll Ii CAIZ 1 7- ---------- ME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAL.L\10.\GA PLANNING DIVISION trot ii3rr- scAL.E-. —_o J_ i 'tPC-T-Al L_ iii GA 77 CVACUU*l I V.h,(,%*) WODLVI;:,�ITP NORTH Fi F 7 CAIZ 1 7- ---------- ME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAL.L\10.\GA PLANNING DIVISION trot ii3rr- scAL.E-. —_o J_ i 'tPC-T-Al L_ iii GA 77 CVACUU*l I V.h,(,%*) WODLVI;:,�ITP NORTH I 4- 1 � l- I F::7 I J aa` a I afi rj �I I u a r _c v E V � NORTH E CI'T'Y OF ITEM: it U P 1574 - 01 Ri A� \�CH/�O CIS.' —,V \IO\GA TITLE: - . ()SC PLANNING DIVISON! EMIUB:T: C, SCNLE= CITY of RA\C .O vti i , p it I 1 A i M I CUCAAMONGA PIAI NIN, DIVL9, () NOS ITT:,.,: /0"ll of-> $4 -o d Tom: A_tt �TE 57-4cf EX BT: 12 SCALE ZZ LOT cv 1 r __ �j� 1 1 �•,T�i I I �a I I. ` 7 f � � \ NORTH CITY OF I1 LEI: S4 •� 1 RAINCHO ,CL:CA1I01O.-� "i'ITLE: PULN NI_ \G DIxlSiOtt E \! 11131T.- of SCALE:----- - � —ice u 11 _. ... ;i ' U I� l �t �l I II _ I II a_�`, { I n `p 0 a Z 3: r• U i :JI+ s l NORTH CITY OF L— r ITEM: W (1 —(�— RANCHO CLC TME:�� I PLANNING Dl'\Ti IQ Tao ?:: EXHIBIT= F, v SCALE: 4,r4 - :60 eaLli lw-�7 11,E 4 IMN I: —'e I di TITLL- EX I I I RIT: SC-xLE: 7 7) vp Ij L, .1 0, 7j E I ciiL� Ij eaLli lw-�7 11,E 4 IMN I: —'e I di TITLL- EX I I I RIT: SC-xLE: 7 7) vp Ij L, .1 0, 7j E I � gg Ap �fa lie ~± INORTi { cl-1 Y OF ITEM. 54 -t4-7) I IV I��-�.1\CHO CUCANIO\CJr1 TITLE: . ode A t ' " �� s�. Fi_:1\i \I'G UIVISION F— XHIBIT: SG LE-- ••.- E V NORTH CL lT OF iTE.i1: t ..aiP 0 .o RAT CHO CUC. `.-LMONGA TITLE: ti�SE J CavVkfo • SL' 1PL NNNI \G DI \'tC.J.N Etili1r11: _ALE: •" 'icc aE LI_ J I I L I I iii cAtz ;I L. !ir E V NORTH CL lT OF iTE.i1: t ..aiP 0 .o RAT CHO CUC. `.-LMONGA TITLE: ti�SE J CavVkfo • SL' 1PL NNNI \G DI \'tC.J.N Etili1r11: _ALE: •" 11 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUC N10NGA INITIAL STUDY PAr ^.T I - PROJECT INFORMATION SEEET - To be completed by applicant Bnvircrm ental Assessment Review Fee: :87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be comalet.ed and subr,.itted to the Deveioo_^enc Review Committee throuch the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part IT_ of the Initial Study. The Development_ Review COLLT.ittee will meet and take acticr. no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the prcjec_ is to be hear. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3; An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further info ^a - tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: i `-c. ; :;t L L.- c__ i [-; -- CD j" APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: C_i?'?i = r > r ?•7cn t` ��,s iT/� 'S t t` 7 Th c. :i /'_NLf.N icb�i -. c_,i GA. �^i. L-•7 �: LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I- i E 11 WILL THIS PROJECT YES 0 k. 1. Create a substantial chance in ground contours? -- - -� -2. it 3. 4. - 5. Y k 6. Create a substantial chance in existing noise or vibration? Create a substantial chance in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ? ? — - - -- Create charges in the existing zoning or general plan designations? Remove any existing trees? How many? Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous r..aterials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of anv YES answers above: IMPORTP.NT__ if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page._ cSHTIFICATION: I hereby certify tral the statements furnish -sd above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to ttie best 'of m_r ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledoe and belief. I further understand that additional information .aay be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by tae Development Review Conmittee. Date . 3ZVI signature V �r Title I 1-3 ` RESOLUTION NO. r A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CIJCAMONGA PLANNING COZ-VISSION APPROVING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 110. 84 -01 FOR A COIN -GP CAR 'BASH LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL AND HELMS Ii THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 27th day of February, 1994, a complete application ias filed by Chris :lest for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1934, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider "tie abc�e -descr i~ project. t9C'd, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That 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 .te is located. 2. That the proposed use, togethar with the conditions P� applicable thereto, ,gill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Oe�,elopment Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 11, 1984. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -01 is approved subject to the following conditioiss: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Provide extensive moundina and landscaping along �cth street frontages. In particular, provide berming against screen .aalis and plart creeping vines or shrubbery along walls facing street. 2. Provide minimum 20 feet of landscaping as measured from curb face, along Helms. a r:.. MAO PROJ -CT DESCRI?TIC -; DESC ?IPTIOD: OF PROJECT: =- 'C" OF PRCJSCT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTItiG AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THy ENVIRON*ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMkTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANLNLALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) VAr'�1/ ?,ic�� -i' �.. ,rte: c' _ ,> •.t D.ti, G�>.i ..- - >_pi Is the project part of a larger project, ore of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have s g-)4 ficant enviro=ental impact-- A c 11 Resolution No. Paco 9 ENGINEER"* DIVISION 1. The proposed drivexays on 'Helms Avenue shail be redesigned to provide oniy one driveway access at the southwest corner of the protect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY Of APRIL, 1984. PLANNING COMMISK ON OF 7HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCXIONCA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secret ry 1, Pick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancno Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution sas duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pianning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular me=eting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1934, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: C0MMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: —r ! RESOLUTIO'1 ';G. A RESOLUTION OF THE RA ?4CHO CUCA'tO1:GA PI "%T.'1G r0 ?1MISSI0.. DENYING CO:iDITiG:AL USE ?ER'4IT N0. �1 -01 FOR A COIN -OP CAR WASH LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNED OF F007 LL A10 HELMS I`: THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRirr WHEREAS, on the 27th day of February, 19-04, a complete application was filed by Chris West fo:° review cf the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1934, the Rancho Cucamonna Planning Commission held a public hearinj to consider the above - described project. ;r'OJ, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucarona? Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings cannot be met: ?. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which tha site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, wi11 not be detrimental to the putlic health, safety, or welfare, or materially in;urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. -s. That the proposed use corplies with Each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 54-01 is denied. APPROVED AID ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1984 PLANN;t7G CO ;"OMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH.1 CUCAMONGA 6Y: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST- RICK Gomez, Deputy Secretary L Rasol'ut'on '.o. Paa ;' 1, Rick comet, Depfty Secretary of Vte Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cecamonga; do hareby certify that the foregoing Resoiut:on was duly and regularly introduced, ;.arse^_, and adopted by the Planning Co.•,.rission e= the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a recular meeting of the Plaroting Corrnission held on the 11th day of April, 19S4, by the following vote -to -wit: ;YES: CO ?i^1- -S :--I. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ai3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: U pq L J s t \. •_J O b Y y. L C .� I�. C C- q.- J V c_ V Y - _ jN (j � e L r •TT� ° d c r 6 '< V f= � V b 4 C1 q N.O.. q ^utl iGG i6V -u ALN- O VO _ u � �`G Nyr ?C�• r- w qr N u N-• N 7V _ �E d Lo o_�w ��.0 qN�° q �EED •.�7 -� � �., •wC 7 V i v v wa Gj ACC La drr 3 qN iCN —C L C �- ✓r wJr GVJ N G C.0 .nH L�6 �r dq =�. �N dLr^M AG> d L O P O V ✓> P _ GC �d0 y 19 u YO ....__ 9N NO? NC✓ _ r_J° r; �4�� L�pN qf'D_ a .- Tu••• dNi� 3� tl L r V 6 � ^6 tla ON LT C60j i•J r y O d C O ` �_ C C 9 u y _r q C _ V N b� •.•V^`1 ? /� V O •", .). « d^ iyU_ u V ^06 { CC luu- N 6 L 9 N O v N ��p.a Qy�OU 60c0 <v� 19GL6 6JGii QQ�Y 6� H6w r.`nC Ha.✓i.0 1 I I V• d'J ,r IO.^. N I rod ✓_ I o , _ a d u p d N I� V tl f O T d ^• r i y N d a 6tl •.' =✓ = O L• C d tv O c 2 O W C a N C O 9 _ NG tJ -N W =7 GN° N rG f4 cJ ZZ e^ by N L Jr VI O q`'J r'ZCr �1 I G6L• �`r .^ C � ANY M.j <V d G6> Oc V I � O ^NN c_ C. � - .�wN yV_� O- i- C� i y C b N J ; -r O u u _� p e rCC•", ✓ I —� N` N 6 1 rj C C O O 4 C` U t V 6 C V •`� � G l 6 -• V L° e I O• C � O > C V p r v H N N 4 Yl pl ' 6U rl I N I .ter Cy. 1.1 KI 0 N n C T� •L ^ Pr w � M1' !n L C Tr, r d J " w] _ V N ^ G N 6! l C O L >> L �r w. tJ C C V _ ^J 9�j 4Nr Err j VTL� • r it.J C �� „rl aF v G MCT CO rOC n �C. Tr G Cr � VD I_V C. q - _VD L •^a• n O_ - �° N^ i' � E L 'C c� r O n_= M O B VJ ^J i O N � `O q` n ry LGqu ' �2.r`. �r yr 6L'y� „vNV COL rT' ` n ✓bLJ G L 6� rJ �nL pCo__ rO T Tr c�qs ° l r C O< — '^a N _ t -,-5- ' C g w• 4— � - O r n N nD Ev LOri. 2:1 .+ 9C0�� L O J' opL Gr °��• � trrcy r°e y.�� oho NOa�o aG._aVC YrJrC 6I O+po _ .c =.n qLN C_cn ..o _".ro 1 __ }� a7v �PV �O 2 Cj n��C Gtr rbpi�9r V_UC w'y�rrG .rGgVr JGC9 CL �O C ^V G�VCP 0�"]<..r� NO—Ol pC� at Lur r4F L4r 20rC V� J G O 'NVelw LCO `tl N� � ^i i= Mi•_ c aL D Grj pp 6�2M NL °� nC 1' qSr n'•�N iI 6CN J tj 0 aT� C� q 9C ETC �. L^ uLGM1_ t^i >U_ V 0 n7F L O��ifxj�L- LLV�00 CGp �wr b� r = •^•• ='= u ^ ..q` °� G 9 _ no.N i >v � ¢a.G.e ML• uD L— c'i �� 2 L NGO OG r ^V pr rC.�� o r✓ O_ V > L N r N S C d C l 0 O _ __ V4 C Wr�G u_. Low .. ° ' ?^ o° .o_ ° °q —v �� G c� =y _w:_o u 9a. NL< y � !' G G_ G. ^” Z L L G V - N O. C g a t C• L C_ _ G V V a•G C r r0 V gl0_6 11 O _� C r •�'.`.,rSi _ N ...r0 C N M p04919�enC -V�T�� ONLT O OnGC .O.fV �q 1 VG T w.r y 4 7;: oT � is GUq adcvcM Q� D N9 4V Jr4 pW qr P� �rY NCB 4SuQV T �°n+ N 4V �O .� ^I x• I I � � I i tI I I L• _ N C'- E _ Z - Z ZF 'n�_ N g q= D C^ N y O r G C C l= Y J A •C_iD d 9 C °. V N V 6• L 'J V 2 .• V .- r y . r. N n L y°• n F r 4 C> N ` C vVi C V P n a' q O 4 l N� _N _¢ a P'Y qe _ 9D =G �VA LPy 'oyV V >V •r w. -7.2 p r= `i — aN� q� a °. nD ° -'°^ `or c c Nd nc _ .`..c �, ✓.r 6¢m O V vN: 4 q Q= 0 G mo O L T L t = Cq N Ca yQ ¢wc jAN r r.O qt L V ¢"• = ° .L..• d ¢r O do �c.°..qy.. ¢t C e d �9Vd - -y LTnC .0 = l0 4 P °yr NC! LLO �l GN _O P_ N rD p >.O py T NqV •NnG��A'Cwdi2gr ' _ C Y V G g O � _ a L.� .L O i `A� POp✓ r app ELd.. r .i-. L _ cvNi V q -¢ gwfD SC QwnCO 9 7F r 0�1[f OL L PT r Cn^•Nd A =¢� y ��"^ Pa y TV q0 - rOL`L 2 j � OLO_ nVnQ 00 N .� L q Q gpVO Iran�QCA DP` V.C�VO N dNVq H'N iow- ^iG'O ��EC OIL d`PN N t D� V4N �;S�Eu�� CNi ��d - cPON CoL �aO NCy_ n P Z O Y: 7CC ;7; a q cNnq u d N on �� . .n _ N e « u q qi `, � ^ r r n C'- E E oIi u Q O G 6� O of 41 l 6 _ v d r• N a cC 6 i O O r. a P d c O p ` O 6 6 s4 r• N L_ z d c 9 V u 0 69 mz a°c o y C q O ° O 6 � G V W C — C r V N T _ t oc .. r 6 y O V pC r V s v _ O 4 aim `mot °CLr , P az O� � O � V� V — V� � •• o t o u c a m L G u '• � • N U L... 1 C T a c n� '• m ru aL ` SV�r .T. d — — >! r. � _ [Cy- C C I zr 'u- - .C-. s ia i - L� O ¢ pr..• G _ __ 7 rl •.. L g V L d d GA M Air d r >_.L r w — -4q ` _ �•Cl _ —VC V-J =C L C A J Q C r LJPaL ✓, —n•�G N N � b E oIi u Q O G 6� O of 41 l 6 _ v d r• N a cC 6 i O O r. a P d c O p ` O 6 6 s4 r• N L_ z d c 9 V u 0 69 mz a°c o y C q O ° O 6 � G V W C — C r q d -c A 9 V L, o A � C d � d � N OS c O. — C arc G ' � m •+ a q= — C � I O ry - > O V O L � W NI UI V O V C u It N c r. c V N T _ t r r 6 y O V pC r V s v _ O 4 aim O O O� � O � V� V — V� � •• o t o u c a m L G L... 1 IrV pV a c n� '• m ru aL ` SV�r .T. d — — >! r. � _ [Cy- C C I zr V _ .C-. s ia i - L� O ¢ pr..• 4 V� .54 -4q ` VV PNO �•Cl _ —VC V-J =C V 4 � b OI G� L' nC! •r -' V V A •� yy� r V C J am• N V -J O q •'• VN • U V — r— N N O u -J V O C d 6•L S= V� „ .�r+yl O.VJ' WIV9 WVV �.L f.]062G� 6PV 4�`L° "J y q d -c A 9 V L, o A � C d � d � N OS c O. — C arc G ' � m •+ a q= — C � I O ry - > O V O L � W NI UI V O V C u It N c r. c V N T _ t r r 6 y O V pC r V s v _ O 4 aim •' p =• L o F N _ q V U o t o u c a m L G L... 1 IrV pV a c n� '• m ru aL ` SV�r .T. — — >! r. � [Cy- C C I L. •q0 V _ .C-. s ia - A ¢ pr..• 4 V� Q A fi�ur 4 E vW` G V U L... 1 5 Ao a c n� '• i qE SV�r .T. — �> •V >! � [Cy- C C I L. •q0 V _ .C-. s -4q ` VV PNO �•Cl _ —VC V-J =C b OI G� L' Q R� E � L _ ✓rte .�. l V T .: _ {�I V U'' dy < °rr4 I N= I CV'C C.I� � L6N r 00 I�I i \j L O NO_ � ✓ ✓ V ` N`O dL rnN NUS -C N' I .r-• I °r ��] J \•I �J< YO mC L G -__ Vi I� I I L -f(I 9V�V"_� l_'Tr PO G^ `n L <6 I I I Nrr VJr l� � -� � • �� UY I -- c =>IVnQLS N. =� �° NI ✓ -_ ..S ✓yl y� � GL= .°.:n° .f -° pq y9N GN GI iV ✓✓ !O �°1 6� 1 1 m L`� C:�`OE OV Uu� C''d i ✓PntJ C✓ rul I I I >N O^ JlJ I GT� C•O.r n:c 19 Oi EP Q[ I I 4V� 6PV rFL a°qL"; q V•_1 y I ° `r mud n- E L � ✓ utr iG. .d.. V �¢ � I A a Z d 9 P� ✓ 6 6 C+ �� Z` O G. �✓ d E C p y M L q G qdj L_Od� ~pG l L•'. I ° UU d 6•qt N L v 6 u° 6 ° N S m V 6' � ra d L F Y G d�� n a t ._ l l •V.r I V c n ✓ I _. _ V '� V r q Ldi ✓ L _� t G rr O p rrr n V d �✓ V` qp NL jyL q qCG `_J tV�� C G dCr ° Or i d N O 0 � � = O '� -C - q✓ � q I ` Y°pr C °d� < CctLP ° OOO sL -V2V 'V.L ` qcu d` d•'u c�.`i =_ - -c Eq ✓ ✓✓ Nino ='� Lo G ✓� L V C r N GG O C i N q ✓ G o.:'�= •° moo` � —c u.4o. =.; n.T °°�. _ ✓✓ °� F'Q.G 4 -yrCC� •J> N 4 -L� < NTV 1'U �_� glglgl '_ a _ No =✓c °.n✓ rr,_�_V :.: ri o° d r` O -O qM dam_ _ J V_ in i. _ � J V a I q q� L ✓`_a s GcL ✓- mac. °:, �q Vi _.� I L _ �:�� -_ t �a � O._i qI N rrr O° r � d T 6 G d° i✓ C 1 N P. C� L.� _� .y. ✓ i V .Ti ° C N_°: >_r no1T ��u =q .-.; '"� G- n• in4u v✓r. P r pV N Ni _ �_ 6 O c o _9 E i C 'r d ._ N 9 N O e 4? C .°.. C 1 q d n V 6 C a p- G •_ q l W U a A 6 C V V V - T I•j ✓. P a 4 a - r•I G• -� o- I : ° v V ° O �O R� q I i �.Lrr Ci cl ueL N Scl r _ VI •.'r N � f O'I I R� E vm d C V' N d N >. r- V C V d d d f U Q• L_= d ^.� y N C C p 9"�C C S`� ✓ -NO IL ^� C N OrL •. J N c `�� rV:. �. >o cr`_t✓ c L c. o`-�i d Nam, c q �`J M L N q° m V L d V L M I V � P G✓ n L > C � ` L a � M U C c I on mo_N= s�L� L Ode �� y ten' rn� Z .•r+.. N ^mac `Gy G9E0� n �O J^q: • � Sr 4r >NO 9 G„ N .i P` ✓ T j N p V r 'i. L n_- d T C � U V O N ° C' N N .^ •L.. � V V _ c .� .✓it G✓ j = y L 1= r S C .n S C C` L _ _ -+ _ - P C OL n M r' C L O r ✓ r C V G •.. °. FE -G.. S C n i+ � C J C C 6 C✓ .✓i. U C C' 7 L Ci r ..r `. ✓G CW�p� OSC �4V � S.. C ..L.. y.re.�lu cN Y tCLPC r Nm �c a Ip L OQr ^^ CV`�r� mV�U �_~ r.� ✓j C LOV �V C O - V I C ". C � -J � G= a G V C E r Y✓ I •ICN� - i ✓ ..0 O � a III �; d- °° C � `p r L _ L` V - L N _ == p - E =u ->' Ln r= r � G r6 yT= •°..CV `CV= - wV C� 4A`GC nN C =��Gn W O T`aV pn j'° Y Gy r✓u •°"S� LNG lP ✓V CN C✓ C ��✓C�W nr IN 9 �L S•... rp^�y° NCn OI l�r CNV I _C VC C J O ° Npy vf4�0 9 C G�� ' V n_ O C ✓ N J ,° I 9 V✓ .r j NV W 6V GC � C V_ V _ L r• L U � �V _ -JI ^L O .°.. n '� I r T m v I I I V J✓ r J 'o � I rte✓ GpN CN JL 1 tiI ^I °I ✓� b ^I V P ✓I ^.1 � I 1 I `N' �l vm d C V' N d N >. r- V C V d d d f U Q• L_= d ^.� y N C C p 9"�C C S`� ✓ -NO IL ^� C N OrL •. J N c `�� rV:. �. >o cr`_t✓ c L c. o`-�i d Nam, c q �`J M L N q° m V L d V L M I V � P G✓ n L > C � ` L a � M U LNL mo_N= s�L� L Ode �� y ten' rn� Z .•r+.. N ^mac `Gy G9E0� n �O J^q: • � Sr 4r >NO 9 G„ N .i P` ✓ T j N p V r 'i. L n_- d T C � U V O N ° C' N N .^ •L.. � V V _ c .� .✓it G✓ j = y L 1= r S C .n S C C` L _ _ -+ _ - P C OL n M r' C L O r ✓ r C V G •.. °. FE -G.. S C n i+ � C J C C 6 C✓ .✓i. U C C' 7 L Ci r ..r `. ✓G CW�p� OSC �4V � S.. C ..L.. y.re.�lu cN Y tCLPC r Nm �c a Ip L OQr ^^ CV`�r� mV�U �_~ r.� ✓j C LOV �V C O - V I C ". C � -J � G= a G V C E r Y✓ O � G G• - y. S U S -".a C � `p L L N� ` L` <� - L N _ == p - E =u ->' Ln r= r � G r6 yT= •°..CV `CV= - wV C� 4A`GC nN C =��Gn W O T`aV pn j'° Y Gy r✓u •°"S� LNG lP ✓V CN C✓ C ��✓C�W nr IN �L S•... rp^�y° NCn Vr l�r CNV =u � _C VC C V E ONy Npy vf4�0 qr• C.�N NV Gnu 6V GC WrMGLU 2p V^, 1 vm 7 E.] El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S JIBS` F�'' REP®RT DATE: April i1, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner wl Dan Coleman, Associate Planner 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTAT?VE 'iKPCT 12>32 - ARCHIBALD ASSOCIATES - The dev lopment of ill zero lot line homes on 14.5 acres in the Low - Medium Residential District, located betwe,n Archibald and ldmona at Monte Vista Street - APN 202 - 161 -05, 06, 15, 16 RELATED FILE: ZONE CHANGE 83 -07 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan elevations and subaivision map. B. Purpose: Development of 102 zero lot line homes and 9 single - familly aetaci?ed homes. C. Locat;on: Between Archibald and Ramona at Monte Vista Street Exhibit A). D. Parcel Size: 14.5 acres. E. Existing Zoninu: Low - Medium Residential and Medium- Residential Zone Change to Low- Medium pending). F. Existin, Land Use: Easterly half vacant; westerly half consists of iristmas treefarm. G. Project Density: 7.7 dwelling units per acre. H. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninc: North - ing e-famz y tract and fourplexes; LM and M Residential. South - Single - family residences; LM and M Residential. East - Single - family tract; Low Residential. West - Single - family residential, Medium Residential. ITEM J ca r C C• T Y 7 T N � n n c S `o 9 U T ro C O O tOi o � O C G W r a r � T � C V ` L W � V � G C V J G O u "J r C O w V n V ✓ = L � L _ O ~ M W y N p n 7 r L U Y 7 T O - c S 9 ro C E r o G r � V � G � l V O r C O w V n V ✓ = L � L _ O n 7 r V - G G V C lU L 'v - Gr C•� •`• MI n 6 O - c _ 9L r E f C V G �L y O C ` O C� G ; C n ~ C O H U U � C L n r T a 0 `o v PLANi!ING COMMISSION STAFF REPG ?T TT 12532 /Archibald Associates April 11, 1934 Page 2 General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential North - Medium Residential South - Medium Residential East - Low residential West - Mo li im DeSirlontial J. Site Characteristics: Site slopes to the southeast at approximately a ro grade and is traversed by an ephemeral stream chat-mol subject to periodic flooding. The easterly half of the project site consists of Eucalyptus windrows and two existing residences to be removed. The :westerly half consists of a Christmas tree farm and beehives surrounded by a chain link fence, as shown is t!le ;attached Exhibit "C ". The remainder of the site is covered by native grasses. K. Applicable Regulations: The Low - Medium Residential District optional development standards pe:-mit single - family and zero lot line development; no minimum lot size; 5% common open space; ..25 guest par'�ing spaces per unit. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This project requires approval of Development District Amen3nt 83 -07 to Low- Medium Residential. The Amendment change was inadvertently not advertised for the April 11, 1984 agenda. Therefore the Amendment request must be scheduled for the next available agenda. This project, in conjunction with the adjacent tract 12320, wi'1 install a storm drain pipe to carry storm water from Victoria Street to Ramona Avenue south of the railroad tracks, which is intended to provide shot -term mitigation of flooding problems on Ramona Avenue north of the railroad tracks. Ramona Avenue is currently subject to severe flooding during the rainy season. The Lena -term mitigation would be the completion of the City's master plan of storm drain system, Exhibit "L ", which includes a storm drain, in Ramona Avenue south to Base Lire, and east to the Turner Avenue storm drain. Because the project is lower than Archibald Avenue, the entire project will be graded to drain to the storm drain in Ramona. P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 125"2;Archibald Associates April 11, 1984 Page 3 Access to the project site would be provided froin Archibald Avenue. A secondary point of access could be provided to Ramona by street connection with Monte Vista. However, the Applicant is proposing an emergency -only fire access lane to connect with Ramona per the request of the surrounding residbnts. Ifte Engineering and Planni+�g tLsiYisiOns recommend a paved street connection to Ramona to reduce traffic deriand upon Archibald Avenue per the attached memo. This project will generate increased vehicular traffic -- approximately 600 trips per day. During peak morning hours, approximately 26 cars will be added to Ramona and approximately 39 cars added to Archibald. The increase on Ramona Avenue is not c-nsidered siq_nificant ano traffic volimes would not exceed the capacity of Ramona Avenue. The interior private streets are planned at a reduced right -of- way width of 50 feet. This allows for a standard 36 -foot wide street. However, this reduces the overall right -of -way area generally needed for utilities, sidewalks, and street trees. The 50 -foot right -of -way does allow for a sidewalk adjacent to curb ors both sides of the street; however, additional easements will be necessary for utilities and street trees. B. Desion Revieg Committee: The Committee was concerned that the uniform lot width an uniform building separation, together with the relatively narrow lot width of 40 feet, would produce a monotonous streetscape dominated by garages and driveways. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Applicant prepare the streetscape drawing of a typical group of lots as viewed from the street, is shown in Exhibit "H -5 ". The attached Exhibit "I ", illustrates the result of uniform lot width and building separation upon the streetscape_ The majority of lots have small driveways too small to park a standard car on without blocking the sidewalk. This places an additional demand for on- st-raet parking. The typical distance between driveways available 1o, parking is 22 feet. The optional development standards contained in the development code require var ?dtion in lot width as shown in Exhibit "J" By i;itersper ing wider lots with standard 40 foot Icts, greater building separation and :Pen space can be provided between units and side entry oarages and combined driveways can be used to improve the streetscape appearance. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12532 /Archibald Associates ANril 11, 1084 Page 4 The Design Review Committee also recommendY,: that on corner lots such as Lots 84, 971 98, 111, etc., the garages be reoriented to front onto the corner side or the lot to reduce the visual impact of garages and driveways upon the streetscape. The Planning Consnission should determine w.,ether the Applicant has adequately mitigated this concern by prr. iding a variety of setbacks from the street and a wide variety of elevation treatments throughout the project. In addition the optional development standards require frontyard landscaping consisting of a minimum of one (1) 15- gallon and one (1) 5- gallon size trees and turf that can further mitigate a monotonous streetscape. The Committee was also concerned with the neighborhood compatibility and transition of density along Ramona Avenue. The Committee worked with the Applicant in revising the site plan to include 9 single - family iots along Ramona ranging in size from 6,100 sq. ft. to 8,000 sq. ft., Exhibit "P1 -7 ". The Design Review Committee was concerned with the timing of the construction of Chese lots in relation to tha overall project and recommends that full street improve^znts along Ramona Avenue, including street trees, be installed with the first phase development. Further: the Committee recommended that if these 9 lots alono Ramona are not constructed within a reasonable length of time, that they be temporarily seeded for aesthet;c reasons. �.. Environmental Assessment: Based upon the initial study, sea attached, the project will msot have a significant effect u; ,or the environment because of the mitigation measures described below. impact:. Construction will increase surface water runoff, reduce absorption rates, and alter drainage patterns. Mitigation_: Storm drains and inlet structures gill be provided. Imoact: The project will generate additional vehicular traffic on Archibald and Ramona. Mitigation: This project will include new street construction and widening of Ra:aona and Archibald Avenues. El 11 PLANNTXG CT�iMISSION STA.FF REPORT TT 12532 /Arch4ibald Associates April 11, 1: "4 Page 5 III. FACTS FOR FIIDIYGS: Before approving the Tentative Tract Man, the Planning Commission must find that this project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Cotle regulations. Further, the design of the project !=sc not be likely to cause substantial environaental :image or oe detrimeni:ai to adjacent propertie-. :I additiTjn, the proposed use, building design, and size plan, toget: % --r with the Recommended Conditions of Approval must to in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPON;,ENCE: This item has been advertised as a Public Hearing in The Daily Reoort newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to property owners within, 3O0 feet of the project ;ite. Enclosed for your review and consideration are letters from surrounding property owners either for or against this project. The Applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings with the surrounding residents to receive their input and discuss potential changes to the project design. The residents were concerned that a project of this nature (increased density) would affect their IS prnr,nrty values, and add to the flooding an; traffic problems on Ramona Avenue. V. OPTIOI'S option? A. S. C. The Planning Commission may select from the following Approve the project. Continue the project to allow for r...isions. Deny the project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12532 /Archibald Associates April 11, 1984 Page Six VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consiaer all ma.teri-:l dements of this project. If s er such consideration the :orm- fission can support the fact:. for finding and Conditions of Approval, the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. If the Com. ission cannot support the facts for finding, a Resolution of Denial also has been provided. RespeA� fxfI Iy'--s2mitted, Rick Gomez CItyt?lanner RG:DC:ns Attachments: Letters from Surrounding Residents Memorandum - Traffic Study Analysis Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization 'Map Exhibit "C -1" thru "04" - Site Photographs Exhibit "D" - Subdivision Map (Proposed & Alternate) Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan (Proposed & Alternate) Exhibit "F" - Detailed Site Plar. EExhibit "G" - Grading Plan Exhibit "H -1" thru "4 -4" - Zero Lot Line Elevations Exhibit "H -5" - Typical Zero Lo_ Line Street-scape Exhibit "H -6" - Single Family Elevations Exhibit "H -7" - Ramona Streetscape Exhibit "I" - Standard Lot Width Example Exhibit "J" - Variable Exhibit "K" - Previously Approved Ti 11614 Exhibit "L" - Drainage Exhibit Initial Studies, Parts I & II Resolution of Approval witr. Conditions Resolution of Denial t —� L �J I:J i L`'.."7GC'G :, x• .— u>.= ?.G:._ cZ,.y .��,i. -GCS- 14- G1-i..G�l��.,,:,:iG c�' G -G4 cG' 'cG• /..2 S•31 l{ -/t ��t•( -, - zz. c� �" 9 75 .! Gtr - <•xc G%, _ cz•Ga cay �' - /cam �L•GLL� -7� �iC-c� CGGfGGc�t�� n2GLt _ Lv-� :�2.ctc�- /4%'.f/ ,;.4 � � ✓Z ..:ter -+ L.uG�Q- Y�r/Ga�.Cy � ol�c� Gc,cGr 7 G- %a.lk�L/c�.: -?.r � (/C- �!�..c:•. -iu1 ,..Gai ....�. -.cam (�'�C�C��C�fj.0 /1 GGL.tiC -6✓ � .L�GC.?/•..Ca.GTc�G.. GtiiLC �G�...CGc– � %fw ..i��„�y :C.� -C �l3_'a�G`G�. G. z: cZu•a— G� .:cc•LGG ZLI J u r - °GCS d.. �e2- .�., •y.'•i%.X�.. J�Gi iG.ty- � �,�� Zia -• /`c Y iv 1 El GIL GL:.. l....i;C i'�✓ v� ct �xt -z�� c.c.s �C � t�:.,�.- r.:.`t fi�'7 "a.i... ..G � �:G. -cam � � e�2- �-- �i- CG.,L� >•✓ � L CAL ?% iG.. �i �.c.• �= `�'+ -�• <i.GGC �-G�u eZ L(, '== "�G��`// !Li � L..•zaL ---' IZ.0 � L LZ Lam—' - /�7C..tt'lrJ °�i ",�c-r� -tae^ �c�� c> %�.GC� G:,cC�• :.��. f- GK= C'LC�:I� CI -Gt�L 'Z=2 C.GG4' CC ZC `E.L�'...�• � -KGi.. CAL- -• � d'y ��G�. ��'7- _.3� � i .1 _ G EPT, AM Zi. G EUGENE R.5 RANT2 RUTH SOBELSONN CRAIG 5. ELKIN GENERAL COUNSEL COWARD J LIEBER LOUISE G. M0R5E THOMAS w. BRADFORD LAUPEL J. VOGT EOW.RO R. GRANT CHARLO ^C v JOHNSON -wYNS JE%FREY L MALEIL STEVE ZELIG ANORE'N C. OR, MAN RAYMOND G ANDERSON JAMES N BASS AARE. L SrtLAR r r f � STRANTZ, SOBELS013N- & %LH1'1 ATTORNE:'S AT LAYY MARIE C.CCLANERI OAVIO A PINT S SHELDON S -COHEN ANNE G. AOZA DONALD J. VIOLCTT BPVCE S. NEET DAV:O w. SWARNER DEAN OONIN LEE J. GOLOSTEIN CACMERINE Paul A. Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 jarEuary 20, 1984 PLEASE REPLY TO U 1605 WEST OLYMPIC SOUL�VARD SEVENTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 900. 'B91 �Ly (213) 363 -:500 U IOSS NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE BOO SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 91• ^_t :OZ9 17Ia!C7o-0430 RE: Pacer Homes Develoument - North of R.R_ Tracks between. Archibald and Ramona Dear :4r. Rougeau: Thank you for attending the public meeting regarding tT_le above project, which was held on January 17, 1984. I an sorry you missed the meeting of January 3, 1984, where the modificaticns of Pacer's original plans were initially discussed, resulting in access to the bulls of the project being limited to Archibald rather then both Archibald and Ramona. The people who attended were so pleased with the outcome that attendance at the subse- quent meeting on 1/17/84 was no longer considered cssential to the survival of the neighborhood as we know it. I speak with first hand knowledge, for my wife and I live on Romona, attended both meetinPc, z7xj discussed the results of both meetings with var neighbors. The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to recommend the modified plans. As you no doubt recall, a traffic flow study was performed which indicated that traffic from the project would have a relatively nominal affect on Archibald's traffic flow. On the other hand, traffic from the project would be nearly disasterous for the residents of Romona and its immed- iate environs. Your decision will affect literally hundreds of people in the neighborhood, so please give this matter your utmost care. Respectfully, Thomas W. Bradford TTdB /kay CC: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission., c/o Paul A. Rougeau ,.6an Coleman, Associate Planner Pacer Homes, Attn: Randy Toas E C E H �J CIS`- OF RANCHO Ct;CA_NIGNTGA MEMORANDUM DUM DATE: April 4, 1984 TO: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner FROM: Paul Rougeau, Senior Civi1 Engineer SUM7CT: Tentative Tract 12532 Traffic Study 197; A traffic study was prepared for this project for the purpose of assessing its impact on surrounding streets. Traffic from the project site was distributed to the adjacent streets using two alternatives, 1) with a connection to Ramona Avenue and the main entrance onto Archibald Avenue, and 211 with only one entrance -exit onto Archibald Avenue. Background traffic on the adjacent streets was assumed at a level which includes the increase for all newly built and approved projects, as well as an assumption for the vacant 10 acres immediately to the south. TRAFFIC IMPACT WITH CONNECTION TO RAMONA Existing t,•affic volumes on Ramona Avenue are of the or:,o: of 70 -75 vehicles per hour (44 northbound and 28 southbound) during the morning peak hour when mc-t work trips would be leaving the site. During this morning peak hour, 16 vehicles will turn right, or south, out of the site and will yield to 28 through v,nicles. These volumes equate to one vehicle every four minutes yielding to one vehicle every two minutes. An anticipated left turn volume of 10 vehicles per hour (one every six minutes) will turn left and must yield to 70 -75 vehicles per hour, or slightly more than one car every minute. It is obvia,s, therefore, that there will be no congestion, delay, or capacity problem at this intersection. Returning travel in the evening peak hour will consist of 19 vehicles turning left in conflict with 40 -45 vehicles per hour, southbound. Volumes of this magnitude are very minimal and would not require left turn lanes. In neither case, morning or evening, will the increase in traffic be perceptible to the residents along Ramona Avenue. Ouring the morning peak hour, approximately 60% of all project trips will enter Archibald Avenue. In terms of auto =, it is anticipated tnvt 36 will turn left and 7 will turn right. During this same morning peak hour, Archibald traffic will be of the order of 375 vehicles southbound and 190 northbound. continued... v Memo to Dan Coleman Re: tentative Tract April 4, 1984 page 2 12532 Traffic Study EFFECT OF ELIMINATING RAMONA ACCESS traffic in the morning l with no access to Ramona, the exiting Naturally, to left turning cars and 10 right onto Archibald venue would increase by the in project residents being able to exit. This turns. This would not materially increase the impact on Archibald but wculd increase h_ delay ease the deli the 10 acres to the south develops since it wit will be ay-" have to use the same access to Archibaia_ Further effzcts of restricting all access to Archibald could he an and if delay ai, increase in the number of accidents at that point' increased connection travel for residents headed h, use of one other Archibald were severe enoug , chains, during normal times. It should be remembered that with only entrance, the emergency connection must oe kept clear (, gates it must Etc., for evacuation and a' Inotnjust "firea and upolice cuse. otThus3CC mu or construction at Archibald, be easily ibll or nv vehicle and if "cheater" use becomes common, designed and master plar••zd to accomodate over Ramona Avenue is a "collector" street, wider than normal' even to its only two lanes, and is five times the traffic which this portion. will ever carry, northerly ending at 19 h Street. sery Similar streets !a asetrafficxtend far to the north and eery ' tanned street system traffic from collectors is contrary to good planning Collectors. 7o defeat this purpose of the master by diverting practice. RECOMMENDATION shoed he recommended RamonaeAvenuey alternative alternative utilizing tine full street required. nR.bc r• L LE 11 11 El i!T^ 1�• i F- T. 103 T.,o4!1 Te 1"To MCI scT s1Ti✓ Tr JIM CITY C: RANCHO CUCANNIONCYA PLAINNINC DIVISION . gam y�iQM Ono 12 NORTH ITE:NI: _ �7 IZ5 3 Z TITLE L c) aA7t o Q AAAjp EXHIBIT. AS SC; LE: I" =1CCZ)1 i R-3 W"FJ ST nO -- �,4 i 1r I I a I 1 E R -3 r-r i - - -C -1 - -- A- CJ R -1 -5 e-Tc;!4A'�kltJ .K R -1 -5 R -3 R -1 -5 cc C� NORTH CITY OF rTF -%1: — -r/ 25x>z _ RzVNCHO CUCAMONGA Tm..E: !!5(?e um i tsA z)&� Mgp o PL AONNTI \G DIVISION E \HIMT= _? - SCALE- -- _ J t � i R -1 -5 e-Tc;!4A'�kltJ .K R -1 -5 R -3 R -1 -5 cc C� NORTH CITY OF rTF -%1: — -r/ 25x>z _ RzVNCHO CUCAMONGA Tm..E: !!5(?e um i tsA z)&� Mgp o PL AONNTI \G DIVISION E \HIMT= _? - SCALE- -- _ MOM t ` ��,• il. wJ'C.�.��^"�_',..,14R.R.�� #4LA: �-.J s ^y�,�� v.S.�'f� N" dr',...,.; � yr .�T� r .. � � r•., J i T r . ,y � J Yy - � Y _•Jw:,' '^t�a,� Yr ��, r�.�"'+f` � . Y,� 4:,� j °..: � av : , f i >. � � S '; w� f7 „2 w; Y� w �M NORTH CITY OF ITEM: PLAIN, Y . � • S ' t v• r � f a .�'• l Jop rle sh ( :" ,.byµ �. = �`.y�"'•,� -�'>; r=' � � II • ; Ile •��.: 1c � i •II , ,.i it / f��( �L �I�/ �� • /If >6 gift /CRa (C0.7,7-v //p Qr P:.'J tli '�:- •�\ N N `'DC •: cl i:a N i a�' ° :.i �`� � 1 2 y�i ♦� Il sly I J� —ter_— 1 : t /Sfl7 L I t- a 1 �•.�. � .IF 1 '-;ate � .>e tt / YIC/ F l / •/ s.a -. 1 f =• I I . /. i, G.r/ff /lRf: t[>J�'r-,/f ^,C r_Jj � ,, \, M • V � M .IM m � p m .�'; I m RCfJ/SRfI::/!/ S v' /L- y.� �._: ✓ _ '.•Y - ( e ., �.. n • i .ter. r /' �,I= �. � �• I'�� ` -� 1, �� '.` � -� Vie. r` I Fl i . \I .. . � —_ • � ;� 1 <I _ ;- i• t. R D A'M 1/> .Y N O -O. +IJ IIU V / avow! C6v'" ATS NORTH CITY OF ITEM: Tr 1 Z�5 1:5 z RANCHO CICCANIO\TOA T,,,,. ��!\ h E4o�J� PLANKING I3iVSKaN EXN!Brr:- D SCALE, I, — u a 3 � - ar 1 iwR eoe �- }i �M �8 s h LEO 'nom+! 3 -� F ��Yi '� �Q��• L� i iwR eoe �- }i �M - r.vaw..aa.w+ v�cnrt ►: e 'fRc),,'56P -r� �8 s h LEO 'nom+! 3 -� F ��Yi '� �Q��• - r.vaw..aa.w+ v�cnrt ►: e 'fRc),,'56P -r� g �t f TRACT 12532 -A AUT6"ATT5 \ORTH LI CITY OF ITE:NI- -r \LHJ CUCAt TONG. Try: t-.Y� D scjt2p� PLAN � PUMNINTI \G DI:'OON EXHIP:T =_ SCALE= �8 s L� i i g �t f TRACT 12532 -A AUT6"ATT5 \ORTH LI CITY OF ITE:NI- -r \LHJ CUCAt TONG. Try: t-.Y� D scjt2p� PLAN � PUMNINTI \G DI:'OON EXHIP:T =_ SCALE= L-1- 11411 r - - _— - -- L_ra_rLL. . 52 EiNl En I lz LD Li Fr 47— ra zkr c 0 7 e� CITY OF jW RAINCH.0 CUCkNIONGA PLAINITNENG Dl;%rISIQNI I'TEM: jEjZ25!:5-Z_ TITLE: -rO PLA tQ EXHIBIT: SCALE; LNIC)IxvrH 11 I I � rRicr gun - �J_ I 1 i� � ..T c : ,Tr • re � �--s_ K �r-rw m cr �. • m n v_ - . � �`N �� '+ r fl • t +L L a. Y'w M t .. \ _Ga 4 •-.-r- F. _ � .a lie .4..jZ it e1 � in l�n �i'��rp -7A n 91TR 10_-.c ^ice 1Z� f f, aL Tc $ELCu R.R _ -SACK -S CITY Or IAA .V\CI IO AC'.l 'CANIUNGA PLzi:�I '\C DR'L MT G NORTH EXHIBIT=. _(ZCALE_ - -- e LEFT f � TRH I N 1 RICAiT �E an I CITY C)„ RAINU C) CUCAAMONGA PI�j\7N'N , DIVISION 7307 SQ FT. ITEM- ""IF/ Z5:15 GARAGE �i3i�dT� : —� SC.aLE� .•�— \ORTH NAtt ^^P.BA7H.-2 BCDA 2 ,BEO?OQM CITY C)„ RAINU C) CUCAAMONGA PI�j\7N'N , DIVISION 7307 SQ FT. ITEM- ""IF/ Z5:15 GARAGE �i3i�dT� : —� SC.aLE� .•�— \ORTH LL-FF REAR CITY OF ANC A PUt-N ENG DIX'ISK?\ I� t - s I cArl�ri �i GARAGE T 1461 SQ. FT. p L Mi c V NORTH ITEM: -77 /z 45-:-:5z TITLE= &Ot ! 4- L s! Tlon3 F-xmi T- SCALE: n c ro - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - �-- LEFT �-7 REAR RIGHT -1, CITY OF ITEM: -I,"- I � s- -3 RANVCHO CUCA,\L,IONGA Tri-LE: �Mttj T, L;-.clL,NNIT;,.qZ- DIVISMI scA:-E- NORTH r- J a• . Il 1 h J h—i i 1.1 ti F.• wl � � {' ` .. ♦ � •. ' � 1 1 1, h n F i f I� S LEFT I► REAR RIGI -ff . tea''=_- ROOM T WMA n...e. L `� 15 ' 1i E wWAG- i T 12» SO. F.T. FL APH OTY OF ITEM: _ '7E / 7ZA5 R, -iNCHO CUCA N1O`'GA ,TLE. -P A-nl 2. i LVN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: H'2- SCALE: NORT r _ I �x� o r A I 1 1 17 ^ r iG �jAiJoAf:o d�o' Loor UJIV 'a$ CT RALNCHO CLCANNIO G- A PLAINNING PAN ISION h U �x� o�o^� q O ?l G� NORTH ITEM- (`S �5z TITI-E- S-i'A N D t� two' t )�� EXHIBM SOLE =_ — --------------- - 4 V � i E11 E i 0 VARAM LV� LO CITY OF RANCHO CL'CA� `. _),-GA PLANNING DIVOON NIOKTI ITEM: T=: sT U ly N E: F113IT: � -�_ SCALF - -I r . O v 77, Opf O ■ O, „ o,�� o� D ooh"► - QG- ° a Q ��eo. o JY� •oo O;O ,oTaObo!?.ov+it7io�+aa0's R0 C O @, Da�idG��0ip D LO_ O' �pOD ' -- ; Vi o �or EQ� �.�v S'i.I' CQ orts? rq • .a °� s y O. CITY OF rr LA AT [A 2 1 50u7HE-am ;Z/w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAXIONGA title TT ENGINEERING ')'4xvT,'SI0N N page DRAINAGE MAP LA f I R-1 tb\ P�IA 50u7HE-am ;Z/w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAXIONGA title TT ENGINEERING ')'4xvT,'SI0N N page DRAINAGE MAP LA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL S"'UDY PA-?T I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Co= ttee through the department where the project application is made. TJaon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare_ Part T_I of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later thar ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Im,.act Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information re ?ort should be supplied by the applicant giving further inf�rma- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: "Countryside" APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAM£, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: J. Randolch Poag Pacer HrmoS, inc 801 No. Parkcenter Drive. Santa Ana, CA 92705 -s:-t7- 7'7,9.:5- LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) AP Nos. 202 -18i: 05: 06: 15- 16 LIST OTHER PER`1ITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDE RAT_,, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 f E E E 11 L PRGJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 120 unit patio homes - detached 1 and 2 story residences_- private _ streets & recreational ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHE--E'-7'S): Topography is _a slightly southerly slope of approximately 3% ere are no cultural or scenic aspects of the Droperty. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of curmulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact: This project is not a Dart of any other development. A G WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in grcund contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibrat'_on? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewacz, etc.) ? X S. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X X 5. Remove anv existing trees? How many? 1,100 crangn trews; 18 eucalyptus, X 6. Create the need for use or $disposal of potentially hazardous materials shah as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 3. Add i i:`ona1 municipal. _$treet improvements and landscape improvements. It will be maintained by and association with CCR's. 5. Eucalvutus trees and orange cove. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction_ of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATI01% I hereby certify that the statements furnished abor-.- and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that Lr_e facts, statements, and information_ preser_c_ed are true and correct to the best of ry knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infcrma = ion may be required to be submitted before ap, adequate evaluation can be made by the Develgpmqet Review C944Attee. Date 4 ,;�- gnature Title 7 I -3 r R:SIDENTIAL CO "STRUCTION Ghe following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonc_a Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school ristrict to accommodate the proposed residential development- Nan:., of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: a ,ecific location of Project: 1. -fix=er of single family units: 2. Number of multiple samily +nits: 3. Date nnovosed to begin --orstruction: Earliest date of occupancy: 2•Iodel r acid n cf Tentative 5. Bedroors Price Ranae 1 2 85,000 2 s 92,000 3 3 ,000 4 3 100,000 PHASE I PEASE 2 PFLZISE 3 Gil] E, 40 40 0 0 1stQtr84 3rdQtr84 4th0tr84 3rdQtr84 1stQtr85 2ndQtr85 1-4 PHASE ? TOT?., DATE: APPLICANT: FILING DATE: PROJECT- //S PROJECT LOCATIC CITY OF RAIICEO CUCAAONGA PART II — INITIAL STUDY EtrTIRON:TE%TAL CHECKLIST Ap / 4'i--!t5 r nC wrtn..sry . `77' j.:P A5e:)Z T_. EWIROM ENTAL IMPACTS {Explanation of al: "y ^_s" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets}- YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. 4'il! the proposal have significant results 14 a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c- Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hvdr0l23Z- Will the proposal have significant results in: r { YES `IAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? _ h. fhe reduction in the amount of water other- / wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water / related hazards such as flooding or seiches? �! 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile / or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture / or temperature? —/ 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: ® a. Change in the charccteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? L of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water ivno£f? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any / bodv of water? —/ e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? __ J f. alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? _ h. fhe reduction in the amount of water other- / wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water / related hazards such as flooding or seiches? �! 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile / or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture / or temperature? —/ 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: ® a. Change in the charccteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? L J ES MAYBE NO C. In�rrduction of new or disruptive species of p'.ants into an area? d. deduction in the poteati-1 for agricultural j P- Oduction? f Fauna. Will the proposal have signifi.:oit results in: a. Change in th? characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. deduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? / Pcnulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? f b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tar, rate, and property / values? 1 b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax pavers or project users? Y65 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal r've significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? J _ b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any Povernmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quan*__ty of existing consumptive or non - consumptive -- 1 recreational opportunities? 11 7 C E L' J 0a,i: r f� YES `t-ME NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for — ne-z street construction? c. Effects or. existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ _ , ,- - g trans..crta_ 4. au*Jaton.t iai ...paces upon �..�.... - ^.a - / tion systems? e. A,.tarations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people andior goods? _ f. Ul e:ations to or effects on present and potential water -borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? s' g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, / bicyclists or pedestrians? _ 5. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, / paleontological, and /or historical resour:es? _ 10. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will Lire proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential. health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? C. Exposure of people t:: ?otertiaiiy dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of object?onable odors? h. An increase in light of glare? 1 Y aIIC J i YES `L4YBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic j vista or view? _ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive / site? _ a. A conflict with the objective of designated / or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for neo sysLers, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? _ 1 i b. Natural or packaged gas? // c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? L e. Wastewater fat 47.tties? f. Flood control structures? ,// g. Solid waste facilities? _._ h. Fire protection? L 1 i. Police protection? j. Schools? _L — facilities? k. Parks or other recreational 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? / m. Other governmental services? ! 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Wi11 the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon - xistiug sources of energy? 1 c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? _ d. An increase or perpetuation of the corsa.^iption of non- ranewab -e forms of energy, when L:zsible % renewable sources of energy are availo-�le? C E J t i YES :1AYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? _ 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population 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 ems angered plant or animal or elifaiciaLe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ L b. 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 while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects / on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 11 Page i 1 III. DETETMN'ATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ElI find the prepescd prcject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and "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 baen added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. El I find the proposed project %TkY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT Date ``,��✓.` ✓ i - J:, C� 11 L. .J ATTACHMENT TO PART II - INITIAL STUDY FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 2. Hydrology: a. 1'ne site is traversed by an ephemeral stream channel subject to periodic flooding. This project, in conjunction with adjacent Tract 12320, will install a storm drain pipe to carry storm water from Victoria Street to Ramona Avenue. The existing stream channel will be filled during grading prior to construction. b. This project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amouni. of surface water, runoff. Construction will reduce absorption rates and increase surface water runoff because of an increase in impervious surfaces, such as streets and buildings. The existing ephemeral stream channel overflows during periodic storms, causing sheet flow flooding of the adjacent property to the south. This project will be adequately graded and a storm drain installed to carry storm water to Ramona Avenue. c. This project will alter the course of flo,3d waters affecting downstream properties. Mitigation measures are described above. Further, this project will increase surface water runoff onto Ramona Avenue, which is subject to severe flooding during the rainy season. Based upon a 10 -year storm analysis, this project will result in a 2.5% increase in the quantity of water on Ramona Avenue. This increase is considered not significant; however, the existing condition on Ramona is hazardous during flooding. Short -term mitigation measures include construction of a storm drain from Victoria Street to Ramona and street improvements that will significantly reduce the amount of erosion and resultant debris in flood waters. Long -term mitigation of flooding on Ramona is proposed through installation of storm drains in Ramona to Base Line and Turner pursuant to the City's Master Plan of Storm Grains. 4. Biota a. Construction of this project will include removal of 1,100 orange trees. Christmas trees, and 18 Eucalyptus trees. The project will include parkway trees and frontyard and landscaping. d. This project will eliminate potential for : gricultural production. The City's Ger.aral Plan EIR analyzed the impact of phasing out agricultural production and did not consider it a significant impact. 7. Laid Use and Plannin Considerations a. TTle development of this project will be a substaetiai alteration of the present land use as citrus groves, Christmas tree farm, and vacant land. The project proposes 115 zero -lot homes at 8 dwelling units per acre density which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning of Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac). The City's General Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the change in land use. 1 ,- Attachment to Initief- itudv Tentative Tract 1253 Page 2 2. Transportation= The proposed subdivision would create 115 resicential lots; approximately 40% would access from Ramona Avenue, and 601M would access from Archibald. This project will generate increased vehicular traffic approximately 600 trips per day (assuming 10 trips per 'rouse per day). During peak morning hours 25 cars would be added to Ramona and 39 cars added to Archibald. This increase is considered not significant and traffic volumes on Ramona would nct exceed capacity. This project_ will require new street construction and installation of full street improvements on Ramona and Archibald. 12. Utilities and Public Services f. This project w1 I I require construction of a storm drain system for flood control purposes. See discussion under "4ydrology ". j. This project will create 115 residential units that will generate students to be absorbed by affected school districts. The school districts are experiencing overcrowding. As a mitigation measure, the project must obtain letters from the affected school districts prior to issuance of building permits certifying that adequate capacity does or will exist to accommodate students generated by this project. 11 11 D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12532 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12532, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Archibald Associates, applicant, for the purpose o` subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 14.5 acres on the west side of Ramona, at Monte Vista Street, into 112 lots, regu iariy came before the Planning CoTmiission for public hearing and action, on April 11, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Plann'riu Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Plannino Commmission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12532 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; 'b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design cf the subdivision is not likely tc cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable inj;:ry zo humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The ten =nti4e tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, 'or access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. u Resolution No. Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract flap No. 12532, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISIO1 1. Approvai of Tentative Tract 12532 is granted subject to the approval of Development District Amendment 83 -07 by the Planning Commissior. and City Council. 2. The site shell be developed in accordance with the apprcv alternative site plans which include a paved strerc connection to Ramona Avenue at Monte Vista. 3. Recreatirnal amenities are required in conjunct-,on with co enon open space areas such as, but not limited to, swimming pools and spas and cou-t facilities. In addition, enclosed tot l,)t facilities with play equipment and large open lawn areas are required. Details shall be included in final landscape plans. 4. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a declaration of restriztiorns for the subdivision, which shall be recorded can- urrcntly with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever tames first. The easerrc:r,ts shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object except for utility wires and similar objects pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060 -G -2. 5. An alternative eneray system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy shall be the primary energy system unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equiva'oent capacity and efficiency. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. R 2 11 Is E Resolution No. Page 3 n'.. Front yard landscaping is required and shall include, at a minimum, one (1) fifteen gallon size tree, one (1) five gallon size tree, seeded ground cover and a pe—.I.. a an ... i^yation. system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. This requirement shall be in additior, to required street trees. 7. Side -on garages shall be utilized on the following corner lots: Lots 76, 77, 84, 97, 98, 104, 105, anc, 111. 8. Lots 1 -9 facing Ramona shall be temporarily seeded if the homes are not constructed within six (6) months of the occupancy of the first home within this tract. 9. Phase I ccnstruction shall include Ramona Avenue street improvements, including street trees. 10. The combination retaining wall and screen wall along the south project boundary shall not exceed an overall combined height of nine (9) feet, as measured from the existing grade on the south side of the wail. ENGIVEERING DIVISION 1. A oortior. of "A" street from Archibald to "E" street and a portion of "E" street from "A" street to the southerly tract boundary shall be dedicated to the City as a public street. 2. A storm drain system shall ba constructed from "E" street to "F" street along the southerly tract boundary. Dedication of an easement shall be offered to the City covering the storm drain. 3. The proposed storm drain at rear of Lot 59 shall be realigned along the property line betweer. Lots 53 and 59. 4. Adequate erosion provided along the the satisfaction of 5. A portion of the Ramona Avenue shall site to south of t protection devices shall be drainage overflow easements, to the City Engineer. master planned storm drain on be constructed from the project he Southern Pacific Railroad to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The storm drain fees fur the project will be credited for this construction. 1 Resolution No. Page 4 6. Ail existing P.C.C. pavement on Ramona Avenue contiguous to the project boundary shall be removed and replaced with asphalt concrete pavement. The cost of constructing the easterly half of the street will be reimbursed by the City. 7. The applicant will be required to reconstruct Ramona Avenue from the southerly tract boundary to the railroad right -of -way. T'ne cost of the construction will be reimbitrcorl ny !-6= pity, 8. Pavement taper shall be provided at the southerly terminus of 8rchibeld Avenue to provide for drainage aao traffic control. Adequate right -of -way on Archibald Avenue shall be acquired to provide for +he taper. 9. Street "A" shall be 28 -feet wide (curb to curb) from Street "E" to Street "G ". All other interior streets shall be of 36 -foot width. 10. A 50 -foot wide offer of dedication shall be made on Monte Vista Street. 11. A five -foot public utility easement along both sides of ail interior streets shall be reserved on tiie map. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC' BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cormnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Cc:m;ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: M, 11 z O � N C O r ~ O O S V a G V � W 0 O r z N F d O 0 2 u m r_ Z 6 6 6 yO < J V O i v C �11 e ^I C CO ��O S �Ir G c y p F V i V q � •$ r. 0 J( V 4 J N N H S +• s O N � C C G S � 6V d 1 � y O O. >♦Gq Dqo Y d 9 O J C y9 L' d C ^'yo" C C O J t Y '^ m q P P n. V �L �D t=73 q d 2 o d i Cy 0_ F P q OG CL U uye «`s NI OZ J q E r1 c 1 �V C r V F _ •w 9 L C �TJ « v c` dy f 9 V V V w ` N V �T ca J c P V V K q ^ V r } a „oq 9 ' C O. y s �Da 6 ` V r � 7 C C V O C Cp < pG J E Va E D o0 �d C 7g O q QCr O r E ✓ r V CE � O � Q q N c N N L q Gr re. N q^ f CV moo L uc « o` d_ noy p E L q �pN t 6.d d P :5 c =� � m J O O 01C p,C O eL r C O� c c e o 1.1 06y z F6lL O.^ qy y Vd � V POD y ^ ='T LN q.+ C •„� d q� Y C w Od�q EE y N C fJ a J yT �.Vn nU L�q 9TJ L' n yy� LJ6 .^ i �C N rO d C ..r QVS J N COU� 9 N� ^N q ^6D N W r 0 9 L O y T V P A n P b q l J Y J a r p Y V U rF q a _ IO O 9 y V pv iJ V q V d C .• l y L n ♦� y �. V O q ° V J• d 7 U '• � L d_ q U O U P L y <p� C OL (J DEL 2,2 5 e6 N•O., s U�� Lq V� GI N V d f N 2 l N > v O O ^ O L T OOLr V V D V V C V_'= DOTr 'go Oq Ly O Cn =J V J•° q6 qly, V 9 >q oil n-6 7 C >ee w.nU �y O +di l G a .+ O q L E •l E y V_'= °- L n '� E f o L` .• ry L V q C O N d C . V . ^'>CP d u �n N O N •a 7L0 Gym 60 ^C q9 �p0= �Lw• N9N qq q_ UC j =.D C_ ^^ .^_♦Ly_✓ �L VL YY nJ } •� ^ N L q U C 9 ^ - Y N L 4 r r {' d L L ^ C y d .O O�q £N rV� L�LH Pte. -id; �N Lq d�N rT riled L^ gZ` dg6o J�C�r NO6 ��V qQ'y OL eye ✓> q9V' pC�M Oqr d�0 wy� d••6C Y�9 9 Nor LGPO ` N= L. NO J`p NIY ^ O r O n.V.. J VL `F ^C•^ G- D- C d e >♦t O ,hN 6= L r l W C O S L y V 2 d' d q y� a O O. J •J' C y C U M p� ,r F N C 7 9 N L 2 C p< V q OV'•♦^� G q d! N L 'OC ^ Cc E 01w - O •.,V Va> E O V N u y v C- Oena6 O �� VVC= L ✓<< �_ N L 9 N V Ni.gd =° L 0 rO�LV xo^ or vow Po° roe.T+ ^N IS- 6JO.V 6N6L 64V0 6a r6V^, ^r0. ^LNO <N ^OV QOgm <g6LO O � z O � N C O r ~ O O S V a G V � W 0 O r z N F d O 0 2 u m r_ Z 6 6 6 yO < J V O i v C �11 e ^I C CO ��O S �Ir G c y p F V i V q � •$ r. 0 J( V 4 J N N H S +• s O N � C C G S � 6V d 1 � y O O. >♦Gq Dqo Y d 9 O J C y9 L' d C ^'yo" C C O J t Y '^ m q P P n. V �L �D t=73 q d 2 o d i Cy 0_ F P q OG CL U uye «`s NI OZ J q E r1 c 1 �V C r V F _ •w 9 L C �TJ « v c` dy f 9 V V V w ` N V �T ca J c P V V K q ^ V r } a „oq 9 ' C O. y s �Da 6 ` V r � 7 C C V O C Cp < pG J E Va E c J O • d d a N Lv. c O q C L r n q N 6� S N d_ L r L 2 j O L � r 4 = O O O O S c N S V r q q = q r V C y L MV qp V q � = M n C ' — w yo N`c O 9 y^ L C r �• J L jOd V L�A O q L M V T N N p d � > L 2G C „r L > C q O •V9 C e O O Du q> rr o e d r oc d�L. N c �y D o0 �d C 7g O q QCr O r E ✓ r V CE � O � Q q N c N N L q Gr re. N q^ V9 CV L uc « o` d_ noy -Z E L �pN t 6.d d Z :5 c =� � m J O O 01C p,C O eL r C O� c c e o 1.1 06y z F6lL c J O • d d a N Lv. c O q C L r n q N 6� S N d_ L r L 2 j O L � r 4 = O O O O S c N S V r q q = q r V C y L MV qp V q � = M n C ' — w yo N`c O 9 y^ L C r �• J L jOd V L�A O q L M V T N N p d � > L 2G C „r L > C q O •V9 C e O O Du q> rr o e d r oc d�L. N c �y �ducNL 1 yGL U —J C7 P ��ur.LN . = u r �._ F q✓ ° J Y— �� Or u'i N —� t... r._ _ yY q G G O ° E[ MI ,V ^. L r q✓ _O g y O 6 y> g d O O M E V E..r c n =N y q— J G- °GO°V Nj •L 06 _ ¢Y� �N`YO'Ca✓ LC Ei� i�a�a`S` \IIIII'llll ✓V ✓ .°. E or.N..vo �c Op�E °iP.' x.°.N E \\\VVV aN s � & >— °sp_oq ✓Y•c tc _ i ✓ ✓:r .n,.. _ °nm qa c�� c ^cMr p L�oiVoq ENS Na�j^ p i W r' ✓ - c4NrL Gi` ° O °q _VN Vq�,u_ v Ly E C -N ErJ c.+i VGO rnV =tea -• 44 Z O D NY✓ 4E E w.CNd an C�yV D ��C - Ear`Y✓ .rV 9 N` ✓- EG. D r i =� 1 U E I >• O 7 = G G G L N C' V✓ q' 6 N O J °`� q U y° a I(�CL O �O�V✓�rl a¢..•�.¢V qy NU CU L_ Qi L ` P��C CO I..�?En =yJJ u_ 1p4pN6 •n _ w• ^~ °L PO.- qCL .°i qL`_^C 2 G q rDy°iNV °ca .E.. EGNW C'a6 '-'q i c � N r'EUN zi a � ppaa..v ✓W+o '�`— OCr� c°.e ='c'J— d ✓_ ✓re O q`q �C : C`V=' —N�gJr E mar-- <+GS L+SrV D=- N'•N•�� N ✓G N4 n _ .• ✓qco ^q'�d � °.., —.N. cc.-� � c::N cd aqua /J G° o •+ La N'O =` °FSf o..� ✓'� GUgvN ° qc vY_�+ c`r �L 4�Y,u c .d. G° q _ 9 E` L 6 C„ E C 0 6 P VJ ✓ q G r' G O 'O g r L�— g a 4 0 � i � .d. S �✓ L C ✓'ra N— N q qW O 4 O d °— O L N .J ° P C° _ H O C 6• N h y V G 4•. q .r 4 Lp4 Or=i �7dNV GOV ✓a.Ga V� %c ; g.;:: a° u N LP NO 6 �O n✓ Lu Vyl9 d Sd r40 — l L ^,LLV q•J qOa aD O G � L q 6 — qr .r O� V— L_ ✓ G` q N\ r N L r O N C ✓ L TN - 6 °yy 6 G nD u O d N_ N T O¢ ✓ ¢D G g 4 O O I ¢ i O t c --Z ¢w C a M ?+ L V N 4 4 v N✓ P aT d 1... C u U O C.+.O. C� ✓aNic ✓.N. .N+udVl .`a - -c c+wc ✓dqs �.. 6G••r'c'c✓ �-°jCA O..• ° r OJ Gy CJ C 3 C •_ g G y .. q O L= q C. E G� 9 N W V •J =' n N.r Nu � N d l CC o oNrFC�ir d— 2� °�.° ✓` N .0 -1 u C -_ Oi. �nr i.= + a _vr .°i� C C < C:p I-L 60L G6 6ryNq L ✓�• 6 Vg6°S L9 L- -N_ al 6°N M ^I •I NI m� `� `� 61� I I O ° D —N d NrcocN —L —�-� ✓..� a .� ++ �OOM < p✓ °O'C 2� � °- N N D pn .`J q.On C O`E L ccr LVi VL —qC �•C ` 2 —E C'G NCr� 2—..2 N o V u � D� N � O 4 N p C E d rP` •� ` a l ✓V 4 C NDq q ✓YGp NL >O� N �NaV ^ 6 WL O � V 4�0 D— w� .C2 NLN .s P•JNy N <a4 ✓p L �NT V d O q q v p 4 D N D N �° q ✓ a� G U D q° L d r G. O Q O V y O q F 9• ° N C Z O 4 V V_ N G N C O q E." uZ ° V L 4�— dV V Y C C 6 C d y— T G r P ✓ N °^ L O � L 4✓ C O ¢av r q0 ✓ G— t 64 2�NP °= Vw PL N Q L q0 =•°. � W� � V— c °2:¢ C L O� C _ � �� N c E O ✓ O �_ a• U ° G q r G G N r L d C p p V d¢ q— ° .n N L �A' P V y -YMC nW � =c c`v..°e �.c _ ., o A e. �—o c?� v'✓ p C.1 pq OV °=D C �' = C O �Ly =NG P OV G u✓ —_ .n q A.10 ` lL Ci P . y. V N N C V_° L M O V y V N d V ✓_ E.5 L'9N q_qN O4L C jrC 4 aW r r u N° V °✓ N V C D— 6 G C O a O> N O C r C N �° ° 9 P C` 0= pq g O° ••� G ..>. 1 C d T V� ° V u VCC n �_ C q 4� fn V Pr r ✓°u C•9 GxC >N� W n> .Ti Y' Ate. CI — — CN O C U 4 >6d4 _P4V_ YV` an 40 Nd�W S� V C°VN OV iJ >� C� °N i J4 O�YFNp J aP9�LG =✓YwV O.0 � QV r76y Y= �. C� O N V m P ]Ci N V `v � iI ✓V \) u m GL Lr•« qr. O �u y q � 4 ALG.� V^ v C• N � C N r` C 9 d C � L L � C• r• r n O^ O L c C I.,O�J uu �qGC Cr' YC p bN �3 � c` ce• q -c6 �"'yi �.- maw °Ln °r Nr W -17 ' o� C a J r - A - .j..l � 9� r A � Y � O L A - L ]\ G 4 "• A �.'e A i - z q - nd. a °• v d^ C L O y a^'a ^ � �i r. - =q 'L P r •' yr Na c T y G Y T P_• N9 'JrV q «6 V a Ty t V i •_ f ._ ^• n 9d a i r • GQ G 6 f'o O Ly,�MN -Op cV [it d q ...Lp 1y L] L a- e O p C � C Y � q d q C N- l •c C y q o w u° c a i N b« S a� r�,; d� u ^ cA ui a_."•. GS �-'` Ey_ ... ivr NV �'?•w� Ac ��•6q SYr -•vq �OCy C�',r ` V C GO V q C^ Cdr •-. .. C_ � d ! G n � A� L L J ��> N J d P O • q L •LU .ii N iPyrb ^v c� va�C ��NC >LL.m �`e �w tob r •oF� P '• C N V Y ^ r q a i « b' ¢•S.• lC"� V - . C J 9 d S b - « ! q O 5 n 2L- C 9 LNMy NC -5 �r•� ✓CV ✓q]. «T •OE OT� Cd dA IaCE n•_ aC O 01 Pr• `O A- C L O .V rLGV « t G w A •2 A gGY r � O A� r C 9 J q G T e N q v Es.; _ G.. c: TP vo cen m° �r oN� c -, P r•y.« -c o -L PAC mac= F3' A �•ce� - jrW O G AA V q« NOy�A w•c9 .°. V C= C dY C 2Z LG 6p= 9= J A D O V L Y N y 3 C P W qC � d CC � C POA d'�C br« GG 2]090 PL CO - Q 4G• OG O Avu NE >rA ,'p 'GC N c -O -CVa AAp�•n 9- N cO QfL AV�GJ •O.•C� Q =� .- rr pM•pu �d .d _ � '^ Y OG VOd MdiN O .J Vr� _ N p 6 q P �•. p d ' A 4J H t pr = O Wn j � 0 N�„•Ay"" .«dO tN O 6'C M 6CO E p L N a r Y t r ONra v N V NO ••'q_ Pp� p FG -dQ O.. Y �4p PP _ i 1 O Abp yCbi «NO 9C w rP` ^0 OV LTp C •e�00LyA Ei00LP eii ^"l O DM _. r y a P` N C S_ v C N 2 A d p O C n O � N^ A V S N '^ �• r> ` O O A N O O'q �i •fir - « CG1 qiE_. A G N «s V O« 9 t � C.• d A- p Lic cyeN c `O -PO0 'J Qz iNr, paL 9z� r- E p « Gq0•« PV L N vwOCd na d o c O _c 9 �` S S � � P > T N � C y • ,L., 9 N N p_ w• G= V N N� L C' q fG Lw« TAr� 79L:5- UO••••'G�. q�L « «O r -VyJ Gp qi 6' C P. d d 9 �'C 0•LP N 7« Z `bN T Ui •nQCOWO 2q i y L O t�L o'` L. r aL z C'i� O MnC -p o oVOA �V �yFV _10 p 01 cc • AOVO � n «fJ -z- d} K YMLt N S N`u A p A LPiO C • w �ro+o as >upi � A C NrVrNV - N 2 A- V O N NCu O O u i T t T P= V V` ti `� C d r p n d A L N v •••• N p. pww a•J M« db�Pq dp 7 �y OG d^ v p p J V 4?Wtz prr ( CO -Ong C{ GM6A WV Op2N -w <N- .CO CN J[NN1 N A N U N Af Q N V7 m L y F ` N L c o q � C O c m Li e� t I v J Y. O f..l � W u O L LVLL^ y ° s w W °xLL ° V a L 3 c V Y � i 9 L V C aqp� —PC o q c � rqa NVWy a ° y L q q 2 O O 9 � L i v _ q L — w 3 iLL lnG O r` 4 = v q q o q L — O � ?La OY ycN- na9 L h ^ O 'O n y � a a�6 u q yO v iu °may o n Ep Vay O q A q �Ca V M} LL d y I `W C Tom° "au c m n• V �I ✓= V W L > V1l� E t o 1.1 .dam" L dt L P P � S N OL u V �' P� q N Q NC nV —F LL is NLL� <y T U c� NN aln q L: 0 qqN G L `P`u Mr..N Oa d ^ ° P N d T 4 W a 6 S O P d A C =L VG N LL u a fi v i°GV qt� U qy O'Jh d i � ON W9 y T h � aE O ' L n q W C c °��•C�' �°1�0° N ��y u a C 1y yN °NSW L .�C c u >aNLL agTd E q ° T��1 °pdq qL OCL C 'a q O WO d d L y F ` N L c o q � C O c m Li e� t I v J Y. O f..l � W u O L LVLL^ y ° s w W °xLL ° V a L 3 c V Y � i 9 L V C aqp� —PC o q c � rqa NVWy a ° y L q q 2 O O 9 � L i v _ q L — w 3 iLL lnG O r` 4 = v q q o q L — O � ?La OY ycN- na9 L h ^ O 'O n y � a a�6 u q yO v iu °may o n Ep Vay O q A q �Ca V M} LL d y I `W C Tom° "au c m n• V �I ✓= V W L > V1l� E t o 1.1 d P ° d L P P V. O� a >• �' P� q N 00 c A C =L VG N LL u a fi v i°GV qt� U qy O'Jh d i � ON W9 y T h � aE O ' L n q W C LL N L ��y u a C V.L.• � c u ° y y00 qL OCL C 'a q WO d d 9C rO aF T9v9�J� 6y a °n Cv n � Oyu ^y„°_` 'q c�7 � d L LL C 6— .� n u° q a •n p = aVi q= L a V N m� =� C � ✓ G V U zt .J LV Mfp O �J TL q i a° me v ` a ob qyc > 6T C OC d= tN� 5.5! �dN O _LLI NI C It O °mNgLa P •JC LI V P P P.. J15 CO L a °� '�qC -Ca LdO�` O 6�4 y VI >q9 N ^O N6U l v ^Y - -1 O C LL 6I q^u yOV. ro ` yN ci 6VIJ WN9 WVL �p V�6iL6y 6mW (Uw.O f N b 1 7 Y L y F ` N L c o q � C O c m Li e� t I v J Y. O f..l � W u O L LVLL^ y ° s w W °xLL ° V a L 3 c V Y � i 9 L V C aqp� —PC o q c � rqa NVWy a ° y L q q 2 O O 9 � L i v _ q L — w 3 iLL lnG O r` 4 = v q q o q L — O � ?La OY ycN- na9 L h ^ O 'O n y � a a�6 u q yO v iu °may o n Ep Vay O q A q �Ca V M} LL d y I `W C Tom° "au c m n• V �I ✓= V W L > V1l� E t o 1.1 •I a q y �' N c A C =L N LL u a fi v d i � y T h � aE O ' L n q W C LL N L ��y u a C V.L.• u ° y y00 qL OCL C 'a c vn Oyu ^y„°_` 'q c�7 q J C = aVi q= L a V N m� =� C � ✓ G V U zt .J LV Mfp O �J TL q i > 6T C OC d= tN� }qqL _y _ O _LLI N M 1 O C V p— v • L a °� PL PELL LdO�` O 6�4 y -1 O C LL 6I SVyV ro i-C n... y ci Gt _ N I fV 1.1 f N b L y F ` N L c o q � C O c m Li e� t I v J Y. O f..l � W u O L LVLL^ y ° s w W °xLL ° V a L 3 c V Y � i 9 L V C aqp� —PC o q c � rqa NVWy a ° y L q q 2 O O 9 � L i v _ q L — w 3 iLL lnG O r` 4 = v q q o q L — O � ?La OY ycN- na9 L h ^ O 'O n y � a a�6 u q yO v iu °may o n Ep Vay O q A q �Ca V M} LL d y I `W C Tom° "au c m n• V �I ✓= V W L > V1l� E t o 1.1 t f T �J 1 G d� N' T• ^ ow d ndC �Y C I ��' � A O d G 6 � •LVO r- �l UVLy G�9 �.� in L` Ll <NO w ✓ 6 P (•L V� b 0.O � Y n ^ y � � .Lr• n ^ ^J y =^ O i V Y nL.• O V 6 Z `y I `I ✓ I C a n Z O V° .� V U Y ✓ Z .` y C' � P N J N I d♦td u0 Lr 'L 1VW� >r X �� f� L l W L� �y Y a ✓Yr d_ S OJ I I V ) I I 11 dA' n •n •e •n V I `n P� 8G N3 L N 4 d E C � � W � � w0• = � u • N • � � Nom• Y � �t n'� La �¢c¢66�� `_ �° ZG E f u bW I \ i Lo QnpO= �4d °^ `AN N_ NI Vr `Yr ✓ m~ X •T— O —C°u q O YL � ^V pdp 41 ✓PNgJ CM �•• 7 =� = s` CL � �` '� T •n .V. O M � i C O A L r°r• E= c G u u VO•a Nd T —L q ^VY L O O ^ —d O^ I 1 6.O OC✓6ln �Vr L LO'L W2 Vq NQ. 6L V— �I�• O _ = 1 'T L O ✓ T Y O✓ N W V ° c c 12 N W ✓ p C =p 4 �+ OugP— y0✓ gOOC✓L N y C Cq �u� r. J p_ ✓ P E f•r y 4 Y .'1 d u A Y. w @ 4 T• P l C N C� •� W E Y V °1 L N l y d€ �. C I ° d C L � nJ ^_ d �• Y C I` P N d 7 V_ L n O L L lN� ✓ � �'n�WO. dNV NN•r� >�O uE' � Y 9 .j U .�. 9 n ,r ✓ ` y q � P V [�J a� a ! � T 1 � — � N CT° � py0 ✓ � X � f N P C^ �i^ � =�•r 00 N'w O 9 Cu= N9V' N O q Od L✓ L �� ` d Y G EW O Q n L r E 4106 °q0 VO ra 1iYW > y rW P O 1. aYPi iN✓. �. Wr " �'�" =� C Wd_NO O V dqy „nV _q `d9N p•i 00 a OOOi P Y Y� N= L; P 6-F5 V u J O L 4 e q ✓ VyJ 64p >L•'•r C Eq d`� =r• d v c v' `° ° ✓i M a`r r`o` �'rq' � oo. ^ y .. � a ✓O •n qrr CV uV LCT �o n °W d � xc � O H O ✓ f >N N l ^q TN C w•O• `ON �9CLY �C� %�06 ^p C d r .^ .�i 7 d N O L Ld q W q V D P° w 2✓ 6I q G y I`� Y NC P> rrda V� C P O N • 'a Cl C n 6 N. •Lir O Y _— c 9p W o �• ^I �� m N.n ur�e``Wr =1 �e — °c La ar.• ` o_wE^ on r-8 o�m� •- i �A o Lc A v�uvin an •Le .°oo L` smaa aou WO Pq oI d— ^Z M L"I N • f YII J w C 0 C P C 9 P s S q V v Ln i0 '^vry fl =,D �^- 7d �L�h7i (lNN �COC �Si Oj�91A c+NO 3I nD Yn 6� w alor N •� � N � ��l NAY fi l wd ... 9 N •G ] f N •C i 4 A q ^l_ O _ .Y.. J pOO � mQ� a;3 'Jn < n r ly•' =. J C�•{?V A� ~OaA �� -AT lOn N9i0� ?>> �J �C =� _O -•bq NC4 Y Nv 9 S] •JOB `� �Ol 'o A N upr A > I°> l 3 G7. q O 3 �n G y O G ' .•.n � : 2 r O ^t Cryb n^T ��p ,O'�p N� �L flJ dN� _�� C GAO O' p6 11{11L(vDn i n Cry` T N m N r _ P _d_ d�f00� SOON c! G �O � rb 6M1p C �•VS O � 160n orpb r +lr ».. y ` N NN = j On 4N �OAA 1. r>\C p dn�N^. N lZ i ^r 1rI�-r rO N N wV f1 PN O" w NNW ^lam T SOS q >rr O'] Jr_ >N AC> h d rb SJr V d ZrN O 6 W w O .( wTV9 r O i a 1 q CT • f• ± a � N iyu O r w�� C m �SOOO �O > � 3A� op p Ob� b � l N M > = ^ o g zl _ •I 6 1 =C0 �^ (Zj rOJ rr0 4� cOA M r lam. < 6pw =^O 4 T��p wq r >�T COO O S 6 Sr O SO' Sp> NN INI la IW IN 6 Iw q ` yG 929 y flJ �N4 TS TT p�'f.I 6 T� ilO 'JwOy p T O T Y T 6. r- Y 1 r C f'f •� R: - 1> � p T T i b� ^ 6 9 �9 '1 6 a'� '•CO 4 d6 T G^ AT >6m� ib0 n_ IOa 6 •� N 1> �O n `p O ^ T^ p O 'IxA` C 6 6 O A N_ 9 d w 1C q r l 7 w IO T O,a N T ° '� 4m �' .- °T 6y'pd"� '^ o'sr o• > q _141 � � `C 4 r Cpr ON O q0 L VC OI gdl�T O� p Tq � pQ �^ N Cp Cna 4 T TO �4 nw pd> N-' �r O I J jj 6.0 • = l SAN n �O C./. >> S SC Cpl p Al 6r Tr 00LL c N � 4 O w,1r ••� r0 n l T 6 'n T N � C 'n ^ N d i � C p � �'.'. I N _ f0• 6 6 > T O 4� ��O 3 C d O O O f• i 0 z U U O i G E V N `yy E r_ ��.L. L a = Q w I r > o u y u c c p c —uo TT J c +> G d c vF= v a u �O.• q d u• V GJ10JL �I r t. n c vc s •a •n p P � T Z Q C N T G c p Q r r v •o u A ` o `d � u •`o '� e' a Q i ..' dnov — 'oi vT c• a d•` rar n Td . V o— ad °urn vn ..•.e d� e.— c�v v. —o f C ^ d .�..� CI •^ a- �• H n r s 'O .ce o c c A V O d �^ 9 p+d•D i O n �• pd 1.0+ yd _ { 1 r p < 6 d 6 • o V N `yy E r_ ��.L. L a = Q w I r > o u y u c c p c —uo TT J c +> G d c vF= v a u �O.• q d u• V GJ10JL �I r t. n RESOLUTION 'l0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE rITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12532 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12532, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Archibald Associates, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 74.5 acres on the :Vest stye OT Ramona, at Monte ViSLd Jbf'CC1., iitiv uc v..n, .�.y..•... .J .. before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 11, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comm•iss:^n finds the tentative tract described herein is in conflict with the directions of the City's Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies Tentative Tract 12532. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1984. ® PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomel, Deputy Secretary I, Ric:: Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Co=. iss•ion of the City of Rancho Ocamonga, do hereby certify that the foregring Resolution was duly and reaularly inu.:_viced, passed, .ard adopted by thr- Planning Coaanission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1964, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 CITY OF RANCHO Ci?CAYIONGA STAFF REPORT __00 �5 f DATE: April 11, 1984 1977 i TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -04 - MARKWEST - A request to locate a caretaker's quarters of 80 square feet in conjunction with a light industrial storage facility located on the south side of 9th Street on both the east and west sides of Flower Road (8755 Flower Road). This i site is located in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Specific i! Plan area - APN 209- 013 -42. I i I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reauested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an 801 squaYe foot caretaker's quarters. B. Purpose: To provide or -site, 24 -hour security for a mini - storage complex. i C. Lccation: 8755 Flower Road D. Parcel Size: 4 acres E. Existing Zoning: General industrial, Subarea 2 F. Existing Land Use: Unoccupied new industrial buildings G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonis : North - Vacant, Industrial Businesses, General _i!lustrial (Subarea 2) I South = Vacant, Industrial Businesses, railroad tracks, General Industrial ('Subarea 2) East Industrial b;.siresses, General industrial (,Subarea 2) West - Industrial businesses, General industrial (Subarea 2) I d. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial, Rail Served North - General Industrial, Rail Served South - General Industrial, Rail Served East - General Industrial, Rail Served West - General Industrial, Rail Served ITEM K 1-1 E PLANINING COMMISSION, STAFF REPORT Conditinnci Use Permit °444 /74arkwest April 11, 1934 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The project area is fully improved with on -site ana off -site streets, landscaping and seven nc.v: industrial buildings .with a total 43,727 square feet of gross floor area. One hundred and thirty -three parking spaces are provided on-site, whic^ is above the parking requirerr�-nts for the proposed mini - storage facility use. il. AiVHLT�I>' A. General: This application proposes to convert the existing seven ouildirgs into a mini- storage complex, which is a permitted use °n the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Approximately SOU square feet in building number seven will be converted to a caretaker's quarters, which requires a Con�'`innai Use Permit. The managers are a husband and wife who it reside ir the caretaker's quarters. Besides providing for 24 -hour on -site management, additional security measures Bach as gates, fences between the buildings, and alarm systems are being proposed to be installed. According to the applicant, plans for ttie gates and fences wilt be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to obtaining building permits. S. Environmentzl Assessment: The Planning Commission issued a Negative Declaration for the development of this industrial park on April 9, 1930. No further environmental review is required. III. FACTS FOR CINDINGS: s0iis project is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and General Plan. the proposed use, building design, and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approva % is in compliance with all applicable City standards and ordinances. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties or cause sioni4icant adverse environmental im.pac *-s. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been ,Jvertised as a public hearing in The Daily Reoort newspaper, the property posted, and retices sent to all property owners with.? 300 feet of the project sit=_. To date, no correspcndence has bee.: received either for or against this project. V. RECOMIPIENOAT -A0N: It is recommrended that the Planning Co-. fission consider all material and input on this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the facts for findings and conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. }L ck PLANN'HG C014MISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Lisa Permit 84- 04 /vlarkwest April 11, 1084 Page 3 Respectfully Suo1a1tted, Rick City ?lanne* RG:JIF: jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" _ Exhibit "C" _ Exhibit "0" _ Resolution of Location M.ap & Industrial Specific plan Site Plan Of the Project Area Floor Plan of Building 7 Floor Plan or Caretaker's Quarters Approval R-1 E 11 r'1 L_J E Li } LU hiKYR' subarea st s+ 8th 3 C� NOS CITE' OF 1 =.I: Gip ' RANCHO Ct;CA1-10 \Gz- TrRY. -10 4flCrg �- -fRj L. SPFrtrIC Z( PL A.NNING DIVb -la 1 F1f a wm %' A " sc-A;.E_ 1 L= --� 2 7440 ssa sq.tt. sq.:L 5 9513 sq.ft. 9th Stree: c 0 o: r O O 5 9600 sq.tL PROPOSED 'N CARETAKER'S QUARTERS 7 9118 s,,q.IL 1\017M CITY OF ITEM: -.aP L224-C4 R� \CEO CUC�A ION-GA �L1� Pia�t FLA1V\j \G DIV. -GION? E\}illiT: "SOLE ,K S 11 0 a is 6780 9704 sq.ft �tjj sq.ft. 5 9600 sq.tL PROPOSED 'N CARETAKER'S QUARTERS 7 9118 s,,q.IL 1\017M CITY OF ITEM: -.aP L224-C4 R� \CEO CUC�A ION-GA �L1� Pia�t FLA1V\j \G DIV. -GION? E\}illiT: "SOLE ,K S 11 0 Ir�l!Ii� ) NORTH CITY OF ffL%I: g34 -04t PL -X. \, NING DIVISION E.M i113IT: SCALE- JVl- k ,-G SQ (I IC CITY OF RAINCHO C.,C<NjNi0. G.-k R - ANTNING DIVISION m 801 Total square focta,e for caretaker's quarters NORTH ITEM: eA. TITLE = alt 1 OF r�tsY.m�Q Etl IIRjT ' a-L scAL: _ i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION 4PPROVING CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -04 FOR A L.ARETAYER'S QUARTERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 9TH STREET 3N BOTH SIDES OF FLOWER ROAD IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE (SU &AREA 2) WHEREAS, an the 23rd day of March, 1984, a complete application was filed by Markwest iUra:iUi1 1ul 1.;V ICNI VT the above-described Nrvjcsr, ui: WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That 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. 2. That the proposed use, togethar with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimentai to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECT :ON 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -04 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Tie three (3) parking spaces adjacent to the caretaker's quarters shall be marked reserved for reE:idEints and managers. 2. If security gates and /or fences are desired, plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to instailation. 3. The apolicant shall comply :,rith latest adopted the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Ur.ifonn Plumbing Code, Naticna' Electric Code, and all otcar applicaLle codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative ^ermis for the conversion of 801 square feet of an existing industrial building to a caretaker's quarters. 4. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted unless storage occurs in an area screened from public view per Industrial Area Specific Plan requirements. APPROVED AND ADOPI=u THIS 11th DAY CF :APRIL, 19254_ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG.A BY Denni, L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Corrnissier. of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comaission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1994, by the following vote -to -Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: K_ 9 E Ll 11 E I UAIC: 11P9 11 11, 1764 CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner SU "JECT.: RESIDENT DEVcLOPMENT PLAN - ABSTRACT This report presents recomTendations to the Planning Commission on the environmental and planning design issues trhich will be forwarded to the County of San Bernardino regarding the oroprsed development by Caryn De elopment Company (Joseph DiIorio), fvr ar;,r ^!�Imately 890 residential units located on approximately 200 acres northeast of Milliken 8 Highl -nd . Attached to this report is a project development map and a tabulation of land use figures. The project site is essentially undeveloped and is located abutting the northern boundary line of the City's sphere of influence and is adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway right -of -way. The project is planned as a single - family detached residential development with provision for a neighborhood park and a trail system. BACKGROUND The nature of this proposal is similar to our own requirements for a planned community which include defining land use, architecture and landscaping standards, community service needs, and to complete an environnental document. Therefore, our comments within the Staff Report will be focused in these following areas. 1. The appropriate environmental reporting and documentation on the proposed project. 2. Identification of the environmental issues. 3. Review of the pr --posed development plan text and map. We based our review of this document upon the existing City standards and those of the County -- specifically those contained within the Foothill Community Plan. In addition, cur review of the environmental issues will include those crigioially identified during the review of the Community Plan and those which are focused specifically with this project proposal. r ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUn W 113-F11 April 11, 19 84 Page 2 Attached to this memo are detailed memos prepared earlier by staff regarding selected topics which this report summarizes. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING PROCEDURE The San Bernardino county Environmental ricai iiiij vff icc• has - • to require an Environmental Impact Report on focused topics contai,ed4 within this proposal. The decision has been ;Wade to conplPtc ar cnvircrrantal assessment and then to determine whether a focused an ironmental impact repnrt is necessary. His decision is based upon the fast that if the project desl;n can all ^d ate any significant environments' impacts, then. a focus envirenme: it impact report will not be necessary. The Applicant has proceeded to complete several technical reports on matters such as seismic safety and noise problems. (This information iias been forwarded to the Commission members at their previous meeting.; it is f.npor•tant that the environmental p,,;cessing on this project perform the task:: necessary for a praper decision on this project. IZ is preferable that an environmental impact report be completed, however through the environmental assessment and necessary reports the following tasks should be inc':dded: ® 1. Focus err. ironmental assessments on several areas of environmental concern. 2. Discussion of those impacts which could be Ceemad significant. 3. identification of mitigation measures necessa -y to reduce the impacts to less than a significant level. 4. Opportunity for public input and review. Should the County proceed with completion of an environmental assessment, it would be necessary that the issues which nave been identified through the earlier approval process on the Conrw;iity Plan and with respect to this project's on -site issues, be adequately addressed, as indicated. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Staff has reviewed this project for environmental considerations at two levels: (1) The environmental issues which were appropriately identified during the consideration of the Foothill Community Plan, and (2) Environmental issues which have been identified or sites specific with this project. 11 PLANNING COMMMISEION STAFF REPORT PUD W 113 -51 April 11, 1984 Pace 3 In both cases, the main thrust has been to identify those issues which focus s3 "lely on this project and which would have impact either on the project site, or on the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a result of the project. Some of these topics have been identified and discussed in earlier technical reports prepared by consultants for the project. However, others would need to be addressed further, along wit:i the appropriate environmental documentation for completion of the environmental proce .IU. 1 ssi ,�• ,„„ of all V 1 i V1V 1,1u t� V r• topics: 1. An assessment of the impact of development on the following service systems and facilities. Circulation with and witho:a Rout;E 30 Freeway. )rainage syster and flood control protection. Parks and trail systems. Sewer and water service. Public safety services. Schools aystem. 2. An assessment r,f the health and safety issues of developmen* including seismic safety hazards, flood control hazards, noise impact of the proposed Route 30 Freeway. 3. The financial assessment of proposed development including an identification o` both snort -term and long -term public facility and service needs of the proposed development. 4. Review of an implementation strategy fop public facility needs, 9ocused on the infrastructure construction, finance and phasing. 5. Review of provisions for assuring For the long -term financing of LL community service for this area L _ 1_�_U_J .. , including but l +o.. V maintenance of any private ar"d public_ streets, lighting, parks, traiis, and public landscape areas. E 2 PLANNING COMMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUD W 113 -61 Apr'! 11, 1984 Page 4 PLANNINi DOCUMENT The Ccu -Ity of San Bernardino a_mploys a similar process for approving of an overall master plan for an area, such as our community plan designation. They defin3 this document as a Development Plan, including a text and maps. This ---- - - -..a i�� h �d.litinn the annlirant project ias been propo5eu QS Q UEVE1VPMG. v -jill submit a detailed map for the first phase. Because of this process which the County is using on reviewing this project, staff is reviewing the document :)n two 1- 2veis: (1) Review the text of the master plan as a guide for development for the entire area, and (2) as a site specific development plan for the first phase. Attached to this report are detailed summaries by both Engineering and Planning Staff regarding the issues on both the level of the Development Plan and the Site Saac?fic. Staff will be reviewing •.vith tl�e County in more detail the site specific issues "For this meeting, staff has identified the major issues which should be discussed wit'iin the text of the Development Plan. These focus in two areas: Community Design and Land Use and Residential Density. Following are �!raas to be cons;dered for incorporation Onto the Development Plan Text: CO MUNITY DESIGN 1. Corceptual Park Plan o Landscape treatments. c Recreational facilities. o Indicate the relationship with adjacent residential land uses. o Off- street parking. 2. Conceptual Landscape Plan • Medians and parkways (crossection and typical plan views). • Greenways (crrssections and typical plan views). • Fencing and wall plan (walls adjacent to greenways, perimeter walls, etc. • Trail /street intersection concepts. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ?UG 'd 113 -61 Aoril 11, 1984 Page 5 • Grading concepts. • 17luctrative site plan. • Lard,-'ctiping standards ..nSn6Fnrnn�ti +_ni tG, • JLreEll Lr'6c CvnCc;s ,.- �c per • Typical edge conditions. • Equestrian tra;'.s plan (for trail improvements adjacent to Banyan). 3. F:ot Plan /Architecture • Streetscape elevations. • Typical dwelling plottings per various lot sizes. Illustrate dwelling locations in relation to various lot sizes. tnclude driveways, center plots_ and zero lot line dwellings. o Provide tentative tract map -- fully dimensioned. o Architectural themes per sub - ,neighborhood units. c Street and building layouts. 4. Conceptual Commercial Plan o Access points. o Landscape buffers adjacent to residential units. o Architectural /landscape themes. 5. Phasing Plan To illustrate and tabu'.ate the amount of improvements provided per phase. 11.1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POD 'p 113 -61 April 1?, 198 ;. ie 6 6. Finance /Service Plan o CSA District o Assessment ^istrict Mello /Roos District 7. Nwe-iral Features Map /Site Utilization Plan o Existing plant materials. o Natural features, rock outcroppings, existing structures, rc.ck w_T'r.. etc. LAND USE An important issue with residential land use is the overall density distribution of the residential units. When the County approved their planned coanunity. the) provided for a density bonus, which, although the overall density range .s a-ithin our General Plan of 2 -4 units per acre, the density bonuses provide for up to 25% for design consideration, and an additional 25% for affordable housing. The project as proposed indicates a use of a maximum 104% density bonus, but does not set any ceiling for any future density bonus, nor for the number of future additional units within that overall density range. The land use plan should provide for a ceiling of reside:itial unit numbers and a minimal lot size for each subarea. The following are included within the text of the Development Plan. 1. The maximum number of dwelling units within the overall development area not to exceed that proposed within the planned text of 894 units tot41. 2. The maximum density will provide for a minimum average lot size of not less than 6,000 square feet on the area south of the east/west art -rial and a minimum average lot size of not less than 7,200 square feet in that area :)rth of the east /west arterial. PLMIN6 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUG . 113 -61 April 11, 1984 Page 7 RECOMEYDATION The following are reco-,nended to the County of San Bernardino Planning during their review of PUD 'd 113 -61, and any zobsequent development plans: 1. That an appropriate environmental processing procedure including l .. a- :,i....a - 4:n.. �F +kM ,n nF cinni•Fir,ni affart a�Sc>jincrot v iu1FI Ol.4J, IuC..4l�il.4r�y.. .>... _, and proposal of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project, to be completed with this Development Plan. 2. That the environmental issues which have been identified with this report be addressed within the environmental document to irclude: o Assessment of impact on both physical support systems and services, o Assess -,ert of any health and safety issues, and o Assessment of the project's financial impact on the City and support agencies. 3. That the Development Plan text adequately address those issued discussed within this report and the attachments, including: o Density Distribution Plan o Conceptual Park Plan o Conceptual Landscape Plan o Plot. Plan /Architecture o Conceptual Commercial Plan o Phasing Plan o Finance /Service Plan o Natural Features Map /Site Utilization Plan 4. That the planned development text adequately address those issues discussed within this report and the attachments, and that the development ;nap for the first phase be recommended to incl;Ide thnse torments contained within this report. submitted: itif P R6:TB:ns Attachments 11 E L] 0 li c +� '�ml! .j I E II II l � 1 � 1 yam` —•� ��,[�d,' �... �- � 4 >, \ ` \��t 1 _r_� � I 11 1 •':� :— .: 7 �� +: a r� r � l l � • 11� '. _- i r ` 1 I, I it I' I I� I I. I I I III II (il �ll nj I '. I o'f{ y/ al � • : !� . � rL 1(/ .. : r `' -�. � 9i �� ji i I ' �2Y '� tl /� , ,f ;•� ( /,/ I `� J, i Ili ' ! -- t . �-./.. 1 rr'"�•,. 7} rid ( '_: ' _ '1 I f I III i - 71- ii 411 A Ii I II �A t- i, I 1,* 4 I ii �l 1• 1 1 17 .� li ER AVENUE r a. I e1 11 I' I I� I I. I I I III II (il �ll nj I '. I o'f{ y/ al � • : !� . � rL 1(/ .. : r `' -�. � 9i �� ji i I ' �2Y '� tl /� , ,f ;•� ( /,/ I `� J, i Ili ' ! -- t . �-./.. 1 rr'"�•,. 7} rid ( '_: ' _ '1 I f I III i - 71- ii 411 A Ii I II �A t- i, I 1,* 4 I ii �l 1• 1 1 17 .� li ER AVENUE r FI I D. 11 10 L] Lam, 9 13 13 X El Lj L1 14 PROJECT TABULATION - as of February 29. 1984 Land 1-1--e. °"a5E Residenticl: Open Space: Roads: (ar;ericls, spine, loops and cul -de -sacs) Land U > ^. Phase 11 P.esidenticl: .NF. Corner parcel aT WHiken and Highland (Not a part) Open Space: Roads: (arse: ials, spine, locps and cul-de -sacs) TOTAL Gross Acres: Residential: Nw. Corner parcel a: Mi;liken and Highland (Net a pert) Open. Spece: Roads: .,arterials, spine c and loops only) Footh- -I! Freeway: Acres 63.85 9.0 LC.. 72 `o of Site 02.80 3.80 22.28 n...e,!: Units y AI{owed ++ 508 59.25 57.53 470 ** 3.34 2.23 7.29*•* 7.24 L�.3C 2C.GJ 227.21 1�3.7t 8.34 C.L9'#w 55.58 23_30 10111.0 54.15 978 ** 3.7 C /.22 24.r 10.33 • includes 1.59 acre par--el at the sc rthv�r,,t c. ner of Ph,- E 1!. Units allowed are calcul, -2ted at 4 D.U. per gross -cre plus I_% bo -,us for Planned Unit Deve'•opmen: and 1095 fur design; not includ7mg 25 o bonus for efford? :ble housing. Units oroposed ere as per the current olon. The number of units in Phase II may vary; therefore, the total number of -nits proposed ^may vary, bu+ the tctai w-11 be no greater than 9%3:n;ts. **; includes app; Oximately 7 acre,-. the Cr_. yn Compony intend: to donate as a ;memorial park. -9- Units ?moose d -75 41 Q* 894 ** t! El 11 2- ] Ll `zO G Z 107; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAT-VIO ti GA Vayor JOa. I?_ ilikeli CownAmrmw., Charles J. Buquet C zarnes C_ Fro-t Richard 9i. Dahl Phillip D. Schlosser March 21, 1984 Charles Bell Environmental Hearing Officer Environmental Puhlic Works Agency 335 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92415 SUB3ECT: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PUD S3 -0044 - C4R1'N COMPA %Y Dear Mr. Bell: The purpose of this letter is to provide an overview of our comments regarding the draft preliminary development plan prior to the decision on actions necessary to complete environmental determination. I wish to stress that these co:;rents are preliminary and are sub;ect to review by our Planning Commission, We will be forwarding copies of this plan to the Plann'ng Commission at their April 11, 1984 meeting. Following '.heir consideration, their comments will be forwarded to the environmental hearing officer and to the project developer. We are preparing these comments in order to satisfy the filing dates which we have received regarding the environmental review and the planning review of this plan. Our comments will be titofnld: (1) concerns environmental review and subsequent discussion (2) adequacy of the preliminary development pla n This later will be more concerned with the Office will be used to forward our comments to both. MIP.ORMENTAL CONSIDERATION regarding the adequacy of pF -mitigation measures; and. as a guide for development, of Plalininv, but this letter During the review of the Foothill Community Plan, considerable issues were discussed which required detail environmental review with any subsequent plans for development on properties in the foothill planning area. Comments which we forward in this letter came from those during the review of the review of the Foothill Plan and those which are specifically fecused on this project alone. 4326 BASEid_` E ROAD, SL*IT5' C • MqT OFFICE BOX 807 RANCHO CUCXMIDNGA, CALIFOILNIA 91730 • (714; 989 -1851 L,ndr IC] DC 1 I Subj: PUD 33 -0044 Page 2 El After reviewing the preliminary planned development text, we have difficulty in adequately defining mitigation, measures without knowing more about the process of how the proposed mitigation measures will accompany the approval of both the planned development and the subsequent tract map. Our questions, therefore, involve greater definition of what the requirements will be on a preliminary development plan and what legal effect this development has on the approval of the subsequent tract map. Further, how do the environmental issues which were raised through this study or others become incorporated into the devel__ —Ment l Clearly, r r con ... ,. t"ne n ♦ was th NIC uCVCtvGF UGrlL plan. Vef= Vr cur muj v. vvu�c. no .au c onset nut Lnc relationship between the approval process which wr�;ld normally accompany a project through an environmental review ? ^d that which would be something less such as a study completed with a preliminary development plan. The following topics a; shown within the development plan will be discussed in terms rf questions or com7ents regarding their adequacy for review of salient environmental issues jnd poti!ntial mitigation measures. In general, the discussion within most sections tends to be vague and in some case totally lacking in adequacy to be considered in review of the environmental effects of this project. Further, the proposed measures for mitigation are quite frequently worded as overall suggestions lacking any definitive proposal. In. addition, there are many areas which are totally lacking in any discussion and therefore would recd to be addressed. The following will be a discussion of those issues concerned mainly with env?r_n.ental aspects. Public Services and Facilities The information contained within this section ; ;pecislly with regard to both sewer service and sto;.i drainage appear to h-� lacking in comprehensive review of the existing status and do not edequatel; address the impacts of this development on this existing sysz:t:m. More specifirally, without this there is lack of adequate identification of mitigation measures including funding and provisions for services. Gc�rtnunity Facilities he issue OF facilities received considerable attention di!ring the discussion of the Foothill Community Plan. The discussion on scneots, while it does identify the requirements for additional student population, does not identify in rer +gin te. s ;.;fiat measures will be provided through this plan for the assurance of adequate school facilities. The discussion regarding financing alternatives is lacking is any detail. Regarding the parks and recreation component, there is little discussion regarding trail systems within the exception of ti-,e community design system there appears tr ,j,e trail systems planned for the projei -t. There is no trail system planned though for the equestrian which shows on oi:r convrunity trail system plan, aoorox :mately along Banyan: Aven -.e, Overall, This section has no discussion rel ;arding financing and maintenance of services such as parks, lighti::-y and landscaping. The issue of the identification of service cost a.:d the purveyor of those services was paramount during the consideration of the Foothill CoriusTi lity Plan, and lacking in their discussion of this document. r: Charles Bell Subj= PUD 43 -0044 Page 3 Circulatirn The circulation as proposed has some conflict with the existing circulation system within the city's General Plan. There has been eery little discussion of the proposed impact of this project on our circulation, system. For example, differences of right -of -way requiremAnts and increase of traffic volume could impact_ the City's system. Further discussion of this matter is includ =_d in a report which will be fo'-verdei by :he City's engineering section,. Co„aunity Design Comments regaraing th`:s section, will be conta'.ned in a discussion regarding adequacy of planned development documents and contained in attachments to this report. Conservation and ()Den Space Discussion: withi- the plan does not at all address environmental characteristics although they may be features such as natural vegetation, land forms have not been discussed in any fashion. This development assumes a density bonus for good design, however it has not been shown where good design has considered the natural features. Although the plan states "give attention to -roper grading practices and conservation of top soil" there is no identification of speciiie practices for grading or site planning which in this plan wuuld be an important aspect. The provisions of flood control protection both for on site and off site have been discussed within other special studies and reports the discussion should be ir.;orporated to a greater extent. Also, there are certain interface questions with existing storm drain systems or proposed system which have not been adequately identified. Finally, the impaction or. the existing city system including the financing and maintenance of this storm drain system have not been discussed. Further discussion of this topic is inclsded in a memo from the City's engineering section to be forwarded later. Seismic Sf'et and Public Safetv ne saismfc bazar section and the noise section of the appendix appears to have been adequately done, however, there is some question regarding their 'legal viability for an adaquate environmental review. This matter will be discussed with staff in order to determine whether it is necessary that further work should oca;r in either the seismic or noise sections. g 2nnj!ACY OF THE PLANNING COMMENT Our 'L•nments regarding tnis document are characterized as we wzsld consider text and approval process accompanying a planned community within the City. This project would be a planned community which includes development, multi - phased approach to development where land use, design., environmental, and public health and safety issues are all discussed within one document with the intent to provide 4esign standards cad guidelines for future development ® plans. In general, this document is inadequate regarding its description of �P development standards and design solutions. As a document it lacks adequate specificity. For example, no discussion is inclsded regarding the type of housing which would oc7,jr, the design standards which will be necessary for either commercial or ;-e-id.ntial and the development or landscape standards which are necessary within these uses. Charles Bell Subj: PUD 23 -0044 Page 4 We ha 9onomoleted our review cf the pralir.inary deve: ^lent Plan with the p- that it would not conflict ..Iith city policies regarding planned communriies and with our own design standards. We have included our comments which are attached to this letter. I would suggest that we discuss further with the planning staff our comments on the nature of this document regarding its cse and apprcpriate applications. C igCLUSIOu in general, it appears that the topics which have been covered within the Preliannarof y topic all those topics which are necessary, however, in areas. They are inadequately dafined with insufficient mitigation measures. Further, issues regarding service of community facilities and the financing of those are not at all discussed within this report. Aod.tio ^all,; the nature of the development pian is considerably less detailed and specific as ,,-3 would require for a planned community in Rancho Cuca^soega• In lie; of the Fact that this project is following the approval of the Fcotnill Communit- Plan and iic effect sets precedence for implementation Of that Ca7r.munity n.dn is very important tl:aL it addresses all the concerns within ts,at C *-unity Pies and with this ,roject as we had anticipated fe +lcwin;rrevieri «; -,e Fcotbill Com�Mt1nity F ar,. We took forward co dealing with tya County ;taf` and representatives of the project developer in assuring t' ^ -at t * ::s z'reject can be developed within the corce:ns which we rare raised. Si,;cer e ly, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAF.'iMENT PLANNING DIVISION f 4�imJ. Beedle Senior Planner T6: j CC: City Council Planning CORnissiOn City Manager Community Development Director C T TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ica u MEMORANDUM �c DATE : March 21, 1984 1q -7 T0: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner +� r 1 FROM: Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ;(N 1 SUBJECT: Deveiooment Proposal rot property Located in the Unincorporated Areas Northeast of Highland and Milliken Avenues The above referenced proposal involves the development of 394 dwelling units on zbau. 227 acres of land north of Highland Ave. between Deer and Day Cre^'rs. Because this proposal affects property immediately adjacent to major circulation and drainage facilites affecting the City, the fnllowinn items should be the subject of an ervirbnmental assessment: 1. Due to the City's involvement in a major special tax district fer the improvement of Day Creek, this property part of which drains int-_ Jay Creek, should share in the implementation of those improvements. The i impact of the project on Day Creek and met :: --ds b, which it could participate in the proposed improvements should be assessed. 2. Reference ' made in the preliminary plan to the Victoria Plannpd Community Drainage_ Master Plan. It appears. however, _nat changes have uet:n made in that Master Plan's handling of drainage from north of Highland Avenue. The relationship of zhe drainage provisions for this project:, with those of the Victoria Project, should be examined. The PrOPosai for an unimproved ditty to carry major drainage flows through the City into Deer Creek is of particular concern. 3. In addition, to storm drain, facilities in the project, the handling of overflows fru:;; major f foods from north of the project through the project and into the City should be aJdressed. 4. Concerns regarding the circ.latien issues of the project center on the cross Secticins Provided for rnajor sCreets such as Bayan, Rochester and some of the internal collectors. The adequacy of these cross sections should be investigated more thoroughly, particularly where the streets are going to extend into City terrritory. Of particular concern is the affects of this project upon the required size of Rochester Avenue. 5. Provisions for the right -of -way required for the Route 30 Freeway are apparently a part of the project. It is not clear, however, just how the right -of -way will be protected or provided. Memo to Tim 3; -adle March 21, 1574 Page 2 In addition to environmental concerns, there are the foilowing concerns with the planning of the project. 1. As mentioned previously, flooding from the north is a threat to both phases of th4 project, partiCUldrly, of course, the Lecond prase, Protection of the second phase in the event that the Day Creek improvements are n -)t accomplished has only been lightly to,iched upon. _�ih nn_avu _ ro, _ t:viit;c: il, 11UWCVCr, IS T 1000 prOLECL70n Tor The first phase. Concentration of all flows from north of the first phas= are apparently g-ino to be diverted through the center of the project into a mayor storm drain. In addition to this drain, protection from majJr overflows should also be examined, it is not clear how these flows can be safely carried entirely through the project. 2. With respect to circulation, the internal capacity of collectors should be giver, a cln�er look. It appears that the parkway collector is not of an adequate size. PAR:jaa 11 13 11 r� �J M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 1984 T0: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner FROM: Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Deve'opment Proposal for the Property at Milliken and Highland Desic;nated as County Project PUDW113 -61 In addition to concerns mentioned in my memo to you dated (larch 21, 1984, the following comments are offered for transmittal to County authorities regarding the above referenced project. 1. The drainage plan for this project involves changing the drainage areas originally contemplated for the Deer Creek improvement project and in the Victoria P.C. master plan. T.'e change involves some of the Day Creek drainage area being diverted into Deer Creek. There is reed of early approval of this plan from County authorities before further assessment of the drainage of the project can take place. 2. The unimproved ditch in the City portion of the drain going in,o Deer Creek should be revised to indicate a paved channel. Plans call for intercepting runoff from the area north of the r- eject, about 90 acres, and carrying the 25 year flow through the ,aroject's storm drains and s.reets. The remaining flows will have to oe handled on the surface. It should be further demonstrated that 100 year excess flows can be carried through the project without damage to properties. Perhaps these flows should be directed to Milliken Avenue. Any diversion dikes north of Phase I should be of sufficient duribility to provide siginificant flood protection. 4. Traffic analysis for the project raises the issue of the benefits of extending Banyan Avenue directly to the East rather than as shown on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. This concept appears to have much merit. It also appears, however, that using Banyan as the major east -west cross City route is unwise because of the inability of Summit Avenue to accept such a traffic load. For this reason an additioizl route along the Wilson Avenue /24th Street corridor should be planned. For the project in question this means that Banyan Avenue should be either two lanes if no median is used, or if there is a median, a full four lanes shoulr be available (minimum 27 feet between curbs). Memo to Tim Beedle Re: Proposed Developement at Milliken & Highland April 4, 1934 Page 2 5. Milliken Aven ,-•a traffic vgiumes appear to be at the capacity limit for four lanes, indicating that additional lanes may well be needed. Thus a 94 foot section. rather than the 72 foot curb to curb section, should be provided unless further evidence shows that the narrower section could accommodate these heavy flews. 6. Due to the nncc +h ; ;;t.. .,o A_.._. project it would appearvthatYRochesteromayhrequirenfour ianesiat least south of Route 30, A closer study ;,f projected traffic volumes On Rocnester sho;jld be made to determine whether a secondary or collector section should be provided. 7. Upon annexation of this area it would be the City's desire for tie interior streets to be publicly maintair-� 'he geometry for these streets as shown is adequate excz should be provided on the small througi ,00ps.fnOn cughde -sac's where a 50 foot right of way is used there s';ould be a sidewalk easement provided where sidewalks extend beyonC the right of way. appearc that the distance between the curb and sidewalk is it also too narrow arovNdfor proper street tree growth. Perhaps a wider space should be Provided and thus a wider sidewalk easement beyond `.h,2 r=aht of way. 8. There is still the need for more specific procedures being established for the protection or dedication of freeway rights of 9. For a-) tr -ets it is assumed that street lighting would be nroVided accorging to City standards and that districts wuuid be established for lighting and landscape maintenance assessments. PAR;bc 11 0 11 C CITY OF - _AiNCHO %,UCa_'J_0' GA I E1+ ORAIINDOVT DAT*E : 'March 20, 1984 TO: Tim J. 3eedle, Senior Planner FROM: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT• REVID OF DRArT DEVELOP" "LENT PLAN - CARYN COMPANY The document should fully address t." following items: - cNVIR0%MENTA_ 1977 1. Seismic safety - The inferred Redhi7l fault traverses the project site. r.n independent geologist shoul6 be r3sponsible for reviewing fault trace studies prepared by the applicant to include mitigation measures. 2. Noise - Noise impacts generated by the proposed Foothill Freeway, Milliken, Banyan, Rochester, etc. to include mitigation measures. 3. Traffic volumes. 4. Hydrology and drainage. 5. Utilities and public services - A public services plan should be provided (Community Services district). LAND USE Density Distribution Plan to illustrate. 1. Thy location of 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 7,200, etc., square root lots throughout the development. 2. Number of dwelling units per sub- neighborhood units based upon lot square footages. 3. Maximum density allowed and the avcrage number of dwelling units per acre should be tabulated. Q: Is a density range concept used to grant density bonuses from 0 -150, or is a 15% lump sum being ;rcvidej? Related to slrne? (�. 1� a density range concept used to grant density bonuses from 0 -10% (tor good design - i.e., public amenity)? Is a 10% lump sum being provided? : y Tim ,i. Beedle Subj_ Draft Development Plan /Caryn Company Page 2 DESIGN • Typical street cross - sections should be provided which illustrate street right -of -way, parkway width, landscape concepts, pavement sections, sidewalk, parkways, trails, bicycle lases, etc. • Detail plot plans illustr :tino tree spacing, landscape concepts, meandering sidewalks, etc , :houid be provided Der cresS_cartinna o A conceptual park plan should be provided which illustrates active /passive recreational uses, landscape concepts, grades, Perimeter treatments, parking, etc. Some angular spaces appear awkward. How will these be utilized? o A CanCPnt_zl ;annscape plan should be neighborhood landscape concepts, provided which illustrates P perimeter treatments, block wall details and elevations, view fencing 'adjacent to open spaces), entrance monumentation, ! andscape buffers adjacent to future commercial activities, pedestrian greenbelt landscape concepts, relationship of landscaping to various dwellctlg configurations, etc. Conceptual tree species should be specified. o ` phasing olan should be provided which illustrates snd tabulates the extent of improvement; P- gamiJEd per phase. o '` ^ical conceptual unit plottings should be provided ,11ustrate how dweilings will fit on 3,000, 4,000,5,000, 7,200 square square foot parcels. Combined driveways, side entrance garages, setback staggering, variable parcel widths and depths, etc. should be encouraged to provide variety and visual intc-est to the streetscape. Conceptual building elevation should be provided which illustrate possible product types as viewed from the street. Repetitive facades and massive roof areas should be discouraged. FD /jr u go v E L r- CITY OF RAi�TC�O r, iJr AI�ONGA �_..: ::,_Y;._ _ +r•w.r Jon D. >tikcic Ricnard }i. Dahl Phii:ip D. Schlosser } April 4, 1924 Doreen Liberto- 31anc< Countv L•f SF-n Bernardino LaitJ Manaeerrient Department 385 Nor'..:: A.rr- ;gnead Avenue San aern, uino, California 92415 -0130 Dear Doreen: In an effort to provide continuity and compatibility between the proposed Diloriu development and adjacent developments within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the following critique of PUD`,i 113 -61 is provided for your r_view and comment. T7ie critique is designed to illustrate 8arious discreoanci?s between the DiIorio project tent and the current deveioprrant standards and regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The critique is to be used by county staff as a gUidelina in determining the `appropriateness" of the DiIorio development as it relates to our city. All of the standards and regulations provided are designed tc further the goals and objecives of the City's General Plan and Development Code and should be reviewed by county staff in a complete and comprehensive fashion. If you nave any questions regarding the material provided, or if I can be of further assistance to you, please cantact me at the address listed above. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM :i- PARTMENT PLANNING DIi'IS,O., Frank Dreckrran Assistant Planner cc: Chris Tarman Major Tiie S'WA Group 580 Broadway Suite 200 Laguna Beach, California 92651 93'0 BASELINE ROAD, SUTE C • POST OFFiCE BOX 507 k NC 110 CCC MONGA. C A' FL' 6NIA 91730 • 17151959 -1851 1. LAND USE - OP'IONAL STANDArOS n i u ! Site Rre 5 acv-s ::umber of Dlae i l i ng 390 0 Lot Area: Variation requ ired in single tam-'ly subdivisions. DC:isity: Up tp J du/ac. (not •.ncluding rersity torus) Minimum D.aelling Unit Size: 9; sq. f *_. Lot Dimensions: 'variation required it single fa-niiy subdivisions. Lot Minimum: 6,000 south of parkway; 7,200 north of parkway. Setback - Local street: 30 ft. - At interior site boundary: 20 ft. Residential 3uildina Separations - Front to front: 25 ft. - Other: 10 ft. Heiaht Limitations - ft. Op en Space Re uG ireo: - Private open space - ground floor: 1,000 sq. ft. - Co=on � ')en space: 5% - Usable open space - (private and common;: 60% - =erimeter landscaping and interior street trees, etc. Front Yard Landscaoina - Required street trees - One (1) 15- pallor, size tree - One (1; 5- gallon size Free - Seeded around cover and per -anent - Irriga *_ion system; to be installed by the deueloper prior to occupancy. Parkina - Two covered enclosed parking spates required. Carports should not be allowed. LD.1M -7' .A. L. _LV /ICni OJT. -AR i:1RVJ 1p3a 1J ":e ;'sllowing uses shall not be aliowed: I` (L) Catering establ.shments. ('� ) Ou`door storage cf Tatar i a i such as lumber and buy iu ing mat=erials. The following uses shall be conditional: i TE;4 (D) Appliance stores and repairs. (P) Fast food restaurants. (W) Hotels and notels. ,AA) Kiosks for key shopF-, film drops, etc. (gg) Restaurants, including 'hose with entertainment and /or serving of alcoholic beverages. (hh) Recreational vehicle storage yard. (2(a)) Jay care facilities. (b) Churches and other religious institutions. Item ic): Minimum Building Setbacks - Rochesl.er Avenue 45' fron curb. - Milliken Avenue 45' fr,m curb - 45 ft. setback required adjacent to residential. Item (e): Landscanina & Parking Raaulatiuns - Boundary landscaoing is required for a minimum oepth of 25' aiona all parking areas abutting public streets. - Internal landscaping -- shall eq;:al 10% (ten percent) of the pa-kino area, including driveways, access drives, aisles, stalls, manuevering a -eas, is required and shall be locatad in the area devoted to parking. - A minimum of one (1) tree of minimum 15- gallon size for each three (3) parking spaces is required. - Automatic irrigation system required. Parking - Covered or uncovered -ff- street parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9' r. 19'. - Compact car stalls: 3' x 16' - Handicapped parking: 20 of required parking. - Parking aisles: One way width - 13 ft. - Parking stalls required: Offices and related uses - 1/2 50 so. ft. ^._n_ral rprvcorcial - 1/250 sq. ft. Exceptions ,r modifications of off street oarkira req!.lations ;page 23). A clause should be added which states: L _1 tr F; rya: '^. ^Cif 1P �:iC ^. S�a�l .''12 2.... i, ,,,,roved .,y tt� n...... i.. 2 w....;,y encineer prior to issuance of buiiding permits. El El Jr 11 3. OESI N'S AND MISC=' LANEOUS ISSUES o Fences, 'walls, hedges, etc. should be six {e) ft. in height. Open view fencing should be used adjacent to open spaces to inclad�2 parks and greenways. 0 Building setbacks adjacent to greenways should be 20 Ft. frorn rear preparty lines, and 15 ft. from side -on configurations. 0 Minimum greenway •.ridth should be 20 ft. in width 'with six foot 0 A 15 ft. ;indscaped buffer should be required between residential and co—mmercial uses. 5' is too narrow. (Sections needed. ) o Cou'runity eque.triar• trail i- requir -d contigious to Banyan Avenue- 0 100 ft. Row and raised center median required for Rochester Avenue. o Milliken, Rochester, and Banyan Avenues sh31i include center medians wit.. street trees. o Tire park should be dedicated to the county /c; ty in a complete form including, but nr, 1im ;ted to, installed parking areas, seeded play areas, rrigation and restrcoms prior to the constructicn of ore:ter than 200 duelling units. o ?arkwav rrjw sh -)uld be flared at Milliken /interior "park-w—,01- ,.nd Rochester, nte,•ior "parkway ". In addition, entrance monumentation should be installed at these locations. o Typical wall details adjacent to open spaces (parks, green-ways) should be provided. View fencing should be used and two -story units should not abut greenways (or stopped from two -story at street to one story adjacent to greenway) in an effort to reduce r "corridor effect ". Typical perimeter block wall details shall also be provided. o Block walls should be used exclusively as permete- walls, perimeter wall should meander and protiioe undulating recesses, projections, etc. ;food fencing should be discouraged. o Locations of probable acoustical barriers and prnposed heights should be illustrated. Walis hia:^.ar than six ft. shall be sabject to approval by the County /City Planner. 7NFORMAT1ON REQUIRED 1. Cen,�ity Ois'- i ^ution Dian o Maximum allowable unit count (kM du /ac). o Minimum lot square footag =_s. o Breakdonn and location of 5.5�G - 7,000 square foot parcels per sub- planning, area, 2. Conceotual Park Plan I �aiuSCnJ2 t°'2oi:TentS. o ^.ecreationai facilities. o indicate the relationship with adjacent residen *ial lend uses. o Clf- street parking. 3. Conceatual i_andscaoe 'Lan o radians and parkways (crossection and typical plan views). a Greenways (crossections and typical plan views). o Fencing and wall plan ;kwa ?;; adjacent to greenways, perimeter walls, etc. • • ••.-- •aa... .l Vrl VVlll.epVs• o Grading concepts. o Illustrative site plan. a Landscaping standards o Street tree concept; per neighborhood writs. o Typical edge conditions- 0 Equestria.i trails plan (ror trail improvements adjacent to Banyan). c h v✓ V ® 4. Plot Dian /Architecture q� o Streetscaoa elevations_ Typical d >ielliro plrttings per various lot sizes. I111,strate dwelling locations in relation to various lot size . Include driveways, cen.er plots, and zero lot line dwelii:iys. o Provide tentative tract map -- fully dimensioned. o Architectural themes per sub - neighborhood units. o Street and b::ilding layouts. 7. Conceptual Comarcial Plan o Access points. o Landscape b;ffers adjacent to residentir,l units. o Architecturaljlandscape themes. o. Phasinq Plan To illustrate and tabulate the amount of firioro`Jemants previded per phase. Finance /Sarvice Plan e CSA District o Assessment District .. Mello!Roos District S. Natural Features Map /SAte Utilization Plan o Existing plant materials. o Natural features, rock outcroppings, existing structures, rock walls, etc. is I e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ME 11L0jRrt'�v viTa DATE: April 6, 198= TO: Members of the Planning Commissiopt FROM: Tim j. 8eedle, Senior Planner SuB�ti:: PUD W1 t361 - City's Spherk.af influence The protect developer has prepared a summary document to answer the environmental issues_ This document is Leirg prepared for distribu- tion to the Commission. Cress Harris of the SWA Group has indicated that this do.iment wi11 b-- hand - delivered to each Commission member uring the weekend fcr rcv4fn -i rr4or to ;;sdr.Esdey r'ght's meeting. Also, the project developer .nd SWA Group will be making a present- ation of the project and addressing the 4uestiors raised by staff and the Commission during the meeting. v W 11 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAN:7ING COMIMISSION Regu'ar Meeting April 11, 1984 Chairman Denni Stout called the Re:ular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:03 P.m. The meeting was held at the Licns Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucar -nga. He then led Jr the pledge of allegiance to the flag. R.^.LL CAL CC;TIISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Addie Juarez;* Larry McNiel, 'Ferman Rempel, L- n. ^.is Stout 'OMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF II:BERS PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engin�ser. . It Commissioner Juarez left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ANNOUNCE -ENTS Fiek lomez, City Planner, advised that the 19th Street Corridor Committee, comprised of Mayor Jon Mikels, Council:- n Dick Dahl, Planning C:Dmoissioner Dennis Stout, and Planning Commissioner Vice Chairman David Barker, would meet on April 12 in the Lion's Park Community Center at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Gomez further announced that staff would recommenc that Consent Calendar Items E Jk F be pulled for discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Barker requested that Items A, B, and D be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Motion- Moved by ReLq}el, seconded by Mc Niel, carted un.siimausly, that Item C of the Consent Calendar be adopted. C. dewlap -= nt -f 6.1 acres of land on the southwest 411 - 08.09, 10. * e 9 * * ;SSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RE{iIEW 84 -03 - GABRIC - The ,2n,000 sLuar` foot „arshouse di�tribution building on in the Gen3ral Industrial category :subarea 11) located corner of 7th Street and Cleveland Avenue - APd 209- A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TE11TATIVE TF•4CT 11781 - ROH3R_S GROUP T - A total residential development cf 76 conoomiriums on 6.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential ;4 -1'7 3u /ac) District located on the west side of Hermosa, approximatell 330 feet north of .9th Street - APN 202_171_29 38. Commissioner Barker asked the City Attorney what repercussions would r ?sult if the Planning Coomiss9.on acted tj approve, deny, or approve with modifications, the time extensions on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Dougherty, City Attorney, replied that the basic issue is whether the Planning COnLrission desires to have the Development rode apply in part or in total for the tentative maps that are being considered for extension at this meeting. sMr. Dougherty stated that Development Code section 17.02.020, subsec;.ion C -7, has a grand fa tier ing clause which allows the pro.-arty under a tentative map to devrAop under the ordinance in effect at the timt of tentative map approval, assuming that it occurs within the time 1 �.m +_; permitted within the life of the +,ertative man. H`4 further stated that if' the map expired, the new Develcpment Code would apply and would govern, any approval of the new map on the property. Mr. Dougherty stated that the question raised is whether the City, in g g an extension to a previously approved tentative map, can ad3 new or revised conditions and was taken up in El Patio vs the Permanent Rent Control Hoard in Santa Monica. Mr. Dougherty %, rther stated that the Court of Appeal held that the City could not, as a conc.'_tion of extension, add any new conditions to the previously approved tentative and the Court ordered that the final map be approved wi'hout the conditions that the Santa Monica Flanning Commission attempted to add. Mr. Doughertv stated that this limits the cities' ability in flexibility c° -tion. He further stated that 1f an extension is granted to Item A, and a..- 'uming that the builder builds within the time period in effect at the time of the tentative, the -ld ordinance would control. Additionally, if the Commission denies the extension and the map expires, the new Dev lopment Code and other regulations on the new map would control. Commissioner Barker stated that the sub;;act report indicates that this tentative was reviewed for ccnfp:-mi`}. with the new Development Code and staff indicated that in the areas of energy conservation, recreational amenities, interior and side setbacks, and landscaping, is is not in conformance with the new Development Code. He indicated that the question very simply is do we accept this with all the conflicts or does the Commission deny it and male the developer aware he will have to come back and pr.:sent a plan which would conform with the Develops -nt Code. P3anning Commi931on Minutes 2 April 11, 1984 C- hairm >„ Stoat stated that he has concern with this specific project becacse he and others are serving on the 19th Street corridor study and the possibility exists that in the near future there may be a change in the General Plan for this area. He indicated that it is surrounded by single _ iami: dwellings and the piece across the street may be low density -id his concerns are primarily those centered on a change to the General Plan for this area. Mr. Tom Winfield, attorney with Brown, Winfield, and Canzoneri, representing the Roberts Grovp, stated that the Ei Patio case as it is being couched is somewhat unique. Further, that the final map was approved with conditions attached and thereafter the property owner objected to complying with the conditions which 41ere imposed. Mr. Winfield stated t.ta, the grandfathering provisions of the Development Code were a legislative determination by the Council so that people with tentative tract map approval, wbo were moving forward in a reasonable course of co..3uct, would not be caught short and have the rug pulled out from under them. He indicated that thts is exactly the position that his clients find themselves in if the extension is denied. Further, that another tentative map has been extended for this single development and if this one is denied, it would create many problems for his client. He indices: --d that both parcels are owned by the same party who will be dereloping it as a single project. This is not a situation, he said, wh�.^e the developer has bought a piece of land for speculation, has sat back doing nothing on the property, and is asking for an extension at the last minute. He indicated that the economy has been such where development has been infeasible. Mr. Winfield stated that if the City Attorney is asked waat position the Commission is in, he would state that you could condition the map with the client's participation and agreement but he did not know how the El patio case would affect this. He also cited other recent Supreme Court rulings Mr. :r_nfield felt that ene.^gy considerations could he met by his client if they are allowed to wove forward and indicated that while they may nct install energy saving water haters it the development, they would install the plumbing for solar heating and would meet the energy requirements with regard to the swimming pool. Commissioner Barker sated that there is a rumor tnat Mr. Winfield is wor?: =.r¢ on an alternative plan. Mr. Rinfield replied that it may be a rumor. h :t he has no understanding of this. Chairman Stour states that even if the applicant were to consent to the additional conditions, the El Patio case is saying that they do not have to conform. Planning Comission Minutes 3 April 11, 1984 Mr. Winfield stated that in E1 Pati.) there had not been any discussion and it was approved; whereas, tonight there was discussion and agreement that the conditions would be adhered to. He indicated that there is nothing that says a development cannot be approved with conditions. Mr. Dougherty stated that El Patio did involve a tentative map and the order of the court was that a final map be approved or processed for approval. Furth -:r, the authority for extension comes from Government Code, Subsection 6645.26 and is part of the Subdivision Map Act and the oasic time period governing the life of the map is found in that sect_.on. Mr. Dougherty stated that the City has the option of adding 12 months onto that basic time and adaitional extensions not to exceid 3 years. In effect, a map given every possible extension can last as long as 6 years. Mr. Dougherty stated that the legislature limited the time so that if future chanzes are made in development codes, the cities mould apply the new law. He indicated that the El Patio case stated that the discretionary extersions up to three or four years is simply that, discretionary with the Covr.--il or with the Commission. He stated that the Commission has the discretion of making these determinations and his belief is that regardless of the develop,;r's agreement to the conditions, ti.e Commission lacks power to add more conditions whether the developer agrees to it :r rot, and the Commission would be tak7:g on good faith what the developer is saying without any ho:: at ail that the conditions would be complied with. Mr. Winfield stated that the staff report indicates that the conditions may be optional. Mr. Rick Gomez, City Plan.nef, e- plai.led the mandatory and optional standard provisions of the Development Code as they relate to de:,sity and design considerations. Mr. Winfield stated that the real issue here is not whether the C:Lty is imposing additional conditions, but whether the grandfathering provisions of the Development Code apply and whither they might have a right to waive a portion or the City would have the right to change the Development Code and limit, modify or extend the Development Code and go through the proper legislative process. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 811-26, denying -- time extension for Tentative Tract No. 11781 - Roterts Group. Commissioner r4cNie1 dissented, indicating that this is a negotiable situation and he felt that the axe fell quickly, thereby doing unnecessary damage. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10825 - LO?Y DEVELOP." -NT - A tGial residential development of 27 single family units, 81 patio homes and 202 townhouse units on 57.7 acres of land located between haven and Hermosa, approximately 660 .feet south of liilsun - APN 201- 181 -12, 13, 14, 02, 63 65, and 69. Planning Commission Minutes fi April 11, 1984 M Commissioner Barker stated that he was not on the Planning Commission at the time and he did not totally agree with this development, not in quality, but in qua ntity . 3e asked if the lots to *_h:: south, east and west are owned by different property owners. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, replied that they are owned by different property owners. Commissioner Barker asked if there are tiacl� there. Mr. Ccleuar replied that there are not; it is vacant land. C -)mmissioner Barker stated that this is another item where staff has indicated that there could be additional conditions with the approval of the applicant. He asked if the Planning Commission warted this to go through without energy provisions. Chairman Stout stated that if solar is the only complaint, he would go along with it. Further, this project basically corrorms to what they are trying to do in tiiqt area and will not affect the way the project looks. Gommissioner Barker stated that nothing c: ;. be done about the streets which are private so they wili hava to be done with the came good faith as with the others. Chairman Stout indicated that it wasn't desib -ned to draw traffic through. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Rudy Lowy, the applicant, said tnat he has no objections to the conditions. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by RempP'_, carried unanimou4ly, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -60 -A, approriag a t:m z:;iersion for Tentative Tract 10826. P. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATI'VE TRACT 11893 - C/L BUILDERS - A custom lot subdivision of 17.2 acres of land into 35 lots in the "VL" District, located on the south side of Banyan Avenue, west of Sapphire Stree'. - APty 1043 - 411 -01. Commissioner Barker stated that again they would be granting this tc conform to the new standards and the lot sizes here are 21 ;500 = cppcned to tue rV,uircd 22,503 and the minimum lot depth of 150 feet is short aperoximately 15 feet 51 lots ! and 21. •J ' Chairman Stout asked whether there aas language in the Code that would deal with compatibility of surrounding structures. Mr. Go=sz replied that there is a reference to materials. Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 11, 1984 Chairman Stout stated he would like it noted that this parti -ular area has homes with tile roofs and he would not want to see composition roofs put in this area. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -40 -A granting a time extension for tentative tract 11893. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9540 - DEER CREEK - The development. of 23 single family detached homes on existing one -half acre lots in the "IL" District on Jennet Street, Turquoise Avenue, and Indigo Avenue, north of Gardenia Avenue. F. DESIGN n °. Zd FOR TR1CT 9589 - LAS PALOMAS (DEER CREEK) - The development of 15 family acmes in `he Low Residential District, located north of Red Hill Country Club Driv_- and west of the Flooc Control Channel - APN 207- 60-8 through 18 and 32 through 35. Commissioner Barker indicated that there was a real ^random from Curt .Johnston to Rick Gomez with regard to standard conditions. Mr. Gome-: stated that when the staff reports were being prepared for the Consent Calendar the reciirements were immediately marked to be co.aistent with the Growth Management Ordinance. However, theso two tracts were approved prior to the G.M_J. and were marked in error, and staff acked that the conditions requiring certifica' ions of adequate capacity from the school and water districts be removed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel. carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -27, approving Design Review for Tract 9540, eith a modification to the conditions of approval as indicated. Potion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel. carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -28, apprcving Design Review for Tract 9589, witn mcdificatioi,s to the conditions cf approval as indicated. PUBLIC fF_ARIN(vS G. EVVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 'ND DEV: OPMENT DISPRICTS AMENDMENT 84 -01 RIChWOOD - A Development District Amendment from Medium Residential (8 -14 eu,s /ac) to Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du's ac) for 16.3 acres of land 1.^.^a.^.d .'., ut11 ZiaiC of i:rrow Highway, north side oI' 9th Jtreet, between Baker Avenue and Madrenz A - APN 207 -261 -02 and 07, 207 -132- 01 through 37. H. _1VIRONMENTA!. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12621 n1CPTiuGD - A residentiri development of 29 duplexes (58 units) 0-7 775 5 acres of ianl ir, the Medium Residential district (Low- Medium pending) located on the south side of Arrow between Madrone and Baker - APN 207 - 261 -07. Planning Commission Minutes 6 Apri.l 11, 1984 Associate Planner, Curt Johns *on, reviewed the staff reports. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Gerald Tust, of the engineering firm of McCutchan Company, Inca, representing the applicant, indicate6 that they accept the conditions as proposed. Commissioner McNiel stated that at Design Review there had been discussion of a tot lot and asked what its disposition was. Mr. Johnston rerlied the Design Review Committee felt that a tot lot would be inappropriate in this particular development and asked that a picnic area be added instead. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -29 r_pprcving Development Districts Amendment No. 84 -01 and issuing a Negative Declara Unn. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded oy Rerpel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -30, approving - entative Tract No. 12521 and issuing a Negative Declaration. * i • ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONA:. Lst PERMIT 84 -(1 .- kF?T - The development of a coin operated car wasz on .45 acres of land in the senersl ^ovmercial district located on t'-c s,utheaat cc:,ner of Foothill and Helms - arti 208-- 261 -54. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated that a letter was received from the Woo]worxh Garden Center opposing this conditional use permit. Chairman Stout asked with re3pect to the new Development Wde, what the minimum size of parcels are as compared to the size of this pr ject. Mr. Colemnn repl_ed that it is 40,000 sq. ft. with the exception of when it is a Part of a chopping center. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Chris West, 518 18th Stree::, Huntington Beach, the applicant, stated that ne has the same des9.res that were expresse+ Gy the Design Review Committee to build only a positive facility for the City and is building only state- of -the- art car washes. ^r. West sta.:ed that 90 percent of staff's comments are easily fixed and that they have gore through extensive landscaping and will install wrought iron and have worked on the compler design and architecture. Further, that he felt the problem with Woolworth could be solved thrL.igh a sere Z wall )f additional landscaping- Planning Commissior 11- nutes 7 April 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked Mr. West if he i;as ever built a car wash on a one -half acre piece of property like this before. Mr. West replied that the smallest 'car wash has been 13,000 square feet and they have redesigned the storage roes to provide more space. Further, that they anticipate washing between 3,000 and 3,500 cars per month and over that period of time traffic usually works itself out. Mr. Brian Harden, manager of the Woolworth Garden Center, read the letter he had provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forrest Pei:^y, 9180 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that there is a security problem there and a safety problem with the traffic light and felt that the car wash should not allowed. Mr. West stated that when he originally got involved in this particular site it was his understanding that the propety was zoned for this type of operation. In the meantime, however, he stated, the Development Code was adopted and the uses changed. He indicated that when Woolworth got into the center it was zoned for his type of use and a two story office /commercial. building was proposed which would have parking problems. Mr. West stated that with regard to the street light, cars have had the ability to get in and out of the shopping center and he does not see how it would create any more problem than a left turn lane. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would have a problem with approving this kind of use on Foothill Boulevard. He expressed concern over the height of the car wash and the area which would be used on the west side of the car wash where they would be detailing their cars with the rags and papers that might be left in open view. Commissioner Barker stated that this is a very nice buildirg in the wrong location. Commissioner McNiel stated that v-hen this came to the Design Review Committee, the Committee struggled with it because of its location. He indicated that Mr. West has gone along way in trying to achieve what is desired for Foothill Boulevard. Further, the Commission must provide the type of services that are needed in a City the si:a of Rancho Cucamonga in order for it to x)inction. Commissioner McNiel felt that this protect could be made to work. Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been a lot of discussion on the type of businesses that would be compatible on Foothill Boulevard and what had been Planned for that area. He felt that a car wash is not what i3 wanted on Foothill Boulevard and he hoped that Mr. Perry will do something to enhance his store. Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 11, 1984 Commissioner Juarez felt that the design of the car wsh is nice but she did not want to see it located on Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Stout stated that Mr. West has done a lot to have the car wash fit on that corner but .Foothill is a Special Boulevard and eventually the City wants to make that street more attractive. Chairman Stout stated that the basic problem is that piece is too small for what is proposed and they are trying to mitigate it through design and landscaping. Chairman Stout did not feel it fit on that corner. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -31, denying Conditional Use Permit 84 -01 - West. Commissioner McNiel dissented for his stated reasons. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:30 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened.' % ■ f ! f 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Juarez left the meeting due to a family emergency. t o i f s ENVI'DNMENTAL PS_'ESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12532 - A_RCHIBALD ASSOCIATES J. - The development of 111 zero lot line homes on 14.5 acres in the Low - Medium Res'_dential District, located between Archibald and Ramona at Monte Vista Street - APN 202- 181 -05, 05, 15, 15. Chairman Stout stated that the Development District Amendment had not been advertised and this item would be continued, but that testimony would be taken tonight if there were comments. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman., reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mv. Randy Poag, 801 Park Center Drive, Santa Ana, reviewed the project relating to the recreation area as well as the lot sizes. He also explained all charges that were made in order to incori:orate the 5 additional acres into their development and felt they roa have a plan which would satisfy the existing homeowners and comply with the City's standards as well. Mr. Poag stated his concern with the staff report regarding setbacks. Mr. Aram Bassenian, project architect, addressed tine concerns expressed in the staff report and described the architecture and patio homes concept. Planning Commission Minutes Z April 11, 1984 Bruce Fenstermaker, Ramona Avenue resident, stated he is one of the original homeowners there. He felt thht the developer ha:: done a good job but was concerned about the increased traffic on Ramona Avenue. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission has concerns regarding the traffic as we'll. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, indicated that a traffic study has been done by the traffic engineering consultant who was on the City's list of authorized consultants and staff consulted with him on the study. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Rougeau if staff is satisfied that they are accurate. Mr. Rougeau replied that the engineering staff was satisfied. Chairman. Stout stated that as a lay person, he has no way of knowing whether the study is accurate or not. He indicated that the study was done because Ramona is a collector street designed for a certain volume of traffic tht means it has a certain width which is wider than the average street. He indicated tht it dead ends at 19th Street :which cuts its capacity down a considerable amount but all of these things must be taken into consideration. Mr. Fenstermaker indicated some variations in street width at the railroad tracks and a flooding problem that occurs there. Another concern expressed was that of cars parking along Ramona as they might block the street. He asked if the 9 lots along Ramona could be constructed first. Chairman Stout asked if there is any schedul -d plan for the widening of the grade crossing. Mr. Rougeau replied that the City is trying to eliminate the railroad track but whether or not they are successful will not be known for approximately a year or more. He stated that if the City is not success ral, it will become a public project and the tracks will be widened out,. Further, that one feature of this project is that the water does jam up at the crossing and a condition was added to provide additional storm drains on Ramona. Mrs. Jayne Grint, 9927 Mignonette indicated that the developer has been very good in working with the neighborhood but the street situation is severe. She indicated further that if the street is widened, it will be used as a major thoroughfare and that traffic from the apartments dumps into Ramona. With the irregular street, it becomes a tight squeeze for two traffic lanes. She suggested a stop sign at Archibald and again looking at the entire area. Mr. Lou Shriner, 6944 Berkshire, commented on the water drainage problem, potential school crowding, and the railroad tracks. Mr. Tom Radford, 6041 Ramona, commented on the two neighborhood meetings held with Pacer Homes, the applicant, sating that they were good, but felt that there are still problems with flooding, density and traffic. Mr. Dennis Stout felt that traffic was a problem that must be resolved. Plenning Commission Minutes 10 April 11, 1984 Mr. Poag stated that he i aware of the concern about drainage but his engineer has assured him that improvements will be aade with the construction of the project. 1 1r. J. P. Kapp, project engineer, indicated that storm drains for 25 year capacity will be installed and this will out down on the water north of the tract. :hairman Stout asked the applicant if he has a bal'_ park figure on the offsite improverjerts that are required to be put in. Mr. Kapp replied that construction o:i the storm drain alone is expected to be $50,000. Mr. Kapp stated that there were a few items he would like to discuss relative to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kapp requested tht Condition L4 be allowed to be shown on the approved site plan to the sa.tisfa2tion of the City Engineer rather than the way it is shown on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Rougeau stated that this has to do with the difference of right -of -way and he does rot see a problem with making this accommodation. Mr. Kapp stated there was an additional condition requesting additional easement for utilities in excess of the right -of -way and felt it was probably unnecessary. Mr. Rougeau replied is is c -ry likely necessary because when you have 50 feet of right -of -way and a sidewalk it becomes very cluttered. Further, that the additional easement does not affect the design of the project but it means a lot to the property owner not to have their front yard dug up if work must be done on the utilities. He indicated that there is usually about 12 feet from the curb to the property line. Mr. Rapp stated that the last item is item 8 under the Engineering Section of the Resolution relative to pavement taper. He indicated that it would put a burden on his client for something that he does not he control of. He indicated that they do not have any way to guarantee the acquisition. Mr. Rougeau replied that a condition of that type is almost impossible to impose and if the right -of -way cannot be obtained, the City must provide the taper within the project itself. However, Mr. Rougeau stated, it is felt that an attempt should be made by the applicant to procure it for the betterment of traffic services. Mr. Dougherty stated that t *ae Subdivision Map Act has been amended to take care of the problem where the property line required acquisition outside of the tract boundary. He indicated that the Subdivision Map Aet does allow the imposition of a condition of this sort and if the developer cannot acquire the property within the necessary time frame, the City has the option of waiving the condition or acquiring it by eminent domain with the developer paying the cost. He indicated that in a si:- uation of this sort, the City only lends its support in the acquisition pro"edings. Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if this condition coula also be made in the alternative. Mr. Dougherty replied that he did not know if the City would do that. Chairman Stout stated that we do want to make sure them is a taper. Mr. Rougeau stated that the alternative would produce what the City wants and what is needed. Mr. Archie Wilson, 7474 Ramona, property owner at the :.ow end of this tract, asked about the diagonal drain on the northwest corner of his property and who had planned it as it is shown. Mr. Rougeau replied that two ways have been proposed to do it and to take it to the east side of the street which would require less of Mr. Vils^n's property. Further, his records show that what i.: part of Mr. Wilson's front yard is really a part of the right- cf -way. Mr. Wilson stated that the proposal of the developer is that it out ar:ross the corner and should not come across his property, and that no one has said anything about the problem of ingress and egress there. He also Tasked why they allow a storm drain or catch basin on the corner of the two properties in the process of being developed. Chairman Stout stated that he did not know if the City could burden the property owners along Archibald with the storm water when it is not associated with their project. Commissioner Rempel suggested that since a determination on this project cannot be made tonight, that discussion take place between the applicant and the Engineering Department relative to some of these problems and prior to the next meeting. Chairman Stout stated that the right -of -way should be researched and located. Mr. Rougeau replied that he was sure this could be done. Mr. Bassenian asked about another condition on page 3, item 7 of the Resolution relative to side -on garages. He explained that plans 2 -3, because of their floor plans,- would be unable to accommodate this requirement. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Com- 3ssioner Barker stated that several things can be discussed between now and when this returns to the Commission. He indicated he sat on the Design Review Committee when this project was reviewed and expressed concern on the variance, or lack of it, in setbacks and this is one of the reasons that a streetscape has been provided for the Commission's review tonight. Commissioner Barker stated that he now sees what he was afraid he might see; that is, a lot of cement, crowded look, lack of warmth, and lack of Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 11, 1984 variable lot widths. Commissioner Barker felt there should be some variable lo*_ width and he stated he would be unable to support this project as presented. Chairman Stout stated that each and every space should have a spot to park off the street and off the sidewalks and this design, does not allow for J.L. Commissioner McNiel stated he would reserve his comments until the item is again before the Commission.. Motion: 'loved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, April 25, 1984. 9:45 p.m. Phe Planning Commission recessed. 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84- 04 - MARKWES: - A request to locate a caretakers quarters of 801 square feet in conjunction with a light industrial storage facility located on the south side of 9th Street on both the east and west sides of F: •,rer Road (8755 Flower Road). This site is located ir. Subarea 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan area - APN 209 - 013 -42. Assistant Planner, Nancy Fong, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Mark Vorkink, 1403 N. Lowell Avenue, Santa Ana, advised the Commission that it would be better to phase this project rather 'than do tha entire area. He described the security that would be provided in this project and the changes to the floor plan. There being no furthrr comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84,33 approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -04. • i f 4 ! L. REVIEW OF SAN BERN;: -.; COUNTY PUD W 113 -61 1 CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Approximately 890 r,�3idertial units at the northwest ccrner of Milliken and Highland in the City's sphere of influence. Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report stating that much more staff time will be required before comments could be made and requested two weeks time to alloy ztaff to study this in depth. He recommended that this item be brought back tentatively on Monday, April 30, 1984 for action by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minute :,, 13 April 11, 1984 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to ad;;ourn. 10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. # # # f 2 Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary Planning G -- aission Minutas 14 April 11, 1984