Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/07/09 - Agenda Packet 07 9-8-, r: Cj CITY OF RANCHO CL:C, �&j F C� � L3GE y 1.977 WEDNESDAY XULY 9,$986 7.00 P.M. laON5 PARK C(DMblil=l Y CENTEI" 91%UAn L73w, RANCHO CUCAIii'ONGA,CALWORNIV p Plbdge;of Allegiance IL Roll can Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel__ Commissioner Chities Commissioner Stout Commissioner Mc,$iel III: Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes April 9,1985 l V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are eapected to be routine and nc;lr+controversiai. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should,be removed for discussion. A. APPROVAL OF HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN 'LANDSCAPE CONCEPT i B. EXTEYSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-04 VINEYARD BANK-A temporary bank facility on 5.9 acres in the General Commercial District located 180 feet south of Foothill Boulevara on the west side of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207-211-12. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11696-2 3 •& 4 - GR� > UPE DEVELOPMENT -The DesignsignReve?J of building elevations and footprints for a previously approved recorded tract comprised of 148 loth?a,37 acres,located in the Low Density F. Residenti,l District(24 0utac),souti.of 19th Street between ' Haven Avenue and Dear Creek-A EN'202.221-22 Et 42. r aa. t/ r D. DESIt;N REVIEW-,FOR BR 85-17 - .TiOfiERTSON HOMES - f' The request to review new color schemc ^s th,: previously approved elevation pf 164 condis units, loc&1 Pd jit the northeast cc.-ner Of Vineyard and Arrow - APIv93. E. RESIGN REVIBW,E OR.TRACT 12237-IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA - The Deiigp,RevieW of the building elevations and footprints for three:"(31 lots within a recorded tract in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2. du/ac), located on the north,side of Sun Talley Drive, east of Hermosa Avenue-APN 201-463-11, 13,&t5. F. VARIANCE 86-01 GOLDEN - A request to reduce th InUu1num lot depth from 15'0'feet to 136 feet on a proposed 20,195 square foot parcel in the Very Low Residential District(up tr-2 du/ae), located at the northeasx corner of H'side and Moonstone-APN 1061-25-02, II 4;_ Public lleac nos The fot4 wing items are public hearings in which concerned individual;+ may voice their opinion of the related.project. Please wait to be,,,ecognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating ,your nai.41 and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 Minutes per individuat for each project. 3. ENVlft011M1±NTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT >'86-02 COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - A proposal to develop a 47,000 square foot addition tc an existing 11,000 square foot church, consisting of classrooms, social hall, auditorium, and gym in three phases in a Medium Residential District,located on the northwest corner of Beryl (aid 19th r"Teat-APN 201-221-08.H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE ,PERMIT 86-13 - MAURY MICROWAVE CORPORATION -A request to utilize five temporary office trailers on a site containing an existing 10,000 square foot industrial frcWty on 1.0 acre of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 3) located at 8610 Helms Avenue-APN 209-022-10. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 17-"FOR KIDS ONLY"-A request to amend the Conditions of Approval (remo`ual of a mature Silver Mgaple tree) for a 9,260 square foot pre-school on 1.1 acres a., land in thu Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac), located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Turner Avenue-APN 1077-061-09. 1 J. VAMAXQ2 86-04 -PANOOR DEVELOPMENT To reduce the dllni Audi corner silo yard setback from 101eet to 7 feet T` and!to*6daee the front yard setbaelq from''minimum 18 feet to 1416111 6a 9.75 sere parcel in the Low Medin`m llesidential �stld -, (4.8 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Aroald Avenue and Hi gtdgrid Avenue APN 21-252=23, K. Eft�7 TiO IiVIHIaTbiL. ASS&$$,IVfEI3` ' AND MVFE- PMENT AGREPUMPENT V"TliQ 1lA.�r?A$B = An ,agreemeM Py'`apd betv,!een I (3st r o ��agello Cdicantonga, C/A Lt-j d the Tower Ptirtnership.regarding the development oP le"A nia Dare W iiory-projeet,in particular,snaredkpsrking. VII. NEW BUSINESS j L. TREE, REMOVAL PERMIT 86-27 -MICHAEL - Appeal of staffts decision denying the removal of sa'�en Eucalyptus trees and one Olive twee located on,the south side of Ghnach-Stoeet, east of Archibald Avenue-P"N i Os 7 332-26. '�I L Direetoez Regarts `A M. VIRGIKIA DARE UNIFORMS SIGPI PROGRAM r IX. Commission Business X. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. XL Adjournment The Planning 'Commission has adopted Administrative Regulatic.ls that set an !Z p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time,they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. r I ff omm u * Iv"I - m M ,P, 3 i o {. � 3 W1tbe jr��wA"pASKt t�� ,CNAEFEY O Vfel/Al w � 8•la lirr � U a � E M!'�FxwW�www�y"�•'Ilwwlwp � cnrtNRCG Q'� / • r j / t 21 C �n 1 ! .� R��anaP+�W�ea��as��.ew..� •tee �1tl• n•A -YiM I p ! r • CUCAwORGAGUAST! COUMlI REGIOM�! PAAM 4NlARIQ INIENNAl10NAL AIRAORf •-"":,, i ;A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �;vcanro 4 STAFF REPORTU. O O z i3 j DAZE: July 9, 1986 V 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Laura Psomas, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE WNCEPT I. ABSTRACT: Design refinements for the approved Haven Avenue Median CDesign oncept are being submitted by t-ie Engineering Division for Planing Commission review prior to submittal to the City Council, The scope of the Haven Median Iz,Provements extends from 4th Street north to Wilson Avenue. Existing medians will be reconstructed to match the new concept. II. BACKGROUND: The Haven Avenue Median Landscape Concept was presen ea o the Planning Commission on May 28, 1986. While the overall concept was approved, several design issues needed to be addressed: Ey' 1. LINK TO ONTARIO CENTER AND THE 10 FREEWAY; The Ontario Center Has created a signs ican an scape statement. just north of the 10 Freeway. Continuation of some of the design elements into our community would enhance the "sense of entry" for visitors as they approach from the freeway. 2. TREE SELECTION, The Sweet Gum was thought to be not unique enough. As they would appear too stark in the winter, it was suggested the' Sweet Gums be interplanted with evergreens. Other species were also discussed. 3. LANDSCAPE/ROCKSCAPE RATIG: The percentage of rockscape was fiougit o be too high. It was suggested that the rockscape meander from side to side to accomodate maintenance ct-ews. III DESIGN: The revised Haven Median Landscape Concept reflects approximately a 80/20 landscape to rockscape treatment. band-placed rock borders will mearder from side to side of the median around 3-4` tall bermed planter areas. Sand-blasted curbs will display an exposed aggregate finish. ITEM A PLANNING COMMI5SION STAFF REPORT �n %ruly 9, 1986 Haven Avenue Median Landscape_,Concept Page 2 /> The punting design has been modified to be more cohesive with the Ontario Center,, thereby extending the "sense of entry" further- south to the San Bernardino freeway. Of all, the, plant materials used at the Ontario Center, the most striking eleetents by far, are the Date Palms (Phoenix canariensis). Ideally suited for uplighting, these trees are proposed for the accent. areas frear ' intersections) for their scalp, elegance, and 'rtarmony with Ontario Center. The Rustyleaf Fig (Ficus rubiginosa) is a dense evergreen tree selected for its quick, growth, large shiny leaves and uniformity. fore than k tree species is not recommended. Medians north of Foothill Blvd. will not have turf areas. However, medians south of Foothill Blvd. will incoroorate areas of turf alternating with shrub areas. Turf was included to unify the } medians with the predominantly turf parkways and also with th'a turf medians to the south in Ontario. Shrubs and ground cover wfii also draw on the Ontario Center's colorful landscape palette. Selected plant materials and irrigation systems will be of a water and energy conserving nature. IV. SUB-COMMITTEE: A sub-committee of the Economic Development Committee of-the Chamber of Commerce wa, created to review this ^ matter. ,,, A questionnaire pre,�ared by Staff was utilized to help. . clirify the direction of :"the sub-committee. Results of the questionnaire are attactred to this report. Some sub-committee E members expressed a desire to see the use oe Lawn and central, median lighting. V. FUNDING: Haven Avenue Median Lardscaping wili be funded from E eau i -7ca ion funds and deve:oner Tees. VI. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Qonmission review tie derign refinements of the approved concepts and forward a recommendation to the City Council Res ectfully u tea LLOY AIUBBS Ci t�iEngi veer LH:LP:dak Attachments A 44 ` k'�- �,E`�' fir' �� � •'t R'1�' T i Y } k Wit'. i$ta` _�� 1► � T'n�ah�1 'ice`e.o<i��� ��1� �� .. i MEDIAN DESIGN QUESTr1NNAIRE (CHECK PREFERENCE) T' 1> Percentage Landscape/Hardscape 1 Irtial Concept 50/50 Alternate Concept 60/40 Other 2. Li htin a. Median Lighting Parkway Lighting _,g_ Parkway Lighting with Uplighting in the Median 3. Hardscape Materials Proposed 14 Rockscape 1 Concrete/Stamped Concrete 1 Mow-Stripy 4. Plant Materials Proposed .2 Colorful shrubs/groundcover with trees* 14- Colorful shrubs/groundcover plus turf with trees* Turf with trees* Tree Concept: Choose One 12 *Evergreen trees at intersections, remainder: deciduous 1 Deciduous tries at intersections, remainder: evergreen t All evergreen _2 All deciduous S. Median Patterns one abstention—� Mo variation north to south 8 Variation north to south by sub-areas 6. Maintenance/Water & Energ Conservation 12 Need to be addressed 4 Design issues are more important 7. Identity ", Median concept is compatible with that of Ontario o Median concept establishes a Rancho Cucamonga community identity (distinct from Ontario) Name Company Phone Number CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT o $ z' U DATE: July 9, 1986 1977 ? ►0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY Dino Futrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-0`4 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - A temporary t`ank facility on 5.691acres in the General Commercial Disllrict located 180' south of Foothill Boulevard on the west side of Vineyard Avenue - APN 207-211-12, I. BACKGROUND: On May 25, 1983, the Planning Commission approved an extension for Conditional Use Permit 81-04 to expire September la 1986. In addition: the Commission amended the original Resolution No. 81-33 (attached), Secticn 3, Condition No. 2 to read as follows: If a permanent facility is desired on this site, then _ appropriate plans must be submitted three (3) months Prior to August 15, 1986 or at the time of Development Review for any other portion of this Itn- (khichever comes first). These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and be under construction prior to the new expiration of approval for the temporary facility. On May 28, 1986, the applicant submitted plans for permanent facilities for the bank. The applicant Intend's to remodel the former Wilmington Savings & Loan building at foothill and Klusman. II. ANALYSIS: Currently, the plans for permanent bank facilities (OR 86-17) are in the middle of the. City's Development/Design Review process, These plans are proposed on a site (Foa bill/Klusman) dif-'event than the existing temporary facilities. Due to process timing, plan check review period, and construction completion, i't will be impossible for Vineyard National Bank to relocate office facilities prior to the September 15, 1986 expiration for CUP 81-04. Thus, the applicant is requesting an extension of CUP 81-04 to allow the necessary additional time to complete the development process for their permanent facilities. Occupancy of the proposed permanent facilities is anticipated by March 1987, according to the applicant. i ITEM 8 t 4 PLk NIN��CsOMMISSION i'TAFP REPORT1"A '. TIME UTENSMN FOR CUP &J-b ' July 9, 1986 Page 2 1 X, 111, RECOMMENOATT,ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve one-year t2ar�me=extension for CUP 81-04, to alloy a sufficient unt of �4mO to complete the development process. y R at fu. 3v _a'um ed ul r t# City Planner Y f BB.DP:ko gyp. Attachments. Letter from Applicant Exhibit !All - Vicinity Map Exhibit 'HBO" Site .Plan ` Original Resolution No. 81-33, March 25, 1981 Amsnded Resolution No, 82-79A, May 25, 'AV, Resolution for Extension r t q'.I.t�T:�YAR y�N - Eyk 1•�a.�.� l y. -�— `rI1 4, ■ xYca&sc.%dtc�'i! wI�J1Y ;Y t4 y 4 PM June 16, 1986 Dan Coleman, Senior Plainer Cit of y Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 80i Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 r RE: Conditional. Use Permit n81-04 Dear Mr. Coleman. Following a recent review of cur files it was brought to my attention that the bank's Conditional Use Permit n81-04 will expire Septemoer 15, 1986. At the present time we are in the process of noting nur plans on our new facility through the City and in fact our package is due to go before the Planning Commission on July 23, 1986. Our new bjilding is the former Wilmington Savings and Loan Building located at the corner of Klusman and Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga. We purchased this property and closed escrow during January of 1986. We anticipate receiving the r City approval to move forward with our construction and hope to break ground on or about October 1, 1986. Under the best of conditions it would take six months to build the new facility and we anticipate occu- pancy about the middle of March 1987. Based on these factors we are asKI.- the Cicy at this time to approve an extention of our Conditional Use Permit since it would be impossible nor u:; to vacate our facility until the new building is completed. For your general information I thought you should know that at the present time it is our inteni to remove the modular buildings from their present location of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue upon completion of our move to the new facility. We would anticipate that the buildings would be removed within fifteen days following our vacating the same. I would appreciate your reviewing this request and should you need additional information please contact me immediately so that we do not run into a time problem. Thank you for your kind consideration. Very truly yours, Crry oRECEIVED— PLANNfr IYNG D VjS M1ONGA %StevAR.Z-SenAsen:ba:Zc2 AM1UN 8198r President �I$tgtIOtil�k}�12t3}4t '5 `I1 1 VF '!t`i^VlDA:Y� r `e• to _ ___ �')•. 1 ..3r)'r: f';tlC,:lf i ,?:AOtlC=: :RUlL .�3 :}.tlF.'•J177 C ' v CJ DOm. a YE'v 'z_ S. /Q y .yam. CAM, Z O O 1 S p NEWS ,. CHURCH St r�tIS s p URCH ST CHL RCH be all - A �,:" �' l• ;¢ P�n.(N .^ �n f`j,. 3 LAN ST N 1,: < NGSTO r W ,x ` dE0 3 H MLOCK o E >i� a T y� ..rj f CA NIN(j �Jr. `' vp aQ• O 1 'H T, r Z g U O y � > Z LU 7Vy __OuBaRADA oL O 9FFL y p'v,: 2TRYON Er g Ca CHAR EON i y TRYON Ib G k - EBRA < Cr_ - "S. to > > •'a -JEGA Oubnouse+ r<�r �` <, CALL. DUBON N J < tdt7SP. C+ �IUb t .0 9' _' N , H R J > = �d .' 1.1 TANG z r O Ram's douse Ay, W <oSA <_ ^pl OR 4 B.RNARDINO N 0. BERNARDINO�RD. "fLt StwpWng '^ u> Post Oflke a CC'J� ¢ torfc nconta ESA A .y• `YCx".r x 7.7 --S-T IA couNTRv ,` Wmerl t FOOTHILL o HOME' BLVd. - o�` School, trio a C3 cit.m _ < So..a.rawE W-' Admin. AY..."`I.a,HIRE U. 44 6 )v I I = a Nlr:a L11 O i y N S. z aEAsno CHE.ScA CT.. 4�CNELSEA � EAt _ > t -..-_OE SON ?Lf.CER Y DE ON d ST. Y MOBI c j i!1 PucER. PLACER ST. U OR -�M j HOMES I9F.MOV(W i t S.} P CE .r• NLEAAs: - -J o � ' M-U•�KON d KONOCTI ST ?=•t• tic- AUTUMN HILL P� �+T N C CAL,LE VEJAR¢ �FRIANT ST. .�iNT Nab HWY. 1u ® R,,,y _—park Z �. L �E.1A �4EVEJAR ° (ARROW ROUTE'l > x BUSINESS _ j.. u uC thA F+ EStOE DR ri C Q :ENTER ST° ZIP CODE PbStOpCer OR. -- �-. AR srs LN . K C1 „^ ^^RI•WOO" 17 6 t N STUDIOLN p J $betill's ST S cc ST. Sta 9 z JERSEY O + W p Cucamonga Plh BLVD. 80w Z Attnin. PL Z! } } LL Q AUmin. F A1FE s` \\\ ION M! 1 iia1A P AMTRAK'AIE A i u SANIA E 1 {1{t + - - ' ST. 8TH y 3,:,%DARY IS CONZW.. 1 r,! co NUITHHH CITY OF �CCAP_�1_04 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tr1u.UtC�>�Er-r MArp T PUNNII\'G DI-11BION EXHIB t, 5C1LE faTS __. 5- G � z � � o OOi z+ +mat ' a• a n >zm s f � rr t•r� ' ..�_ Q ol I 1 ✓' y', RESOLUTION NO. 81-3 � A RESOLUITIOW�67 THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING C"ISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-04 FOR A TEMPORARY, BANK LOCATED 180 FEET SOUTH )F FOOTHILL ON WEST SIDE OF VINEYARD IN THE C-2-T LONG WHEREAS, on the 6th day of February, 1981, a complete application was filed by Vineyard Bank for reaiew of the above-described project; i and WHEREAS, on the 25th day of March, 1981, the Rancho Cgcamoncgaa Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described ., project. _ NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: G � q 1. That the proposed use is ir, accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use xr is proposed; and i. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions lei applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially j; injurious to properjies or improvements in the vicinity; an=' ! 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicabie provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: - That this project will ►,", create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued o:f March 25, 1981. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81-04 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions; PLANNING DIVISION 1. The temporary Ban' facility is apprcved for a one-year period from occupancy and shall be remmved from the site and the site appropriately restored, unless an extension of time in accordance with, Commission policy is approved j v 2, If a permanent facility is desired on this site, then appropriate plans must be submitted within 9 months from the date of occupancy of temporary building and to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission `r and be under construction prior to the expiration of the approval for the temporary facility, including 6 mor,: precise plans for the shopping cent6.}. 3. If screens are needed for roof mounted equipment, then they shall be constructed with like building materials to provide a solid screen. The final design must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of,' building permits. ENGINEERING CONDITIONSc F 4. Improveia:ent of Vineyard Avenue, with asphalt concrete pavement beyond the subjr.ct panel shall bta required as follows: a. Widen ;est side of the street with A.C. berm at the edge to X foot halt street width from north Marcel line to Fovhill Boulevard. b. Widen eastside of the street to provide for two through lances and a 5-foot wide half left turn ;pocket, from sovth parcel line to the ;roposed driveway with JSO-foot incoming and outgoing to meet existing pavement. f C. Restripe affected iane's lines and left turn pocket to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Final plans ar+ profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. 6. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks, Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City stanrards. 7. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the pronerty from adjacen` areas. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 1981, PLAdNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: A.`-/1 C_ t Richard Dahl, Chairman -ATTEST: 1s , ''� _ `secretary of the F�Tan_n1F Commissi� o-"n i Pesatution , Page 3 I r JACK LAM„ Secrezarynof the Pla�rning Commission of the City of Rancho- t Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fore n ,i Resai�u,ion was duly aGsd ` regularly introduced, passe&, and adapted by the Planning Commission of � (� the City of Rancho Cucama:ga;'at a regular meeting of the Planning ki' 4 Commission held on the 25'h day of March, ?981 by the fallowing, vote to- wit- AYES. COMMISSIONERS: Rempel', Sceranka, Tolstoy Dahl NOEJ: COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 3, , f' „J RESOLUTION NO.. 82-79A A RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHC CUCAMONGA PLAN'LING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXTFNSION FOR CONDITYNA1. USE PERMIT No. 81-04 AND AN EXPANSION OF BUILDING P.EA LUCATEU AT 815' VINEYARD AVENUE WHEREAS , ' � an ,, `tiara has been filed by the Vineyard Nalionai Bank;, for a time extension and 601ding expansion for the :above-described project, pursuant to Section 61.0719(o)83 of the Zoning Ordinances z-nd WHEREAS, the planning Commission nas held a duly advertised public he4ring for the above-described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously conditionally approved , the above-described project. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commmission has made the followlil?—'Dings. .at Strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be inronsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. B. That the;grantiag of said time ,xtension or building expansion' will not be detrimental to the public health, sa,-ety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION e- The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for the above-described project as follows: . ' Conditional Use Permit New Expiration pate 81-04 September 15, 1986 SECTION 3: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commiss:on hereby amends Resolution No. 8 -- 3, Section 3, Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. If a permanent facility is desired on this site, then appropriate plans must be submitted' 3 months prior to August 15, 1986, or at the time of development review for any other ^ rtion of this site (whichever comes first). These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and be under construction prior to the i:ew expiration of approval fer the temporary facility, including more precise puns for the shopping center. F APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1983. i Resolu'>ion 82-79A; Page 2 W' PLANNING COMMISSION Or, OF RANCHO CGCAMONGA N an R'empe, , G �'m � 9 ATTEST:• Secretary of the P arnIng Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of t<he PlaR i,Aq Commission of the City Of .Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly intrwduced, passed, a�td'aa,,, od by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a, regular meeting of the Planning Commission field on the 25ttt day of May, IgP , by"the faT3owing vote-to-wit; AYES: W 4TSSI�NERS; STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE .1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIOM OF THE RANCHO CUCPJ'AONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N.O. 81-04 fz. WHEREAT:,, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100B., and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission canditionaliy approved the above-described Conditional Use Permit 81-04. ;ry SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Plannin Co following findings• 9 mmission has made the A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market •climate for- development of the project. B, that current economic, marketing, and inventory ca'nditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. 0. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, Or materially injurious to properties or impro c y u in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Project Applicant Expiration - CUP 81-04 Vineyard National Bank September 15, 1987 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9179 DAY OF DULY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - i BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller,ieputy _eeCreta=^y fi V PLAI,NING COMMISIO4 W6SOLSlTON N0. � TIMF EXTENSIOK.EOR COP' 81-04 July 8, 198..6 �? Page 2 i' Aepx I, Brad WuIer; Deputy Secretary 'of the' Planning Cremmission of the City of Rancho Cucart"on , do heretw-l-rtify that'che,foreyGxrig Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pavked�- and adopted i)Y the Planning the City of Rancho. Cucam©raga, at a regu� r meet',hg of the Planning;'Commistfon hi d on the 9th day of Jury, 1986 by the fallliw ng vote-to-wit; ��- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: C ABSENT: C:OMMISSId4ERS; �a Will 1, 9r k �j — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFFREPORT U > 1977 DATE: July 9", 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:: Brad Buller, City Planner p BY: Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PZSIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11606-2, 3, & - GRUPE DEVELOPMENT - The Design Review of building elevations and footprints for a,jtreviouly recorded tract compri:.ed of 148 lots on 37 acres, located in the Low Density 110�5idential District (24 dwelling units per acre) south of 19th Street between Hav' Avenue and Deer Creek Channel - APN' 202-221-22 & fit. a 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION_: A. Action Requested: Design. Review and approval of building elevations and footprints. ` B. Project Density: 4 dwelling units per acre., C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: orth Vacant; Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). a South - Southern Pacific Railroad and single family residential; Terra Vista Planned Community, Medium Density Residential (4-14 dulac). East - Deer Creek Channel and vacant; Victoria Planned Community, Low Density Residential (4-I du/ac) West - Single family residential; Low Density Residential (2-4 d0ar-'. D. General Plan rvaj iguatii.rs: Project Site- Low Density Residential (2-4 dulac). North Low Density Residential (2-4 dulac). South - Law Medium Density Residential 4-a dulac East - Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 dulac). West - Low Density Residential (2-4 dufac). E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant and slopes approximately 39 towards the south. All three phases of the tract fall ,,ithin the Special Study Zone of the Red Hill Fault. ff f ITEM C ` PLANN14G COMIS8ION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 1,1606-2, 3,,& 4 July 9, 1986 Page 2 'd -- II. AyiALYSIS: A. General: Tract 11606 was originally approved an April 15, 1981, as a custom lot•/subdivision of 277 parcels.. The Design r Review Tor Phases 5 and 6 was recently approved by the Planning Commission for the development of 88 lots located on the northern portion of Tract 11606. B. Design Review Cotmmittee: The Design Review Committee's " discussion focused an fn fd r (4) main issues: w Issues 1: Should greater variation of front yard setbacks be provided f , Tract 11606-2? Comment: The Committee directed the applicant to proaic' a • greater variation of front yard setbacks an all three (3) phases of Tract 11606. Issues 2. Should streetscape variety be-provid?ni through a mix of reverse plotting, angling houses to,, the street:" and, j whenever possible, side entry garages to mitigate the view of garages? Comment: The r?Amnittee directed the applicant to make better C use of revere plotting to provide streetscape variety. Issue 3: 'Should elevations for Plans 1 and 2 be revised to provide a; greater interest and variety in building architecture? Comments The Committee felt that additional architectural detail{ng was needed for Plans 1 and 2 to provide greater interest. Issue 4: Should the left side elevation of Plan 2 be revised to provide additional architectur A relief? Comment: The Committee felt -chat additional architectural relief was necessary on the left side elevation to break up the blank appearance of the wall. The applicant has submitted revised building elevations and unit plotting incorporating the recommendations of the Design Review Committee. 4" r (may, PLANNING COW" StAlE ROORT , DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 1.1.60'6-2, 3, & 4 � July 9, 1:986 ry Page 3 III. RECOMMENDATION: Taff recommends thavPlanning Commission approye� -Y Eh- levationt 'and�p•lot plans thr'oucgh tm adoption of the attached Res.rlutions and Conditions. E R .Ct1 Dra 8u Cit%, Planner I s! 0 g65M�ko Attochmentd': Exhibit"A" -� Site,Uti lizatiorl't4ap x Exhibit "S'" - Tract,Map ,r Exhibit "C* - Sit6 Plan , Exinibit ."D" - Conceptual Grading Plan rxb=hat,•"E" - Building Elevations 64-4gi 4 Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolui0ion of Approval for the Design. Review of Yract .: 1I6064, 3, & 4 i 3 1 j(Rw la lr=,=z5raR5niiniq�.i �iR.r..11...I.b- i�it]u1R,N0RC�.:...ir.luoH■ afW rrfaalrf t IINI 1 uar.r.vaaouuw.s:nu■n r=.e..�:a.uuaw.......- s:vaRi x+i may°�_aem E•iiiueenipaii aiiio.m■i uioi N: nA%AHpjjU..... pi msngc�°� a sap:aLi sr.i iaii� au:�t90tD■±fit miilto■r.;N.l......w■wool...i a`xr Mnn...inFaO6Q.Pl1ilmragpR 1iiYROm+C+Dma�a tiii�R Gn -1.1.6na^"ton—i-m-mi ..YeHn� .1NIrglO.rr...Ba ia.'m9P.➢■Or.tRHrinHll nnrnp0rr ii�iiM�•111p1 a6iiiemw:LRoliilC7�C�nP\aC5i18�i 'alms?iiaIDa.ei'i `I /11r�,RAT®iw®~�atailaCLal�EaYr■r�etiS\mwe.'o��®�t�CO/�aaOGa®n 'attnmR�rm NTr►�r I IDrtltlr 6a ■F/■4c:.aalr.t - Ywar\.■.aylPrllrgd'...r�it.\.1■rm.. _ `wa�iri . tllnr.rl ~rM.l■ 1 0� .\.lID. ID;OfI\t.af.1/I.a9 itRlaC..■➢qu.a0rrla Ii 0u - r.;a.•� � t .Di..22-cr.TUH . I ar .,uno7af4�,�es�fgaZgma�rtu5no.Hmarrnrua®usolar:msc.a.a.uur i amwiieece.'n ` .-THaeiievaoiR wiiiiisosiiiavo�tta,ltf aGi'aw`°e�i'iio°viissa 1 r.an5. ..f.��rrtft.HF./m.tim. rt./0D■ w.lVIN1.1➢R.f .nroqu�_c,+ L�.GHf gBCRQJtYM l.ln.. 0 ➢ n tO ..p 01r .11R➢n. A111.amrY1■1! iGsiioaT+fIDu�xrarnn vamv .f ..ia rrraaunru■ l.mr.ID Irrnilat� man■v'1bJwaH'e w m.wnanm aH •.uue.nuaq� au.vne..m.eer cr■u➢ca.n•�.-3�L3-rr■3Y'a.YumnH. .'_.lrun►._. n.rcT/�,Daanap➢.1 1■�.■0.........O �a®irNCr®OAC1w6 wa90C�160/NrR{1}R1\/ mf.%i!!}}rRC� I.■➢.��Hr.-S!!...P_�V0aw 5HXMttlK.`.I}0 ■ . tn:iVH.01/w...1......■■..... aR.u^I�USp.lYBSZ®Oa■.■NUS bd,U.•. n.uJ.C®OpppC{•par�ilsj®\YI?d0. riR�ai'�iBrYOiMf a®COi�%Naa1100\la►Ir�t[O.glee....p......ii��lpil iuw.LO..e.RGmr1Y.+i1�'aRi.HHf[1.wra ...HOHR.Y..m..n.{i�f.R. -may vueusiiev^aYRi NO...�� i ie.irq.e..za°.Hnwur.HIDa.T.a➢ • riPSr.i:�q.oruuHnalu.+ ■r�unuF:.:,a..crs.raa•Iararra.. :iT loaver�..:a;uesu.n � nuuu.n au u■/..,vrc\.ri wtp :r''_-••-ee_n-••rpara,u.6v .uun.00a{.wa•v.Y,:wu.glu.ro.r:. • /Gir�filr■oru u.pR_.F�i �uuu�rnau.ut.ru ■aroaara 'eau vuurx.._u�a. _saaP.Yltlmoe ro.nu► m.a.ou. .• iauoaiallirurn.3a4r:_Rr .veer ;£r<.wsumavivac.➢r �a ■.A.i.uaupasn r�. - .o¢ucv-s../ .un. - R•%ur.a Mrn�w.er n ai ........... ui .-....a .....�� ........ nr r.a•1 .. ........... ... ...E 1 a.ermurarY... •C�uc1Hi eu -g . 1V r.. ! R■ �.f uuc.6.an�u■D a. • .oum +Rr r....ai� ....�..MRpn.-,.aR.�eKnn�'cni.r.■.. ju.:rur�_cartR:.uL.®wuma.r..:e�na.ar�rlf � .u.Navh➢ac�e_�e �^--�e� ana:x q l......../Ra:.IDcaoeu ulil:ilGo.r�nw.wr.r, �wN.U.v.'L,- +iwM ilwsa.N.,n{i a1IDamaa �wuuw-ar➢iii3rau.rnal .u..r.•,.u.er -e uewrc/.�mu.■rsnul�Ruavauuau �alnranc� fafte�il.uVutl..n9��,.I -�iri.«gRHIDr.�..^Ca--u.nraw a ■��.lr.Y ....i D. . Yur ..nVrrwur.R?. ra.i�iv¢.rs ,.n. ....r. r .—M.�...v a .M.—M. �3.Atf�al1.1� mw.1,aO.aG...a'4r.n■. i a. ia.avvc�uuuruaur ■ugvw.r.nruur_.ru/� .. /f..■H.rpr.rai- Micro »rou• r.urnnr•rr;.ur�lor u.nua■l.0 b. TRACT NO. 11606-2 IN THE CIT`! OF RANCHO CUCAMONSA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BEING A SUBOMSION OF RANGE T wESy. PORTION OF THE WE^aT ONE.HALF OF SECTIO/;PV2`TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH. IN BOOK 35,F.'DES 2 AND 33 OF PARCEL MAPS,1N.THE OFFICE FOpF THE y NRRCEtUAP YO RECORDER OF47 OF SAIO COUNTY. iT C.J.OUEYREL.L,S.2988 b. ... ANACAL ENGINEERING CO. JULY IN4 ANAHEIM.CAUFORNIA Rx. , W M.cr rlta:e� t, re a`fs,«a.I•(ro.»�11[uo-llur-4\\ gS I � a Y a ar a n l u a � of iJ w o NORTH CITY or, ` RANCHO CUCATMOiiNGA PLArlWING DIVLSEOi''+l C. ExHIBn ---�.__SG' LE, TRACT NO. 11606-3 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMORCA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. KWG A St160*ZIMCF A PORT10N CF THE WEST ONE+HALF OF SECTMN 3G,TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH. RANGE T WEST,UN aE.lWVlN0 MERIPJAN,ANO PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 143047 RECCROEO IN GOOK 33.PAGES 52 ANO 53 OF PARCEL MAPS.INTHE OFfICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAM COUNTY. C.J.4UEYREL.L.3.'f.Saa FEaRUARY 190E ANACAL ENGINEERING C4 ANANEOA.CALWORNIA ♦TK v0 cs<c N NH.t4 a'des• Y � .. �?yy b J>• A { �� � a t K a ;�,/fir �� • ( R x x 5 a t + 4 w Z 1 n YY T t`0 NORTH cil-ly or, RANCHO CUCAMUNGA TITLE- � /�k, PLANNING MrIc'nNJ C EXHIBIT----'8Z SC&LEt_�_________� k . TRACT No I606-4 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. KING A SIND"YLWON.OFA PORTM OF+HE WEST ONE .IL:tF OF'SECigN 7a•TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE T W EST,SAN 9ERNARCINO MERIDIAN,ANO IMRCEL 2 OF ECT*pAncE„MAP Na 399T RECORDED S!SAID 35,FA ES O;AID S]OF Fpp,CE4 WPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAIO COUNTY. CJ.DUEYREL.LS.298a AILICAL ENONEERDAS CO. FE11RUARY t486 .. ANAWJM,CALN'ORNIA. StS f 1 � er rtf tri cysmw 11 tpciw11°ic..i'�u I �� ec�w wcerntn•me , w.utzrtSLr-�.. _ uersf*�•► r ``c't�.. �4 K \`i r PARCEL .•.( ;S• D --s--� 'C.vS ; a a a.n.a•�- sy 01 a v ? ,ar I.A: gR 'S rtl/gttu�.r•�I ..m.tier•.ei.ueu NURTH CITY OF ITEM: CUCA.iMONGA Trrti rGt PLANf�Il1" �3IVIS�Oi`�1 EXHIBIT. , F,. k reel$W ltz • � A�-ii'yam �j' ���i �, 31, r P r ILI tit . - � k c i � R CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA crL�t: PLANNI\G DIVIS'nN ,. ir Vlk L .. CITY F rrB1: RANCI-10 CLTQVMONGA PL.ANrdI\G Wqucn-4 F-x"iBr[': • � 0', lyres ,:� Jk JkE�a♦.� s. r♦ e, t CITY Orl 1TEN I.{ - - ✓� %" RANCHO CLIC Admo\TGA pI.ANNING DMSnN �_ t EXHIBIT: rrG�ly-:3' It, Z—^ ..,'.�•.,,` '3 —�.�w.---f Z. J �t n Ze W V f M^ry 1 � ► 4 til r i whom = 1 I Lam.. CITY Cal{ rrai: RA CHQ CI�TCA2MOTNG PLANNING DT rMN --r ,J Rom- ✓ �'- '3i c. owl d �f�. t\l��l` �'f fs• 3' Q l �y''L�'+'� �'\A 1-"-_ ifdi'� k f•+' law. r p 3 f� ` � '`�*F 1t1 ^��� �t�r< ",-sa .t/N tg• � .- '�d'z [ a I' J �:, `"-,,+'J. i '°a -+�•�.. �rir-ter:,�"'<,1•.^`"`;"� 1 ^F ' 7 r ��2 �,J�t �� �A ___i�'is�°^�� as •`?I��{ 1 \. tl LZL ._. ..-- tan ..' '\ Rv � �• ` Sx o_i I C• c3 If Lu u {S t a� ���s,k a 1 psi •�� `� � _ I CITY or, rrE,%i: �"✓1 z.3_ RA NCI-1O CIC MOINGA Trru: PLANNI`G DIVLSKIN EXHIBIT:�L_ //�o6-z_ a �• s.•h 4 t is as r�,kt+t Jett t .• ` id � f a � t t � II J VA Mt w � J U ss MY OF �! RANCHO CUCAMrGA ClTI E: __ "c1 PLAl\TNM D:(`E✓!SMI EXHIBt I.i02� �lloGPn- ' La _113 _a � E t c. f Jy, s �i K�`^'L�1. 3.e •r.. c j .� �1'1 NI-4 IN qg c` rrcraeu RIREEJ � s 14 f �� � Y a � • s r I` , ''F 'f.4 CITY OF auvi= Q eazz, 1tG -z RANCHO CUC..A MONGA. Tm-E:- cayc��rrlgL �� rNG PLANNING DIVISIdP+1 EXHIBITT-R�?-, _� ,S �4 F +��?3 --++•"�ja 5 i" to°I`i-ii—i w .53 � 1- -� 1 a;(' t lad;�saa• L7- _./1h, . IL ��� It �1�-��ry"....,,.�_ � //_i•S{II{ L�i y' Y 3.` f: 1 1 ri —— --� _�—; f c. CITY OF ittL i`iT\ T ITEM° '_, CAMONTGA Tz'rI - fo, ,V--- PLANNM DIVISION EXHIBIT- C.-!S e L {--,•, T CITY o RANCI FICA MONGA. TrrL.E- ut4z:,/A tq PLANNING Dt\r.SnN E�tHtBtr: - SGLLE= { AWN ' nT o � o L f T T , CITY Or, ' rrS%I: R-ANCHO CLTCU'V ONGA TITLE 8�/tGpl, G t1.4 lOf PLAMING DIVISKIN �-� EXHIBIT: Z SG1LE , lt� L c CITY Or, ITE' RANCHO CUCAY ONI G . T1 I iE: PL ANNI G DI��LS C-j? Fa HINT- �3 GALE-, i • P �_ �r '°. se at. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCNGA, TITLETlnrC/�- PLANNM DIVLM EXHIBIT-_ rf SCALE. 1 = z t 9 � �• I CITY CF RANT" tV CUCAMONTG!'- TFIU: tdfLl�l�l^ 1/. 770 1S P.t.At�VT�W, DI"V&ON HXHIW �✓� SC;,ALE- I, S '$\ r 1 UA It air t CITY CF RA-NVHo CUCAMONGA Trn.E: PLANNM DWLqKN EXHIBIT. SCALE.. e7- o � I � � i 'I£ �ii•�' t• 11 CITY OF PLANNING DIVTJ-,ON EXF IgIT. SCALE, c t { _ #` A R O j i- tit, t t _i CITY O ACT O CUCA,MONGA TITLE--& L / � �4Q4 LANNI\G DTVISN EMEiCI:- 9 _SCALE �! r El ;I CITY OFrrEm= "r��o6-fie s r ,rar 1 ExxMrr=` SCALE: Q _ I �� "'AS�7 Z _ Y. rtt+ p �~ �� < � s � ��'1�■;ram �� � ��� f ,, c �ti lj�� �. a�w�A ! �. �Epq�. _ —.re i5 � ti ew �...�� R 1 ��ttl;e�m�i ja .��I � ' ��� — ,/ - �� � II�� � _ r � ,y � - �� L ` `�° .4�i1� ,� , � .. o _ Ia �v~ i+..�� \. 3ii�i�i � � i� ��� �I ,�I■ I �/ I� �� � t luuwxi ��� � � - � � . - � ' � s � dt�ti I I® n E » � E IGJLi if f Ole EE 0 h� i r CITE' OF P..Al\TC)-FO CLTCAlVI ANTGA TPT -- tom(tA 4--c HVA7-/ous PLANM4*v DIVISM SCALE; IWO t ir • $� Ill ` i CITE' OF T � T CU�:1MCG TI'IZ.F• /lL dlhlf' }=Zi/,4T14 /,$ PLANNIW- DWNC)N EXI-Off SCALE- . e-A-7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO 1160G 2, 3, & -4 LOCATED SOUTH OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL IN THE LOW DENSITY ,RUTDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS; on the 30th day of April, 1986, a complete application was filed by Grupe Development for review of the azbove-described project; and WHEREAS, on,the 9th day of July, 1986, the Rancho. Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Flan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is looted; and 3. That the proposed' use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the C public health, safety, or welfare, or mat=.rially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 11606-2, 3, & 4 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. All pertinent conditions of Resolution 81-26 shall be met. 2. An awareness clause shall be included in the final subdivision report from the Department of Real Estate for all lots wittlin the Special Study Zone, for disclosure to the prospective purchaser of these lots that the subject property is within the Special Study Zone. 3. A soi'is study that addresses the recommendations of the Geologic ` Report #2233 for TT 11606/TT 12952 shall be prepared and submitted to the Building & Safety Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11606-2, 3, & 4 July 9, 1986 Page 2 4. All side an3 rear elevations shall be architecturally upgraded (i.e. wood trim, itucco detailing) subject to review and approval of the City Planner *prior to the iss.,Iance of building permits. 5. A perimeter m,�`sonry block wall shall be provided along the entire length of the eastern property boundary and the southern property boundary. The wall shall be compatible with the northerly Tract 11606. --The des•'gn of the well shall be showna on the landscape plan and shall be r0 ewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The walls delineating the pedestrian access connections shall step down as they approach the public sidewalks. The design of the walls k shall be shown on the landscape plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The pedestrian access connections shall contain landscaping, accent trees, texturized pavement, and bollard lighting. The design of the connections shall be shown on the landscape plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The driveway for Lot 24 of Tract 11606-2, shall be changed from Merced Pla.a to 5tanislaus Place for safer access. 9. The driveway for Lot 16 of Tract 11606-4, shall be changed from Colusa to Sutter Street for safer access. 10, The corner side of all corner lots shall be provided with landscaping and decorative block to match the house materials. Detai;s shall be C shown on the landscape plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the. �f City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. I 11. Prio� to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit accurate plans of all existing and proposed walls/fences along the site boundary to avoid the creation of unusable/nuisance areas between double walls. In those areas where no wall/fence is existing or proposed by other developments, the applicant shall conztruct a masonry block wall. The design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED? THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Dennis L. Stout,chairman •b ATTEST.• Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary a .; PLANNING COMMtSSTON RESiILUjIQ'CJ NO. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11606-2, 1, &.4 July 9, 1986 _ ` Page 3 I, Brad '3uller, Deputy Secreta�wy of the Plannang Commisstan of the City of Rancho :xcamonga, do hereby certify that the furegoing Resolution was duly and regularly" introduced, pastsed, an&,,adopted by the Plannifig Commission of the k City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regu,fir meeting of the F-fanning Commission held on the 9th day of July, 1.986, by the`°ollowing vote-to-wit: A n, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: r$ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ` ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: s . �ry F C-"5D , Mvta- Y o a cN, $ I.�V{ L9 PY gWyN D: ~.4 Q!• G� q�_ Cvru €. C yA r as o E u n �",,, l\ � fi�L 'C NYOtTt.) ¢•�rtM'y aEa Oq C Lq -`o�.r E 2ahcD bY- b c b Y o'D '4 E r O Lq. C 7%Jne CVOL¢ Y V P60 q6 YE.xb •" r S W D V .•d+.�+LE.v 3u�ppaoL V 7,ye Nib '� N E ¢ y E G liqc`Yy. iC0} a4f. CL �� Cq'D. q N 6 9 p N d u u 6'D a� p y Y i1 �G •C b rn? psi -iM1 sDY�N 0.9r A> Aau E7 q Ra.D. Up- -a U L E¢ M d u.. ycyo C v W 3 b a�ibOa M u` F N Y d 6� N w C m tiS D u�gaw m-x-n [�> ma0. A ¢D CaY•C w 9 M 6�q u w xo cxa.En o,L ca;� ` J_ • � � D ��N D 0 0. Y r b q0 ba pu C � L u opus E€ C \ Q t y q L or G E0. T D D D D V y D ' u Grn D V it Y au `V x �17 q0.>.� .0 Ln �.a..•gpn GM •n N <4 y1I{ _(� Cp 1• �F d. �..f..LtO : .`.L 6 u'�= N �2f�C a� _L�Vy[y. E: a. � .i w�'L an. uu o.°'=n=" �•e p.a.Y- n"N a au°A a,nN Op L Cu.0 N� tLC�.� a a>Nn .d. -�FeiN d4. Ua'=iPW ._na Uq„p dps.pCu. K EIN� Cplq 0.dp,ONw�Nq b�}�y �d •.'�! �qL �.n Aw Y•� � Nr c ui..y a ��. U A Qba Oo-CTrMLd L to--. 6L ny uNW iM.n aNu.V pl.Yd .11.► 9y l•" T.p NR 'p cYux b�uw us a\���_ +i p�-'�ddxN .=•i s Yana q L.. r L+. . � yUF.•.=+ � 4•niy at�CW C'wp+M W �W Ci.f by qm N� N wOl W ^'C N E} y�=C^.. N y,•.p.Glv=n Apr�u+.�i nd Ny0 L N�p.0 A � Ad 6S � �LUh W44-1' N .0 •ply 6�R] YL L9A. Gw 2p Ca L w.-A. as aN pW d tJR Q6a3 y AO 2 G�p:� V�•-C+yu Ca9�Ly L%30 T�aNI^m�Va'. to + .�..4. '+µ2L 'dC VpQ dY.Y Ty"q. d���3a O x VCb Wg 6 LF- L F W S Y L { x C' o d N•Cn � N g�L�3 Nd R ECI C+L Lo V a4 .2Y-� Lpd4 L... 4 Eya G C»Y�w Z.H.i w�tpa �i KVQw�dwr=-6 W�.+F- OF Ri gWA NSA N ti V 1 1 �ccc ?4 o.�+T+ d'f u� � R •e! +�vGm .y+ WtU GdN m�ysp xa v' cv Wp.6L rax c� o aN �+L l+'n ea'-vk'. .0 ova.'•" 'F L W 'ca '- w•°`c " i. a^, F ai.'m�-f j o +d 4N aN�N Lap iW � a'Yu*L-p `a ccu F•< W Y�r ciao � VA v p 4 G'T a O�� Y 4 � � M .�Y o EE L 4L•Q�U baCN NV Vw.".n Lp d0. d� NY ♦UYmVUU KT NCw ?yl.-YC �' ~`� aW d+W"ON �Oi �?� Y.CN..��iG� �@�NL Ni,p•C , .� E .�-•a 9 y _ w y^..C N = !N YR _N}•.>n api C N+W a+p.Ya sm a^� a..- �.�.. aa-,• _ap. c vc.a n-y >a.•- p j ApuW L^ T gY �•p r... WT �MGYFN n� �N Cb T p �. O RN hjWv K�O 6C GW C�ML C .6. a..N.+C-N0. .^-c,'^= b •, o ao to �q» � ppr+o .pup.•-c G� .pp�u •' W aW� 3a aL.a3 Cy'"�lap P? YL p4n µ¢...y^ { 'NCN NF •pn dN.rC- gd'JJ +ar-C ,�d'C�S�aO.�'C `xd GC N.w tC Wj { ;:7 u •L>�.a wQ 9N4: C3 41•e^a��o�d Cd�a MA4l �u 4 =~m i' �^N ��„ •- '^'r �'u�ao''NL"�T Lq c�z pp." vd oN MYV �.Nj.0 LAW N.y C2i J==w L9 Cai u�a..• R� ^�-y i� YN>a Td dC¢¢ r pN u0.Q.p Fpt� AJa .•' W E vr=e u� gyOg E Nw .-.0 �� VIZ tl C WrRY� 0 V WO Ed �yLOxfL:.: = C4 ^dN � aSM� CW�� US}LM =r C� N� �N MW..•iW U.O�N•6� Up�K U O AQ N d a pap O' N'.i YNtI G L d I{{ a.G�vE . �N..W Ca. EWt C ady C4 aydpL�~r:.an =C pC L��Y LaFu [ CW YA> Nab.O 34.ua =CO La qo�Y A C=EG 6=id K..Ta� dqp A+ 11 �P, n"°"� E N N d L �C.�N p• rWe p TD'p I WSRLWE.OIt p N•O Cupp UuE Lug -�-.T G6lNU6 dL RAUtpn p6wp.EA Cm6.=C1 N4 1LZKC R 4e�N.p NRN C4. �aF+a6W NdF..pla=-� Lt adw tG6W l+W.XMCR �++.N4R6 1d p LI;{ N .. L�n0 MN Y Y!O a L O.q C U ITu.Q (ytj/ -L O I a1 LO qO Y p ^1 OO YC.a� Ot Y o q a q a 79 ^ U1L Y6� Orn v s� w4gp N Qwa^ ^a++TY C wN�Y` � •Q tT N.•C1 it 6 Z nL a Cww N Y � NCB u C 9 pCy�� 0. = TC. a Jr. L.N Y1 dw t. } =4C� qeL L pFN ^�q y `ow•.o Luq n sr w 4�c npr pc cc TNa O a.3 w L Lq pY O^e.-1 Q.6 y tT.E �bf O' N nN y„ NY'a pN.Y q. T H y Y.> � fit. wh qr O 9q w.�dY d0 dq 4LL �p q L N L 9 p Y CC6��tt E d E q L ?Y J u Hw HY yd YL CLq Q. yy 4 Ov . w w 6N.� 6q. SNO IL N Ctv t0,1.-.q-R1>O1+.C60 R +Gp. <Y tLiO Npyif � Iif „may bzw acc n c y.�in 1 w� 9_.A r. w= N O nLG Ca nQ C 6 u d ^n � p dn� ro dc� Fm u'o' C F U ad c�F� i mu IE- Lu Oa.a • ^ rn a.. -9 1T4.. uy Aaw N`Cp^ ca c �q r9 w O L�Qy N r=dL Y YVaL G2 Gf DEL C ^ UY. yQ _ p q 91 w T 2 k L� YYu O' nL 4N Ln.a� F w�d' 9'a dr- O O .uwm" � qL"y 3Cq GGN Env Y Y� ^LL Ty4q 1`ea^'q Hb q 6 Qj, cep PLu 9 G q GG U ^ LY aY C `q4l@ p � O d Vj4 Ub U �O a r C 9 O U L L^ q s d C tg p L q L 4 -Y6t'c 'He <oc aN¢.4 Wi n�tgnu� .a w' Lr j -- qE dY.a+ a n 4. • O ti 6S cq\:?tY v a, U aMQ C UVY E} ai G. m S gip.p�.m r 6u exJ gg ��.. 79 Cl Yd KOty u E 4m O py`. t w my C CJ� �.w! ggY« a.N LU¢ OO � n'LsuC q q ♦U� � �,�• .. N � dW�' GVB d0 � UU c dGn o%d� '^^ q• GP. py0 rLM 3 .a Nit riu"o yY2 6 F.Y � �.6T .�iE GC Y�wc- d Bq �. M p' �p t .4YE vii V 'd I MV.p mEAx O. Qd O' 3Lf Qa' C >vyLL %,Adm ?a NV� Ca` N.�� � �dG G � i ^r♦uii. y. Ca— G yy r'G6 PO'`•' a'dra� m .N .FL-� ra pV�naO C u S..c• r ,.tvy Uq.+ q ={f ra� Uq�♦Ny UQ¢�� U9 C•- T.0 �♦. 9 A.pa N ErU O c.r-Ll y m^Yn q Y.qM.T p,^ Q f a y Q � m Y H �y+�.fige. a µY d y �v ♦ Cd m42k aCEN UCL L GyW li 'LRd QlYp Q iMQ J FtC-aOmn 9>Pd ad'ie SHL6m 0.o.d 4Y NcL GLi.m ,qmc,3 Z-2 1 —mt r.• EUL XqLu, ^♦;.; vl S r 'i-+ ��u� N4 Yam 6CA �OyO Q♦V E�Y N LL Y c c uc� :0. pia � =9xL uK �• �� yV.G NroL JV �UU �Y� y ytL� y aro NiLr it ..p._ is i�os q.cca at"t'' 'c4� ..o acc a dM N2 A_o V Va dpOCt O�G � ANO ;y ♦ n cH acu a� �'�•', ..�d�w ',. m r- d L•' Ei.y acN _ cai G"�U A L i L 0.a t � � ��O ro �^A ^ 6•^ du:`u a '.�"' y"s}Q. N+u• Q Qi 2 u o�' .0 '" .0 t• ins °'N tPmo cmod wn " tc' ac aq'" J'`L r�a dN .pi r yNy ',tina}i Ie On nN c_ m'0 yy qar WNQ oa Q'•" w rA crn au —" m '�m a�` �QQ� im c. O. dw` Q• y �'.n .- q` 2aa oaa♦+ �QNa ro L UZ p « c vE u a�ro oTaM'u^� Ve. mi 06 D W y Q .1 `. 01 QCUdd C CE O{TO N d dd d aT aQi � d un.w =Ca 9 � N �r fft Lab 6LOS DV WA+. Wff2 6.dv„'V - f f 19 {I I! v , Lyra/e p' y >p d = q uN UE. w m aL� f"a o o > rn N h ..�.•m N Y7.1q p O y 9 yV }V a�V♦ M1Y,O. C N a Y A.NY »LN N LpN uE G OUw 4. w 1� NL>:= Y>Y Z A L`.n OI d N �"b A y y q�N C C ~ n NCB UpL.�hD,. n L 4� D � b Y �i �•YpY.7j O n,r as o D `.12 L L W•-Uyu G1' rZYi,yp O Oa N .{', « wtVi 4�N q�p w�6 u.0 D^.db A aii Ub b s q YY y,E Dy> flu p b Y Z 6y b L aC Y Vp Y q E N .r G NCR^ NI�,,GG ¢Ya,� C Ste. y PCB n A O, Y VI- w > Y O YgVY CO>. Y 6 V L Y GG N"yYU..C.Y ^ ORO,A YC raeE i �a ^qq Y GOLR tL�a Qou Vp o,A > ,D rZ V O I L3 Lw^p. .rn.Ny oy 5`6 > N > C R•i�W O,.p. .LiM tpt•q KN C06tR '�"VM tl6 O U Z J .2 A. Mt.� N L L E a+i.tM. AWy qO.a iy 10 v 9' sew m L mo >,p ^rn o� •a n ~ � ata � u"' auy� MYa,os -4 »npL C.in» VO> NE n A ^n qt O Y.Q E66Ed = q.�. Vy�R. T d2 E.� 10r H4 eLi t^3� Y` Vgg nU ^ y A««L L �O O.✓O.^ y D.V q.i O•aD+ UM •�,y N� N ,✓O.�C.0 w L b� �d D q UAanR €y04' Y.N�yG C D G� rL N�^ O,y, r•• d.p p py� .Y O,n Q9 D W V E `D^'5 r*Y •�9 G O C'C »« 3E Om y,A LU =C, �.� y0 aYYLy OYL� yy G.0 F.a I, Ik WN9 WVL �6 61�p2 Est+ Qp 60,u hQ K q y V NJ Q � N f+1 K Vfi � vIM�. NwgV M. O. OOq • OL �OaCF A LYY4 ,G .fF t +nM Y N^yt `p 9yv O '° CG C •ttG- Lam^ Nbm ti O p O _ l O \ C Qw Y N T Cy L y�.� dY m Yon2in pp N q. rr C d q V r.� `�UC.. O!" .F.CF. �4 n 6C.^O C� dOY N lLry 99C y .Gi tL'Q�Cj 6 Ub Sn i t�j]uN1 +pC Y7'O W� �F CC GH Vg �• Zr Lap_� Lu"-Y NV V� VL ONMC �Y k0 ppO4. d ^ ,Yq Nq Y G d0y q0 LGN Vj A C 6Q yy y� d N� Y t^ q �O.. ynt S O N gYyg C N L L C i a yy NL~F a0 0 0 5 LO i 4 Od A W i� Y L^ �1 y. �W y Mn .:f Oy VV�u Lq Yq s L itA g. .tp L dp Y My b�l L.� O Y N1L OwO..uT +y ppq n N 61u q.O. C6M In Oaiiy NV �4w .0 LI Li:. Wyxti LGi am IiV YO.. 1 yYr a0.q Y y W O gg N d V O 69 Y � e. � Z N = 4� � -•.� o L a.2 L. ^ R—li O N C 6 L q ON pv AOt Cg9C +� N ' O u w 6E Y 2 9^ E xL CI ' 2 yH n . N (u({llt EE w15 V O N L G C » G ^Q 9VV'� fit UF3 4 N LO C^W 6 RC. KCL W I O JNNNK G L �¢ W U j L n LZY � 1 t y a uy c a M\ o= e K _ar Vf g v � _ i w %IA L N � �d • q� 2 .OY2 ~ .�k � Gar Npd I lw CJ .+CY. 4 3� O� CwVf 6�+N. t6 QC 1�+• hJt�J.q e e 0 0 'aH a.i mM L z�pq �� O 2 w G YA S� d s ND Y. �> r I d ` z L Ei Y Y L" d LY •.'. a:� c� yq nd u� � � � lu NYV T� qE L N Q 'p .L. .a a NY �y 20" oL E � • I ,o U �u d q l V Cy Y �C� FO N90 Yu xc l.r`� q Lq LO CC roCq pp T =U .27 . y 1^L ... Y,s 9 di dOGi �pN N9 ... ^l.0 6 <N SL � ' �•2r F.y �.. I �t 4 r+ Q 2 f ,A s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM014GA STiiFF REPORT r' o �` o F z t DATE: ti!'Jly 9, 1986 1979 TO: Chairman and Members ,f the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner f BY: Nancy Fong, !rssociate Planner I�. E". ! SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR DR ,85-17 - ROBERTSON HOMED -- A request or approva o'er a viecol or scheme 1✓or The previously approved elevation of 164 c,ndo units located at the northeast corner of Vineyaij Avenue and Arrow. APN: 208- 251:.11, 22, 1. ABSTRACT: The developer is regrnzsting Planning Commission aop-oval ®r-new roof tine color and neti building stucco cols 'or 164 condominium units. IT. BACKGROUND: This project was approved by the Plann;' +,mmission en cto er 1985. The project is under constructie 4 consists of 1/ building clusters and a recreation building approved elevations inc?sd6 a grayish tone flat the roof r tW building color scheInYs as zollows: a light grayish stucco color with a beige colored trim and dark grayish accent, and'a beige st, co color with the same color trim ana dark grLenish accent. Dud to a purchasing error, a different colored the roof and buiidIng stucco color was ordered and delivered for the eutire project. III. DE5IGh3 REVI€N: The 111=r su!xmitted a Iew color samples for esign evlew"Comm ittee -- iew ar i approval. 1'�ie color sample show. a brownis h tone fl at ti;r of and oyster color building stucco witty burgundy grim. The uesign Review Committee determined that the new cri r scheme is a s -pificant change from the originally appro.e! and recommended full Planning Corini ssi on review. The Committee emmessed concern that the new colors were not compatible with tre ar...tlt<-z- urai theme. Since the last Desinn Review Committez meeting, the developer has submitted a new cn7or ,;ample for the project which ficludes the brownish ~"'% flat the ronf, the oyster color buildin, stucco but with a b: dF and dank-trlu0;4 accent. This new color scheme is closer to tn, '4.rrtvel color scheme and would complement 1 the Cape CoC 's, ',ire for this project. Color sample boards an,, cola, for both the previously approved color schen.e and th.; ,i be available at the meeting for your review. ITEM U Y � L ' A perimeter fend ng 1s being provided at the north ,property boundary, trhfch ccps9sts' or greyish tone block wall ant., wrought u irom. The greyish torten block materials were picked based on previously, iporaved;color scheme. = Wfth the new 4Rlor scheme, it does not Prov';ds. for compatibility. Staff recommends that the greyish tone black wall be pAinted to match the beige color trim. The developer has verbally agreed to thfi. recou aendatrnn. IV. RECOM!!E 'ATION: staff reco&nends that tale Planning Cmnissioll appn.ve a new color scheme for this project - OR 86-�13 {Tract 13151}, with the condition that the perimeter block wail shall be Iy painted to match the new trim color - beice. Respe• ful l r.s! itte pp �. Bra, ra Sul I er City Planner BB;Nr:dak a Attachments, letter From Applicant Requesting For Approval ' Exhibit "A" - location Map` Exhibit "6" - Approved SiU Plan Exhibit "C" - Approved Elevations s� i3 rA�,Itle�rQ�e>ai.k, i�®r���,io1� :9 a division of canuil corpor,tnon i NoughtArn ili ision June 30, 1986 v t /, i City of Rancho Cucamonga x 9320 Basslins $oa.d Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 � Attention: City of Rancho Cucamonga i City Planning Commission Re* Exterior Color Changes for ( ' V'neyard Village Project i h/E Corner of Arrow Route & Vineyard Ave. Ci-t;y of Rancho Cucamonga., California F Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I au requesting that you approve the enclosed exterior co.xj schema for the above referenced project. Theie was a. communication problem betweau the project manager and my--,2If regarding the projects approved colors. The problem is that the paint and the roofing for the entire project is on the job (unfor�unately, it's not what was approved). Although the two color schemes are fir apart, I am sure that you will agree tue new one is very attractive a*td will be very complimentary, Thank you for your consider2 ;Ton in this matter. I am poaitive that this will never happen again. n Sin erely^ - Gary mazur ._ Plannng & Design Manager ROSr%RTSON HOMES a division of Catwil Corporation RECEIVED C!:Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONCI GM/pw PANNING DIVISION enclosure JUR 30 1986 A�4Q t•t 'n CCPSI '. )r jo V `L," olp ,r M cp '` H m { �• y tv& l-FC L /} ...... .... LM 13 m i GC ££11 • r V NORTH CITE' OF arvt: RlljtiT CI iO CUMO ,,GA TIC: h PLANNINr, DIVISION EXHIf .- .. ;Pic: ti r • ,s a :fir 'IAP UNIT A' SIDE u }: �,,. '"i�mmtm _�- t:lmn ` F- �� •�nitn= '>.`'';�i. "� �I 1 f ���•`t tE��,[tf tit �. � .1_e �'�itt�. ���rtrr UNIT`A` SIDE UMT'A' puo L' NORTH cl' Y OF RANCHO uIJC ,IIC 'CTA TITLE: PLANNINU DIVISIaN E.l'tl1P)lT: ,s '�.""44 ,hjn���r.��p��xnl.rz:: ��^—r k � •' ; • e � a R� UKOT'e' . SIDE r < � a UNIT SIMS d1N1T'@' ENI' NURTx CITY OF RANCHO CUC'AMONGA TITLE._ �e�Tfa� ir its PLANNINC DIVISION EtI`1IBIT: �i:. '' . nslslnl 1 ' w! • ♦i till...�� III .;4 YJ' .� I • �`'1 :Al" 111 UNIT'C SIDE 11lyY"( 1� _ K '� ("®" M., 1" �di. �' °^�`�a y/ Z�t'1 j1t •�.�. r UNIT`C' x SInF UNIVC FN(T M)RTH CI T' OF Rc2t%Tv2HO CUCAMONGA TITLE= PLANNINCz DIVISION EXHIBIT:�—SCALE- „�' SiEC,3S.DG, �p� d-k— SOUTY. SIN REC BLDG. EAST r u � 1, arm cram r cxx+cjLp ; it- f r Y1 ';dal:. NI,p rr A ii 1{ei UVIT 8 r l 4 t 1 fi ^iYl VT. . '.1 BFDii00�R BEUii00M t BEnnocw V �t NORTH .' —Y car ITLM-�I R�TCHO CUC.IMOINGA TITLE= t...t PL.ANNINK; DrVISKAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA STAFF REPORT t Q C) U v > l DATE: July 9, 198E 1877 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: -Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott, Murphy;. Assistant P''a_wer SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 - IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA - T e Design:Review of t e buil ing elevations and footprints for three (3) lots within a recorded tract in the Very Low Density Reidential District (less than 2 dwelling units per .acre),.'Te;atad on the north side of Sun Valley nrive, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN 201-463-11, 13, 15. Y. PROJZCT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re uested: Design Review of building elevations and 1i rootprints. 6. Project Density: Less they Z 4dsvalling units Per acre.. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning• North - Vacant; County of San. Bernardino. South - Single Famil;r Residential; Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 du/ac). East - Vacant; Flood Control. West - Vacant; Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 du/acj. D. General Plan Desi nations: Project Site.- Very Low Density Residential Hess than dui ac). North - Flood Corl-roi, Open Space. South - Very Lc-Density Residential (less thclt 2 du/acj. East - flood .or trol. West -- Very LOW Density Residential (less than 2 du/ac), Park. E. Site Characteristics: The three (3) lots are located witHn "The Woods,- project. All three (3) lays have eucalyptus groves located on the southern portion of the lot, Some preliminary grading. .ind tree removal leas taken peace on the northern portion ° the lots. ITEM E ,Nff PLANNING COWIS"SI`QN STAt`r REPORT DESIGN REVIEW 'FOR TM'CT 12237 k July 9, 1986 Page 2 a II. ANAUSIS: .` A. Back round° Tract 12237 was originally approved by the Manning Commission on January 72, 1983, as a custom lot r subdivision of 87 parcels on 55,95 acres.: The major design r objective was to preserve the existing grove by using min'fmal grading and custom houses designed to fit the natural topography. At that%meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern over the impact that development would have on the Eucalyptus groves. As a tIesuit, a Condition of Approval was, include6% stating that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R."s) shall be prepared for the project to preserve the existing trees, Additionally, provisions were contained in the C.C.&R.'s for the: maintenance of traYls acd to minimize gradia). B. eneral: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to develop three (3) lots at the northern pirtion of Tract 12.277. 4 The applicant is proposing a single-st,--y, 2,948 square fiot floor plan. The units will be constructed on a concrete-slab foundation. Grad.ng and tree removal will be required for the driveway and unit placement. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee bay;es its recommendation fer approval' or denial on criteria established by the Development Code (see Exhibit "D"). Out-ing ` its review of the project, the Committee expressed concern .over the size of the building footprint nropused by the applicant and the ifrhiact it would have on the' grading and tree removal for each lot. The Committee made the following findings: 1. the design and layout of the proposed development is not consistent w,th the applicable elements or r the City's General Flan, design 94ideiines of th.e appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plan, boulevards, or ple.nned developments. 2. '.he architectural e'sign of the proposed development is not compatible with the chikracter of the surrounding neighborhood and wilT not maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive r development contemplated by this section• avd the General Plan of the City. k x _1 yea i 77' PLANNING COMM 4&1ONitT F REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 July 9, 1986 _ . Page 3 41 The Gel{eral Plan states that all development should respect !,`ie topography of the area anid minimise physical and visual alterat%,n of the landform, Partic•early 'in the foothills north of Hillside Road. Additionally, develooinent,'should'enhance the natural surround'10 , by minimizing grads g and by retaining natural veg,3tAttpo. 'he Design Review Commi tee,f`1t -thaw 'the use 4f a two story bon plan Mould meet these obBel-tfQs. T4'is would also maintain the eharaetiu of the surrou-njo ig neighborhood,apd satisfy the Concerns assoof 4 witN' the approval of ti`e •priginal_,b`ract 'mcV, The Cbmmittaee d t of recommend approval of the propos&l and suggested that th~":ao"Ta— submit re0sed plans for, further review by,the Committee. The applicant did not attend the Design Review meeting to 11 address+the Committee's concerns. The applicant was notified of the Design Review Committee's action and requests that the proposal be heard by the full Planning Commission. ' III. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends, that the Planning Commission`.'deny the i > ui ins a evations and footprints as proposed by the applicanj; through the adoption of the attached Rosoiution. Res idly s � T 8rad Buller City Planner BB:Sid:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Area Plan Exhibit 118" Detailed Site Plan & Grading' Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Exhibit,""D11 - Section 17.06.01013) of the Development Code Original Resoint —z of Approval with Condelions Resclution of DeATal T f �• ' �i fir. ',.ar t< to VACAkr •.. .r•,J�s ` 1 l . .7t•. al s. _ rA `sy 3 �� +7s � 1 l .. .1. ao •s' 7o yr_, yt 'i a '� � ,��� of ..`• ���,/.�- fart'i,�r ..•�'!! rK.., of �,,, ` .`� ss,aa •� `•r�• v r y 77ti{s'' tw .27 26, u t3 7E h 70 ' !a' 0.t •p i•• '• J �� S l . 4 NUR, CITY C 7 r �tl - ,�7— a RANG CLYCAi�TOINCA Trju: fi ,----- LANiVItG 1JNL V -q 1EXHIB., "FIT-17"', GV4 12 07 9�-M PC A46ftdil 0 2 IN 1'YY(GNYI� H „`$MAiwi_/S- .. RQfRl�t7^!A lTF C41GIIdat.�,`gp({A,/ Nq 7,17 IL w• i. awp sy Tµts�'fp 2. 1\ rx� 7r. Aal Wk 1.•,�,1 PO �r l •� \L � I G `V, CITY Or, [TEN is 7 RANCHO CUCAM©ITGA TITLE: ____,��G ,► PLAMING DRT35M E%HIBrr--- SCAM • F rA r. a l I iff i' 44 • �. �iF 2 i 1-- ' Ar �� iI ' -- In I � CITY af, ITE:N I: RANCHO C.ICAIVIOIN GA TITLE: ii�. EVA7'/cam Gt Pt.ANNrI`:C 1?ivISm r i '1 1, cc mg hIts g � s..e F � jc• r.i h�l 1`I i�"f� r' I I fr fl0 : � • a r ' , r jr B aCC- r CR ��T CHO CLIC'AIMOI G-KA TITLE: PLANNING DfVLSK?R N tG="'� OXHIBI T':—�e�CrELE � r Hill ''dlldddd( .,717rI Section 17.06,010 E 3. Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee shall be i comprise of three members. One shall be the City Planner and two shall be members of the'Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall elect two of its member to the Design Review Committee. The City Planner shall be the secretary of the ComWttee. Of the first two commission members appointed, one shall have a term of six months and the other shall have a term of twelve months. Thereafter, all terms shall be twelve months. The Design Review Committee shall meet as needed. The time .., and place of such meeting shall be set by resolution of the Planning Commission._ Review and analysis by the Design Review Committee will consider design dements,, sash as, but no;. limited to, compatibility of the project to ( surroundi ng properties;relationship of the design and layout of the project to the site; architectural design and use of mate-lals; grading; landscaping; -screening and buffering techniques of adiacent,p4operties,.signs; end open space. This committee will determine if'the proect adequately meets City design guidelines and standards, and will transmit an appropriate recommendation to either the City Planner or Planning Commission. ' The recommendation of the Design Review Committee will be based upon the p►Noject conforming to the following criteria- (a) The Design and layoui of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable Elements of the City's General.Plan, design guidelines of the appropriate district,and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated histor',%? districts, theme areas, specific plans,community plan,boulevards,or planned developments. {b) The design and layout of the proposed development will not taireasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existu:g or future developments, and wilt not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. {c) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintah-i the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Section and the General Plan of the City. _ (d) 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 that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. If the project is found to be not acceptable by the Committee, the City Planner will inform the applicant of the design issues and may suggest possible alternatives which would improve the design of the project. The Committee m tee will then direct the a lie pp arts to return..to the Committee with � the revisions and/or work with Staff to resolve the concerns prior to final approval by either the Planning Commission or City Planner. k0. . RESOLUTION No. 83-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING GO(fISSIGN Off" THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,y:CALIFORNIA, C6ADITTONAtLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT 11,�&NO. 12237 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12237, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Woodland. Pacific, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real r, property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernaraino, ' State of Califo*,nia, described as*55.95 acres located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside into 66 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on January 12, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's g reports; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follov;s: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12237 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract ic, consistent with all applicable interim and Proposed general and specific plans; (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 development proposed; (d) The design of "he 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 design of the tentative tract will not conflict Y A? with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No, 83-08 Page 2 ; (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION '2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12237, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: µ' PLANNING DIVISION ' I. CC&R's shall be prepared for the project to pr�'serve existing trees, maintenance of trails, and minimize grading. The CC&R`s shall be develoi,:ed by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. 2. Lot 85 has not been accepted for park and recreational uses. 3. The final design of the perimeter parkways, wails and fences shall be completed by the ap-licant and approved by the City Planner prior to final map approval. 4. The Hermosa parkway shall be designed and developed by the applicant as a trail. S. All trails, :fences, drainage structures and site clean up shall be done iii conjunction with street improvement installations. 6. The two trail crosEirs over Hermosa shall be texturized and appropriately signed by the applicant. 7. No structures for human occupancy shall be built within 75 feet of the fault line or north of the fault line. 8. All structures in this project shall be designed to conform with all seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code and City standards. 9. If any evidence of cultural remains is found during the development of this project, work shall be stopped and a qualified o PP q � iea archeologist shall consulted fora proper evaluation g be P P ion of the remains. Resolution No. 83-08 Page ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. Developer st)ail be required to install a concrete drainage structure along Alta Loma Channel from its northerly tract boundary to the proposed channel at Wilson Avenue. The cost of this -stormdrainage system shall be credited against the'stormdrainage fee for this project and a Reimbursement Agreement per City Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the contributions which exceed the fee amount. 11. The above condition shall be waived when and if the Alta Loma Assessment-Bistrict is formed to complete the installation of an improved channel. 12. Developer shall submit a letter to the City Engineer requesting the extension of the Alta Loma Channel boundary to include the portion of the tract as noted on the Tentative Tract Map. Execution of Payment Guarentea Agreemekit for participation in consulting cost relative to formation of Alta Loma Channel shall be required. 13� Developer shall be required to install a stormdrainage system along the southerly tract boundary from its easterly boundary to the proposed Alta Boma Channel. 14. The above condition shall be waived when and if the 41ta Loma Assessment District is formed to complete the installation of an improved channel. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH.DAY OF JANUAR.; 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T99 STY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Jeffrey iC'ng Chai man? ATTEST.-,` Secretary of tie ;c: ,s Commissivz�w.. , - r Resolution No. 83-08 Page 4 a: I, JACK LAM, Secretary of,'the Planning tm<nlssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ceivIffy that the foregoing Resolution bras duly and ` regul;-rly introduced, pass;`and adopted by the. Planning Commission,of the City of Rancho Cucamonga., at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day, oi` January, 1983, by the following vote-to-wit: a AYES: -' COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE " J 1 1 9 RESOLUTION NO. C3-08A ' A RESOLUTION OF' THE Pi sNNING 'COMMISSION OF THE CTr( OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'AMENDM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR k TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12237 i> WHEREAS, the Planning Co mission tentatively approved Tract Map No: 12237 bi 7anuary.12, 1983, by Resolution No. 83.-08;,and WHEREAS, the Planning Commision has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds no objections or overrides same to such Arnenanent. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following fi-n-ings. w A. The Tentative Tract Map No. 12237 is consistent with the adopted General Plan. SECTION 2 The•P.aneho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby 9 9 Y !:rm s a revision to Resolution No. 83-08 for the above-described project ithe following items 10, 13 and 14 of Section 2 of the said resolution. SECTION 3: the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby amends Resolution No.73_-OS to read as follows; ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. Developer, shall be required to install concrete drainage structures along Alta Loma Channel from 650 feet south of Hillside Road to 300 feet north of Hillside Road including Hillside Road crossing, _ adequate inlet and outlet structures and a training levee at the proposed basin location to channelize the Flow to the proposed channel. The cost of th,; storm drainage system shall be credited against the- storm drainage fee for this project and a Reimbursement Agreement per City Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the contributions which exceed the fee amount. 13. Delete. 14. Delete. r i 15. Construction of the southerly perimeter street (Vista Grove Avenue) shall be secured by a surety bond or in-lieu cash deposit shall be provided at the discretion of the City Engineer. Cs °Resolution No. 83-0$AY Page 2 Wei- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST,, 1983. PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF;<AN.CHO CUCAMONGA BY: ^NVIIA aok t"` . hairma ATTEST. �X1V Secretary on I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutlon was duty andi regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting a the Planning Conrnission held , on the 10th day of August, 1983, by the following the AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISS'.ONERSt NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 1 t. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION r DENYING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 12237 LOCATED ON THE NORZ TTHEVERYDLOWF SON DENSITYLLEY RESIDENTIALEAST OF DISTRICTERMOSP� AVENUE IN WHEREAS, on the 26th day of February, 1986, a complete application was filed tyr Iron•Mountain Ski Area for review of the above-described project; and WHERE';, on the 9th day.;f July, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as ° follows: p SECTION 1: That ":he following cannot be met: c 1. That the proposed project is consiste;-t with the objectives of the General Plan; and ` 2. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; ' and i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Ttout, ha�rman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 9th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: � it i ----- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r,;CAA,r0 STAFF REPORT ° t ����'`` a. t9rr I a DATE: 'July 9, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning r,,mmission FROM: Brad Buller, C'ty Planner BY: Howard Field's, Assistant Planner 1 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 86- I _ GOLDEN - A request to reduce the minimum i Tot-1e�rom'" 150 feet to 136 feet on a proposed 20,195 square foot parcel in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 du/ac), located at the northeast corner of Hillside and Moonstone - APR 1061-25-02. RELATED FILE: PARCEL MAP 9646 I. BACKGROUND: During a regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 1986, the Planntng Commission listened to public testimony as to the merits of the Variance request. The Commission deliberated and determined that the findings were sufficient to Justify granting of the Variance request to reduce the minimum lot depth from 150 feet to 136 feet. The`Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for adoption at the next Commission meeting. II. RECOWENDATION• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission - review ew and adopt the attached Resolution of Approval. ZR ctfull fitted, Brad Buler City Planner BB:HF:dak ITEM F +s °1 RES&h,-MiON No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCCAMONGA APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANtCE OF A VARIANCE, NO. 86-01, FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION s OF MINIMUM LOT DEPTH ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITHIN THE VERY LOW DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND MOONSTONE AVENUE', RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, A-D MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. ' (i) IRWIN B. GOLDEN has filed an application for x ' the issuance of a Variance, No. 86-01, described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, � '- the subject valiance request is referred to as "the application". On June 25, 1986, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter of the application, and said publik hearing was concluded prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred, B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFGRE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that - all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Par. A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 197G,and further finds and concurs with the Negative Declaration adopted with respect to this project on June 25, 1986.. - 1 - f M ,q 3. Rased upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above--referenced June 25, 1986, hearing, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically Finds as follows: a. Tb� 'epplicati.on applies to property located on the northeast corner of Hillsi3e Drive and Moonstone ."-venue, consisting of approximately 4.97 acres and is currently improved with a single--family dwelling; b.. The properties to the south, east and west of the subject site are pros( -ttly designated for residential uses and are currently developed with various single-family dwellings. The property to the north of the subject site is E` designated for residential us,4s& and is currently vacant c. The application is design, d to facilitate the division of said 4.97 acres into four (1) residential parcels and hasp °)een submitted in conjunction with a request for the approval of. a tentative Parcel Map. No. PM-9646•, (approved June 25, 1986) . Such an action as contemplated, in conjunction with the application, conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is a permitted use within the Very Low Residential District; d. The application has been submitted to allow a reduction in minimum lot depth for Parcel No. � -t said Parcel Map No. 9646, cv)ntr--v to the requirement's of Section 17.08.040 of the Ran--•:?o C 6ax«onga Development Code requiring lots within the very low district to have a lot depth of a minimum one hundred fifty (15o) feet; e. The variaice as specified in tha application will not contradict the goals or objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan or Development Code and will not pro- mote a detrimental condition to the persons or pro.oerty in the immediate vicinity of the subject site for the reasons as follows: (41 It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to minimize the adverse effects of the develop )nt process by encouraging the preservation of significant topo- graphic features, including native vegetation and natural hydrology. The subject site contains extensive matare trees and shrubs and natural drainage is prov°aed by an existing barranca occupying a 'large portion of the parcel. The strict 2 1 requirement of lat .depth on the subject site could jeopardize the existing nat?*•ra? topographic of the site; and natural hydrological features Ui) In f;xrtheranee of the City's policy for maintaining existing natural features, the area which could be utilized in the reasonable and permitted devel�pment`of the subject site haa been reduced below that normally asso- ciated with parcels of comparable size and quality, The Master Plan of Trails reflects that k. an ea:tws;it community trail stall be provided concurrerirly with the deuplopment cif the swb'Qrit ci he existing natural eonuitions m the site, saiidwtrai.lause oistre- quired to be dedicated alonq ';;he frontage of the property, ` thus, furzher reducing the area to allow compliance wi;:h minim imum lot depth standards; ( vj a^everel parcela adjacent to the su_,ject site have been appropriately developed utilizing lots which ' do not meet the existing minimum lot depth stanaatd; and (v) It the above-referenced June 25, 1986, public hearing, nd public testimony was set forth in oppo- sition to the application. 4. BE.Sed upo.i the substantial evidence presented to this Commi s -n. during the above^-efe enced June 25, 1986, Public hearing, ? upon the specific findings of fact set forth in parag 1, 2 and 3, above, this COMM:_-lion hereby finds and cone! s follows: a. the strict or literal, interpretation and enforcement of the rgecified regulation would result in a practical difficulty c- unnecessary physical hardship in- consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; b. There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or cond4tiors applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district; c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privil"es enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district; - 3 d. The granting of +-'ne subject Variance will not constitute a special priv, lege inconsistent with the limitations on other propertiCs classified in the same dis- trict; and The granting of the subject Variance will ` not be det Atal to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or ianprovements in the E vicinity. l 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,. 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application,. 6.. The Deputy ^,ecretary to this Commission shall " certify to the adoption of this Resolution, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF' TULY, 1986. E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANcHo CUCAMONGA BY: D—e n s L.Stout, Chairman f ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify tiat the foregoing.Resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced, passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting or the Manning Commission held on the 9th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alit - 4, - L �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G ACAAJ STAFF REPORT o� p t- z U > DATE, July 9, 1986 1977 f' TO: Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner k BY; Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner r SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-C;? - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - A proposal to to develop a 47,600'square ada?�,.10 consisting of classrooms, social hall, auditorium, and gym, to an existing 11,000 square foci church it the Medium Density Residential District (&- 14 dwelli*g its per acre), located at the northwest f corner er Bery4 'street and 19th Street - APN 201-221-08. i I. PrOJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, Conditional Use Permit, and issuance of a Ne-ative Declaration for the church expansion. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Temporary refuse dump facility and Foothill Freeway right-of-way; Low bnasity Residential (2-4 du/ac). South - Single Family Residential and Vacant; Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). East - Single Family Residential; Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). West Apartments Medium-High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac).C. General Plan Oesionations: Project Site - Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac). North - Freeway right-of-way. South - - Low Density Reside,.'ial (2-4 da/ac). East - Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). West - Medium-High Density Residential (14-24 du/ac). D. Site Characteristics: The southern portion of the site is currently eve1ope with a 10,500 square foot multi••purpnse building and 79 parking spaces. The northern portion of the site is currently -Andeveloped. II. BACKGROUND: On February 14, 1979, the Planning Commission f�f conditionally approved Site Approval 79-01. The approval consisted i ITEM G PLANKING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CaP 26-02 - COMMUNITY 3APTIST CHURCH June 9, 1986 Page 2 of detailed plans for Building 'All (the multi-purpose building), the use of two temporary buildings during the construction of Building °"A", and the review of the conceptual Master Plan for the site including a 1200 seat sanctuary, a two-story education }:ailding,'and a gymnasium. III. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed development of the remainder of the site wiil to a place in two phases over the next ten (10) years. Phase 1, anticipated to take place over the next two to three years, will result in the construction of Building 8 (5,400 square feet) which contains a fellowship hall, small kitchen, and additional classroom facilities. The parking lot will also be expanded to provide a total of 252 parking spaces and provide the church with an additional access off of Beryl Street. The second phase of development is anticipated to occur within the next five to ten . years. It will consist of the construction of Building C, an 800 seat auditorium, and the construction of Building D, a 4,500 square foot gymnasium. An additional 160 parking spaces will be provided to bring the total number of parking spaces up to 412. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee has reviewed the project on two separate occasions. ThQ firs: Design Review meeting of April 3, 1986, focu;od on two main issues. 1. That extensive landscaplIng should be provided to lessen the impact of the expansive parking area. 2. That Buiiuing D, the gymnasium, did not reflect the _ 1 Spanish style consistent with the remainder of the project and appears "boxy'". On June 19, 1986, the Design Review Committee reviewed the revised pl.)s for the church. The Committee stated that the Incorporation of the slope roofs with the Spanish tile for Building D alleviated the "boxy" appearance. They also stated that the use of fin walls throughout the project provided a sense of unity. The Committee felt that the revisions to the f plan represented a tremendous improvement over the previously submitted plans and recommended approval. C. Technical Review Committee., The Technical Review Committee has reviewe the a prefect 67 focused it "ScusSion on two issues existing drivewaysad.d overhead utilities. The Technical j Review Committee recommended the following action reiatinq to f the existing driveways; 6 71 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86-02 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH June 9, 1986 r' Page 3 1. hat the existini 12' driveway on Beryl Street be widened to 26' ane'provide sufficient turning radius for fire equipment. 2. That the median within the shared driveway at the west property line be eliminated to allow access for fire equipment. The revised plans submitted to the Design Review Committee indicate that the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee have been incorporated into the final design. The Techni^al Review Coim^ittee's comments concerning the overhead utilities were as follows: 19th Street - Overhead utilities exist along the 19th Street. frontage of the project. The property to the south of 1.5th Street is serviced from these lines making it difficult fo underground t=e utilities at teas time. The undergro6nding would also involve the destruction and replacement of existing landscaping. It is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into a lien agreement fo4' one-half of the cost of undergrounding the overhead utilities along the 356 foot frontage. Beryl Street - Overhead utilities do not exist fronting the property along Beryl Street. However, overhead lines exist on the east side of the street. It is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into. a lien agreement for one- hzlf the cast of undergrounding the overhead utilities along the 698 foot frontage on the east side of Beryl Street. D. Environmental _ Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with these findings, the issuance of a Negative Declaration would t;e in order foillowing the Conaitio�ial Use Permit hearing. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Flan and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental Impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the r--commended conditions of approval, are in compliance with all apple,able provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. V. CORRESPONDENCEt This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices were sent to all property owners within 300' of the project site. ,+ PLANNING COMMIS AN STur-F REPORT " CUP 86-02 - COMMM,,TY BAPTIST CHURCH June 0, 19$6 Page 4 VI. RECOMMMATIONt Staff recommends that the Planning Commissi;an approve`` "G nditional Use Permit 86-02 and ir;ue a Negative Declaration. R ctfu 1 ub tt Brad Buller City Planner BB:SM:ko Attachments: Exhibit "All - Site Utilization Map Exhibit i681" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit ''"'',- Conceptual Landscape Plan spy Exhibit IV, Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E""-- Elevations Exhibit 'IF" Floor Plans rr, Resolution of Approval - _ 1 t lY t t tlMY6Tt 10 4 �. �:r7� av a.�..aa e..Ml..ac....e•n. I ' ' T+Sa•_•z .��. �• 1 i LD! 1LLI LARDa ib 'tt`• =1 jR? .�.♦:=Y taTYlR 1Y pi. zz EjEJ ♦�n ♦inter � ,. �,x' •,�f c"777 1L �i HURT 7 CITY OIL PLANK i,,,rG Drvbq �i`�1 iFx l - I '.1 ill ow I ' :!E } l ow NORM CITY Or. ITEM: RANCM CUCA;MONGA. PLANrNIN\G DNISION _� EXHIBIT f3 SGkLE Y ' Q Q a • a 14gC- 'I lt _ 1 li a " --- p r ILA AQ 13. ♦� .. M ��.�M t ' Ili , r ':-----•afa---fir 7 4 u! s cErr ..r errete Mrrxll..4t;r I.e 't.t M. ',.i V �J tV`JRTH CITY Or. r &ND Crag RANCHO CUCA�1MUNGA Tnu PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT SCALE.- Ai o- y • • s M t l c I s 1! • c r a t s I c c n•1•��►t• c • I/.•.1:.• -� 1 �r„I 1! d{ •t � 1. t! t Y T Y [t t r r T 1 I q t i 1 t T 1 q c by 11.D r h rlit Iltt A t I 1 2 [A%T Ytgtgtt NURTH CITY OF ITEM- Cl per_ RANCHO CUCANIONGA TITLE• PLANNING DIVMaN 6, E`CHIBt i': E/' Si11LE1 f -A- U,1 NIOR crry ��,,,�� # _� tom• 1 7',A NCHO CUC.AIMONGA Tau, � t4 PL' NIING D VISKYN C.-10 EXHIMT- � Z SGLLE- 4 T� C1 .• . _ c f; IL ZL t _ �� • 1 `• • L \J NORTH CITY OF UEN.I.- RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING MrEnN 6";j E`CHIBFt• -,�f S+Cr\L.E. 1 S a n u E� n e� NORTH CITY 1. O RANC;t-ICJ CG`CAMCJNGA TrrLEE- PLANNING MnStQN 6 12- T:XHIBT•T=-.-ZK sc,iLE.— ap _ nn, NORTH CITY OF ITF-%I: rev) _©z R-ACr O CUTCA-ML OINGA TITLE-. PLANNING DIR'"ISU,4 !`-C� EXHIBIT`-� �SCJILE r_ j ka � I kKK FOR CITY OF r.ra is�a� RANCM CUCA'V ONGA Trrr..E: PLANNING DIVISKYN 6`Lq ESCHIBI I' �_SCr1i E f' +, r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-02 FOR 'THE COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BERYL STREET AND 191711 STREET IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENITAL DISTRICT WHEREAS; on the 5th day of Aprrl, 1986, a complete application was filed by The Community Baptist Church for review of the above-described k project, and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of July, 198,E the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: ` SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1, That Vm proposed use is in accord with the Gel;"ral 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 a li,rable thereto, pp e , will not be detrimental to the pubiS'c 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. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and toat a Negative Declaration is issued on July 9, 1986. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No, 86-02 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached ;standard conditions: Engineering Division: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall reimburse the City of Rancho Cucamonga for construction of oft'-side improvements on Beryl Street adjacent to the project ite. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, retaining wall and drive approach. The imount of reimbursement will be computed from the actual project costs. grZ PLANNING COMMIIA ��ESCIaUTION NO F f July69O2i986OM APT CHURCH 11 w� B TIS Page 2 ' 2.. Pri.or`to the issuance of building permits, thE!= ppIicant shall enter into a lim ,aq, eement for ,one-half ,the cost of u iiergrounding the overhead utilitieq, fronti-ng-"thg project site on 196- Street,and for ' one-half the c underground-ng the overhead utifl ties on the east side of Berl Street. ' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5V DAY OF 0W., 1986. PLANNING CNMISSION OF THE 01TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �l BY: . Dennis L. Stout, Chairman,.; c ATTEST Brad Sul erDep"uty Secretary I, Brad Buller, ,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„- hd adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 4,egular meeting of the Planning Commission held ,, a on the 9th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wait: AYES: COMMISSIONER&'. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; �z. a+. .. ' 1 oa La>• om y` Na-L.� .->.. ao c av; .b Y. LA u�i N 60 Ud V .. G3g0 Ya LeN _ -. N a EO O s 6t j 6 6e A p a+ O a•O A L Ew O u L K • A+-. e'E'a o4 6f9r q a4 T i gam' y.�a C y G O'Oa 4U 0.�?v tlY Luw} U.Y 0.��' r gN CLA CM LyM YagO N.au..p YC9�0 6 ;�u yq O N Y� VOd 7F� O C 3a UY 4.E��quai aa+OyY �» OIa.V+ SLT C.E�y+"'^ f3' 1 •Or S O r C y-O V Ud ^N N V -4 S Z V A C y a ydi0y� N �Ld Y .�. 06 y O L6NdE�n61�C0y a>C� CMT 6.0 � AO' w:,c^N—.vim " q,•� uqv�. Nur � .O L.N q. C�' paw. ry�..Q OLu.i 40'�•y..y RA>. 00.~Y� E7 A LqY Rr NM aV0 G,CbV NN.0 nd0 C.OL Op^4 dm. Ea'u ' e Y�b G Y L�� Y.Y E Y O C Y Ys3 q • .3 O ai S Yina 3. C a �.�C �a 0. �Lui iy^�'!! N qUa Y.>•O @ b V Y pF3N2'!S"^ YOO L 6L6U d Y • m 1 a A q N'_O _ J p �paNE Ey W N Aa N� cYA $ aA `'sNxou��" w�vwi>YY..L,ot- 'o _ , IN Z L u y$W • =C �S�..uYVO.•.rO LL G •• � N D O E � L 3' L�L C 1 N V F 2 N � � aY.• G �°"� a � z A c c A y,T A•c-. 1 u � 1oy u > pp a _N.0 oad EAa Y47. i N•. N 4."�J 3 P 'cC A = L N L� .Gu N O N 1-A d"'SNq Nt yr 1 I 7 J 4 JC 1 e 6-17 1,� 1 �a0.•�� aclC Aa: qY q ��'N Ow�C �Ga�.uO> DCN > '.Eu pIT F ^{ 1• c.o pa �n"r m . o i l s so Y-•p d " e V, nu o u9 v..N o L o ap cL�, •.L': w wA ,�q,"N dGGY qYy yt Gb YL Oy t dA ONN E U. ...0 G�l�. NLpN y, s nY a�L 3 cy p .dc„•o cYy� �_.� ^aNn ot:?ar a,a to- • .o..+y. CG d •O L a Z wLM io oSr4 4 Ui cN�' �+eeia G'wt a2.2c y�> 41 GO YN .f tnM>.O �crU d� ti.' cb N V C CG .'c.ap+w�q 'nE .•xa >q t x u`. M �9 dy^ EiV ... {I ['L 9NCN �wE,, C 9 Oa F.W=.•. 4y %g6uN L.il ni.f.. d9V� E> U^OqA N�u'.00 U3� NE�.•is, ��C• � ~ •y LL ACA O Lv� n a E�uUL9 U qnC G~ O3 AC U y C' 9 u..N. qN >•� n n� L q2 CL Ny. 4'Oi• j0 m� �qf L ..c..•� 6,Ncd G Np�9 q41 a Y. E c p G CEi1C •- GIB �.U+a.+3C ter. • p ���. ntrrn �� .m Aq.+yMiym any ao a 9°'u �ASn. nl o ..CC dig },o o d Cp a — n ua A W E U U g C d g c ^ = G ..•. U Z N O�A i Ta c L1-•CLO .- Q�YU .ay.i a 9�.QA� y', 2 cY'4 �q. r ut'� TU4a0u tl6 —42 O O' C tz Ly 2 6 nO qV C� 6V .= E c V.Y U2 t1. �cl n'C GY L NL t3yN. pcEEO�t �L � UN ., G9 •p CJ. EE yynUv 01 yY Ai r•d N L g p>C O L'.>'d y..'t z O a=n O C L G'y Y y O} Iz 4E.r+p.d CNYW� Hn.•.NNa kZN du O CYO-a'tNdu•..a tU cs-; 6.0 6a. Oa NdQ m c V _ 1 'wad nE p`O�T� G•-.N �y •6 9< w�9O'O Nd Y�C�N �UwLY 2,rq dV 10.pq L. QS Ly > OC �S^Oy L t YLf 3n. cq .•U. yEc L Oo d0Y0^ A Y. n^.E SY4 dlyy G'•-SM G K O wd Ate. L>O 6Y 3 L C Ly. A yL N yi d aiEYtuOLp.,+d2 .+ 2L C. b�Y Y.OrO-N yNN N�N FqE •p Y> _/- VW.LE 'ex >? Y C� AU 00'�Y L�LOC yqO VI'i. d0 ^mEOd9T O .AC L^•EO yQ y,T� 9.W Oj w9Y aT b£ N"=a E>uuc wNL �.uIW OaN.•i� Ny�� n00_5AWS N6p>d � ✓N- v^p�OL a0i' O•w. y�U �'0o SO' J� .I�S aya A.r.Nr NCO Y9 a.'Li60. M 6 yyj C d q Y C Y j N c t •a0•L d C •v U -•�.Ot 9 N26 q0. � 99N�q �Nt LV > Y .G C4>� GS ��yN CE RiY .>+C c'wid^3N a0i.-9 LSG Ld' m�r� > �u YipA. �tiUc 9p'c c9A c+` . dc bM YOOuy > WT 9Q 4LN 0 C Ao, C% A NMN ^_}dC LO4. 'OUL gggCy�b Q9 MCC q q�•• �> _ c L `�'•.a'^ aqY NC O•'^.'•4'>w..qy> C Eq�-.Ei YO^Ca'N +G+n np 9>. �• ...>N 9rs a' '-.Yey EE y�uo N mno d{ 9�et'°H e..aMa_•�A N�i q Wb n Ny O LT wy 3'. N C q n C Ayy >O H V z p c p OW- u 0 OANE L� 6L E NSu 010 SY= wL •C • w0 D. `•OL^Y y�a od 9 cco b 'o>. ^o'mG ucp .'`'^ rr3,.L^ Ly q N a .A..>.' { E rd'. `y a s q G a..a>Fl c>K q cog OFFLL>a•C O• LE 4� •O O'}MU GLLC�O U'x..� U viol S ^ > yq9 -C.,6 L R 6 /•.L N G m Q^�U.2 N G N •O F u G 7 6 G C E d Y v 9 0 d.. E •CU y0•o.qw OlrT N.La uOi UCN Hnu q<Ad wM•1 6"l CDoo �C L c _Cdd OG L 2 TN tt d4YjQ a OC +OO.L.. = rA R 4T6 �c nu.�•-O O� ..+ A�w r CJda ^O K O 40-b p A L~ _ 0�•0- ELLCL m RAUO �r rN G L OL Ch R</OR NGd Td0 L T).TY Gu•"T N aAr YO A y dVY� Oa Ud4 Vyn i aRu � ON A HYR� 3 u Aww °_' t:a^�a. NWYNC ocJa� d r. nceL :�� �i a'•'-s, >l V t q L OYf a T. d M •u N d.'., Qj CL •L bq�d N«x� 60 a»p 4n ��M1.y.A LNdLC N�b. w.' .Cn b^„C tiCRC .J.,. .. R 4d Sd. iP d NO'� 4+t Ey. Lp• W h�. y L t .•i�.u�� T b Y L ^ N O}L S)� iSY oN Y�N dG V v=iddd.0 y RqN T T�9 La aG O• ydn«y�a a;+> R„_ y n� k oy; iQs°1 c'a��i C1 cTS Nc du at nY y� ad+� G �K YL ayK C)i L m L» 'C4 �nbd or � cN o Rd aiGc L aN n �w.� oL ucNs uEtu y N an T E d q 4 n »3 d G R N G r O It% U C b T q a«u d R L E N E Y Cud N G O u L y L d a N > c ^V Y m 6 V Q V O^H rhC e- z G] L w uY E. b6faN.12 6 +N.n Agz D C� 00 »T. Y d NGF� 4A 'dP� CCL4CLd 04 yNG our E Rw .r as LLB AV RL YR.0 wT' N adi '^ T� r m'•'' b d �p G U N 4 0 O yY 4A GY b i i iV0 ��� A r LD d MA NdRj TL '•YyN 4fui•�y.NC K d C b y A C`O 4^ w b u .0 y O O S•C m NM •'-Twp a C R.d i N»ud uN Your a.-v=iRYC I c.c•^„ s Nu' au m ;� �wLO �'� rd>� d¢a$�oeN•i. 41 C»YN ly 7 40 L O Es Ln• C 1.T O a Tad p •p 4 =Y ^ m Q C O A a w C}YE N i hOb RNE Y=g wt-43 ct LT NL �h�� r^.NN�dYy ObgL 6T6++ O�d mp•m �. LTr C^ n1a00. vuYu .0 U•C Ty�O �RO4 m N> yd td C O)'y u q rAiw d V OACC b - ..C. �u0 U •'3 U dv'iww .ic �' b Ip. 'Z O y • •� ~ L 4 u E a Ly 4 O.A ti L h. L� d rY C:46 r LhO d C•.�-� T" 4 d•� {. • �� Fa) p A� �� 1 Q� �� b1 u. a N J r �' 6—( 9 '~uL dL`,/ d^OL mac. .MCA q AA O�VV Lq u O • p v am va <+ tf yiti 6a.> OVC= .qLC O ba♦.r G 44 H� R.>«LN. vNLaa HwT. as Y s•e y y t y N _ w« '�'� Y'� O� uy dy dC6 H uA y d Cd .,. La qb m� �� FOB Oq LU ECEVV b � 'iY nO1Am � cyu•'v ad u u y�• OiOON AO fii 2G0]5Z cd c O qN Ipl od C Aoac L L. `9 �C ^a' 6r L40. Y �M c~i Lq d O N9•-. tfEgL+i S`. N 4^I d m N A L uu NCV d v..� ®. NO,UN NEou N.9„c - d nv p 'dcuzX $V".1�d L a .Nirn'• 6A C y ¢ q TtI! A i a 6 d S L LO L O c d O 9 4 e ^E I�NV6¢> LSO L Y6 LL--G4b. 61� 1-40.0 3L4.VY0. 1-YW'. 0.aO.i15a.y: G.w+:� V/ UC ' i b�oia CC 6 }^Y Nb_d0 ids 7QI. uq CN Wa W 9d L� ^ OY EEO S Lb C � M n L y u �'u •may dSEE i7 N= A OOd V YO_ C L� O6C i V.^ a97N y AUCC u4 nOL CY LOEN ICI 3 u y'a'a V >A q. O- ON cp Oy di L G3 Qgd Am Y N9 dd EN aa0+� 6� ^c tcLO.l�v„ L^C•Oi pO qN U G^C Gq i O9 ELF O Z=. '�' —.2-- WE 9 i,i L .,dA a Noym Lr q�6" Ng °1uu �y,ai Z.-o`o d -ceoaoi :5'C' cN, y,-- cow` aAd. u o•¢yo" � o N A� NaA¢ qyN N¢d O=a AE C d�4 aOUY � V�dgO CNu CU Y^ 9G WW ^,rNy a C O et m ..C. C 4 .�y� � na. L Olp.-. V NYC '� ECo.. n ERC W wT U. SN c YN L L 4 N00 A CC9 O c mE- t9bd G1d d CO nv' L n � O L L B^p,sg6 1-NA Y+L+ V1N 3�+ �,/{.E�. C YL+A�A 4Sf.O gVudi+ WYO- WE2 OL.VrEE s,} '�. �310 ti l .w. Vl. �u^ ov�p a yE aY ..C. a Tryy w.A Yv C D;a•a yscw o '"D� ~c Z a i m%a rna u m aJ t'h LM.�� Gu �v i b yDiai y C uN� DN.�n.a". w'Fio y.E u °. � m. cN •' b F" ,b u..Dc. W O.� VCD^R.v. L. i'.. A q A W �4 A. NED+•Y .pd RL �n Ta YNLO¢RR4ii 9T C 9 y w M SYM y T CCGtr Y r nqb �&ZZ; �'W L1£ Vu yj Q^•: d �"' �'^DL�f� vti 4t a Tp a� O d C rf Y9 n Mu V b. ^a^C m F q M dfi mo T > y'.• ~C a d C� V qN mE v N'O � YU.t d0Y Try M.a.a�. c ODD C Yp6 C � w-�L W.�Lu F• ..a..r0. �..c 4N G ]G i., ma Gaucnio rnm o =s2. o.-- cs �` 'x V'i c D• 9 d > N OO�W OVa. Y� KN & D.L Yn <VM O C r d •. N 17 < Ip tp 1 F• o 2 j 4 ca L" c .Yt dada a u Oq a+La GI uN oaD+at �wrow tyM yc c� 4 d a•q y TCN are an a'1 c+3 aE C.Cnj Y S V nCC1' CG .•.C 1p C '� b y L CO CA .. Ly `A C p6a Y d S� oD+ � %a+eig tl mL VD.LL 4a _ n °�" N • b a emu. v zzL YS �uc "; �yvo v N io a n m� a' o dEpa x :a Y.c o; cuoup1 u,D yy ��NU �Y En h p,� OTC `y VtM. '�"� rV yAgq VG � P.y du •. AyFiLy({ Np�W �L4 i ' EC •� Ad. aiR 6i U Y a+ s buy 4L +D Cnu Op.,, - �"'' Gt. �y NNPd ^� LL p6 > Ley' d.D .r VCa.A ^� Hu ui C V2 X aY i LV O _ N'YrD ^ p b 01ONi y 3a Gpµ LY Yt b,N aduc GyID UCy any a`m� E J A na o cy mn sg _ ✓ 9 N OGre-E.T�. rr WNC •yuu f q .q O�U O N u� V N a'p L P b Z 3 Q C O p : P dJ Y i h Nab a 'n .Y yu c cc vu v x 4w '4�L L Ynn a�d.G .CYd YqL r, e3y gCN_4+ yY y C > C � >�q,rb2 n vac `Op LnEq ✓. LW Gin b,� 4 ¢&a Q q Ey�. q pD P .W Ty ` � tt4 f� aW mod. L q q VJ ,o .FS rti CUy�1L ^CrL Y1�Jp LL Y.. ern C N� N N q'V t gNLY„ �q>y' qL 4. NY ' n`L E'^ qV W� G 6� aqp �YCL Ew ffFar n bM L 3 nN. bN' tt1.D b C� V EGEC�nCxl N.EO� nC C� CL �'L L on 6y � cc � ~E d L L O �q A� re.U.n 0 Y N Y q y L N W P4 v CY b C� N ♦J C \\. 4 L'c y3r a� o„V. NW E.w G� vw T i 2 sY.ra b L> M Y uT ;u Ns adi>1y T Y. Y C w a E- N 1. QC1. Z L� W rt 3.LZ;U 278 6 Li0 Q W 1 E ' L da aSn DTE� b L. W � O Ob s F- ry Y =mp.G V Y C IIN p1aT �E C dh OY: A p b O.Pq u� C C yTN GL it r G �t NfEE .n fir.. O QC t4� G.0 ap. E^Ca ny N ra d Y Wtp '� CcEo ^bd emu. Ed^C yC E G6 E P Cyp E q ag d 2 I O a q U cu Y ^b L G � b^ NBu ua L TG Ea_ ,r.� `Ey 'eon L � qyY MZ:C. 72 CVq 9 N E'G CY J .u� L Q�i aI CaDA N6 QL U>•. W 4' O. N zp NJta a Z eai r^p- �W b p�0 u q E q U a' y. yy tl v�� cti i4E an N L 1.y • G GY V C dN .� N ,p,D u b y y y q tl .s a U c E as o w Y C .p 2 i tl SP o � u �' FgC tl p b 6.3 82 ti O 1 L O b L Lp E p 2 L Y E Q R L p ^ q'ON ay 7q aM 4 Y.0 Oq N L t G vpb u Sn aoc N yW .c Ny9t �i�. q0 tiJL N Ci p u O Y..Ti +r Ll CD, @d O Netliq L ay .`, n an ib aoy� a o 0 q 6 N v w 3. .2z a`b. asa "�� ou �; ace �•• a� da ca '.�'.� a a^ by o am ,yeaa a9 oa yC q HV I-wu <O.N 4upi JIa G Tqr VL LV 6ata e-L 4aLi 6 x ^I czI C�I � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ',CAntgyc� STAFF REPORT c > DATE: duly 9, 1986 Mn 1 . TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONME�iITAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-13. MAURY Ml ROWAV - A request to utilize five temporary office tra `12 sr on a site containing an existing 10;ti00 square foot industrial facility on 1.0 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) located at 8610 Helms Avenue - APN 209-022-IG I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and issuance of r. Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Industrial; Subarea 3, Industrial Specific Plan. South - Industrial,• Subarea 3, Industrial Specific Plan. East - Industrial; Subarea 3, Industrial Specific Plan. West - Vacant Land; Subarea 3, Industrial Specific Plan_ C. General Plan Designations: roject Site —General Industrial. North - General Industrial. South - General- Industrial. East General Industrial. West - General Industrial. 0. Site Characteristics: The site presentl, contains a 10,000 square foot tilt-up c^ncrete industrial plant and both asphalt and gravel parking e-eas. Curb and Gutter and some parkway landscaping are existing along the Helms Avenue frontage. E Applicable Regulations: The. use of temporary structures, such as trailers for use as interim offices, may be considered in any district subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and regulations of Sec'cion 17.10.030 F-4 of the Development Code. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86-13 - 14AURY MICROWAVE July 9, 1986 Page 2 J I. ANALYSIS: A. General: This item resulted from code enforcement for the ,41"a existing trailers located on the property without proper pt,^sits. Maury Microwave has been in this location since 1959. - In recent years, their volrime of production has doubled and they find the existing 10,000 square foot facility inadequate to serve present and future needs. They own four acres of land, including and adjacent to the existing facility, that they plan to fully develop in a two phase expansion process over the next five years.. Phase One will involve the two acres along Halms Avenue and will ealarve the present facilvcv from 10;wj square feet to 40,000 snore feet. They requL,st the use of the temporary office trailers until Phase One is complete. Completion is antici,ated within two years. The biggest concern in the interim will be t1re provision of adequate on-site parking. Maury presently"emplo)s87 persons on the daytime shift. Once the temporary trailers are im place approximately 84 parking spaces will be available on existing gravel parking areas, In August, 20 employees will relocate to a locally leased annex facility, which will bring the daytime parking demand down to 67. They do anticipate, however, that over the next 18 months it will be necessary to add 10-15 additional employees. Prior to completion of Phase One, daytime employees could number as many as 82. The approval of temporary office modules normally requires all necessary street improvements, grading, drainage facilities and landscaping. In this case, such site improvements may not be practical until formal development and construction of the new expanded facility. Specifically because full development of this site may require undergrounding of existing utilities and additional street setbacks that would be difficult to achieve during the interim period. It is staff's recommendation that development plans for Phase One be submitted to the Planninr Division within 12 —onths of approving this Conditional Use k?rmit. The temporary offices would be permitted to remain until the expanded facility is ,-eady for occupancy or two years, whichever is first. B. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the initial Study has ber, completed by the applicant, Staff has compiet the Environriental Checklist and found no significant envir<nmental impacts related to the use of the temporary office modules. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration he issued. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86-13 - MAURY MICR"O;VXVE July 9, 1986 Page 3 . i+ III, FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The propnsed Use of "::mporary office modules is consistent with the General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed use, together with the,recommended Conditions of Approval' will not be detrimental to the public health safety :si wPYfare,"or materially injurious to properties or iF `)vements in the area= The proposn-d use complies with all applicabfe'provis ons of the Development Code. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the p`_dperty posted and notices sEnt E to all property owrv�rs within 300 fec of the project: V. RECOMHENDATION: Staff recommends Jthat the Planning Commission approte Conditional Use'Permit 86-13, -through adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of_Approual. R ctflrll s i Bra Buller i City Planner P . BB:DM:ko Att: ";s: Applicant's Letter Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 116" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - M4ster Plan of Development r" Resolution of Approval with Condition, 1 -' FTGJLT;86-U1 MAURY MICROWAVE 1� IZZ F� C) FR .4 -r I V iV 85I0HELMS AVE i CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA 91730 a TEL.(714)987-4715 or TWX 910-581.3408 I r Ju:a 10, 1986 Pla4aing Commission s The City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Sol 807 1 Rancho Cucau.)nge, CA 91730 Subject: Condltiot,al Use Permit ,for Temporary Trailers f- Gentlei,en: t MMC has been located at $610 Helmtt Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga since 1969 in j a 10,000 sq. ft. tilt up cement building. In the last two ears our y produatian volume has doublecr an' our employees increased from 55 to 98. In order to accommodate this growth, we hal:,e found it necessary to operate a second shift, lease additional facilities, install temporary trailers and secure additional raw land to p*ovide for current and fue*ure plant expansion. Due to the nature of our operation and the high degree of technical interactions required, certain departments cannot be moved off site. We therefore must secure additional room for our. Engineering, Operation;, Manufacturing, Marketing andAdministrative Departments at our present location. We hereby make application for a Conditional Use Permit to retain the three existing trailers; Items 2, 3 and 4 on the attached site plan, as well as add trailers, Items 5 and 6 for a period of two V;.ars. Trailers 5 and 6 are needed to expand our Engineering and Marketing staff. We have leased an additional 9,400 sq. 'ft. locally and will move part of our operation to that locatioa along with about 20 employees. We anticipate a move date of August 15. This facility will also be o1,r mein stocking and - storage facility, We have completed thz preliminary planning on construction of a larger facility at our present site and from the photographs attached, you can see that Phase I when built on the two acres on Helms Avenue wi`l increase our I-- size. from 10,000 to approximately 40,000 sq. ft. We anticipate submitting a plan to the city within one year and complete construction within 18 to 24 months. We further anticipate the need t.rr additional facilities within five years and will build a second facility adja,;ent and just West of present building, see Phase II, photo attached. The proposed new trailers are identical to the present ones in design and color and will Te partially screened as the er-isting ones and color - co-ordinated with a.e building. PR7:0-4-taq ]i^Yt6,w.&- 3c CO]SP027ENT93 ♦t 35791"14iT;L[�23TAZ`SOS7' ,Mn6rrr aT�pN FORM 701 C�2 W881 MICAL]wevF2s n Planning Co Page 2 - t June 10, IS86 We can provide os..site parking fui a minimum of 84 cars. Our current day shift of 87 employees at the site will be reduced to 67 employees when we �1 shift 20 employees to the annex facility. Ve anticipate adding IG-15 new < employees in the next 18 months and will haVL sufficient off street parking to accommodate them. I£ you have any questions; please contact the +.,indersigned. Very truly yours; Frank T. Gtaows i Vice Presidint Finance/Administration FTG:mv k.. v 3 t .l i q �. _ J J _ °G .a .v. Q ar t : Community ' Center _ Bu ess Cnt 'D{., f .,�i i subarea 2; Sey 1 .6 ,r '1' :, g rubarea 4 7th Imo' I� 4 I i f p l � � F NMTH a C" Y OF RANCHO CUCA'VIONGA. Tm E: PI.�II�IINU D[Vb-IX'r 1 �HtBiT: r4-� SCALE:— - r r r lit t-T -A _ ll r--�y� _. LIwo 2 ACRES -_a.w O �'a+ �� .• I !II 1 — _ {GREVELP. luum UNOCPED l I x z P=0_ E-y r I 1 — Q ETISTING ._.I- r r � I_ * I 1 �l ST1NG BVIL01716 10.000 SQ.FT. - � .�—I- - — ' I ��_^__ ?.TRAILER 72a40FT- )-4.PEOPLE., Lv C :SSE�B4x TRAILER 12a40FT. 4-6 PEOPLE EV-NEERIfill TRAILER c CWrFERF1ICE 60DN I2A40FT. 4 PEOPLE. ` ' G >F U;POSED N ENGINEERING TRAILER 24.4 FT 6-B PEOPLE. A.P UIi-Nf LPEO t O>>CP05FD NEW SALES TRAILER I2A40FT.- PEOPLE. Ya[AOF LOt MAV T�nICpOWYE O SOWN PARKING AREA 40 SPACES(INCLUDE 4"VJSITOR SMCES.) O"EST PARKING AREA 44 SPACES. - - OPATERIAL STOR.OE CONTAINER. - •!-_ —"' I '- . G NORTH CITE OF, ITEM., gyr RANCHO (MCAT Oi NGA Trrr.LL�l�� �' A/ _ PL NNINC DrVISECIN {r•.� E�HIB1T: -,, SC��LE= '" '4 p �x t" • i MW II: NORTH u' CITY OF rrE�ti . RANCI-K) CLICAMONGA TITLE- i Yej- PL NNING i�N !'� Q� EXHWM 4;% SCtLE= 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING SOM`iISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL 0E PERMIT NO. 86-13 FOR TEMPORARY IFFICE TRAILERS LCrATED AT 8610 HELMS AVENUE IN THE GENE3AL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on ',he 10th day, of June, 1986, a compiete application was filed by Maury Micrc,yave Corporation for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on thy! 9th day of July, 1986, tnc 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 is That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, Industrial Specific Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the l 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 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. SF'TION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the l environment`and that a Negative Declaration is issued on July 9, 1986. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 86-13 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a Development Review application for Phase I expansion of existing facility to the Planning Division within 12 months of approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 1 2. The tempora^y office trailers will be permitted until such time as Phase I is Completed or two years, whichever comes first. 3. Provide ski-Bing around base of trailers to screen temporary foundation supports and screen all utility equipment. 4. The applicant 'ali comply with all Uniform Building Codes and State Fire Marshall regulations and obtain any necessary permits for the 3 installation and electrical connections for the trailers. ; M PLANNING OLF)ft SON N0, "., CUP 86-13 - MAURY MICROWA'X July 9, 1986 Page r, 5. A 26-foot clear emer!�ncy access shall be maittained at all times ono z site. 6» Provide a re+risrd site prlj4% showing trailers relocated to provide 26- foot clear emergency 4i ' ss along north side of building` to the Plany'4ng Division. Al APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH .DAY OF JULY, 1986, PLANNING COPRISSION' DF THE CITY C" RANCHO CUC41ONGA BY: Dennis i_. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad BuTTer, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the :ity of Raricho 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 9th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYE'S: COMMISSIONERS, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENTS COMMISSIONERS: E@ All f �I k t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _�CAA14:).1 f.. STAFF R,EPORT.- rox : fr Z DATE July 9, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ° FROM: Brad Buller, Ci,by Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-17 - "FOR KIDS ONLY" - A request to amend the Conditions of Approval removal of a mature Silver Maple tree) for a 9,260 square foot pre-schoo, on t.i acres of Tand in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Baseline Road, east of Turner Airenue - APN 1077-061-09. BACKGROUND: During a public hearing on November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved CUP 85-17, "For. Kids Only pre-school facility. The applicant desires to amend Condition No. 13 (Resolution No. 85-166) that specifies the 4reservation in place, or relocation elsewhere on-site of a 30" Silver Maple tree. Two separate trees arborists' reports were submitted stating reasons why this Condition should be amended (see attached letters) Ordinance 37 requires the filing of a Tree Removal Permit and arborist report for any mature tree slated for preservation or remov}i. II. ANALYSIS: The Silver Maple tree is considered a heritege tree by the following definition of the Tree Preservation Ordinance: "all woody plants in excess of fifteen feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen inches or more, as measured- twenty-four inches from ground level". The Tree Replacement Policy of the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement wit` the largest nursery grown tree(s) available as determined by thL City Planner or Planning Commission. Heritage tree replacement is, considered the least preferable option and should only be used where removal justified on the basis of a written report by a landscape architect or arborist. On•April loth and; 13th, 1986, field investigations by Red Rock Tree Care and Builder's World Nursery indicate that the overall health of the 30" diameter Silver Maple tree is in decline. Furthermore, the tree arborist reports draw the following conclusions: 'I A. The tree is very dangerous with high potential of limb breakage. Two-thirds of the tree is dead and therefore presents a safety hazard to structures and people. ITEM t PLANNING C`AMISSt Cl3TAFF REPORT CUP 85-17',L '"FUR d7S ONLY" July 9, 1986 , Page 2 B. Containing the,` root system with tl;e construction of a planter for relocation would hasten the deterioration of the tree and theireby require su►•sA� ent removal. C. The stressed condition of the trP6 indicates that it is incapable of being revived into';, a viable specimen by + F relocation. h The applicant proposes to replace the existing Maple.tree with a 30" box Ai iza Julibristx;41 tree (see Exhibit "C"). However., the applicant has also indicated a willingness to consider other alternative tr,e types. It is staff's opinion that the proposed tree would complNent the project. Based upon the arborist's reports and field inspection of the tree, staff is recommending replacement. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning C_omission amend Conditions No. 13 to read as follows: 13. Existing Pine try` s along east property line shall F, be preserved in place. The removal of the 30" diameter Silver Maple tree on the past side of front entry shall require replacement prior to building occupancy with the largest nursery grown tree available as required by the Tra . Preservation Ordinance and to the satisfaction c the City Planner. A plan showing the location, size, and variety of the re[vlacement tree ,iiall be submitted to the City Planrer. If after consideration, the Planning Commission coocurs with said amendment to Condition No. 13, the attached Resolution No. 85-I66A_woain be approrriate. RppYctfully it r Buller City Planner BB:HF:ko Attachments: Letter from Applicant Tree A;rborist Reports Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit °'B"" Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Proposed. Replacement Tree Approved Resolution No. 85-166 "� For Ki& 0"d J �E.Ls i may 19, 1986 City of.RancnA Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ATTN: Mr. Howard Fields Assistant Plannar� RE: Conditional Use Pezmit No. J5-17 For Yids Only, Ltd., Preschool. Dear mr. Fields, Than, yLu for reviewing our submittal on Item 13 of the above referenced project. Sz response to your review of the Arborists conclu., e._^ we propose the fo sowing: 1. To remove th exisr g Silver Maple tree the majority of which is dead II and therefQxe presents a safety ha2ard. { 2. To replace the existing Maple Tree with a 30" boxed Albizza Tree. This zpecimen will present an attractive growth pattern which will compliment the overall project both with its interesting shape and beautiful floral display. Three copies of the overall site plan detailing. this revision are enclosed for your use. 4:e look forward to working with you on the processing of this matte~. Very Truly Yours, �CL-1 E. Dean irector Of Development dED/ct Corporate Office. ,K02 W Ph;rtips 9 OntaL4o,California 91761 0 (714)986-8360 Vudlrs�w orld Nursery _ 73525 central Avenue-4 Chino,GA 91770 0 (774)527-5750� £� ^ Memesr. April 15, 1986 Ca6farnq us"ialton of Nume,ymen Seven K Cohan,Ph.D. .. Owner For Kids Only 10213 Baseline j {° Cucamonga To Whom i ray concer,.i On April. 10 1 visited the n,2w site of For Kids Only, located at 10213 Baseline in Cucamonga. At that time T consulted with Tammy Holguin, Board President of For Kids Only, and Howard Jones of McMahon, Junes and Ray. My discussion and subsequent redommendztions for trees on the 3 building site were as followst 1. Silver Maple located in the center of the property should be r,;:moveyb for the following reasons+ A. Two-thirds of the tree is dead and therefcie presents a safety hazard due to breakage of dead limbs. B. The F;tressed condition of the tree udica„t�s that it is incapable of being revived into a viable specimen. C. Containing the root system with the construction of a pla` tGr dculd hasten "` -- - - deterioxs�w°-rn of the, •ee and-'thirery requirF, its subsequent removal. 2.. Pine Treest Pine east of the driveway should be relocated due to its close proximity to the entranct- which would result in root damage to the driveway. E7-ivate trees west of driveway to prevent ex,.ess.ive solbuildup, from grading, which could result in the reath of the trees. Re;tocate proposed trees along east property sine to -arevent ^vercrowding and limitaticn cf normal ` t- 4 development. a 3. Planter Tree Melaleuca or Crape Myrtle both of whicli are moderat sized trees that will adapt well, to a planter situation wiVjaOut PI'esenting an-y/safety hazards. s � —' 'sN OharaPh.D. „• Fred rolh free core , �, • -� h276t'n0.U6Yq WL--alb. Loma,Cta.91701 714-997-7165 April 15,-ii$6 For KVs On Dear Sir: On April 13 I examiAed a silver maple at 10213 Baseli e Ave., Rancho Cucamonga with regard to its retention in the landscape. The site an which it is located is currently under construction. I observed the following in :ay investi3a_ion: 1) The tree is highly unattractive due.to an unbalanced and broken crown. The tree has only one branch which extends to its full height. All the other major vertical branches in the crown hates broken below half of the tree°s height, and the crown is composed to a large extrent of water sprouts. 2) The tree has an extreme tendancy to break branches. Tne tree has broken a 12 in. wide branch at approximately 15 ft. above the ground, a 15 to 18 in. wide branch at approximately 20 ft. above the ground, and a 6 to 8 in wide :. lateral branch at approximately 15 ft above the ground. The tree also has a 5 in. diameter branch stub on one vertical trunk and a second on a branch which was pruned off and was the grround at the *ime of my examination. In addition .'there was evidence of numerous smaller branch breaks. 3) The tree appears to be physiologically very weak and i in decline. The only aertical trunk which does not have major breakage appears to be nes_ly'dead. The majority of the small branches on this trunk are leafless and are bent in a manner characteristic of head branches, The ends of several water sprouts ariaing from broken branches 1-n the central crown also apppear to be dead. I have .drawn the following conclusions about the tree used on the above: , 1) The tree is very dangerous. Limb breakage is to some extent an individual tendency and a tree which has already tree which has not alre& Vroken limbs,a Future break than a ; broken lambs is far more likely to have 4+ FF( 2) The tree ia;Alresdy in decline and I do not expect it to live more than_5 tc 10 years, looking worse in. ee(bh year. The proposed convttruction around it will dama-ge the root system and certt`,.n1.y hasten the decline. lx f IT °) The tre4, is so unattract:tve that I do not consider it an asset can the property. I strongly rdcommend that the tree not be retained in the landscape. �,. Sincerely, •prpdc.T.!-.k Roth. Ph.D, h a 4 1 f • wa'r..imt+luamua uu ":,e$"Cr^ �■ur- � .j r ' 2 "`� !r kR�J17r WIP1P0.1YIIINM �rdy+ =_' R C Wi1m+�WIYYWY•rMl��_ 2��'.T. �, .n@j ++as.� — s tew WIJ Mlr 4..P 'tw m rn'._ lL�Nm: • I itlr YOtf er cur r _Y"2 i' wile �� I�tcrz9lxlllrrrr111. uuu 4 _ f1lf!!■■■■!■ w � `���i. ,r,.•- +►yl0mt Litil� ,VP,.� . lr,. �� a era� ,� � • ■ �YppyR:��1lii! `` 1r� tNma tej wt eq�iiMt7 f' .P+`II=: tti�A�Y�ia ■ri to q/.�l!.!.5.IN ►`.�Fcr`tYM1eY .� ■ FPO. 0 + u0■0�tm1 t.it� � �� ■ Y i111111 '� �M+IM ■ OEM gxwulpYNYr1IY.rI .■ �' loll -' p J.. ■ � tt0/tt1 �,.. IIIIItmN h r t � of a 11kH1 i'� .' ■ _ a 1 �T ■ ■ ,�• [ Ii1kP- K _ Pam. a r�r1Y/. LuYn r � • r. _ —�._'�',�"`,_,fie�.,."....._Jr.e:.• '(�':r,, 'an�T n� tj 'MOR. +c�ca��nv.�.ra.,. I'll OF RANCHO CUCA'V1ChtirGA :TLE: fW.""Ie'a�sev-, r 1 NN f $ �4"ry,�'r`� t r•r Srx v.r � sr�Y4 �T jY-� I�� .y. +� bwl A tAyQ ��s",� t+ utw"• ixr tl'.•i'. .yy�"+q. �c}•;!S~ �� ��('J���� �Y xA.11 1u'Y'�,t~S..yf try�'`�, �1 \`,'^�4 AIbi_iU jalibrisshi � A,juiibrissin.sIL<TREE(this is the MIMMA of eastern U.S.). Qeciduous.Zones2-23.Native to Asia from tra.to Japan.Rapidgrowth to 46(t.firth widar spread.Can be traded bank to make j a 10-20-ft. umbrella.Pink fluffy flowers likp pincusitions on ferny-leafed branches.n summer Light•senstive leates fuid at ;tight Tfte varlet}'Rase,'has richer pink flovii!rs and is co nsih- ,3red harr:.!er. Does bast wi.h high summer heat.one mf the three best sellers in inland vplieys of southern California.Attractive in both high and low deserts of the Southwest.It's sufficiently hardy in;1e redid areas of the Pacefi•-Northwest.With ample water grov's fast:art skimpy irrigation usually survives,but grows slowly, looks yellowish. It's an excellent small shade tree with unique ffat4apped shape making a true canopy tof a patio.Because of its undulat. Ing form and flowers held above the foliage,silk tree is as a. cially beautiful when viewed from above—tromadeckorbi;itap. S inewhat of a problem to gat alerted as a 11gF headed tree. Must be staked and trained by rubbing out buds which start too low.Best planted from containers esiablished ar least one year, bare-root plants need skititul planting,watering, It is most attractive in its natural growth habit—a:ruitiple• stemmed tree.Filtered shade permits growth of t vm and shrubs beneath it.However,for patio use,titter at fallen leaves,ilowers, and pods mwt be considered. CITY 014, rr�:�is �U� t�s-.— ✓r7 RANCH C'UCAIvIC.3�'GA EXHIBiT• .f $ R60LUTION NO. 85-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE. RANCHO CUCAMONrA PLMNING COMM SSIDN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-17 - FOR' IDS ONLY, LTD., 'LOCATED SOOTH SIDE OF BASE LIME. 'ROAD, EAST OF TURNER, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT f` WHEREAS, on the Sth day of aune, 1985, a complete application was filed by For Kids Only, Ltd., for review of the above-described project; and a WHEREAS, on the 13th day of November, 1985, tha Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. " fellows; NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resals;ed ss • SECTION 1: That the fo lowing findings can he met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Pla;,.,, the 41jectives of the Development Code, and the purpose$ of the district in which the si IS a f located., 2. That the proposed use, togother with the conditions applicable theeeto, will not be detrimentil to the public health, Safety, or welfare. ' or mate-, 'ally injurious to properties or impirovements in the vicinity. 1 3. That the pra'osed use cimpiies with each of the applicable-pn vinions of ine De velopment merit R Cede. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Deciar• tzon is issLad on November 13, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional ise Permit No. 85-17 is approved subject t o the fol:owing condition s and aV acl.ed Standard Conditions: ftL n Review i 1. Rubber coated wrought-iron fencing be incorporated along both sides of front elevations. 2. Provide seating in the rear patio area. s' ,y PLANNING COMMISSION � 3LUTI0l1 CUP 85-17 �.. November 13, 1985 Page 2 - i 3. Utilize brick pavers within front entry. 4. Provide combination seating area/raised';planters within front entry.. 5. Submit details of nature area for reviefg by City Planner prior to issuance of buildir. permits, 6. Rear portion of site shall be planted n accordance with conceptual landscape plan. �7. The applicant shall submit state lice6,ses for all three specific student populations (infant ca';re, pre-schoolers, and elementary), to the City planner prior to issuance of building permits._ b. Provide ali 2411 box size or larger trees along Base Line frontage, mounding, meandering sidewalk and alluvial rcckscape. 9. Provide canopy shade trees within and around.-parking lot + at a rate of one 15-gallon size tree for every 3 parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50 percent of the puking area at solar moon on August 21, instead of Cypress. 10. Provide combination of dense landscaping and decorative screen walls along east, west and south property lines for screening and buffering, particularly play areas, from ad3acer; neighborhood. 11. Provide sidewalk connection from Base Line sidewalk to sidewalk along east side of parking area. 12. Sidewalk along east and south sides of parking area shall be separated from parking with a decorative metal fence. 3. Existing Pine trees along east property line and one 301, diameter tree near front entry shall be preserved in place, or shall be relocated elsewhere on-site for preservation. A written rap?rt from a qualified landscape architect or arborist shall verify the details cf pr�_�rvation or relocation. Any trees that cannot be transplanted shell be replaced in kind with mature specimen. The written report shall be submitted together with a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Ordinance 37 and a detailed plan showing existing trees and t relocation/replacement. t , 14. All trees to be saved shali be enclosed by a chain link +ence prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during all phases of construction and cannot be removed without the written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete. PLAtyNht6 COMMISSION ;QLU'TIO;i } CUP 85-17 ` t. November 13, 1995 Page 3' I I5. A detailed analysis of the noise reduction treQiirement`s 'l and needed noise insulation feature>s inc'tuded in the building design -;hal' be prepared by an acoustical engineer prior t.i issuance of buil3ing ;permits. A maximum ;x interior noise lf,vel of, 45 dBA shall be adhered to. � 15. Ex y a Expansion this use beyond l 20 students shall regtre modification to this Conditional Use Permit approval. Engine . 1. Developer shell, extetd the 8" drainage } a, concrete or A.C. swale to Kinlock Pipe eoto prevent erG:ion Onto public streets to the satisfaction of vthe City Engineer. o APPI<n?U p AND ADQ;,rED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985.' PLANN OMMiSSION OF T BY HE CITY 0F'RANCHq CUCAMON�A ' • r � Dennis L. Stout, Chai ,I rman AYTEST: .. Brzd tiul;ierQ)e y, ecretary i I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of: the Planneng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Re�oTution was duly and regularly introduced, passad, and adopted by the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Com:,,;ssion held . on the 13th day of NovFber, 1985, by the following vote-to-wig: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITI,A, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES:: COMMISSIONERS; NONE F? ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE F� f n �y RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE AMENOMENi TO CONDITION 00. 13 FOR CONDITIONAL USF PERt.4(T 85-17 - FOR KIJa ONLY, LTD., LOCATED SO'�TH 5IDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, EAST OF TURNER, IN THE LOW P.cSIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, en the 1e9th day of May, 1986, a amendment -gas fi'-..d by For Kids Only, Ltd., for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of July, 1986, th,? Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planting Commission resolved as follows: SECTION is That the amendment to Condition No. 13 for Conditional Use Permit 85- 7 shall read as: 13. Existing Pine trees along ea:�t property line.shall i be preserved in place. The removal of the 3GR diameter Silver Maple tree an the east side of front entry sha'.? r_quire replacement prior to building occupancy with the largest nursery grown tree available as required by the Tree Preservation i Ordinance and to the satisfaction of the City Planner. A plan showing the loce.io», size, and .,ariety of the replacement tree shall be submitted to the City Planner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Cha;rman i I ATTEST: B7ail Buller, Deputy Secretary I I, Brad Duller, Deputy Secretary of the Piwnaing Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herevy certify that the foregoing Resolutien way duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rarrho Cucamonga., at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of duly, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: .18SENT: COMMIS ION!RS: — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GU Mo k STAFF REPORT o F Z U >` DAME: Ju"iy 9, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Connission FROM: -Brad Buller, City Planner i, BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 86-04 - PANNON DEVELOPMENT - To reduce the minimum corner sideyard setback from 10-feet to 7-feet, and to reduce the frontyard setback from minimum 18-feet to 14-feet 6-inches, on a 9_75 acre parcel in the lour Medium Residential District (4-8 dulac) located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN: 201-252-23, 25, 26. I. ABSTRACT: The applicant has requested a Variance for setbacks on 6 lots as a result of a construction error. This report presents various alternatives that may be considered.. Staff is recommending. that the variance request be denied and that the Commission elec. an alternative solution. Ii. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Tentative Tract 12914 for the development of 78 single- family homes on 9.75 acres of land. The tract was ap•:rwed with frontyard setbacks of 18-feet from back of sidewalk (or curb where there is no sidewalk). An error in staking these setbacks resulted in the following non-conformities with the required setbacks. Lot 1 is two-feet east of the approved site plan, and Lots 55, 56, $7, 77, and 78, are 4=fept west of the approved site plan, thereby- creating a situation where the buildings now encroach in the required setback area (see Exhibit "C"). III. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduction in the earner sideyard setback from 10-feet to 7-7eet, and also reduce the frontyard setback from minimum 18-f -t to 14- feet 6-inches. Tract 12914 is subject to the applicable development criteria of Section 17.08.04-C (Optimal Standards) and Low-Medium Residential District of the Development Code that allows the required frontyard setback on private streets and driveways to avrerage 15-feet aGJ vary ± 5-feet. Further, Section 17.08.040 M of the Development Code reauires that, "all lots within single family detached ane, semi-detached resident,iai developments shall have driveways ddsignrA to accommodate the parking of two automobiles in 3 ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Variance 86-04 July 9, 1986 Page 2 a manner that does not obstruct sidewalks or streets. Driveways shall have a minimum depth of nineteen (19) feet and width r%f eighteen (18) feet." Existing units on Lots 55., 56, and 78, have'G 14,-foot 6-inch frontyard setback. Corner lofs t, 57, and 77, are still deficient 3-feet within the corner sideyard setback area. IV. ALTERNATIVES: During meetings with City staff, the following topics were discussed: Variance: Grzit Variance request for reduction to corner sideyard setbi.:k and frort setback as built. Staff Comment: Staff feels that would constitute the granting of a special privilege because the error in fieid measurement represents a self-imposed hardship. Further, -,o facts prevail that would justify granting the variance request (see Facts for Finding section for further discussion). ,z( ` The epplicant proposes the following conditions be imposed upon the s variance: 1. Provide extensive low profile landscaping and small 2- foot high return wall to mitigate setback probeem on Lots 1 57, and 77. 2. Record an addendum to the CC & R's to restric,_ parking in r the driveways if the vehicle would be obstructing the sidewalk. 3. Provide each house with a setback of less than 18-feet wi"h an automatic garage door opener. 4. Reduce Pavement Width: The pavement width could be reduced from the standard to 36-feet. In essence, this would piil the curl and sidewalk back from the garage to meet required setbacks. Staff Comment: The disadvantage of this alternative is that p..rking would not be allowed on one side of the street which becomes an .enforcement problem. Parking in street area less than :'6-feet wide may hamper emergency vehicle ingress and egress. The Engineering Department feels the present street width is the best solution for the future residents of the tract. yM ill PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Variance 86-04 July 9, 1986 Page 3 IRW 5. Eliminate sidewalk* This would eliminate the sidewalk along Lots 55, 55, 57, 77, and 78. Staff Commpnt: Elimination of sidewalks will create a "dead end' ,nd force pedestrians out into the travel way, ; thereby creating a public safety hazard. No sidewalk eXists on the opposite side of the street. 6. Relocate horses to the approved setbacks. Move houses back 4-feet' to meet the required frontyard and corner yard setbacks.' Staff Comment: the house can be "jacked-up" and plotted properly. The applicant has investigated this solution and is in the process of sheating and siding the houses for structural support preparatory to moving. V, FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Development Code requires that the Planning Commiss"`nn niaka certain findings before the variance can be granted. Based on tht f,311awing• facts, staff believes, that there is insufficient justfl-zation to make the necessary findings of approval. 1. The non-conformity is the result of a construction error and not due to extraordinary conditions of the property, such as topography. Z. That the granting of the variance would constiEute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other properties in the same district. 3. That approval of the variance does not resolve the potential conflict of vehicles and pedestrians that could be detrimental to the public health and safety. Before granting a variance, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings? 1. That strict or literal interpretation afad enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other prc,Yerties in the same district. f Tr3 PLANNING COEXISSION STAFF REPORT Variance 86-04 July 9, 1986 i Pave 4 , k s _ i 3. ` That strict or literaS ii e rntation an enforcement s of the specified' ,regufiation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.. r That granting a variance wi'il not constitute a"grant Of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in this Same distrftt. 5. That the grunting of a variance will not be F detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as o public hearing s item in The Dail ; Re ort newspapc:, the proper�y posted,, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300-feet of th. subject property. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission deny the variance request and direct the applicant to comply with one cf the W p alternatives discussed herein. c Respectfully submitted, ask I Brad Buller _ City Planner BB:HF:cv i I Attachments: Letters from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 'B" - Approved Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Revised Site Plan by Applicant Resolution of Approval J f , e k a k 2 C13Y OF RANCNrt r're:A?.dOhGA w PLANNiNO nlviatoN w PRAY 2 7198" z AM P1f MILUI ��18191��u1�t�11t21�1�t5t� L.®,LAMSING &ASS[CIATES� ¢ Nay 23, 1986 140 85061 City of Rancho Cucamo[;ga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Mr. Brad Buller/Howard Fields Rom: £annon Development Gentlemen: The following is a brief outline of action taken glace on the above-referenced project: We wore requested by Superintendent to stake the actual building corners on Lot 1. Building stakes for Locs 55, 56, 67, 77 auZ 78 were requested to be Put at the 18' B.S.L. at the property line. Between the time the buildings were staked and th, foundation con- tractors were on the job there was a lot of rain and a time lapse Of + six weeks. During this time some of the building stakes were wiped out by construction. When it came time to do the foundations, the Superintendent did not request the building stakes to be freshened up. Field measurements sow that Lot 1 is 2.00 feet east of plan and Lots 55, 56, 57, 77 and 7& are 4.00 feet west of plan. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, ItP. LANSING & ASSOC TES } IRA G. PEARSON, JR. Chie-' of Surveyors �-- 1881 Business Center DdVe a Suite b .San Bemardino,CA,92408.17141 889-D20SIAPS-5�7. :I, y „ z O IA ION Design i3c Development. lnc, ' June 23, 1986 ';I Mr. Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cuctlmongs Building & Safety,Division f.'.320 Baseline r Rancho Cucamonga,, CA 91730 ` Re: TV' 12914 — Variance for set-ba.:ks less'than 181,/1-ots 1, 55, 56., 57, 77 & 7J a Dear Mr. Coleman, In regards to the above mentioned IotF, and after working closely with engineer- ing (for eventual street narrowing) an3 p;at,ning (for sidewalk ellminatlon� where- by both proposals were denied, below ;s our latest proposed solution to the set-back problem or these particular lots: 1. We have prepared additional design to the houses, employed a pro- fessional landscape.,architect who prepared plans wi-, extensjve (and costly) landscaping, 1knd wall treafiner to mitigate piabiems kin these lots. 2. We are in the process of recording an "addendum” 'to the CC&R which would prevent parking in the driveways if the vehicle would be ob- structing the sidewalk. 3. We will provide each house with a set4oack of less than *"I with an automatic garag; door opener. I understand we are on th:a agenda for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 9th. As you al'e aware, we are the oneswho informed the City of this problem and have been working ci:.:.:sty with enginaering and plannir,j and would appreciate your support in ttr staff report approving the Variance based on the aforementioned conditions. Thar you for your time and consideratiors in this matter, Sin,�rely, I remain. PANNON DESIGN,, & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Petar M. Laden President lr PMLlvab Ventura Boulevard Woodland Hill;,, California 91,364 • (818) 703-7106 . - a•.r:,:e.. YVF.{ .,4..•:..: _ ........ .. 'Fila F AN z r.. yy D.p A S NG� tl REASON FOR YARIq,NCE ti G Du-ring tha course of vonatructtom 6 houses Ware found to be s encrouohiig 4 feet into 'the front set back. Tract -12914 was designes under the optional development standards x4sing tYp "LM" Designation. The front setback requirement is ,15 f!t et average, vary 5 feet more or less as measured from ths3 amrb line.. The k front setback was established for Trrr 1214 as ;'3i 18,fee't from the right or Ne y line or 19.5 feet from curb line,' The 6 houses wer-1 constructed to that side of the street. The problem is when a large car is parked in the driveway, persons utilizing•the 'idewalk would have ro Walk around the obsJ�aola, pcssibly into E the street. The 6 -houses are totally fumed and ready for roofing, In 7iev to having to tear dowel and rebuild those structures, some options could be envol"d to mttig7�.te the error. One could be to decreased the strreat i-dth- in 'Troot of those 6 houses from 36 feet; to 3.2 feet, or Le`o._ ,`d, to removs" >' a sidewalk and add zdditional landscaping. The r, aoval of the aidawalk has the best merit- The sidewalk has not been constructed, and then the front se"': eks would be the same as 4be "other side of the street. This variance or relief from thva development coda would be compatible with the surrounding area, since this is a private gated community. I� 1 I r 1881 Business Center Dkive o Suite 9 0 Barr Bernardino,GA.92408•V141 889-02Q31825.63'J5 AmEmsEWEomm ............ sw ............. 'Try, -02 o 7-9-,86 PC Agwda, a 1! =5•��T�_ ►tG1C! WON WRX ties& "nml i m•.w - _ � Y ���t,��w�1lMij ■ 4 1 �,�.. �lNT �� ,_ x�3eu i C- Iy �4siiiiun f�l n �"S � �i ■t'i j'�.�.•r. y��� ��: Mtt7 Ntl. �W Iltt. s'� . � r 7'H 5.. r urtw ..w■ •!■ �'N-, 71'..11�tiNUiH�! ''!`'Zr'::.4C� �C•..■ZTt:•■:utnn_wwo ����� ~ a,� ~��,.�li.�n��v� ws wt■■ a■■a. ■YNtM .4111 llMinY r`�r 4c+ 1t111 r��.�a)s. •rrjtain •_NM)r •� :'�"t!gtti :��� •� _17 �1 t�°�,: �,3 �� t 11 utuwn 1=fitt T LC.wT��i Yti.• L�wu .SS6F - .: 7 •.ti r 3 N,��iGF.„`II Lr.�its.• C _y:�"� �_�nMISM �� crlliDsanr.■a+��iltlltlljtllrfll.utt111►.r..n- L'�j R�� ,� -"' "L�t..111�►tT E' S. �"'' t.u■uT-' ..uu. aalnu. G 'Y'.IIn{IIIII ,�q81 Y r '�.:.• .., :a4111�YF^Iw{ iStum/ s ....'Ilan�Ciin��Sr�k'�.cr . y . ;hut �x�t■:.1 �1r�_ _ G.�+f tit Tlw a italala tr I_`. 1 a.l • 1 �',T•.� `. 11111 mll Cl� ��:1Ni IryllMXIN41N1 � - :• ,,.�itinln ���rti1�°u gi e`y �L 1�imw..li1 M1111 NII 1�tIHi1 .....MUMn 'p�/ltl► -�►7■r'� h F '�—'7 ywr%. iu��r o:.oL. ` .w w�2 �""Illilliiil�i �� IillltllilgliJlitl\i/ ilienilit� r t r I P r 1 � EDON PLACE CITY OF RAN`CjJO C,Z) A MOi OA. TITLE! P NNI\r, F,YI-IIBIT G _''_"' ,IAe. Y ti ; II s CALEDON '-PLACE-- FORTH`T CITY o i RANCHO cucAiNjoiNGA TITLE.-- PLANNING DLVLFON 37-1 t EXHIBrr. G'•� e,, - q k Al FDON GLACE �,G ET• ..:ti., wcnY•r�,w.rRu�3n.. i�i-�'�i��r" ?���G��,+rG�C �. r^G U�iyi G/1/E ?� ,�,•Lfr1,�'-y-.• y�•,/ �--r ............ 55 R 7� cll. Y or [)Rrb N EXHIMTz C: .;SCALE= t .LN 'LACE 78 CITY or, I i z n'C}17Tf-t CUCA..1�ONGA TITI,.c: PL�1�t�tIiiG DNISO A O PLACE IV pi G ?Xaposr—z�114 r 77 0 CITY OF RA I\T C�TG,".IVZOj,\�GA Tuts: oZF�e/rs �! � F .ci P t t r � ALEDoi\j PLACE NORTH-7, CITY OF rrE4I: f/.Str�9�r/� �,a t RANCHO CUCAMONGA. TrrtE: ' PI.&NNt1'CG DIVNQN SXH1Brr: &} RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION !: DENYING VARIANCE NO. 86-04 TO ALLOW REDUCING THE CORNER E SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 10, FEET TO 7-FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE FRONTYARD SETBACK FP.OM 18-FEET TO 14,-FEET SIX-INCHES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND HIGHLAND, IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. APN, 201-252-23, 25, 26. WHEREAS, on the 8th day of June, 1986, an application was filed and accepted on the above-described project; and Y WHEREAS, on the 9th day of July, 1986, the Plannii:q Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTIOd I: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: t 1. The application applies to a 9 7b-zcre pan el in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 oulac), located on the northeast corner of Archibald and rlighland G Avenue. 2. Building encroachment into the required setback areas are the result of self-imposed actions of 'che applicant, not strict interpretation of the Development Code or physical liaitations of the F pruperty. 3. There are no exceptional conditions applicable to the parcels involved, or substantial evidence provided that would justify z variance. 4. Granting a the variance request will create a - public safety hazard by limiting the sight visibility around corners. SECTION II: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission cannot make the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Variance 86-04 Page 2 t 2. That there ar, ; exceptional or ex'Lloordioa:"y circumstances o; ? conditions applicable to the property .involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. st 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ot;ier properties in the same district. 4. rhat the granting of the Variance oils not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wish the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION III: Based upon the findings and conclusions ,et forth above, this Commission hereby denies Variance 86-04. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad huller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 9th day of July, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��C k STAFF MUIPORT, `` cam° tc9 � r 0 0 F Z DATE: July 9, 1986 t377 t. TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner l SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL. ISSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - IRGINIA DARE - An agreement by and between the City of P Rancho Cucamonga, C/A Ltd., aid the Tower Partnership regarding the development of the Virgins Dare Winery project, in particular, shared parking. s I. ABSTRACT: This report contains information describing staff's efforts to develop and negotiate 3 Development Agreement between the City and the developers of the Virginia Dare Winery proj�a-ct, the key points of the agreement and a copy of the draft agreement. II. BACKGROUND: The original Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Virginia Dare Winery project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1983. Ou 0ecember 12, 1984, an application by the developer for approval of revised Master Plan which included an 1,800 seat theater was approved by the Planning Commis_ion. Design Review approval of the heater was issued by the o'�,^ ing Commission on July 24, 1985. The 1,800 seat theater required a minimum of 455 parking spaces within 300 feet. A part of the applicant's request was the approval of a shared parking concept based upon the primary nighttime demand for theater parking. The Coneitions of Approval for the theater stipulated that at the time any office structures are proposed, which would require more than 85 parking spaces adjacent to the theater, the applicant mutt submit a detailed parking analysis to determine if there is adequate parking for all then operating and proposed uses. The study was to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and if a conflict existed between the theater and other uses, then the Commission stall consider modification to reduce the square footage of the unbuilt remaining office buildings in an amount commensurate w'th the parking overlay, limit the hours of operation of the cinema, or other appropriate means of assuring adequate parking. This condition was required to be incorporated in a document to be recorded to provide notice of condition to prospective;purchasers of the subject property. Staff and the City Attorney's 'office have determined that the implementation of the Condition of Approval ITEM K PLANNING CGMMISSI03 STAFF REPORT VIRGINIA DARE July 9, 1986 Page 2 regarding shared parking can be best accomplished through the provisions of the attached Development Agreement. The )roposed agreement has been completed and is attached for your review. III. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The California Government Code Section 8 -65 allows cities to enter to agreements with developers, the contents of which shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, and the maximum height and size of the, proposed buildings. The following is a summary of the key points of the Agreement: Shared Parking c The key provision of the Agreement establishes a process for determining an aver-burdening of parking and the ability of the Planning Commission to impose a restriction on matinee use on the basis of a negative traffic study. The Commission is entitled to delete up to two matinee screens per non- national holiday weekday. Term: The original term of the Agreement is five (5) years from the date of execution. During this 5-year period, the developer has a vested right to the development standards aid privileges as j set forth in the Agreement and described below. Following expiration of the five years, the development x% any undeveloped portions of this project will be subject to the then prevailing zoiring regulations and development standards. The Agreement includes a provision for an annual review by the City Planner. i Permitted Uses: The permitted uses guaranteed by the Development Agreement see Exhibit "S-111) are consistent with the previously approved Matter Plan for the Virginia Dare Winery project. These uses include restaurants, retail, cinema, financial and office. _ Intensity ns ,e: The Agreement sets forth the maximum intensity of use of tie property as described in Exhibit "B-1" and as shown on the detailed site plan (see Exhibit "S-211). It is noted that while some building footprints were reduced in size, others were increased; however, the total number of required and prov.ded parking spaces remains the same. Further, the amount of shared parking does not change. Maximum Height and Size of Buildings: The Development Agreement specifies that the maximum height of proposed buildings shall comply with the Development Code limitations. in effect as of the date of execution of the Agreement. The Development Code currently permits a maximum height of 40 feet within the General Commercial District, and provides for a Conditional Use Permit process to exceed this height limitatiox;. A total of 178,938 square feet of building area would be guaranteed by the Development Agreement as shown on Exhibits "B-1" and 118-2". Parcel 2 (restaurant), Parcel 4 6� _r PLANNING COM'i=SSION QTAFF REPORT - VIRGINIA 0 July 9, 1996 Page (affirO),`and Parcel 9 (office) are the three remaining parcels which have yet to receirX,specific Design Review approval. . Pir!S n -Ratios.. The Development Agreement locks in the current parking t�for all uses within the project. Attached FxFib,it "C"'provides a parking analysis based upon the aliowacie square s foot.1ges and current parking ratios. The total amour of shared parking spaces is 447. Desigr'' Review: The City will retain it s right to conduct Development/Design R- view of any building proposed for developmer:t. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the initial Study and found no significant impacts rpon the environment as a result of this project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plapning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Development Agreement k to the City Council through the adoption of the attae;h�z --- Reso a,ion. Res tfully s fitted, �. Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:ko Attachments: Draft Development Agreement Exhibit "A" - Legal Descri~-'\n of Property - Exhibit "B-1" - Permitted Uses and Maximum Densities Exhibit "B'-2" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" Parking Caiculation :resolution Recommending Approval 41 it `Y VIRAIRIA DATE CENTER - PARKING ANALYSIS Theater 1,800seats @ 1/4 seats - 455 spaces 1I� Office/Retail 140,344 s.f. @ 1/250 s.f. = 561 spaces Restaurant ;I Del Taco 1,900 s.f. @ 7,/175 s.f. = 25 spaces Spires 6,OOO s,f. @ 1/100 s.f. - 50 spaces - Dinnerhouse 6,000 s.f.. @ 1/110 s. . = 60 spaces Other (Food Court) 7,500 s.f. @ 1/100 s.f. - 75 spaces Sub Total 21,400 s.f. 220 spac,:s Office/Retail 561 Restaurant 220 Theater 455 Total Required 1236 - Total Provided 779 Shared Parking 457 - NORTH CITY OF rra1: 6 IAAZ - Z F RANCHO CUCA,MONGA nnizE P(.&MING DIVLSI N �/ EYHT3rr= I Y RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCID CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, C/A, LTD., AND THE TOWER PARTNERSHIP, IN RELATii?N TO THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST -GPNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following a duly held public hearing is recommending approval of the Development Agreement on said property to the City Council; and WHEREAS. the Planning Commission, following duly held public hearings has approved the development of the property; and WHEREAS, the approval for "he development of property includes shared parking as authorized by Se.:tion 1i'.12.0400 or' the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; and WHEREHa, the implementation of said development k.an be best accomplished through the provisions of the attached Development Agreement (which is by reference incorporated herein). NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve to recommend to the City Council approval of the attached Development Agreement. APPROVED AND A)OPTEn TliIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1916. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST- Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, de hereby certify that the foregoing Resoluticn 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 9th day of July, 1986, by the followin, vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RECORDING RFQUESTED BY AND �m WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:. Allen, Matkins, Lack. Gamble & Mallory.. 194DO Von'Karman, Fourth Floor Irvine, California 92715 Attention: R. Michael..Jgyte, Esq. • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "Y Thies ZavEWPNENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of , 1985. by and between the CITY OF RANCHO 1"LIAMONGA, a municipal corporation, organized and exestix.j under the laws o£ the State of Californi-i ("LTty`), and C/A, LTD., a California limited partnership and THE TOtgiR t%RTNERSHIP, a California general partnership (collectively, -Developer"). R E C I T A L 5• f A. This Agreement is enticed into with.respect to that certain real property (the "Property") owned in fee by Developer, more particularly described by Exhibit "A" attached hereto. p 8 On December 12, 1984, an application by Developer .� for approval of certain aspects of the development of a mixe(`-use comma1cial and retail development on the Property kncwn as the Virginia Dare winery project (the "Development") was approved by and through the adoption of Resolution No. 83-79B by City-s Planning Commissio<'_. C. Pursuan+t, to its Ordi,."*-e No. 206, City approved a zoning cha;ge for the Development fro,,: A-1 to C-2 on August 3, 1983, D. The Planning Commission of City also approves Parcel Map 8303 for the Developn -,It oil February 22, 1984. k E. .Pursuant to Resolution No. 83-79(b), the. Planning Commission of City approved the revised master plan for the Project and amended Conditional Use Permit No. 83-07, with certain conditions, among which was the requirement that the 'fast food use" specified as Parcel No. 5 under Parcel Map 8303 be deleted. F. Pursuant to a s(,bsequeatly adopted resolution, Parcel 5 of Parcel Map 8303 was reinstated- G. In connection with Design Review Application tic 85-22 with respect to "he proposed theatre use within the Project ;the "Theater"), the Planning Commission of City approved the -� t 0036U/C1779-002 14:06/19/86 development of a six-plex movr , hnatre of approximately ZS.la6 r feet pursuant to-Resolution No.'KS-112. Developer seeks assurancec from City that the 74- va'ious l es and buildings of -11 phases of the Development which were. approved as part of the e—tter plan will be subsequently authorized by,City Subject to design review. 1. As reflected in Resolution No_ RS-11Z, City has expressed concern that subsequent development of the Property may cause an aver-burdening of aommoa area. garkirm. By this Agreement, Developer and City have agreed upon an alternative to Condition No. 3 of Resoluti`': a5-112 referred to above and have t agreed upon an alter:rata",aahner in which any overburdening of parking facilities In the Development 1sill be resolved. 5 J. Government Code Sections 6$964-6S869,5 autbarize City to eater into binding 3eve'opmeut agreements for the 4 developmen> t.o£ real proarty within its 7 risdictlor with persons having legal or equitrrile interest.in such r•.al property. K. on 1465, the City s Cit)� iiZ Council adopted its ordinance approving said development Agreement, and said ordinance beoame effective r on 1ff9S. i NOW,. TNEREPORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants r and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration. the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the ?' pa*,ties do hers<uy agree as follows: }� I. Hindint; Effect of Agreement. The Agreement l pertain$ to the property as described in Fxhlbit "A The k� burdecs of the Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of `ire Agreement inure to all successors. in interest of the ;.Arties 'l to the Agreement. 1 2. Rel&tionshio of the Parties. It is hereby specifically understood and acknowledged that the Development is a private project and twat neither City nor Developer will br deemed to be the agent of the other for any purpose whatsoever. 3. infrastructure and Dedications. It is hereby acknowledged that Developer has Zn required to construct all necessary infrastructure and public facilitie3 fQr the implementation of the Developmea* in connection with %nd as-part of City's approval of Parcel Map a303. City therefore shall not require Developer to construct any further public facilities and/or infrastructure and/or to :Hake any additional dedicazians except in satisfaction of any conditions to the zyproval of Parcel Map 5343. 4. Term. The original tetra ("lean") of the Agreement iz €ive (5) years from the date of ex.>cution, during which the develcpment rights and privileges in favor of Developer shall be vested as set forth in this Agreement, provided that Ear al; portions of the Development wilich are :completed during the Term, the rights and ^rivileges set Earth herein with respect to such developed porti4,ls shall remain ir„ effect for perpetuity. Following the expiration of the Term, it is hereby acknowledged r and understood 4 sZ that with respect to any undeveloped portions of the Development for which a valid building permit has not been issued, City`s tahen prevailing zoning, use and development codes, ordinances and regulations shah apply with full force find effect with respect to such undeveloped portions. 5. Development APorDyal. ,Nothing set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to require Developer or any successor of Developer to complete the Development of any portion thereof; provided, however the following developments criteria shell apply with respect to the Development during the 'term: k (a) Permitted Uses of the Property. The parties agree that the uses of the Property as shown or. Exhibit "B-1", attached hereto shall be permitted. (b) Density or Intensity of use. . 0e parties agree,�khat the maximum density or intensity of use of the Pro,rarty will be as set forth in Exhibit "S-1",attached � berets. G : (c) site Plan. The Site Plan for the Development as shown on Exhibit "B-2", attached hereto is'hereby approved. _4 (d)-. 1:1xi�mum Height of Proposed Bu;ldinas.. The - .parties agree that the maximum height of proposed`buildings shall be as set forth in"the applicable zoning, use or development codes, ordinances and/or regulations of City which are in effect as of the date of this Agreement. t a Notwithstanding the foregoing;, it is hereby " understood and acknowledged that the actual size and layout t 3 of the proposed buidings stawn on exhibit B-2" require a degree of flexibility,to accommodate market conditions, the ? requirements of tenants and/or purchasers and other development factors. Therefore it is hereby agreed that Developer shall have the right to make changes in building footprints, and to add to or subtract from the precise size of the (-oposed buildings shown on Exhibit"8-2" upon the followirg terms and condtions (a) the total square footage of and actual development shall not exceed the total square footage of all buildings in the Development as shown on and subject to the terms of Exhibit 'B-1"; (b) parking for each proposed building shall-be provided to satisfy the parking ratios for the use intended for eaIh such building which are required by the terms of City's zoning, use and/or building codes, ordinances and/or regulations in effect as of the date hereof; and (c) the location of such parking shall be provided in confc tnity with a.� such codes, ordinances and/or regulations. 6. Design Review.. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of City to conduct its development/design review of any building proposed for the Development pursuant to Chapter 17.06 of City's Development Code; -3- «. aµ provided, howevec, no such review shall authorize Or permit City to impose any condition and/or withhold 4pproval 'zo any proposed S building the result of which would be inconsistent with any term or provision of this Agreement. 7, parkin, It iz hereby agreed that A4twithstanding anything set forth herein aad notwithstanding any rights of City to impose conditions with respect to parking pursuant to its development/design review OE any portion of the Developm dt, all issues pertaining to alleged over-burdening of parking facilities within the Development shall be resolved pursuant to this terms of thin: Agreement i.e., City may not impose of attempt to impose any additional p2'cking requirements and/or restrict the development of ady-portion of the Development as a result of a,ny '-' alleged "over-burdening" of the parking facilities within the/ 1 Development a-d the City's sale remedy in the event of such 1 alleged over-burdening shall be as set forth below. It is hereby further agreed that by the execution of this Agreement, the terms. and conditions of Condition No. 3 of Resolution +.PS-11'2 axes --; superseded in their entirety and replaced by the terms of this Paragraph 1. (a) DetftKMaation of bverlrurdenina. Upon city's City Planner farmelating the belief tliA there shall then exist an overuse of the parking facilities, City's City Planner shall notify Developer of such belief and within thirty (30) days of the delivery by C:tity of such notice City's City Planner and Developer will select a mutually satisfactory traffic engineer to study the traffic ciscalation and parking use within the development as of such date at Developer's sole cost and expense. In the event City's City Planner and Developer are unable to agree upon a a F mutually satisfactory traffic enginner within fifteen (IS) days of the expiration of such thirty (30) day,period, city" €F Planning Commission shall select a traffic engineer, who r shall proceed to prepars a traffic study at Developer's sole cost and expense. The traffic engineer selected pursuant to the procedure set forth herein is hereinafter referred to a y the Engineer". Developer shall have the right to reasonably contest the terms and amounts of any payment to the Engineer �. in a cour' of competent following completion of the ptoce,44 set forth in this Paragraph 7. r tb) Restriction an Matinee Showings. In the event it is detetmined by the Engineer that an over-use of parking facilities exists, the Engineer shall report his findings to the Planning Commission in writing, which may, in its discretion, act upon the findings of the Engineer by = restricting matinee screenings within the Theater on non-national holiday weekdays; provided, however. in no event shall the Planainq Commission be entitled to impose a restriction on such matinee use with respect to wny age (1) i negative traffic study which shall exceed the deletion of two (2) matinee screens per non-national holiday weekday. Decisions of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to City's City Council pursuant to City's applicable codes and/or ordinances. (c) Duration of Restriction. In :he event the restriction listed in (b), above i3 imposed by the Planning -4- Commission„ the dstriction shall remain in full force and .effect unE3l the Planning Commission determines that the oreviuusly existing over-use problem has been resolved, based d upon suct reasonable evidence as may be supplied by q veloper. City hereby agrees to promptly review any such q-adence and not to 'unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to the termination of any previously imposed p restriction. It is hereby further agreed that in the event City shall impose the restriction listed in (b) above, City shall not be entitled to _order any additional traffic studies Or impose any additional-'restrictions on the Theater use for a minimum three (3) month period following the effective date :i of any restriction. -; 8. Assicnment. Developer has had and continues to have the right to sell, assign, or transfer all of its interest in the Property along with I p Y all its right,t, title in and r n to est in and to this Agreement to any person, firm or corporat4on at any 1, tkme curing the term of this Agreement without the consent of city, -2. Periodic Review of Compliance 'In accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1, the City Plan.ier of City shall review this Agreement at least once each calendar year y hereafter. 'At such periodic reviews, Developer must demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement and dil';gent pursuit of the implementation thereof. ,} 10. Amendment or Cancellation.. Th_-Agreement may be " amended or cancelled in whole or in part only by mutual consent =, of the parties and in the.manner providedin Government Code sl Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. 11. Erfottement, Unless amended or cancelled as provided in the preceding Pdragraph, this Agreement shall continue to be enforceable by any party to it, notwithstanding a change in general or specific plans, zoning subdivision, building or other regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the k° rules, regulations or policies applicable to the Development. If as a result of the laws, regulations or actions of Federal, State or other local agencies, compliance with this Agreement is prevented or Precluded, the provisions of this Agreement may be modified or suspended so as to comply with such laws, regulations or actions. 11. Notices. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered to either party to the Agreement may 5e given or delivered by depositing the same in the United States mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: City: City of Ranchc:Cucamonga - 9310 Baseline Rord, Suite C P.O. Box 807 R1.ncho Cucamonga, Ch_ 91730 Attention: City Planner Developer: C/A Ltd. 1501 Quail Street Newoort Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Donald B. Christeson Notice of a change of address shall be delivered in the same manner as any other notice provided herein, and shall be effective three days after mailing by the above-described procedure. 13. Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, In.the event that any party hereto branys any action, suit, arbitration or other proceeding against any other party hereto arising out of or relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, its validity or any of the terms or provisionu thereof, then the prevailing party in such action, suit, arbitration or other proceedin . shall recover from tie other party its reasonable attorneys" fees and costs incurred in connection therewith.. Said attorneys' fees shall include such fees for prosecuting or defending any appeal and shall be recoverable, and shall be awarded for any supplemental proceedings until the final judgment is satisfi^d in full. 14, Remedies, In the event a breach of this Agreement occurs, irreparable harm is ikely to occur to the non-breaching party and damages may be an :,nadequate remedy. To the extent permitted by law, therefore., it is expressly recognized that specific enforcement of this Agreement is a proper and desirable remedy. it is further agreed hhat City shall have injunctive remedies with respect to the c4ssation of any matinee or matinees pursuent to the provisions of Paragraph Z hereof. 15. Entire Agreement, This Agreement and the exhibits herein contain the entire agreement between the parties, and is intended by the parties to completely state the Agreement in full. Any agreement or representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any party in relation thereto, AWL not expressly set forth in this Agr>,ment, is null and void. 16. Severability. If any term, provision, condition, or covenant of this Agreement, or the applicatio. thereof to any party or circumstances, shall to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the instrument, or the application of such term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, 17. Counteroartt. This Agreement has been executed let one or more counterparts, each of which has been deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed-this Agreement as of the day and year first above written, I Attest! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By; City Clerk Mayor [SIGNA'TURES CONTINUED) -6- I' I' 0,10 I - l Special Counsel By: A i t 1 i C/A LTD., a California limited } 6V partnership By: Winery Trading Company, a i " California general partnership, general partner e 7 ." By: Virginia Dare Winery i Property Corporation, a 9 California.corporation, i general partner By: Donald Christeson President William T,. Heaton Assistant Secretary THE TOWER PARTNERSRIP, a general partnership By: CIC II, a general partnership, general, partner By. Its: 'Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc., a California corporation, and tenant with respect to the Theaier pursuant to that certain Lease datad January 25, 1985, hereby epecutes this Agreement to acknowledge its understanding of and agreement with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. EDWARDS THEATRES CIRCUIT, INC., a California corporation By:_ Its: By. Its: _7_ rF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) 56. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) �, c:n this day of 1986, before",me, a Notary Public in 70 for said State, personally appeared +� known to me (or proved to me on the a basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the r; r,. within instrument as the:Mayor of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a general law municipal corporation, and,acknowledged to me that such general law municipal corporatior executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal.. Notary Public STATE OF CALIrORNIA ) " ' COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ^ On this day of 1986, befor4 me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared known to Ole (or proved to me on the r basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the g within instrument as the City Clerk of the CITY OF RANCHO F CUCAMONGA, a general law municipal corporation, and`acknowledged to me that such general law municipal corporation executed the same. �i WITNESS my hand and official seal. I Notary Public r� F I' 71 :x 'Ea STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ). On this day of in the year_, before } me, a Notary Public—in and for said State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as respectively, on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, said corporation being ,mown to me to be one of the partners of the partnership that executed the within instrument, sl?id partnership biting known to me to be one of the partners of" the partnership that executed the within,instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corpo�;ation executed the same as such partner and that such 1 pa�,fip(Srships also executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. - i j - Notary Public R;- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COT!NTY OF ss. On this day of , in the year 19afi., before me, a Notary public in and .for said State, personally appe red personally known to me (or awed to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be th- , aT , personably known to.me (or proved,to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)>to be the - of EDWARDS THEATRES CIRCUIT, INC., the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its.board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public -g- 3 ra i LEGAL DESCRIPTION OP TKS PROPrf� tot "A" and Pa-eels 1 through 4, inclusive, and Parcels 6 through 9,c; nclusive, of Parcel Rap 8303 as shown on ]tap recorded in Hook 95 of Parcel ?gaps, Pages 76 through 79, inclusive, Records of San Bernardino County, California. w� EXHIBIT ".A". e w L. f'. PERMITTED USES AND dA°7CIMUM DENSITIES OF USE v PARCEL 1 - Financial/office/Retail '5,500 square feet PARCEL 2 Restaurant/Retail 6,000 square feet PARCEL 3 - Restaurant/Retail Restaurant: 7,500 square feel. Retail: 2,500 square feet Total. 10,000 square feet PARCEL 4 - Office/Financial/Retail 14,000 square feet PARCEL 6 - Office/Retail 20,000 square feet PARCELS 7 and 8 - Cinema - 25,188 square feet F PARCEL 9 - Office/Restaurant/Retail 68,250.square feet r ' F TOTAL: 178,938 It is acknowledged that if the use of Parcqel 2 is converted from a restaurant use to a retail or office usEy 'the maximum square footage of Parcel 9 may be increased to a size which sball be the maximum permitted size under the city's zoning use and/or building codes as of the date hereof, based upon required parking ratios, MT3IT 'B-11 r. .ft ttn ii 1 y' at r LUX pf cn !�jj fill I WIN r i f �~ YInGRpW�'1Mn'ti�-E-WN:Y•r LR+SMS CEN CSC it t ii�: at352E5a+oE<t,1ra�+atccatr3tt' P .�w,. CITY OF RANCHO CUC.c1L20NGA Lct STAFF REPORT 5 q Uj > DATE: July 9, 1986 ia77 6 TO: , Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Butler, city Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 86-27 MI �HAEL - Appeal of staff's decision denying the removal of-7­eucaly5tus trees and--1 olive tree located on the smith side of Church 5trEsc, east of Archibald Avenue - APti 1077�332-26, i I. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1986, Lloyd Michael submitted a Tree Removal f Permit appTication in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance '276 (Tree Preservation 0-dinance). "-Rr. Michael was requesting the removal of 7 eucalypt a trees and 1 olive tree located on the south side of Church Street, east of .Archibald Avenue. The trees are located within the public right-of-way of Church Street. ] Ordinance W6 requires that adjacent property owners be notified if the Tree Removal Permit request involves the removal of more th.-- 5 trees. The property owners are allowed a ten (10) day period ,n which to comment on the proposal. On May 13, 1986, the 6 adjaceni property oviners were sent notices of the request to remove the trees. Out of the 6, Mr. Daryl Christensen, the property owner, to the north, submitted a letter to the Planning Division strongly opposing the removal of the trees at this time (see Exhibit r'D"). J II. ANALYSIS: Staff has carefully reviewed the Tree Removal Permit- j application, conducted a field investigation to evaluate the condition and location of the trees, ana coisidered the protest j letter submitted by Mr. Christensen. Based upon the information presented, staff denied the Tree Removal Permit as inconsistent with the criteria of Ordinance g276 in the following areas: 1. The trees are generally healthy, do not present any danger of collapse, and are not in proximity to existing structures. 2. The removal is not necessary of this time to construct improvements on the vacant property. No proposal for development has been submitted for this property; therefore, the preservation of the trees would not affect the reasonable economic erjoyment of the property. ITEM L PLANNING COMMIS;$M74 STAFF *PORT Tree Removal Permit 3647 Michael = r' July g, 1986 Pa9e 2 I. The removal is not necessary at this time to construct street improvements. The City of Rancho CF.camonga ,has determined that' eucalyptus trees are,a natrral aes,�h4tic resource 6dt should be protected from 'indiscriminate removal The goal of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance iz` to retain as many trees as possible through protection of Blue`Gum Eucalyptus windrows and other 3 heritage trees ?one applicant is Omporarily storing construction equipmant on the property and soggnt to use this equipment 1`6 the remoi al. -'It is not the indent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance to remove trees a§ a,matter of convenieence; rather removal is considered as a -:fast resort. III. RECOMMENDA.TION,_ Staff recommends that the`xPlanning Commission deny the Tree Removal Permit application based 'xi7 inconsistencies with pE the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 276). t Re�tfuliy su 'tteda , Brad Buller City Pl-.nner BB:SM:ns i Attachments: Exhibit "Q" - Site Flan Exhibit "B" - Photographs s Exhibit IICII Letter of Denial ' Exhibit "D" *Letter of Protest Exhibit "E" - Letter of Appeal j Exhibit "F" - Letter from Applicant i ;a ii M < owl. 'v _-1 g 34Y Dii('JGWi"QJ �,.S,•tom C""�- 13 �.Y li� �M• � NE i < --r.-j. 'J I i� � t H-t Lr �. o- a 3 �j � �1c�y�il o 0�1 4` (`o��au Q � may.•t .r; ?" m ci { a y z CITY 0r rfL\1: I A I UH0 CI.,CA�'\4OT ,TGA TITLE- ,S� PUNNING D€vISIQ [ K �4 L y, v��'.F7. t✓ y W - 3 c74 otd 4� ? 't ry + 'mac•. j .y+ �:. i! �_.�..f}'.` t;•-� Yew •"7 f ;,0. a � � r'�+ _ .-�dI! 3 7't"tRt" �n•1�'aj' w ..\ �a,_ e �.'. a cra�c a l' �- p '` Ma„+rJe[frey King CITY OF ]RANCHO CUCAMONGA x .^.ouRr4mtmhrr. U 1977 > Chides I Buque:11 Jon 1).Mikcis p June 5, 1986 Richard M.DaM Pa„ida J.Wright j Lloyd Micheal 6320 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 i SLBJECi t,„NTitl REMdVALERtiIT $b-' GHURCM°STREET"' AST�F ARCHl'$ACD;MENU x , ... yNYSAV4• n."WMi1Yvi1(;;...:.w m. EJ Dear Mr. Michael. The City has reviewed your application for a Tree Removal Permit for consistency with the Ordinance No. 276. As required by this Ordinance, adjacent property owners are notified ten (10) days prior to any decision being made in order to allow their imput lit the decision process. A letter has been received by ti�is office strongly protesting the removal of the trees � at this time. The letter states that the trees should not he removed until Church Street is scheduled to be imAroved to its ultimate right-;f-way width. After careful consideration of your request and the protest received, staff has determined that your request is inconsistent with the criteria of Ordinance 276 as follows: 1. The trees are generally healthy, do not present a danger of collapse, and are not in proximity to existing structures. 2. The removal is not necessary at this time to construct improvements on the vacant property. No proposal for development has been submitted for this property. 3. The reavival is not necessary at this time to construct street improvements. Therefore, the request for a Tree Removal Permit has been denied. The denial of your Tree Removal Permit application will become final unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) days of the date of this letter. The appeal must be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission in writing, together with a $62.00 appeal fee. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, CO LAITY EVELOPME DE F.NT P A. ING DI SIGN D an Senior Planner O> ` g May 19, 1986 Y N F $e9,11916 i1T 4. � Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Ccmmunity Development Department Planning Division 9320 Bas&line Road - Suite C Post Office Box 607 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Murphy: This letter Is an official PROTEST to the proposed "tree removal" on the. t south side of Church S,�Feet, east of Archibald Avenue. I am, at this time, against the Issuance of' a tree removal permit for Lloyd Michael or any other person who may wish to remove said trees from that site. By your own ada4 sslon, the "street=wI den Ing-pro,ject" does NOT HAVE TO OCCUR until the DEVELOPMENT of that property that FRONTS on that section of Church Street actually begins. And,-,ou told me over the telephone this morning that there is no immediate i'-ans by the owners of that property to DEVELOP that property. Therefore, if there Is no 1roposed development for that land that fronts on that section of the south side of Church Street, t can see no "earthly reason" (or heavenly reason either, for that matter) to remove these trees in question. She city's own Ordinance #276, pertaining to the preservation of trees, was, i believe, enacted for the very purpose that you bureaucrats are now attempting to forgo. Namely, to prevent the wanton destruction of innocent trees that some over zealous bureaucrats now want to destroy. I Just FAIL TO SEE why the city officials could even consid. issuing a PERMIT that CONTRAVENES your own city ordinance. I say when the land on which those trees are growing is further developed, as per another city Ordinance already adopted for that purpose, actually occurs, then, and only then, should those trees be removed. THEY SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED BEFORE THAT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE. A concerned citizen. Sincerely, Darrell G. Christensen 9776 Church Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 '� 0 lr- � �e AZ 6320 Haven Avenue Rancha Cucamonga, v 91741 June 15, 1986 j K Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga i Rancho Cucamonga, CA .,,01730 ' } Re: Tree Removal Permit 86-21 Church Street, East of Archibald Avenue Gentlemen: Please accept this letter as my request for your consideration of our appeal of the decision to •l y my request for Tree Removal Permit: 86-27 which was recently rendered by the City Staff. ° When Mr, hawker, who worked with the Rivard Conutruction Company and lives nest to the property owpid by Mr. Mills and I, asked if �- they might use ou- property, whi.-.7> is on, the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street, for a construction yard during the Archibald Avenue Project, vie came to an agreement that they cL-1d use the property with the proviso that they would carry us as an additional insured on their 1--ability insurance, A and that they would remove the subject trees, compact any imported soil, and grade the property, it was felt that this would also be beneficial to the local 'residents, and eliminat,s any maintenance and potential liability that the City night have because of the subject trees beingiin the street right-of-way. Therefore, T respectfully reg4est that you schedule my appeal far consideration at your next regularly scheduled meeting. Yotts truly, 1 d 'Ile/c gha;,l 774 rf 5320 Haven. Avenue "s Alta Loma, .GA 91701 f. May 5_, 1986 �t Scott Murphy Assistant Planner Y City of Rancho Cucamonga f` P.O. sox 807 a Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91736 . Re: Tree Removal Permit *, Dear Mr. Murphy: Enclosed is 'the application for a Tres. Removal Permit to remove - the trees in the Church Street right-of-way. Our property ;s located at the southeast corner of Church Streei: and Arch:.bald Avenue, and the subject trees are also along the north boundary of our property. �j If you have an d!y y questions, 'Please call me, My work phone number is 987-2591. Yours truly, 4I id� W. W�ohael enclosure �I p ¢ '.a o- `y REASONS FOR REMOVAL: The existing trees are in the streette right-of-gay. for Chural' Street, an0 -..hen the psoPerty is aeveloped they will have fib•be removed'. Rivard ConstriYct�otl is pre" ently using the property as an office and equipment yarn dra ng tte Atehibal4 Avenue, paving � and surer prosect. As.eons d tzon, for ing tyre property, Rivard is to remove; the gees, com]§ t_,any sdil d:6,positec� on the y property, and grade the p operty when Finished.. lt�is_r ill I Y improve the TIne-ral a pea ante{ o£ the proper`ty as we.il'as, w eliminate a City ma3 nteaiance ay pease;wind potential liability Eu exposure. E, f k k s I l fl G; - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI4i7NG4 G�tCA,b1� STAFF REPORT o ° F z DATE: July 9, 1986 U �9;7 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Fanner SUBJECT: VIRGINIA DARE kNIFORM SAN PROGRAM- BACKGROUND: On June 18, 1986 the City Council conducted a hearing to consider tie appear of the Planning Commission's denial of the Virginia Dare Uniform Sign Program. application. after considering public':, testimony, the City Council directed the app-14u"- t to work with the Planning Commission and staff to resolve the signage issues. Staff has met with the developer and reached an agreement an acceptable modifications to the Uniform,Sign Program. In general, back lit cast aluminium letters will be used instead of internally illuminated ch3nneliz-)d letters. The Optima letter style will be the established copy style, with exception of occupants of entire buildings (i.e. Spires and Edwards Cinema), which will utilize individual trademark letter styles to be back lit. Staff feels that the applicant has made a commendable effort to reach an acceptable compromise on the Sign Program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and approve Tffe attached revisions to the Uniform Sign Program and forward their action to the City f'ouncil. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:jr Attachments: Letter from Bissell Architects Revised Uniform Sign Program i ITEM M �I 3434 Via Goo.Suite 250 N-upon Beach Ca jfornia<'2663 (714)675-9901 June 26, 1986 .....��C'C ry�U pN'ONUA , ` CITY OF RANOt' pi,pNNtNa D111510N Jul.0 Z Dan Coleman Ak1 y 21314%6 Planning Division ,g1g�9�iQ4U1"!-� City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Rd., Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Our Meeting of 6-25-86 with Larry Tieman, Dave Michaels, and Scott gg Dear Dan: F w As a result of our meeting yesterday, the following changes to the Viriginia Dare Signage Guideline have been incorporated into the attached guideline as described below: Page 2 - General Guidelines: Item 2: Major occupants of buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, & 10 shall be allowed back lit letters utilizing "Optimal' letter style. (Note: maor occupant must be a minimum of 3,000 square feet.) Item 3: Arcade signs at the Food Court building 8 a all trellis signage shall be "Optima" to -ter style. Item 4: Occupants of entire bu?.dings (ie: Spires, Edwards Cinema): Sole occupants of buildings within the Centre shall utilize individual letters to compose major signs. Letter sides and edges shall utilize the standard color and finish set forth in 'his guide. Logos will be permitted. Developer shall review s=gnage designs on an individual basis with the intent of achieving compatibility of all signage within the Centre. Established trademark letter style will be allowed. Page 4 - Illuminated Letters: Described as back lit aluminum letters with dark green baked enamel finish. µ Dan Coleman Page Two June 26, 1986 Page 5 - Arcade & Trellis Signs: Changed to 70i. Page 6 -_ 6dwards Cinema: Changed to rose plastic face. Page 12 - Deleted. ;i Your verbal agreement to concur with these changes will assure a recommepdation for approval of the attached guidelines at the - ' upcoming Planning Commission hearing. if Sincerely, III r.w Glen Gellatly GG:tms j Attachment cc: Larry Tieman k Ov SIG 3 � V I RG I N[A DAWREWAii-INERY" s BUSIES CEF "��iiRE .w i r a l + DEVELOPME-IN B '= r st son Comp d-n Quail street . Newport Beach CA ­§2664 Guide by: ArphiteCtB 3434 Vies Udo.Safts 26i71 p Newport 9na4h,GaW mia G2= (714)675-9WI GENERAL GUIDELINES : 1. The following guide is intended to set minimum and maximum signage standards for all occupants of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre. All designs must be presented to Developer for approval before work is begun. Developer reserves the right to require changes in any design that does not, in the opinion of the Developer, conform with the overall standards of the centre_ A11 signage shall be subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga sign program guidelines. 2. Major -)ccupants of buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, B & 10 shall be allowed back lit letters utilizing "Optimal' letter style. (Note:: major oc.,upant must be a minim= of 3,O00 square feet.) 3. Arcade signs at the Food Court building 8 and all trellis signage shall be "Optima" letter style. 4. Occupants of entire buildings (ie: Spires, Edwards Cinema): Sole. occupants of buildings within the Centre !_hall ut.:lize individual letters to u,mpose major signs. Letter sides and edges shell utilize the standard color and finish set forth in thiE 9,44de. Logos will be permitted. Developer,ishall review signage designs on an individual basis with the intent of achieving compatibility of all signage within the Centre. Established tradeirark letter style will be allowed.. 5. Storefront glass, signage consisting of 411, 1",, or k" hi Optima ,white vinyl letters may be affixed to a%terior storefront glass. Maximum height to be 4'-6" above floor surface. Letters shall be appl..ed to interior surface of glass. Rif l`,`it CEIERAL C+ 4 �✓ 1. Any sale or lease of premises within the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre shall be subject to the requirements of this guide. 2. The tenant shall submit 3 sets (81 x 11") of proposed signage depicting size, color, materials and locations to the Developer for review and approval. Upon approval from the Developer, the tenant shall acquire necessary approval and permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. All signs shall be constructed and installed at tenant's exuense. 4. Requests for additional signs .shall be subject to the discretion of the Developer. 8. The location of signage on all building facad,,s is subject to approval by Developer. See Appandix for all building eievations. future ,building, upon signage approval by all governing authorities, shall incorporate elevatio:3 (with signage envelope) into Appendix to become part of this 'wide. I6. The approved signage plans shall become a part of the tenant lease agreement. 7. Except as provided herein, NO pennarts, placards, freestanding signs or signs affixed to automobiles or trailers are allowed an the building, in the landscaped areas, or on streets o• parking areas. The € restriction pertaining to automobiles does not apply to magnetic or painted identification signs placed on company or private vehicles for use in the normal course of business. 8. Tenant agrees to remove any signs and return the face of the building to its original condit on, fair wear and tear excepted,: upon the expiration of the lease or any extension thereof, SITE SIGN { Stucco gall 10" high letters gr?y-tan 2j" thick. I (total area of sign 24 s.€.) M GJNIR DARE WINERY 13USfNESS CENTRE � •. Baked enamel letters with gold facE , if p� ` dark green edges Corner sign, Foothill 2 Haven s NOTE: See APPENDIX for 75 . in0ividuai building n e i evati',ns. eTmSign -' n location ""�-•--�_``_""""'----.._._ ,,. ,Pacsru�,mars, SITE PLAN BUILDING SIGNS SEE APPENDIX FOR PRECISE LOCATIONS. -_�- Address numerals: -Trellis signage - = Individual numbers 10" high See Page 5. J with reflective dark green r[A face, dark green baked enamel 11 sides to be supplied by Developer. ®® / tea'= m !/•'//%F'f.: fr�-s—.r..�� / '=�.-°,,r i�;:.. ..i.✓�6./4v%ia/ilil ' W'' %.� a%✓ r.!�/r,/r�� � G /�. //��'! /i /��// �O.OriH L�BANfv.. •-�i=� 1 •[_r- Y, x. I�. y�/fir ��[ r :!V Letter style for major -�tenant. illuminated ie:_ters Back lit letters _ connected to electrica' source in fascia/wall _! F provided by Developer. Letters to be aluminum =: with dark green baked ... � � enamel finish, �- '/.vw.'i✓iLi7/ir/r�' Tower B(dc �Replication of original signage for Centre theme to be provided �tL��uzr�'r. �i—. '"rt'"//✓�"i`ir by Developer. S' age limited to area over entry. y�.v1G�MMUR�.ravcw/ /�Le:ters shall be monochromatic, qW, / ,. !i A — non illuminated cast aluminum. / •j" Double row copy permissable. m7 4 li R � t L.JILDI! C VS L� See APPENDIX for precise location. Electrical power supply ` to strip fluorescent Tight ` behind trellis beam to be prrovided by Developer. n) 1- Bay Storefront ft k - EQ. JAL CF�LT'd� tCt �llir ir Trell.iS signage. A �-- ----Sion td be sandblasted regwood writ 8" raised 'Ji — letters acid border trim I L` ! !! color- Letters and trial BAKER S DOZEN �: i-� to be painted ivory; background to be painted dark green. sign edges Hanging sign to have length slightly eased_ comprising 707,of each, atrace Opening. Recessed _ spatlianting to be provided by Developer. j — j Feud Court Arcade BUILDING SIGNS Occupants of Entire Buildings See APPENDIX fr,.• precise locations. i F EC(NAFMS Double row internally ro illp,minated and back lit ,o ; Optima bold letters 24" hi. ° Letters to have rose plastic face with dark green baked enamel sides. Developer shal. review signage layouts on in individual basis fur occupant of entire buildings. r. ona000 �✓I'_d.E ,. �/. 'tom /•• ! % ! //�,o 2i.!' 00000e y' i r ,o / �•-� Accent lighting and specific information signs shall be prohibited unless specific Z-=NC SHLR r! / approval by Developer and RET �NOFnor�wnu� ///J o / r f ••% City of Rancho Cucamonga is obtained. S ,s�f'FlFT P(, CES - sue•. //////�j���/�/ ° �!/� . .. / � � r .✓yam / i/ •��'/ - /� //fit////�/,� ,' ",%' Established trademarks may !t ✓ , ,/ , 9/ j' ,�'` y / be utilized at wall locations ro ,��ru�•m,. ��s •L to be approved by Developer City and �% / •�:' !j Y of Rancho Cucamonga, Letter color and trim for backl '•% ,y 1��/; /�i '' r/r �;i illuminated signs shall match that previously specified -� 6 I APPENDIX' i KEG tit Building A - Offices I:lllltttltWfla . { 2 Tower Building - Offices "II N : 3 Building B - Offices :� •Y' i + 4 Existing Building Spire's Restaurant — 6 Future Office Building 7 Edward's Theaters ^ - . S Future Office Building r 4 Del Taco Restaurant 10 Future Office Building - of�'ti 11 Future Restaurant 12 Food Court � x not within Centre development '16 / 1� j. 12 y :t �JTl;r:ATI r 1,� !ATMMW ' / � � VI�Illl�i •il?f � - ' y�� �tatill' � IYillr, n Jiur �. -�--- ' Food JLL tLV4, IM SITE PLAN tip — +'s�MSCi�tt�Vuirtt:� i. t¢ Mow f■ ■ Yn ^ ■ ` Iw iRan t � � ►� In a 112 �r ■ ■ r ,► .` F, i i1 a: . MANME ■►Z +1 •' s � � • � 1 a■r � JLZ LU 3 'oil ts z ' 00 Go FF El«ur -A hz ILIr j 'fi I ,.,ems„{�=Ji"iiF'�i�t�IS#iWlrl[A� _..�..;-„ .... __._-,-....--„_ -.. e+—.�� ._;_.----*'-.'--.-s"•-�.�� � Al G ref .jz �. /± tJ 4 t 8 q a v ❑ , gala a Et � � s ! C r... IU All Jul ri ix t ?^Vf k_ i t t, sy,,'4