No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990/04/11 - Agenda Packet A 1�• ��, 41, 4 COCA ' -CrrYOF < x 2AliKEC1, CEr, a } A �. t i ;t "WEDNESDAI•, AQRIL 11, 1990 7.00 p.m �S LIOHS PARtt COMMHY71P. CENYER' 9161-SASE 11 RANCHO CUCAMQNGA.;CALIFORHIA, r. is t, y I. PI edge of,AlIegia_nce. r � II. Roll Gall,a, i Commissioner Blakesley - ,. Commissioner Tol'stoyi :ominissioner .Chitiea, Commissioner We'in6erger� Commissioner Mctiel:.i_ r; IYL fen nouncementsiPresentatio'lx i Presentation-of ResoIutisin of Commendation to Commissioner Blakes,ley IV. Approval of Minutes ' Adjourned Meeting of February 22, '1996 pr 1. • March 98, 1900 V'. Consent Calendar The folIoiviny Consent Calendar hens are expected ''to be routine ,and non-controversial. They ,'wNj The acted on by the Cwrmission at urie. tirni without -`di&6ussion. if anyone has concern over,zany-item, it should be FOMVed for discussion. r A. VARIANCE,90-01 - VERA. `Demal,of a request.to allov� th2 t, construction of a house to encroach into; the 'req-i,re ' interior side yard setback by 5- feet fora single fzmil { residence located Ah the LoW,Residential District: (2 = 4 dwelling units per acre) at 9L17=.Feron' Boulevard - APN 209-063-03, (Conti ued-from March 28,'1990.) y < < ! f VL. Pablic:I9parings The,:fai lowing sJterrs are public' hearings in ut ch concerned individuals mv/ -votce their opinion of.,the -retated project, Please unit 'to be recognized by. the Cha Inn and address the,:.: Ci.�rm@ssion by staging your. ttarrs arut ol4drea's A'I such opinions shat Lbe.Jimited to 5 minutes per trf`4�,duul for, each `• project. Piea.Te- ign .in after spepking: ; q :k B. STREET` NAME-CHANGE 90-01 '- CITY OF RANCHO.000AMONGA A proposal=.tcl change name of;Rochester Avenue old portion) from 4th"SIreet.;tona point approximately 6OG,,eet,north of 6th ,Street, a .distance'`of ,appr.ximately,8/10 of`;a mile. Suggested name. change, to Smith Avenue. Proposal ,to, also change name of that portioii of Rodhester Avenue (new.. portion) south of 6th ,Streets Suggested name change to Rochester Court. Alternative street names may, be considered by the Planning .Commission. .'(,Continued from i March 28, 1990..). C. ENVIRONN%VTAL ASSESSMENT AND°TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12338 - KENSLE°6-BUFFALO`,SIX,*LTD. - iA subdivisiD,n„of 13..7,8 acres of land into 4 'parcels':;;in'tfie:General Industri,ai District (Subarea ili), Tocated on the northwest corner" 'of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue -'APN: 2.29,402-28. (C,ontinued from March 28, 1990.) D., ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13298 :LEWIS HOMES - A rasidential :subdivison and design review of 112 condominium units on 9.3E 'acres of, land 'in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) pf the Terra Vista Planned Community, .loca'ted on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and . Milliken Avenue APN: 1.077-P^1-36. ' E. TIME . EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13703 - KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT - A,residential subdivision and; design' review of"55 sin le omit l t g f y o s on,11 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential ,District (4'=8 dwel ing units per acre) : located on the west side,of ,Haven Avenue, north of 8anyar Street - APN: ,201-181-67 and'.68. VIL 01d Bossiness F. .MODIFICATION TO ,DEVELOPMENT.REVI EW 87-42 - "SOUTH 'PACIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION -- A I request-to modify the.approved bulding�•materials for,an -existing building� in'theTennis Executive; Center!, located' at 1,0750 .Civic Center Drive APN 208-P2-03. ,(Continued from March 28 1990:j: �` � _ z r„ YIIT. t�kf 8usine5s D �lEtOPMEtiT REUIEk' fl9~12 pS5E5SNtENT AND nd IiI t an &, EN� . NMEhttAE develOPment p# Pt� s $3x i 1 Znilust an In Tlie D VICS. comptex�; Gp�lt181nq pf -the Indus rt a� 2 �940$qu r feet on5 iiarear pf buildis14s tdtating U strict, east ,t �•.`, '" in the' General Indust.iai i dustrial SpQc-ific" p-I604 431Q87oan e8B,gputeVard, In AP,.. of Helms Ave�lae ,. iss-an gusiness }€, TRAILS €1DVISOItY GOM�fI trEEA00 INT-- M.-�tS RflGRAt+t 17EM {1R SfttDY I DiSCil55Y0t€ DP-p€AMHING t€IVISIflN W€3 4F C0MPACI PARKi09 NG.SPAC Public COMM.�ats enerat public to address r t€rrra and .place far the here are those 1cYt , This is the Itow,to be discussed h the Caron€ss€pn.; on this agenda, . r: not already.appear it IbeyO tions o XI, 't�d3purunt ted Ac�nini�trat€ve R$�nd that ession has adpp i ins 9 The pldnning carcr � adlourr' nt tirt .it f the cp of the that Set an shall be t. 4rd poly they, All *F .i e ' 7 a r` T(J , i ta e 'MAP� 7b ur77 cm a f+tP®Pi w aw1YY Y .:.� Jd Imr "May owim Cli►i�i4 ® gb mom= r; N a ; 40 SYCJPPpQJ•PyJ611CP'til0 9 Ali � -' -..`46a1EO� la/a9i�PiQiµ eJaBgaP-� t .� ��ct�am�eo l CITY 0 RANGFYO CUCAMONGA DATE: APri1 11, 1990 T0: Chairman and`Mombers of.the Planning Commission FROM: Brad B014e ,,.IC�ty;P anner BY: Bruce Buckingham, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:. VARIANCE qO-b1 -`VERA = 0enzal:=.f a request tci a11'' the construction of-.a house;to' encroach iid the, regUired. interior side yard setba;�;' t, 'feet fbr sing-e'fanily residence .located:,iAp Vk?;L6W Residential 'Distract {2= dwelling units •-per acre) at 9817` Feron .Boulevard 'A N: :209 063 ,03. (:ConVHued irom,March 28`; 1990:} At the March 28 1990 n5eing, `the Planriiag Comm}scion denied, Varia a 90-01 and �+�recteo'staff to`' prepare a, Reso.l,uti- of :Denial appr va by Commissionat this meeting:. Attzhed is the'Resolutign of enial fo V riance 9041,as requested: expect 1 submitt , Brad 8 11 City'Pl Her BfSeB3.: p Attachments: ResolVtion of Denial �I RESOLUTION NO A'RESOLUTION 'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF :THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, .DENYING VARIANCE N0. 90-:01 TO' ALLOW `iHE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE: FAMILY `DWELLING TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD' SETBACK BY FIVE (5) FEET LOCATED AT 9817 FERON 400LEVARD IN THE, LOW RESIDENTIAL' DISTRICT, An MAKINGL FINDINGS IN, SUPPORT ' THEREOF - :APN: 209-063-03 A. RecitaIs< (i) Aerial Vera has filed an application 'for the issuacte of the Variance No. 9041'as described in.the title of this`Resoluton. Hereinafter, in this Resolution, thr- 13ubject Variance request is referred.to as I the application' . (ii) On March 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the,City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing`,on the application and continued the item to th8 March 2tth regular meeting. (iii) On March 28, 1990, the Planning Commission concluded said hearing. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior .to the: adoption . of ;this Resolution have occurred.' B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE;, it is hereby found, „determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of'Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ' 1. This Commission°hereby specifi'ca;lly finds that al l of:the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution :are true and correct.': 2. Based upon substantial evidence,' presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on Mar ch 28,' '1990,: in 'Tuding' written and oral staff reports; together' with 'public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to vacant property located at 9817 Feron Boulevard with a street frontage and lot:width of 35 feet and lot depth of "160 feet which' is non-conforming to Development Code requirements of a minimum frontage of 40 feet and lot width of 65 feet,,and , (b) The property'to the north of the subject site is a, single. family residence, the property to the south of that site consists of a single family residence, ,the .,property to the east is' a single fam ly.residence,- ;and. the property to the weStL is a single family residence, rt,t r , r� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VA 90-01.- VERA April 11, 1990 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the .construction of a two- story single family dwelling with 5-foot side yard setbacks Contrary to the requirements of Section 17.08.040.9 of the Rancho Cucamonga,._Development Code which provides for 5- and 10-foot side,yard setbacks. (d) The majority, of the. properties in the 'surrounding neighborhood comply: with the required 5-,and 10-foot side yard-setbacks; (e) The variance as specified in, the application would contradict the objectives of the :Development Code for the following reasons- ` (i) The applicatioh as submitted would be incompatible with the character of properties in the isurrounding, neighborhood which comply with the required'5- and 10-foot side yard setbacks, : . The application as, proposed . contemplates the construction of. a two=story single family' dwelling with side yard;.setbacks less than required; by development standards which would be contrary L to the general design guidelines to provide in element of openness; ' (.iii) The propoased building placement would be incompatible with the surrounding at ea due to the lesser setback proposed which does not relate to the two-story scale of.the proposed building. (f) The staff rport dated March 2$, `1990 presented several alternative house plottings which could comply with he required side yard setbacks; (g) No evidence was presented by the. applicant, or on�'behalf of the applicant, to support the granting of the subject variance request. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon,the specific findings 'of facts'set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds acid concludes as follows: (a) That strict cr literal interpretation and, enforcement of the specified regulations would not result in practical difficulty, or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives. of the Development Code. (b) That there are not exceptional ar extraordinary, circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or. to the — intended use of the property that do .not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) . That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified' regulation would not deprive the applicant of pr..ivileges enjoyed by the"owners,of other properties in .the same district. � 3 PLANNING COMMISSION.RESOLUTION NO x: VA 90-0t VERA April 11 Page_ 3 .46 (d)`'' That,the grant�ng, of the Variance wall'..constitute a grant of special. privi.iege,,incon$lstent with ,.the iimitatjons 'on ,other .propert; es class.ifiedin the same district.. (e) That the granting of the Variance willxbk detr mental.to ► the public health safety, or welfare =or materiaily;:�n3urous ta'`propert)es or improvements in-the°vi`cinity 4. Based; upon,the findings and concl.usjonsset,fortfi in paragraPfis . and 3 above, this Commi'ssion,hereby,den%e's,,the,aj�pli cation ..` 5: The Secretary to this Commission"shall.certify to the adoptfon`'of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADO TED THIS 11TH 'DAY' OF;APRIL, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION. OF-THE.CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Fbl BY: Larry T- i;el,: Chairman., ATTEST: Brad Buller,-Secretary f. - I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Comm�ssiori of the City ';of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution �+as;,duly, and regularly introduced,-passed adopted-by the..Planning Cpmmi3s .w of the City.of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mPeting'of the P1anni;ij Commission held", on the llth day of April, '1990, by the follor+,;; ;Vote-to-witu`'' AYES. COMMISSIONERSt NOES COMMISSIONERS:z ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS`i } y 4 CITY OF RA_NCHO�CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April ll, 1990 ' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller,:City Planner BY: Alan:Warren., Associate Planner SUBJECT: . STREET NAME CHANGE 90-01 CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA . A proposal to''.change`;name of Rochester Avenue old portion) from 4th Street to a point approximateTy 600 feet=rth,of . 6th Street, a distance of approxiinately`',S/10 of a mile. Suggested name change to Smith Avenue. Proposal .to also change name of that portion of Rochester Avenue (new portion) south of 6th Street. .Sugge.r4ed name char " 'to Rochester Court' Alternative street .names= mt ibe considered by the,Planning ;Commisslon. I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At the March Li, 1996, meeting the' Planning Commission favored the proposed street renaming plan but was generally unsatisfied with the. use.of the name "Smith% Tile Commission directed staff. to. do a. little more. research on the Smith_ Brothers to. determine if-the street name could be: enhanced to give it more local identification. Attached is a copy of the Daily Report article "Rochester:. A town that faded away", September 21, 1900'. which outlines the "tt-ather significant history the Smith Brothers, 'Charles W. and Rudolph Smith, played in' the development of the :Rochester community With this information, the Planning Commission may Kish to consider the following names to idefitify the renamed street: Charles Smith Avenue Amiee Avenue Charles W. Smith Avenue Di Carla Avenge Rudolph Smith Avenue Lopez Avenue Smith Bros. Avenue Masi Avenue Smith Family Avenue Van Fleet Avenue The street name should be relatively easy to pronounce and not, produce confusion with any other street names. Staff recommends "Smith Bros. Avenue". TI. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that :the Planning Commission choose a .name for use on the portion of Rochester Avenue from 4th Street to the new. Roches ter..Avenue°roadway for inclusion into the, attached Resolution., ITEM'B PLANNING COMMISSibU,STAFF'REPORT t STREET-.NAME.CHANGE 96-01 1ti "April 11, 19M } ?age 2 ;j;, ,Respect y;submit- d,, Brad, 80 ller, City planner' BB;AW3s - Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Oaily Report,,Articlej September,21, 1980 Exhibit "B - Area Map of Recommended Plan Resolution of Approval. t 'I L k5: «' Pege9 £x6ta that Ptsat Sarto;aUlr;r21,--a 80 - r er _A lawn that faded c� ,, fly BEWCZ BEDFORD COMFY In spite of the Smiths'difticufttes,in Itt35the tractwas Rochester Avenue is all that is left to remind us of the still settling up. The storekeeper waa doing a°fine town between Etiwanda and Niortb Cucamonga.Begin- 'business and the attendance at the school was the largest fling is 1989.after the boom period,it,struggled hard(ot; ever enrolled. cr existence. Grapes were the main product and it was said Were*' Charles W.Smith,the founder,made his first purchase',wii$plenty of water for potatoes and alfalfa. of land on July,28.1888,,,and continued buying private, The years 1898-99'brought little rainfall-and the lands and railroad property until he had about 1.6m Rochestrr'company. as with the San Anlemin and = acres.He came from Rochester.Penn.,near Pittsburgh, Cucamonga companies. could not supply, the'needs, - probably for•his health,and settled in Cucamonga. Crops failed and the exodus began.Most of the find went He followed the plans of the promoters of Cucamonga to non-resident owners who tired forelgn.Wborers to and Ontario by laying out Orange Avenue,a tree-lined work to the vineyards. double boulevard three tnfles long.The land was divided Ir. r40fi Smith formed a grape juice company.but the into ten-acre tots,and the deeds carried a tempemnee' juice%is too sweet to sett—another loss to Pve one. ' clause. - Ov1911snmany had mo edawaythatthepostofficewas Water was brbu&to each lot by concrete pipes.The closed and wal) was adrested to North Curamongn:; stuck off the Rochest-, Water Company was subscribed Even the.Rochester Water Co.moved Itsheadquartr, • before the land went on safe by'Smith and his wife, 'Los Anaeles. brother.Ella Cotton and Bertha Cotton. In I027 the Rochester schn3f war?osed and the puptis ; The land wan first offered at SIOD•125 8n acre In transferred by bus to a Curamnnga`chnol Even the;old February 1889.for those who would build it douse and hell was taken atnng.Building%dt,-.riorated until they start planting. Enough find was sold the first year sn dtahppeared. This old town at iNghth,Street and that a,lost.office was established.and a store,lumber Rochester Avenue to ten mnre. yard,telephone;and lintel were put up.The Southern Pacific Fat In a switc:',and a flag stop. The school building was completed in the spring of 1891. Before April 1.1891.Smith had taught 320 acres 20,OM feet away in a canyon.The water rose to the surface and then farther dawn went underground,not to reappear on his'land. He constructed tunnels,ditches,flumes,and dams,and put to pipes at a cost of SM.000.When the water was turned on the next summer,there was a 250+ inch flow. Immediately.the Etlwanda Co.brought suit tiphist the Rochester Co.,claiming it reduced their water supp ; ly.The case was In the courts for two years. more than 750 acres altogether had been ImprovcJ by 1893,and the Rochester Fruit Co.built a packing house. Before the trouble about the water began, Rudrtph Smith; a brother,returned to,Pennsylvania to spend several months"hustling"colonisers.He returners in Oc- lobar 18.03.with a party of nearly'IW people and their freight.About the same time Charles also brought back more settlers.for whom a'big welcoming party was held In the packing house. Experts had been brought In tot Udy the w&ter sources In the suit of the Edwandt a.and,;based on their(in.. dings„the court found against lhr,Rochester Water Co. on Feb.24.1894.Rochester wz.left with only wells, The Smiths had spent freely 1n providing water,plan. LL tangs and general improvements to start their town. They inust have been low on ready cash, foe'several suits,mostly under$100..were brought against them for not turning over monleo coP ieted'for'the Ruhrster Fruit Co. At one time,Bertha iM Ella Cotton,had to guarantee$to0 court tees-tat the Smiths cmid appeal the judgments. , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA nTM;--SZM MI Q PLANhtIAtG I)IVISIGN T�TGE:Nlt1.Y 89,Ar' SLPP• "Zl,`80, EXHIRM, A SCALE: AWA of F1lt1Ad6 Rim MP �rK sr� S �r AN MARS 0 N Q Q - m - T CITY OF IL4NCHO CUCAMONGA rrEm. YE PLANNING,D IsIOR F"AjR MAP ` EXHIBIT: F3 SCALE- -- AOL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION 'OF PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL: THE APPROVAL OF STREET NAME CHANGE No. qO-01 TO CHANGE THE `t')!E OF TWO PORTIONS OF'ROCHESTER AVENUE TO SMITH BROS. AVENUE AND ROCHESTER COURT RESPECTIVELY, AND :-- KING FINDINGS ,IN SUPPORT THEREOF A, Recitals. (i? On February. 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed a written request by Mr. Irving V. Augur to rename a. portion of Rochester Avenue in the area of its intersections 'with 'bth Street. On that date;, the Planning Commission, by its adoption of Resolution. No, 90-23, declared its intention to initiate the process to rename portions of Rochester Avenue immediately north and south of 5th Street. (ii) On March 28, 1990, and continued, to April 11, 1990, the ' Planning C=,mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the above-mentioned, street rename proposal, Street Name ' Change No. ,90-01, pursuant to the City Code Chapter, 1212. Y (iii) The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division prepared a report ASk which addressed the justification for the change, recommended a street naming plan, provided alternate replacement names, and discussed the impacts of the recommended change. %iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution !' .. have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that'411 of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenceff public hearing an March 2$b 1990, and continued to April- 11, 1990, including written and "oral staff reports, this' Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The current Rochester Avenue street naming situation which results in two (2) Rochester Avenue intersections at'fith Street is potentially' confusing to the 'general 'public and enargency personnel!, and it should be - corrected. f ,. 11 _ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. STREET NAME VANGE•90.4 • April 11, 1990 Page 2 ter* b.• The proposed name "Smith Bros. Avenue', has historical significance to the general area, where Charles'W. and Rudolph Smith> kncwn 'as the "Smith Brothers", helped develop :commercial activities neaw Rochester and 8th Streets 'in the late 1800's. C. The street name change; "Smith Bros. Avenue," applies to approximately 8/10 of a' mile of Rochester Avenue between the southern Rancho Cucamonga City limits and its intersection/terminus with the new portion of Rochester 'Avenue. d. The street name change, "Rochester. Court," applies to that portion of Rochester Avenue that is approximately 820 feet vest of the 1-15 Freeway from its terminus 600 feet south of 6th Street to its intersection with 6th Street. e. This proposed street name change would not bf: materially injurious or detrimental to the properties adjacent to ;Rochester Avenue and would not have a significant impact on the environment "nor surrounding properties: f. That this street name change proposal is inconformance with the provisions of the City's Street Naming provisions, City Code Chapter 12.12. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence pr-esented to this Commission during the public hearing and upon the Specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed ,name change is consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. b. That the proposed change is consistent With the Circulation Element of:the General Plan. c. That the proposed change- will not cause significant adverse impact upon the environvent. d. The proposed change is -deemed necessary to 'protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare by providing only one (1) Rochester Avenue intersection, At 6th Street. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered for compliance with the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and determines this action to be 'exempt, from furthar environmental review, as provided in CEQA Section15061 (B)(3). z` t• PLANNING COMMISSION.RESOLUTION NO. r STREET NAME 'CHANGE; 30-01 ' April 11, 1,9go Page 3 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in .paragraphs i, 2, 3, and 4 above,`;this Commission, hereby recommends. to..the ,Ciy Council the approval on the 11th day of April, 1,990• of Street Change No, 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission+ shall certijfy to the adoption of th,"s Resolution, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH;DAY OF APRIL, 1990. FPLANNING, COMMISSION OF THE'CITY-OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNie1, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary.. I,. Brad Bul'er, Secretary of.the Plann" L ;_��ssion of the City'of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that. the foreg N ng Resoi,utjon was; duly, and regularly introduced, pvssed,`and adc �ced by the Planning Commissian',af the City of Rancho Cucamonga,'at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held oq the 11th•day of;April,"1990,, by the fnll'owi,ng vote'to-wit: AYES: CnMISSIpNERS: NOES: 'COMMISSIUdERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: S< t CI"t'Y OF RANCHO G136WONGA STAFF REPORT DATE April 4445.04 Chairman and M."mbers •of.the' Planning Commission: , FROM: Barrye R: Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer. 1 BY: Ping Kho,'Assistant"civiI L'iineer SUBJECT: EPIVIttONMENT& ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE ,PARCEL'MAP 12338 Rk LEMUFFALO S :_ TuRiviffG.3.of. acres.o'.' Tan n o parce s in he General' ;Yndus�. ial .�istrtct (S-ibarea 11), located at the,northwest Ornev of 6th Street, and.Buffat:,Avenue_-(APH 229462=281 x This item was .continue. 4 at the March 2s3;' ��19901 Planning •Commission meeting, because the commission was concerned: that)the .Unusual. parcel., configuration could, caU �r',miaintenance . prob;gms and property,-;_owner disputes in;the,,future. `Staff" met with the neveloper on April ,4# 1990, ? ' where it was2cided that the Developer should, prepare a letter explairr;ng `his reasoning for the .requested parcel .lines; lie has request that., the item be continued to April 25,. 1990," to 'provide sufficient time, to'prepare 0e•1etter. Respectful,,y submitted, RHM•BRH:PK:s4a o' s: tt t APR 06 '`70'11 i.3, EN KSLEY_'CQRaTtt �t �y KENSLEY :\�:i t:UA:itiil T\YF aiT\7A �{N:tT�tF\CIY:\ 3t\it(Y 411— ly_f'.NYi(: April 5, 29D 1 Senor C $` I Engineer ' ! The- CiV- Rancho Cucamonga t 9320 Baas LinP Rood � t PO Soso 807 ' t Rancho Cucamongat, CA.', SU730 I Re: Tentativa Pair661 Dear Mr. `Hanson. 1 Please reschedul, ghe Plannxnq 'Coot ssaon Re:ariiig on,Tent4Oe Parcel Map22.338 for the'Apsil 2y 1990 •h©arang date. FA E'ECN, BL}F7A PARTNERS' ? " i 47tages X. ! G®ner;s? •Rare Jn-928 ° cc: Rachard Stenton t Nick 0riti David Moon f Timothy. EAwry t Y t f IV ! 2.; . a t s' \�zi5H+iaL4YJ OkT�Mt�IIYlnOY]gt ttIFCRUw 91bbt_ piD:'bf tla h {i° L }, CITY OV RANCHO CUCANIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 11, 1990 T0: Chairman and Members of the..Planning Commission" FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner sociatez Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13298"- LEWIS 0': MIMES - A residential subdivision and de ign review of112 coodominium ;units on 9.36 acres of:"land' in ithe,' Medium Residential-.District (8-14 dwelling units per.,acre) of;the 'Terra; Visti Planned Community, located On the 'southwest .corner of Mountain :View, Drive and Milliken Avenue - APN: 107 491-36 PROJECT AND STTE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map, conceptual plot plan, conceptual grading plan, corn:eptuai landscape plan. and building eievations for .the development; of 112 condominiums, :and,issuance of a negative declaration,, B. Project Density: 12.0 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land 'Use and 'Doing: f Hon th - Single family residential;, Low-Medium ResdCgt7a1 (4-8 dwelling,units per acre) South - Vacant;:West Greenway Trail East Apartments; Medium-High Residential (14-24-dwelling units per acre) , West - Vacartl Low"&: dium Residential 4-8 dweiIinQ units per acre} G, general Plan Des anations: Project Site - Lora-MediurR Residential North. -. Low-Medium Residential ty South - Medium Residential �" I'TEF9 D, t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA & TT 13298 -,LEWIS kd[fES, Apri-1,11;-1996 t } Page 2 1 - East ' - Law-Medium Residential West Low-Medium' Residential ' E. Site Characteristics:' The site, `which slopes approx:imate`,� 3- 4 percent from..north ;to south, is vacant with remnants of a former vineyard.; f F. Parking Calculations: {=`° Total :un't is: 112 Unit Mix- 2 bed'roon�. 80 3 bedroom 32, Parking Required': , 80. X 1.8 144 32 ;(;2.0 64' J_ 112 X b 25 28 Total Parking Spaces Required 236 Parking'Provided: Enclosed Garage Open , li0 Total Parking.Spaces 'Provided ' 258 I'I. -ANALYSIS: A. General: The ;project contains three diff eent',Unit types ranging,in size from,a 945 square vOot two-bedroom unit to a 1,571 square foot three-bedroom, ,�ownhoust, style :unit. ? The units are arranged in ,three different building`typea ,Park.ing is provided in enclosed. garages and open' staIIS- On-site amenities include. a recreation building, tgt lot, pool,':and I An open play area is also provided. B. Des gn Review Committee: The Committee (McNie1, 91 kesley, ' Coleman) recommended _appro al: of•the project on' February- 8, 1990. subject to the revisions listed below. The' Committee recommended that these°revisions be revieeted, by staff apd ;then scheduled for 'Planning , Commission review..once 'staff was' comfortable with the revisions, 1: Details of_the decorative paving within the`drive ai�sles, t , adjacent to the garages should" a provided.. 4r r RT PLANNING COMMISSTON.,STAFF,REPO EA & TT 1329,$;- LE4tIS HDMES' Apri7`ll, 1990• Page.3 I� STAFF RqSPONSE ThL-se details were submitted Co Staff'on F,66riary`21 1990, The drive aisles wi'il Include scored. nrEtural co srete "w th.a, 'olored concrete accent band and drive, app . ;Interlocking concrete .pevers W1,11 be used wherufpedestrian walks cross" the_drive,aisles (see Exhitiit "-G"'-for de,ta'ils):. 2.: Building E. should be moved 5 feet..to the, he east' STAFF RESPONSE:. .This, has .been completed�.o1.n the revised. plans- ;. 3,' The left elevation 'of Building 100 still needs additional,, detailing in the-Marge blank area-between the two upper- story windows. The Committee 'rerammendec' use of perhaps, a .fa.Jse•cFiimhey or,additional window opening. STAFF RESPONSE• 'The applicant has submitted-an enhanced elevation (see tExhibit, F 3), In addition,, .sta,ff-:;is adding Condition 5, in the Resolution. of .Approvalj� to provide a maximum of two 36-inch `box ssze '•arees''td provide 'an' enhanced, entry statement where this,elevatidn . occurs (see_Building 3), 4, An enhanced" handscaPe concept'at�'the northeas,t'corners.of the site should be developed. STAFF RESPONSE:, The revised plans depict the'ia'Nsca,pe ; .,concept, at- the southwesf. corner. .of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive. Final details wi1l,:be.Worked ;out with the final landscape, construction dncuments. per Cond.iti.on 4 0� the'-kesolu"On of Approval for he Design Review.appl,icaition.: C. Technical 'Reij ew Committee:. The 'Committee has reviewed the . prtiect and determined that, with the recommended spezial conditions and attached standard 'conditions, of approval the=r< proJect is consistent;'` ,with all aPpl i'cabl el standardvAM' ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I 'of the Initial Study has,a been completed by the :a;Pplicant. Sta`f fhas,completed,Part :Il ` of the 1Environmentai;: Checklist and found'_ ,r�o significant impacts on the environment as a. result of this project. ,. { '!f • y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. ,. EA &"TT13298LEWIS HOMES; April :31, 1.99,6 Page 4 IIL 'ACTS FOR FINDINGS This; project it consistent With AM.Terra i(Ista rCommunity Plan and the ,General Plan, :and will ,not.'.be detrimental to adjacent p,ropertie's or cause significant adverse impacts. ..=•The ,proposed'.use, building"design, ;;and subdivision; together--witlI ail recommended conGitions- ap , oya7, 3re::_in' compliance with applicable "regulation's of,;the Development Code" and the Terra Vista Community Plan. IV. CORRESPONOENCE:, ThftAtem has been advert:i�ed as.-,a public.hearing in The .Oa� i1 enort newspaper, .the; property,posted;'and.notices `= were sent to 'all, property,;owners:Within 300 Meet of the„project site. - V, RECOMMENDATION: Staff, recommends thl� the Planning .Commission approve �Tentat:ve Tract 132981, subJeet.' to; 'the conditions of approval, thGugh- adoption of-the'attach(d' Resolution,and issuance of a,'iegative_'Declaration. Res kctful %submitted; Brad Buller City Planner BB:BH/jfs' Attacfiments; Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit Site Plan Exhibit "C". Tentative Subdivision Mal)- Exhibit "D" :.Conceptual Grading, Exhibit "E"°-� Conceptual Landscaping Exhibit I - Building'Elevations Exhibit "G" - Motor Court 1Detail Resolution of Approval with Conditions ,,;II Ij i ,. Rw+eaas - Aw 0IPIf.1 PARR'. a -�•� .� _ _ VACAXTI axw"B VMYAW ' t ..4aSAt'P aOC aatYt f � •.'12102 _ [ASIH�GiOecl�G�Pt -� O0ST916 TRACT Na t� RCRATYl1- - J- rARR sm !!L aHt VACANT:EXSSla16 VPNCYAa® 6oO0L RfD r t Eli m t t � i35SEgi'A'aVRRYAiD TEAR Na-12965 leAcrrsa. aass wmroS mac, naAxar 1-. -� sLst CAiENaRYPw'f tWP.ID� l7�mR2ORR L 1 �`- W619.0 11Y 1t86K'PAllti- �{011N016S! AND AM • Z91o»C r.4 S [ASS CJtfFiNiAr ARa r-vsfu1G iopw m va 9 PJL mm tvacANT r•�� 4 fJU517K L`{[s V¢4YAY { / R:. w6fa0 ►.G VACAxTl E7[mme YaSnmm lousn a%vinAIDD ,�.� ii QGlMARr �_�tfAO 0Vs v4^Y rt ••. -• eanicaRviu- L` nacs ism Taal®Pm 22287 0=ATw Vaal N _RTH z9 - II A � I� �TA TITLE: GleN /YIP { PIS NINE DIVISION -5' EXHIBIT:.&.SCALE: a.� I I I J/lf' _ _ n� • n _ 1 1 Al xi =E= ' Tit - Ij t II � NORTA CI ANC CUCAM, ONGA , TIT 1E . PIAN ING DIVISI®IV' EXHIBIT: SCALE: JJJ trot `t' 3, i i i•' i 7n I ? I Y it r Y Jill + f � ,,:'..•• —�_� ` c^ �f 1 .� ' ,j_� S.* 4 �u �i TRACTtdO. u�,. yll� i 1 I M.B. c:3 LOT Lr�-jl, �\� 1. I TQ[LdTEVS r t 1,,,� T m' CT NO.Yt396 i i I I t.a + C—^.S r+.An�"•'.ID1295+ I P.Fl.. 13��93.96�}.��• \� � I i 1 i wesr csetmrNv��Ass.— '- I NORTH CI ITEW ` l3Zt$ AN TIC?-CUCAMOWGA, 'TME: Nr SwBD v/s�on� i�i� PLANNING DIVISION. ` - E HYEI'T sc LE:AQ&I I 1 — t i=M ! Is rr —.-- •ate.". i` - t 1 �' t iI 1 < 1 1 s + > It NORTH ..-- - t7.. . .• w. I I i ;i x r 11 f i r , CITY OF ITEM: 1=62 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE., c� cZ G•. GAO/i% PLANNING DIVISIO �-� EXHIEIV SCALE: ��e- .� n CD`'7 K,'�''.c:� rI � �'�r'.CI►�Z'�f'.� '?�;Ot- "tq r � rag R r T' V, /.� �,��►�i-�l� � fib AF 00 e I �►111111111,•�: } a Y+t• `rl • •rh•af ti �r rir IY3{-3;� a n RL } Ilaf$a�ff �..• ,� , tai •/Y tf1 : � ta•c ' 4�ia'Mat, tniir •ri/6 R' rqR f.rrff� ,: rsfi[iwaalr aa�a. /Rill a•Nrt IH�r • tniriai� wlN.c NS � tRINR ar/�•i ', �wNra aarw� �: t tftlqq Niaiti� raae`iiau a/w �' . :�vri�•p y, •:r,`� Rr N 9 � V�•�� tr r.l a• ra1�/! P I�vi•a r, rs ul IlL P' uj; d 1 r d'�Iaa��� - � � ■RR ne: nj+ ,11"ff" � e _ INS Iasi two � I� � ;�•rr S� v. Im c I Cry1. O k>, t� a k s r- it 4 yt� is 0 Ji i f ���1fl�ioroe„rr, �rallrllllllllll CIF, 4t7 4 r, � yy� a ';R�,l � i ti A'} a Bpi v, 1 � 1 t_ '1. k W •=_�_�'* VW i'. �� V its. 4 r Y■ h L INE ji _A. ,r 111 DIM.. l `mot � t M w Lys r a:• .s t r � ram` • �.. ni lid r �1 Y ........... .... r T W '1• � f i .if �j]�IflUi6f, s n A rs �..^c`� w r x .L. s 3. 1 } •v X 4~ Q N � LU Q L W .�^.M1.•Lt !� ��1. LIJ It U IVYIQ -17 f ®E y�{ v qqpp q C t1 . _irlp- Aiu c C ca {tr' RESOLUTION NO. A,RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI5SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING i TENTATIVE TRACT MAP W, 13298_ LOCATED' WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF'MILLIKEN AVENUE AND. MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE IN THE MEDIUM 'RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUP THEREOF - . 'APN: 1077-09146 A. Recitals. (i) Lewis Homes has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13218 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution.- the sub3ect Tentative Tract Map request is referred tor'as 'the application." ,. (ii) On the llth day of April. 1990,' the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted'a duly noticed public hearing on thrk ' application and concluded said hearing 'on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the-„adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE,' it is hereby found, determined anet resolved by the Planning Commission of the City,of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds, that all of the facts setL forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence'presented to .this Commission during the 'above-referenced public hearing on April 11, 1990,, fncluding r written and oral staff reports, together with public ,test.i�.iony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as foTTows: r ' (a) The, application applses. -to property ?"acated at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue arr4 Mountain View Drive with a street frontage of ±636 feet and lot depth of ±580 feet and is presently improved with curbs and gutters on Milliken Avenue; and, (b) "ihe property to the north of th 'act site is existing single family residential, the property to the south,:of'the site .consists of a future Greenway Trail, the property to the east is an apartment complex under construction, and the property ,to the west is vacant. 3. Based upon the SUbstantialL evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hear'Tiig and. upon the specific findings' of facts set forth in paragraphs• 1 and 2 above, this Commissiolihereby`finds,and concludes as follows: xv 1 c PLANNING COMMISSION':RESOLUTION NO. TT 13Z98 - LEWIS HOMES ' A pri r 11, 1990 page (a) That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan,' Development Code..an(i the Terra Vista Community Plan; and, (b) The derign or improvements of,,the tentative tract is consistent with the General Flan, Development .Code,, and the Terra Vista Community Plan; and', (c) The site is physically suitable for ;the type•of development proposed; and ?, The design oaf the' subdi.vi�tion 'is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable�-injury, to ,humans and wildlife or their habitat; and,. (e) The tentative tract is not likely to caus;�. serious public health problems; and, z (f) ;The design of the tentative tract will not conflict .with any easement acquired by the public at large, now, of record, for access through or use of the, he property within the proposed subdivision. 4, This Commission hereby fends and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the C61'1;7ornia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 .and, further, this Commission hereby i4sues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings-and conclusions set forth.'in. paragraphs 1, 2, 3, •and 4 above, this'=Commission hereby approves-the.applicstion subject to each and every :condit'ion set forth below and in the attached''Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Prior to the recordation of the final map ,or the issuance of building ''permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of 'a Hello- Roos Community Facilities District pertaining to the projec"t site, to provide in>conjunction ;; with the applicable school district for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any, School district has, previously established such a Community Fac.ilitiet;District, the applicant sjall,, `: the alternative, consent to:, the annexation of the project site into the territory of ;such existing.District, priar to the recordation of the final 'map or the issuance of bui,iding, permits, whichever comes first. U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13298 LEWIS HOMES April 11, 1990 Page 3, Further, if the affected school district has not- formed a' McTlo-'Roos, Community ;Facilities District within (,4e1ve months of.*the date Of approval of the project and prior.. to th4 recordation ,of the .final map or issuance of building permits for said ,project,; this Y conditions shall be deemed nO-r and vBid: Engineerinv-Division 1) The portion it of the not beLng developed with this .map, proposed 7entati.ve 'Tract=14{65 to the east, 'sha`Cl be designated d "re►�ai;nuer parcel°' on the Final Map if':it does not record prior to approval of Final Map. 2) Construct Milliken Avenue full width from Base 'Line Road to Foothill Boulevard, including street lights" a landscaped median, and the traffic signal at the, Milliken/Foothill ' intersection. ' Off-site 'parkway 'improvements may be deferred until developmdnt of the Adjacent properties., 3) Construct Countryview_Drive,full width from the existing terminus to-"Mountain View. Drive. Provide catch basirs for the future street in �ropo'zd Tentative Tract 14365, instead `of a cross;gutter.' Install street lights in the off-site parkway. 4) ConstroCtL the following storm drainage ' facilities :pOr the 'Terra Vista Master Phan of Storm Drainage:,,, a. Line 1 from Deer Creek Channel to Milliken Avenue; b. Line 571 within Milliken:Avenue; and, c. The retention, basin in La Mission Park, r+ located at the northwest corner 'of Church ! ' Street and; Elm Avenue. 5) Landscaping within the lines of sight for, all- project, driveways and street intersections adjacent to the site shall be subject- to' the. approval of the City Traffic`Engineer. i.� PLANNING COMMISSION" RESOL'UTION 110. TT 13298 - 'LEWIS HOMES April 11, 1990 Page 4 6) Milliken Avenue parkway landscaping shall conform to the results" of the" Mil;likett Avenue ',. Beautificat a; Master Plan. 7) To ;minimize the possbi.jity of averfiow to, the West'Greenway.Corridor, the on-site-storm drain system shall provide sufficient •catch-basins (3 minimum) so that no.more" than 1Q percent of the project- "flow: is ii.tercep.ted at the ;most southerly catcl•4 ba§in, 8) Protect- driveways shall conform to Cit Standard No. 306. y 9} Sid�sWalks 'on ;Mountain " View "and Countryview Drives shall be property line ,adjacent. 10) All public improvements ,on M ``liken Avenue, Mountain 'View Drive, and. 'Cdun tryview Or •re shall bA operationally complete pror'to''the issuance. of building permits.` _ 11)`The secondary access to Countryview Drive shall not be gated and the "emergency apcss" 1'abei shall be rwoved. _ -t 12) The proposed relocatfun of the. storm drain easement within the West Greenway Corridor, shall be completed prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of, building Whichever occei%S first. permits, 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this, Resolution., APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH-nAY OF APRIL, 199o. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13298'- LEWIS HOMES 1J April 11, 1990 Aft Page.5 }N I, Brad `Buller, Secretary of the Planning Cummiss.ion of the Oity of Rancho Cucamor,ga,'do hereby certify' that thy—foregoing Resolution was duly and regulaatly iritroduced, passed; and,ad6pted by the Planning Commission of the City o,f Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mee, ing=of the Planning Commission held on 'the 11th,day of April,.'1990, by the following vote-to-wit: ' - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES': COMMISSIONERS:. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, b i 1 I r - i H t t°r w e ®$ `•�'..` ��� ®4'i`tl�a;.° �SE �,�` a� ���4� ,orb. :: ma�.� qcu �u g bt ta 2 S 8$�'ra�gEg �10 a S i B 3 _ �•:3� Xf Sr t$gkeug fee"deu awe � � �a ® oL $ate Ov jJ s wy__y� mgHlH �^ a sH VG t ff v s 3 V. N � ?T � a S3: ng ai �. pp P Ic .. All p��® F,`" CA ®�mlpIna , $� ms aax gs sag $ sass s" : Rat 3 {y`�J pQBBd�[ Ys a 6 9. qo p & � s�ES E- e,bs�e- 1 _ so R- - s a Nz e Z'M . 3 e Y r $ C.' Na.la VA ee o 900 - ` p E ff 211 �- ®jlg Ye 113 ITLIrn sa I asp f 7 sir s _ 6 3C a Ulf tM oil Us =14 it Ins 0 Of - I - a Jiis s " 6 a ®� ®� ; � ��$� � , �, _rye _ w: O=i U rz -it ain Ml I' Q7X a• a CO p ice; v IL Iso ;�giae3°S' `p i 3 6 rod" 'CN Oh1 AO CY ib .ypo Yr_. Yr '•bB �`ppj p. my eYL���•?ayr�V1�V( OO gg g'Y all L1M �p4 •.L"O ��N � CYS tl�1� S'y`j`�t����Vg«�lN� C¢�_ .Y �i s�+ _a~K »d�� ®YOL 0. �Y� MC ..�6gi$ .,ey $x ji GO i • b ii ilk p Op Ifft IS As 1 14 �A g 96 all Ind Z;3 L " 6 �I �I � � >CI �( xl •�C! J�t�3 �'�� �p�g� any '• �t��` '.�SgS ��?� � � tlZ ll ®a.e ISO r. a+�Y �.�we� a: �1p•'. CCYY _ b d 4�5E +�'4 (�M n9$ �•�p Q eee W �y®� ■s$oy:,��yG � Y.�g¢� SSE Y=moms 9 � 0 ® 4GaN � Y • ONE•v��oY• a�V,.. Y Q Y a:6 Y i b y1 �b6 Y M b p4` tl •Y is iI( �]�•'1Y y�L`Y Ntl _ r ,r 1 . a silk e Zia ..o' N fiw�a : Is 0 zg at � � ®�, �'.. ffi� S�. �'�' • era IL_ — Y 2! r - 2 .1 gX r a N $ gig$g Z: 1 •iii illf .. y.•! y3 r �p �� , Xtl � O O�gI AO M� BQ�al os p�. Z:- - d -- e � aa�— der a g ®Sb" EN yvvOO yy ¢�pp�� 9 g— t .-Y'gSeYr9 yy � 106$6 $n0 AIM Y� b u > aYB�Y b��Y aOY VOOIW CJ Y.N�yyO✓py H 0 �� !V A O •N V /� 72 owls eIj3. a �yIs. 8� �— ®dux is s4S - Va M.1 srpsi' M g Sit g� V.. �� o S r ms He al sit us It 1 $8 t W PR 14 612 .,z'3 s orNJ x_®® 5$. _@ Y 5 •g '�f w N V j.~ .2`' LA B' y7 W Ir aaYs� y 9�:tlP� r. s ffiry _ �j pp ; � ih �. "'Ai W, I {, �F f tg h sit- oy� 4 - I @E 0 V 'tl g A ffi M b 1 .`y g a d�A tl M p yg V .p y py 1 _y� M g@Sy'V—y„ i si U d S 4 MI5. Ul as 1 UP 'lag O;, RESOLUTION NO. ` j A RESOLUTIG?;'OF ;THE PLANNING 61,01ISSION •OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAt40NGA; CA`J FORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 13298 .LOCATED' WITHIN THE TERRA VISTPk'PLANNED COMMUNITY ON 'THE -SOUTHWEST CORNER OMZLLIKEN AVENUE"AND MOUNTAIN "VIEW DRIVE -IN THE MEDIUM 'RESIDENTIAL".DIST,RICT, AND MAKTNG" 'FI.NDINGS 'IN " .SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-091,mL6, " A_ Recitals. (i) Lewis" Hrmes has filed an application for the'Design Review of Tract No. 13296 'as described in the title of-this Resolution. Hereinafter, the st:';ject :Design..,Review reo,;2st is referred to';as "the appl';cation." On "aril I1,.I990, the Planning ,Commission of the City of Rancho'Cucamonga_held c•,meeting`�to consider- the.,appl cation. (ii"i) Al I` legal prerequisites prior,,to `the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.' B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE,,it is hereby found, determined and 'resolved by the Planning Commission,of the .City of Rancho Cucamonga As follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all.-.of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A9 of thi Resolution are true and=correct. > 2. Based upon,substantial eviderce presented to`this Commission &ring the above-referenced meeti!g on_Apri1 11, 1990 including written and oral staff reports,: this Commission hereby specifically finds' as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with.tie' objectives of the General Plan and the 'Terra Vista Community Plan;!,and, b. That the proposed design is in accord with..the objective-of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and,; c. That the proposed design is,.in compliance with each of the . applicable provisions of the Development_`Code; and d• That the proposed design; together .with; the' conditions ?� applicable thereto, will not be detrimer.:tal to the public health, safety, :or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or "improveriehts in the vicinity. ter: e PLANNING COMMISSION•RESOLOTION NO. DR FOR TT 13298 - LEWIS HOMES April 11, 1990 fit, Page 2 3, Based upon the findings and conclusions.set.forth in paragraphs . 1 and 2 above, thie,Comm iss.ion hereby approves the application subject to.:eacb and, every condition setr forth below and in the attached Standa W Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. ' 1) Gas meters and/or any other utility fixtures shall be screened from view with low walls, berming;, and/or. landscaping. These fixtures may also be enclosed within outdoor storage areas if possible. 2) The project shall be constructed consistent with the preliminary acoustical study. A-final acoustical study shall. ' be prepared , and submitted for review, prior to, issuance of :building permits. The study -shall address the noise generated along Milliken Avenue and shall identify mitigation measures-to be incorporated into the final project design. 3) The project shall .comply`41th Ordinance No. 411 which establishes Xeriscape requirements and criteria. for the landscape construction documents. 4) An enhanced 'landscape;'Plan shall be provided on the southwest, corner of Milliken: Avenue and Mountain View 'Drive.. The design details shall be shover, on the final. Tandscape plan and reviewed and approved by the-:City Planner. 5) A "minimum of two (2) 36-inch box-size trees shall be provided along Building 3 (west elevation) to provide anenha need'entty. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution: APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11T,H`PAY OF APRIL, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 'Chairman r _ ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 4 r PLAANING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, WAR.1 T 13298 LEWIS HOMES 1990 :Page 3 r; I Brad Buller, Secretary Jf :the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certif�; that ,the foregoing `Resolution was duly' :"nd regularly, introduced, Passed, a d, adopted by the Planning Commission of ife City of Rancho Cucamonga, at',a reg4Y�r meeting of the Planning Commission field on the 11th day o A`pril, 1990., by the fo'lowing vote-to-,wit: AYES COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: r MMISSIONERS:;i � f (f L' U TL o3eu I o sg; ''.— :e gz rgY 9 L Y C »Yi fj ��. �`a' �M1 . a tV •c 4 gg �. � 1S x$ aY 121.1 Eayyj,roo"gY� ,,l.y�r aYg oz aLo , Euo m•� aM _.,, so` ".e e� :. 8q a\5 yp r Ya O.6^ .v�O y gYy� r �e o��s YN:� �_=L'�y :ORY 41-Wri 'l',Y A3 . OEM"• �.V. ^ Y`­A* a • �E���vE r�wr.a� Nowg Sp e dryy�e>cg ¢a �e a:� �Ei z-- gole� -ai u yyu ' —LL V:p paripa�r��D VW Y—:r .PVC 6.V QOf wLi�� 1..60b ,Og'I.� yd Y x e a �aa^• .�'z� �'� '�Mgm�B`�' 0 age y _ a - ;j 120 _ e $ .� «" _ s C To 19 o ur T. ail r e+ W >; d y. �aa w►` a 2- ONE� •• QQ�� 8 �Y1 aq�p. pp yy y$• �✓e" {Y�8 y s Y C ' B�A ��Q. �. ®.." jej y. �lr fig$$ `Q✓. � ��s ` l� � "�� gsop� e,Q„} y�. 3•• e. ��r g ga4� Y�i k azz ` S \ �� 6✓e1� -Ni a�`" gg1 ��-gg$t _.1.. ��^ .� S •a"\� £lit VM II y� ik .24 1 • O g6 •l✓ a Y ✓S `i(��^�� Qs Y N� �� • � a.. Q yps qaY o (x� � of•.�;iy a«v Y i i d��(g M N G VCw@ VY Gi Y��� Q Y,g� ✓Qw IIA � titY\ gg sd5a$ tea$ .�5a�5$:5� >A `8 � \1we:i if �� O1w a�� y� a.✓� .e.�. ' ixx� �e�:= o'3� v a r`p.c su `I Y7 iM Mir g` •' � ..� o�iQ� s Y"'g� i wad rg�.'.. Qa.+� gir$ d r yy it 1"all 5021 SIS Iry it rift —.E,! Zjjf '6_.3 a . Is �6 M Y�_.;M,� � , NY � � � .. : ii Y Tab. �+ .���•_� r�'_jb�,W 7q... 8101 .t$r .3 17 51 �Y II 15 TCit 'A,ve� ry so w=j SR .Ei: •-;.V�$ar amw^ - - a� _ a a...$. '526g `� ,,...$$egg" ��«o: a 5 .. $..� qaQ xi�trt w� rQy `o "�-�Q. ry wveCO v �j�¢� S-9 �O +`� y G w:. EC O v�Y Y Y y N`!3: ��1._r `l L Y V `.>— O� • � �i e Y �L.�' 3 M� y 34� a y y y A O ■ Y tl s e A` / i`®gN ypI .S1 O`, � R` t�ttV-,,NN...Z,,,._v„V r ``M. ■i^�'°'( �:t =:a.C Y�e �d`sqw 12 _ e s V Y V• cc CC ��`�•qa Q°iC MO.zeZZ ri N Eft a_ ar site ._ >p Est... ,.o je ash, .�$ g� #fig; Se + e His gg� A$; 3 � g <5+= <e.� v .ay.. �� �sw's� 6'8�e� �a c'� Y':L'ffi�J4•: 1 4� iUP 14, 4. H. d .8✓� _v� :� ��..i w+..i r' rig � Q`�( og� � g. y s 0 a$y eiii'i. ��$°'" p.8 o-�'• •"•�,�v$ ewe—� l+5$ 3 �� _ E e o$p u� SaoQ.Qu a� s ISE: Fy■1d .'� &Z� t� `-� pIJ si w wgpq iff 1, 344;- gQa� Sao ��• aY�a�� ��$ Y9 " �� ;��$ e`r ~a $ _ M 11M. FG1a Its IL N i ay �.c��. i�: •g� e Big» i = r � Zia ; ; i LD SV Aft .. Nal py` r �pij 1yy�s Ya4i :. p e y fit a . `� e i se� , � r W 2 a. bzs K � A<x.N � `M Via= �►�� d ��."q�� <��,� � : sSp �� -# M M • � - 9 fa. ) -_� i sr• n Y¢1¢y� _ . W ui �wraa' S. V {Yy V y y uS � � W 4ry g$C'Y '�q \ J' �p � 4 ` C.R�O QD Yea -qa% �: 't' Z2 .rY. a �asas a - �i(.~ w4 1Y�6 Lv=zyyyy9 4 y mw�lS A Go 6 b d. C h 1w Y ' J QyA C C ■ c R~ , O O a G w ` i 3 1 g Q Ny w y v w, N w� � � � s.$�¢ "n$} �.�.r t ( �/�� v� CemA4 4.Ou 4 �1 0jtl III R` tla `j 4 w. I QI. �;f� .i d a` �+iN ,y' ': 3f��si pClHb g'.On®' O ■ iY A 4.e� Y to G. 12 VT- 53 A� iy 9M « `�N Jio 4� ♦ %~ 94 ffi 9 v fillgqggeeaaz 1 11151 is sits �yy Sin W-12 a It I m 'LS a a s aEe ` i si u x . V Y3 �®O.R. �V �•qip aP �� �w— � _ � 7 ., r tl '�Qq T:.rr CE$ it I ' 7— o [lQ �C CO.� r �Y CO_Q� e:�. O � ►� a r6� Y,.� T6 5�o �a4� „ ��3 �a ,� w�uu$9$* �� mow. �•'k' ®� � 1V=` $5® ��i a�m l� �Vsri� NV tb�J 6Y �.o LZ i® r 4 �r �i O V g �i Sw Y •.• 1 W O E` �r � � .•Y A�_ .�S � fi 4 .I:. ci 8Y re 4L �IL ragLS25 is 42 ` 9 AL AI T M • 1f _ •f b e 4 O tl gg a' i �� v _fit x , � L V off A. o ' oti a p�• C O d90 9S O.ifl 1 AVaw�p IJ Vim.. 11 �ryY� M r OaO `4 V.uI 10a. ` O� . 1 .r �Hf ♦� �M � j i6 y All co V's fill In o_..tl e m �' m��.. ed}�•� ® `'oL_ (s{:ab kg® �r m U S ` _ r.`a b gy `•'�� =iw`� a +$$ � $� �°f �� $� o�� 8�� l �oq o 'r 1 CITY OF RANCHO CrJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Anri] 11,..1990, O: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: - Brad Bullery City 9tanner . =-I' BY: Vince Bertoni, Assista,nt'Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13703 KAJIMA- DEVELOPMENT - A residentis subdivision and design review of 55.`sirrgle family'lots,,..4 11 acres of.land in the tow- Medium Residential Oistrici: (4-8 dweliing rmi'ts per acre,), lxated 'on the�wesiside of Haven Avenue,. north;of Banyan Si:reet`- APN: 201`-181-67 and 68: .', 1. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract,113703 was originally approved, on April 27, 1§93, and is due to expire on April 27,- 1990. "According to the Development Code, exterrsions: for, a'Tentative T.ract-Map'may. be graiited 'in, twelve .(12} Meath increments, not to exceed fide (5) ears from the. ori `inal date 'of 'approval." Therefore the y 9 aDn,.icant may request two (2), additional !,.e extensions extending the Tentat, a 'iract Map I until April 27, '1993. The applicant is currently re.1uesting a 'one; (1) gear time extension which would expire 'on;Apri'l 27, 1991. < II. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the prop�sed time .Oxtension and compared the proposal witK current develcp�rtant criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based an tRls -review,. the tentative i;ract . (lots) 'meets the development standards of the Low tiedium Residential District;, hoWave�, the design review (houses)-:does rot. When rthe, project was approved, the: required side,yard setbacks were 5 feet.`- Currentl.y.: the ,required side yard. setbacks are 5 and'. nd 10 feet; therefiore120 of g;ie 55 lots do not•meet present standards. In addition, from a review of. the _conceptua`1 firading_plan, the project appears to have natural slopes greater than 8 'percent, which would make the design` review subject to�-the neYly adopted: Hiliside Development Ordinance. . Thus, the grading plan and house, designs will need to be modified to. meet 'tnese-'standards. Examples` of non-conformities include building envelopes ',And conventional padded "terrace" style grading of lots. >HoweVer, it was not stafPs intent to ;apply the provisions f ,'the, Hiliside" Development Regu;ations to residential projects which were already approved through theies.ign ,review`process prro.r torcthe m�ffective date of the ;ordinance (March S,' 1.990): dppl icat on`l of"the r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION FOR TT 13703 April 11,. 1990 Page 2 ordinance would cause undue hardship to the''applicant who has invested a. great deal of time and 'resources, toward a project appro Val,%: Therefore, staff would-recommend 'granting.the time. extension request. Staff noted that the standard" condition requiring the su�.� ittal' of a� school "will serve" fetter prior to ether the.'issuancej!of building permits or recordation of the Tentative Tract Map was'not checked on the ori;iinal approval of the tract. Therefore, the mapwas found to be inconsistent- With' Urgency, Ordinance No: 395' pertaining ,to .the evaluation of adequate school .facilities : for proposed ,residential developments. The, applicant`has consented to the impos!1 ion of the following condition of approval to 'ensure, that adequ;"tte `,school facilities will'.be available for the ,proposed subdivision "Prior to the recordation of tha final map `or the issuance of building permits,' whichever comes first, the applicant shail ; consent to, or participate in,, the establishment of a Mello-Roo,3 Community, Facilities District,pertaining to ;the project site to' provide in conjunction with the applicable School 'District for I : the construction and maintenance of ,.necessary school facilities. However, :if" any School District. .has previously established such a Community Facilities District,,.the applicant shall, in `the alternative,' consent 'to the: annexation 'uf the Project site into the.territory of such existing District prior' to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of.,bu:ilding, permits, whichever.comes first. Further, if" the affected School' District has-not formed a hello- Roos Community Facilities District within twelve J 12) months of the"date of approva, of the time extension . n& prior 'to the ` re�or6ation of +.he final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null aid vrbid", III, CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices sent to;all property, owr�_�rs within 300-fo2t of the project site. IV. RECOMMENDATION_ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a '. one 1 yaar time extension for tentative, ,`act,13703 and design review' thereof through the adoption of the attached Resolution. Res P,c full sub t d, .' Bra ' uller ' City Planner Attachments: .Exh.ibii "A Leiter from Applicant Exhibit "B!'•- Location Map Exhibit,%!' Site Plan Resolution `rio. 86-16 Resolution;of Appra`val of , I/(fff 0.9 fiED D 199r) +,bruary 13,. 1990 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 9G7 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91726 SUBJECT: V?me Extension for Tentative tract 13703 'v ;&PN.201� 187-67' and 68. Gentitatie.: Due to the delay beyond Our client's control, the above mentioned Tentative Tract Map will expire, cA April 27; 1990. Hence, we request for a one;-year time extension., Enclosed herewith is a check ($62.00), for the process fee. i Your processing `and granting of this raquest 'will he greatly appreciated. If you need any additional information, please Contact ]Ile, Sincerely, Henry' Pao Project Engineer i ltr\245ex.hp REP: 245-005 y; IT'3' OF,RANCKO CLT6:"AI1 ONGA a'Y y; TE 13703 a LANNI 10N LETTEM FROM AN-� ICAO..; t YECT: A SCr�LEs ►�/A ` a wmGwo. AVENUE z Q CHAFFEY COLLEGE . �t TRACT SITE LEMON AYEN6Ji: HIGHLAND AVENUE "- nos t9th SHEET ui o ui ITY OF;-RANCHO--CUCA1VIONG-A, TE 13743 I PLAA1e�ING D ION WcAnm MAC mE EXHUlff!' SALE: N0 C 'L °R y,r M1k1�_ _..: ales all w CIII c IIN, is Vlmip IN is ���7<< !—�' .a®r�r w. I�as f,�►N ail a.c3�+ .r i«z.oz .a.r, ".: �4.x'r✓±.. f:. �P� �, I i 4 . ► t4 RESOLUTION N0, 88-76 A RESOLUTION OF TPE PLANNING C"ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOQA:APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13703, A RESIOLNTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 11 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LON-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF BANYAN APN: 201-191-67 AND 68 A. Recitals. (i) Kadima Development has filed an application fer the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13703 as .described in the title-of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 270, of April, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (III) All legal prerequisites to the adoptiofi­6f this ,Resolution have occurrvd. B. Resolution. NO'J, THEREFORE, it Is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission or the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds wat all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pae.. A, of this Resolution are true and correct.' 2. B;:sed upon substantial evidence presented to .this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 27, 1989, _ including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this CG:,jnission hereby spetificall,/, finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Banyan with a street frontage of 630 feet along f Haven .Avenue and 796 feet,along the south tract boundary and Is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated for residential uses and is developed with single family homes, the property to the south of that siti consists of the San Bernardino County Flood Control retention basin, the property to the east is Chaffey College, and the property n the west is designated for single family residential and1s under, construction. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public' hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set firth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:,, PLANNING C0WISSI RESOLUTION NO; 88-76 TENTATIVE TRACs 1 j3 - KAJIMA pr." 27, 1938 Page (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and 'specific plans; and M The design or improvements;. of the tentative tract fis consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans, and (c) The mite is physically'suitable for the type of de'4elopment propose.!; and {d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and 'wildlife, or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public healt) problems; and - (f) The design of the `tentative tract vii11 not . conflict, with any easement acquire:+ ,by the public at large, now of record, for..access ' through or use of tho 1�roperty within the proposed subdivision. a. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project .has been reviewed and considered in 'compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and coriclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set 'forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Tract Map 13703 (1) -A twelve foot dedicated Coimnity Equestrian Trail small be provided on the west side .of Haven avenue and shall connect with the trail ;provided by 'Tract 10827-1 to the north, (2) The Community Trail 'located within tha Flood Control Dirtrict harin to the south shall be completed with this tract. (3) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future constructic of the median island within Haven Avenue shah be paid to the City prior to Issuance of building permits or recordaVion'of the final map, whichev r occuri first. The amount of the feel shall be the City adopted unit amount for Phase III timos the linear feet of property fronting on Haven Avenue (A29 feet). • 1 PLANKING CO MISSIOW RESOLUTION,NO. 88-76 TENTATIVE rRACT 13703 -- hAJIMA April 27, 1988Ask Page 3 (4)- The portions of chipped curb and existing curb cuts along Haven Avenue shall be revec and replaced with stt�lndard curb and getter. ` (5) The traffic signal at the intersection or Haven j Avenue' atd der Lane ,shall be upgrit,!d as apprnyed by the C!ty Engineer. (6) A permit shall be obtained-from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District prior to construction of the Comocunity Equestrian Trail along the .south !roJect,boundary per the City's COILWn Usc Agreement Alta Loma Basin No. 2 (Contract:nc,,. 86-289).. (7) Permission shall also be obtained from SGG,!:,CD to discharge stbv'i drainage t41 the existing outlet structure in the basin. If, as. determined by-the fi;lal drainage study, the existing.facit;iti_es.,are to ' be removed and replaced, the: uxsign of 'thcee facilities shall be approved by the Flood Control District and the City Engineer- (8) The Alta Loma Basin Tocated im diately south of ,his site shall be excavated to -provide sufficient storm water retentio+t`to offset the increased runoff generated by the development. (9) A landscape easement adjacent to the public street right-of-way shall be provided along Haven Avenue. (10) Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 within the Huen Annue parkway and adjacent landscape area. Design Review (1) The south elevation oa thi dw,l 7 i ng on lot 2 shall be upgraded with architectural detailing. (2) 'Additional architectural tMatment, such os stucco over 'wood, cgall be 'provided on all elevations., (3) Textured entry pavement shall be provided at the main entry to the project. The type and;?r,Catian of : the pavement shall be shorn on the fin°dl landscape pldns.*which shall be reviewed and approved by the° Gity Planner`;prior` 'to the issuance of building - perrrrts. The materiay shall also be reviewed aad approved 'by the City Engineer for structural integrity prior to the issuance of building permits. ti ... :. PLANNING COMMISSION R€SOLUTION.NO. 88-76 TENTATIVE TRACT,13703 - KAJIM�1 April 27, is-Sall = Ci Page 4 (4) , Ttie Rerimeter wall is to :be Consistent with Tratt� 10827- ` to the north. This shall be noted on the,= ffi:al`;landscap plan which shall 'be reviewed, and apprgyed by the City Planner. . 6. The 'Deputy Secretary to "this Cgmission shall certify to the adoption of this Reo]_,�tion'. APPROVED AND.,ADOPTED THIS.27,TH DAY OF.APRIL, 1988- PLANNING COMISSION OF T'S GIN OF 'ECHO.cutMIi1N6p anne G a,. Tc -.-haijwn ATTESTS 13rad au,jar, Deputy ecre ry 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of;.the Planning Cosnni;sion of.the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certf;fiy bat-thy for going Resolution was duly and regularly introduced; passed,`?and_adopted by the Planning Cawnission of the . ` City a 27thcho Cucamonga,,at;a r.,gular meeting of the PIanning,Coesnission held on the 27th day of April, 19E8, by :the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CORfMISSIONERS: EMERICK.,L TOSLTOY, CH%TIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE.. ABSENT: COM ISSIONERS:' BLAKESLEY U. ,fir RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF PE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFYING TH.E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13703 AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF, A, RESID,`1TIAL SUBDIVISION OF 55 LOTS; ON .11. ACRES-`-OF LAND•LOCk11D ON 'THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF OANYAN. STREET IN THE LOW-PiEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTIPICT (4-8 OWFLILI,NG UNITS PER_ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-18i-67' AND 68.; A. Recitals. (i) Kajima Development, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13703 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this'Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request `is ` referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 27th of April, 1988, the Planning Commission of the " City of Rancho Cucamonga `apnrovetl the application. at. a duly noticed public hearing on that date. (iii) On February 15, 1990, the applicant filed a request for a twelve- I!) month time extension. ( (iv) On the llth of April, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga '.conducted a drily noticed` public hearing on the application'and concluded'said hearing on' th,at;date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption" of this, Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hiireby found, determined and, resolved by 't.ie Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: H ,f 1. This Commission hereby s'ecifically finds that'all of'the facts s?t forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolul:W are true and correct. 2, Based .upon substantial evidence prt ,anted to tdis C611ni;sion during `he a;bcve-referenced meeting on April 11, 1490, including written and. oral itarf reports, this Commission hereby sp6cifical y finds as,z1ol'lows: (a) Tf'4 application applies to property located -vn lieJwest side of Haven_Avenue, nt?rth of Banyan with a. sts-eet frontage of 630 feet agony Haven Avenue and 795 Beet- alang: the south tract bouniary and is, presently vacant; and Awk Y _ _ �7 �rr• � a� g PLANNING CO(4MISSIN RESOLUTION N0, TIME EXTENSION FOti Tt`13703 !'April 11, 1990 Page 2, ." (b) The property to the north of the subject eth .is designated for residential uses and is developed with si.ngte family homes, the property to, the. south of that site consists of the San Bernardino County Flood Control retention �;a`sin, the property to the east is Chaffey College•, and the; property to the west is developed with single faotily homes. 3. Based Upon-tine substantial evidence presented to toffs, ommission during the above-referenced'public hearing and'upon the specific findings of, facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows (a) That the tentative tract is consistent wit', the Ganeral Plan and Development Code; and (b) That the design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the.General Plan, Development Code; and' (c) That the site is physical}y suitable for tte' type of development proposed; and (d) That the design of the subdivision,,fs,`not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to rNmans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) That the 'tentative tract is not likely to cuase, serious public health`problems; and (f) 'That the design of the tentative tz .tt will not conflict ` v 'th ,ny easement acG��irsd by the public at large, now .of record,, for access a through or use of the property within the proposed sub(, 1sio .—, 4.. Based upon the findings and conclusions sat forth in paragraphs I, 2, and 3 above, this Commission: hereby approves-the application subject to each and every condition set forth below, 1) All Corditiins of Approval, as contained' in. . Planning ,Ct, aission' Resolutio�i No. 58-76, shall r;cp - except:where modified harein. 2)' Approval shall expire on ,April 27, 1991„' unless ,�• wended by the Planning Cog nission�. 3) Prior to the recordation 6�f the final mapr3r .`i ' the issuance of building permits, whichever {, a } ' comes first, the applicernt shall• ,consent tv. or participate in, thtl , stabllshment of a 3 Belle-ito.os, Community -t UACilitiek' 'District, pertaining �o ''the praj�`ct Site to ,provide, in con,�,,Action, with _the - applIcabie School ' s Disti`� t for,�the cons ruction and mainterrance of necessa-y school facilities. However, ff � �1 � � - i� r"LAW31N. ° COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO., TIME EXTENSION FOR TT J3703' • April`11, 190 Page 3.. any School District has`ipreviously'establi`shed such a Community. Facilities District, : the applicant "shall - in ,the alternative,, consent to the'annexatio,n of.the project site into.the . territory 'of. such existing District prior to :he .recordation of the, final _map or the issuance !f building permits, whichever comes �., first. ' . Further, :if, the affected School District has _ not formed a,Mello-Ross'Community- Facili,.t;es 'District.within twelve, (12)"mor+,ii of the°elate. of approval of tht' tine extenstion'a'nd prior to rec'orda'tion of the final map or issuance of iui11d1ng permits for said proj6ct othis condition shall be deemed nu 11 and void. 5. The Secretary to this Commission`shalI certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF,APRIL, 1990. K�'. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM�I�Oi� BY: _ Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I; Brad Buller, Secretary;0f--the Planning Commission of-the City of Ranc'io` Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol'ation ,was duly and r, regularly introduced;, passed, and adopted by the Planm`,g Commission. 'of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comiission' held on the 11th day of April, 1990, by; the following vote-to-wit:+, "AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: A SENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �A DATE: : April 11, 1990 a. TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission` . FROM: Brad Bulle:, City Planner 4. BY: Brett Horner, Assocjate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATIDN TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-42`- SOUTH`PAOIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION - A request''to modify the;.,approved building materials for an existing°builiding in.the Tennis Executive Center, located at 10750 Civic Center Drive' - APN:. 208-05243. 1. STATUS:• - This item was continued from the Marsh `28, 1990.meeti,ng so that,staff could research' the questions which were raised at that meeting. II. BACKGROUND: At the last Commission meeting,'staff was directed `to research information' on the approved ' building plans which contained information' on architectural 'modifications and color changes- After "reriew of the project file and "the issued construction plans, we havf- confirmed'the foiloWing: A. The approved construction documents reflect the architectural modifications discussed` at " the last meeting,. These modifications Were,deemed minor in nature and° were cleared by Planning staff prior to'the issuance of permits. B. The documents also ;ontain specifications for stucco and "trim color changes reflecting the as-built, condition (i.e., off- white stucco. with light -blue trim). The color specifications were r changed sometime 'during ; the plan check process and " Planning staff has no record of a request for change, hence, it is presumed that this change was made sometime. after clearance from Planning. C. The approved construction documents call for tan tile" (Or Commission approved plans) in lieu of Ahe bluish granitic tile used. The, applicant acknowledges this was done without approvals. z, D. Plans call-for tide on the central portal elements to wrap" around the columns an&-,nto the deep window and door openings. The `tile, as-b�'i1�., stops short of^ .the openings: The applicant has "indicated his willingness to complete the the as approved, t ITE@i'F PLANNING COAiMISSION STAFF REPORT . MOD. TO OR 87-42 - SO., PACIFIC FIN. CORP., April 11, 1990, Page 2' =7. In summary, the ,primary. issue to be 'resolved by'the: 'Planning Commission deals. with: the ti'le color and application. Depending. on the the color selecied,'the question of trim and stucco colors may or may not be an issue. III., OPTIONS: To resolve the „tile .problems, staff outlines the fol•i,owing options for the Commission's consideration: A. Approve the color change"from' .tan to blue and' allow the applicant ta, complete the appticat on of the existing blue . tiles where needed .by replacing' some. tiles and returning the tile` on the columns inward to.the Wind' 7hA.stucIr and. acrent .colors would remain aspcurrently built; or B. Approve the color change, but require•new. application of the ` material to ensure the.tile. is installed properly- with corner . retu'rn� per approved plans: The, stucco.and accent color would remain as-built; or C. Deny the color change and" require replacement ;with the approved tan tile, to be;applie4_per, approved`plans. If this o ti' i p on s chosen, :the Commissi�--�should consider whether the off-white ..stucco: ' and .light a . accent ,color would. 'be-�; appropriate; or whether the pii�k'stucco o�d,dark green accent as originally approved should be'used. . Staff, will have colored elevations and`samples ,of the tiles,_ stucco, and' accent color at tonig,it's meeting for you review. IV. MMIN T ON: Staff is requesting appropriate'direction. The dec M be'made by minute action. espectf ubmitt " Brad Bu er' City P annex BB: :sp Attachments: Exhibit "I Staff Report of March 28, 1990 } �� CITg'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAil ;-STAFF REPORY DATE: "•�ch..28',`1990 TO: Chairman and 'Members of the Planning Commission' FROM: Brad Buller,;,Ciiy Planner, BY: Brett`Horner,: Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATI0,A.TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-42 - SOUTH. PAC IF! c FINANCIAL CORPORATION A;,,request to modify the approved building meer.ials:for an existing building in he Tennis." Executive Center,�l'ocated at 10750 Civic Center Drive- - . APN: 208-062-03. I. BACKGROUND: This project', a two-start' office building, was approved on 0(tober,,19, 1987. 5jring the construct'Jn of the building, staf,z, noted -that the' wrong tile, -stucco color, and accent color had' been used. The contrac"or ``was issued° , a, correction notice to'replace these items with be approved stucco color, accent color, and til,e on file in the Pl�xning Division. On February 22, 1990 the applicant filed a reit,uest to,'change the exterior the and colors so that'no reconstruction would be necessary •(i.e., the tile would not need to be replaced). >The request,was taken to :the Design Review Committee. The Comm.i'ttee decided, after having time to visit the site,.:that the tile and accent color should be replaced with '0e approve& colors,and materials. The Committee also referred this item for :f0 I Commission discussion 'toni_ght. II. ANALYSIS: Exhibit "Bil 'depicts the approved elevations., The title is question covers the central Mower elements on both the north .,. and south elevations..~ The accent :color covers the metal truss ra.rid guardrails. Samples of the as-built tile and accent colors (bb"th blue), the as�built stucco color, ..the approved ;tile (beige).', the 'approved accent color (green), and the "approved stucco` color'will . be available for the Commission's review tonight. The applicant igF4 sts that the colors'were revised° in anew material sample bosrd which;was°submitted;to the I Planni'ng.Division sometime in Ju;iy of,1988. The accent color wasi changed from:green. to blue and the stucca ;color (a white) was mo3�fied conly slightly. Staff researched the project file and found` no documentation of ev.idence.' that the. color changes ` were .ever submitted to the Design,` Review .Commit tee,;'for ..review. .and LAX 16 i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF`REPORT . '. OR 87-42 - SOUTH PACIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION March 28; 3990 Page 2 �4 approval., The. color, changes,,�4ioweverr are a r nind.rr "itein'1 in relation to the tile,;chan9e,. Even according to the applicant, a char ge frold the anproveda:til6 was, ever requested., ' In addition, a',.'relatea, -pro'biem was also discovered , du"ring . inspect.cn of -the-,building: 'The tile'on the tower sections. .was not wrapped around-the'lnside of"the ,co,Iumns; as depficted an;the, approved building elevations. .Therefore, additional the wor�C would.be necessary 66nr if:,':the as-built _tile: is approved by';the,. Commission. The"mi5_s�ng t e,on,ahe columns.;tends to make 'ahe central tower elements appear flat"and rne=dimens5onal.,` III. RECOMMENDATION'. Staff ,recommends that,the Cortimi-,ssion revier, `the applicant's requ"t-;and approved `and "As-built tiles and Colors The Commission, should visit the site if-necessary to determihe if the applicant's request should be granted:;; Staff recommends that'" the r.raissi support ahe:=rec;mipendatio„n of the. Design Review ,. Co ttee, to 'equi,re proper";;install Ition'of the approved tiles. T Co isS o also :needs'":to .provide direction or! the accent ior. The d vision can' be made by minute acti.qn„ Respe tfull su tted, Brad Buller City Planne BB:BH:ml Attachments: ' Exhibit "A" - Applicant's letter Exhibit "B" - Building Eevati,ons Exhibit "V Site Plan ; l J - t Fib 4 "SOUTH,PACIpIC r-IMANCIAL dOPPORATICIN: March 19., 19.90 Mr. Brad 1Bueller Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 9350 Base Iine Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, Caiforna 91730 Re: 2 Story 'Office Building x 10750 Civic Center Drive Dear mr. `Bueller.: I am enclosing'a copy;of .the letter:sent to. Mr.-"Brett.Horner-, dated.February 22,. L990, 'from,Wastern 'States Development Company, our General Contractor. Please also refer, to the :one-page = statement, from Mr. aim Banks, the,' immediate:easternly ,neighbor and theonly person who has complained 'to the Planning Department regarding the building. y': rn view of these, two:,letters 'and: the fact °that"South 'Pacific Financial Corporation ,is .loosi rig;'time aid money ,.and being`subaected to a lot of aggravation by not knowing when we can take occupancy of the building, we�urgently xF�quest'thaw this.matter b'e- Included ' on the agenda on March 28,' ,190. ,A check 'for the.filing fee in :the amount of $251.,00 .is'"enclosed,A. It seems the only ones being hurt by this is South Pacific Corporation, tile, contractor and,sub-contractors:; Not ot}ly F have there been' no''other; comgiaints��hat we ,are ..aware of, but all of our neighbors have com�time±'�ed us ,'o 7th beautiful building that we have' erected. .If you have the ;opportunity to make an inspection yourself, I am,'confident that.you';wi11 find the :site aesthetically pleasing: ; if,,it 'becomes necessary ' to tear down a portion of the structure, 'an unnecessary amount . of time would be involved in redoing, thereby causing this corporation an additiorial financial burden. Already,•'several; ' delays have occurred and a move of this magnitude;requres a great deal of planning and scheduling,. We will greatly appreciate your, 'assistance "in resolving; this mat-ter and accepting the colors :as they now,. are. Very truly yours, Donald,M. Rosenthal, , } President DMRLsg tO5B6 Ct�/�C C64TER'ORNE,SUITE"206A.RAN- CHCYCUCAMONE CA1 ii,91 ?3D.•7IA/9H9-2369 P O 60X I. RANCH�o CGCAMONGA,CALIF=SI729' lib 3 x, '� j17 fj - 1+�ac - t 7,Sj 4 .5 } k' t 5266 S'7AtIE Sr,SurrE 3,.9M70.1xw;`CA.9176t.(714j 4327.66t;i d' FEBRUARY 22, 1990' MR BRETT:HORNER AND ` THE DESIGN REVIEW CQMMITTEE�, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' 9350 BASELINE AVE DANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF. '$07% ' RE 2 STORY OFF(;CE BUILDING 10750 CIVIC CENTER.'DRIVE; DEAR BRETT AND COMM MEE MEMBERS,. THANK;YOU FOR TAKING,„THE TIME TQ HEAR,:OUR REQUEST.77 WE ARE THE GENERAL'CONTRACTOR FOT 'THE ABOVE-MEN I�ONED PROJECT, AT 7H'IS DATE. WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO COMPLETING THE BUILDING AND'HAVING THE TENANT OCCUPY. T IT. IT CAME TO OUR [RECENTATTENTION THAT, SOME OF THE .EXTERIOR ' COLORS DO NOT MATCH:THE ONES ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED'-BY THE ARCH ITECT. ,LONG BEFORE WE GOT INVOLVED., THERE ARE TWO :SPECIF.IG AREAS I WISH TO°ADDRESS IN THIS LETTER: THE EXTERIOR ACCENT,COLORS. AND THE EXTERIOR TILE COLOR. „ OUR APPROVED SE't OF ' i TE PLANS STATES .ON PAGE / -5. DETAILS 1 AND ;2-.' THAT BRONZE BRAKE. METAL `.I.S TO BE USED.' TITS CAN BE CROSS-REFERENCED ON THE SPEC. SHEETS:.:PAGE ` SP-4, SECT]ON '08400..`SUBT(TLE REGARDING THE„OTHER EXTERIOR ACCENTS. .PLEASE REFER TO PAGE A-13=. SECTION 3 "COLOR Tq MATCH 'TRUSSES (LIGHT ' BLUE)". ALSO SECTION 7...TRUSS PAINTED TO MATCH GUARD' RAILS." REGARDING' THE, EXTERIOR TILE.. HUMAN FALLlBIL`ITY AND ERROR , ENTERED THE PICTURE. OUR SUB--CONTRACTOR, 'TI;LE KING..'MADE A MISTAKE- A 'BIG HQNEST MISTAKE. HE ,SOMEHOW k'ROTE DOWN. THE WRONG NUMBER.; OR THE MANUFACTURER,SENT THE WRONG•TILE � . AND THE WRONG,T.I LE WAS I N5T.ALLED.."SINCE THE. M I STAKE'-WAS DISCOVERED LONG"AFTEk THE,TILE BOXES WERE HAULED TO THE DUMP, TILE,KiNG.IAD NO RECOURSE AGAINST THEN. A BLUE SHADE' W4%S USED RATHER THAN' A TYPE;bF BEIGE COLOR'"THAT HAD,`BEEN APPROVED. I: CAN TELL YOU MOST ASSUREDLY THAT.TFlIS. HUMAN ERROk WAS NOT AN INTENTIONAL`EFFORT ON THE PART OF ANYONE, SINCE THE SAME,QRADE- AND, 'QUALITY OF TILE WAS USED. WE RESPECTFULLY`REQUEST THAT!YQU'GRANT USA REVISION AND , ALLOW THE.BUILDING'S PRESENT APPEARANCE• TO STAND•"AS.rIT J.S, WE HAVE BUILT WHAT 1 NG BELIEVE;TO BE'.A POSITIVE ADDITION TO, THE C`iTY OF RANCHO COCAMOA-.`AND A FINE COMPLET,104 TO" THE: TENNIS EXECUTIVE',;CENTER•COMPLEX.. :. IT HAS BEEN=AT LEAST COMFORTfNG TO HAVE HEARD-THE COMPLiM ENTARY RESPONSES_FROM.PEOPLE ABOUT" THE EEAUTYOF THE BUILDING PARTICULARY FROM THE HIGH"LEVEL .STAFF PEOPLE F`!OM`-SOUTH PACIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WHO WILL OCCUPY` THE,.BUILDIh UPON COMPLETION": , THANK, `.'OU FOR YOUR CONS'.I DERAT I ON 1 N TH l S MATTER ' SINCERELY YOURS. _ (, FRED GI LONER .q . i a(C��� tlttt izgaast t /�7tt£ I r� t ■1 e a ar t t ��. �` �� ri yx Lj � tr, �r is slsll' 7FlI �.2 t ' i C► }AitCIC t �� �11 ������1�Cllli, �IC� jtYY��l��� ���Clt �'iC�lttill tt i r Ise y+ • s III IIIIRt,�;� ill +•,�,liillll111lpllMllf Ap�r k s +1f t' !: ICIICiIltllifj!!iu& �I+t�lll(�1�1111I11 llllllfglH lilll i;"'` !ul�;;�;�+t rIff, , ;-• y- .m+vnvran.r�wa iocm vumnw 3uIL0'!1✓G JPTOAL `i Nb M CENM �w Pit TPE" T 'CITY,OF RANCHO CUC_AMONGA STAPF REPORT ' K r� DATE: April 11, 1990 V TO: Chairman and Members of the' Planning Commission -FROM: ' Brad Ou11er, City Planner BY: -Bruce:Abbott, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND, DEVYI.OPMENT REVIEW 89-12 - DAV;ES - The development:<of Phases II and III of-an Tndustrial complex,, containing six (6) indv.51rial ^... buildings .toialing 22,940 square feet' on, 2.2 acreseof land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 Hof the Industrial Specific Plan,;'located on Feron Boulevard,,east of Helms Avenue,, APN: 209-631-37 and.88. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations and` issuance of a Negative'Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: P North - Orchard; Industrial Specific; Plan (Subarea 3.). South - A.T. & S.F. Railroad;: Indu,stH al Specific 'Pb n (Subarea 3). East - _'l6ca6t; Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 3). y West - Const,uction service yard and office, manufacturing; Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 3). C. Gener-'jl Plan Designations, Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General-Industrial D. Site Chara'cteristicsc A Coast Live Oak tree, approximately 38 feet in height with a spread of 47_ feet i, located on:the north portion of the site. There 'is no other significant vegetation on the level vacant- 'property. ` r c .. ITEM G , PLANNiAG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIR. ASSES'. DR 89-12 = DAVIES April 11,.1990' Page 2 E. Parking Calculations Number of Number of, Type Square Parking ; Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Phase II kj Buildings Office: 2,120 1:250 8 8 E thru H Lt. 'Manufact 10,785 1t54O 22 24 .30 32 Phase III J and K Office 1,060 1:250 4 4 Lt.,MAnufact. 7,405 1;500 14 14 18 18 i I. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting Environmental Assessment and Development Review for Phase II and III consisting of six (6) industrial/manufacturing buildings total*ng 22940 square feet. The;proposed use is consistent with Subarea; 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan. ' Phase I of,;_ the ?,industrial development consists of four single story buildings located;to the west of the proposed Phase II. Phase I, was approved' in September 1986. The design and construction materials of the proposed buildings are" essentially' the same as the existing buildings;in Phase 1,, which is slumpstone block. However, the design/materials. for the buildings in iPhasel were'originally approved by Planning Commission as sp1_itface block (Exhibit G- 1). An uno;ithaaxed change in design/materials was'made for the buildings in Phase;,i prior to 'final inspection in May, 1988. The proposed buildings for Phases II_and III,duplicate the design and materials of Phase. I. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review' Committee Chitiea, Weinberger, Coleman] reviewed the site plans ,and elevations for the proposed Phase It and III of the industrial development, on October 19,, 1999. The Design Review Committee requested that a different primary exteri.or 'buildir{g material be used. The applicant resubmitted plans which were reviewed by Design Review Committee (Chiti;ea, Tolstoy, Kroutil) on February .22, j 1990. The plans had*not-addressed most of the recommendations as; requested by the Design; Review Committee, at their October 19, 1989 meeting. The plans had been revised for the February meeting as follows:.. �rr �f t J.. PLANNING`CdMMISSION STAFF REQi(1RT ENVIR.. ASSES. OR 89-12 - DAVIES April. 11, 1990 . Page 3 1. Two additional proposed buildings, G and H. which were% not shown on the previous plans, are new proposed to`ue located in a lawn area recommended by V8e Committee to be developed as a small park with a 'plazas or master planned for development. 2. The `.planter,'areas at the front of building 't. F and d have been increased, in width, but not to the fui1, 8'feet in the narrow areas for tree planting as requested. 3. Additional planter areas and plants have been proposed at the south boundary of Phase 1; and the east,boundary of Phase III, However, additional trees should be provided for screening. 4. Enriched paving at the parking, lot entrances has been shown. However, the plazas and, building entrances, are not shown with enriched paving as requested. Since the applicant had "not addressed all of the recommendations as requested, the 'Committee r-,rgcommended at their February 22 meet,ing that revised plans be resubmitted for review addressing their concerns: 1. Alternative building materials not strictt ylimited to tilt-tip concrete panels, should be utilized, for the buildings. The buildings on Phase II could use some type of block material' other than 'slumpstone' block as the primary building material'. Slumpstone block could be used, as an accent material. The 6u41dings. in Phase III could use the same material as the buildings in Phase 11, or they could be constructed of some other; acceptable material such as tilt up concrete. 2. Additional glass should be utilized to. emphasize building entrances.. �. 3. An additional texture/material other than glass , and painted concrete should be used on the buiidinc, facades, f per Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-156. 4. ` Trees proposed tt be planted within any easements or sewer lines which' may:-thereby be restricted shall be identified.• 5.- Additional landscaping should be provided at- the south edge of Phase L. Building %" should be, located further to the north„ in order to provide a planter area at the PLANNING COMMISSIOY-S;TAFR REPORT ? ENVIR. ASSES. 'DR 89=12- Da VIE S` April 11, 1990. Cage b t � - Staff also 'notes. 'that the project design.is inconsistent with planring Commission : Resolution No.', 89-1,58, adopted on, December 13, I984,•;_in the follolring, areas: a. The architecture does rot JlProjq6t a high quality, progressive, soph3sfacated style of development."- b. On3y one, primary building' . material ., is. proposed, (slumpstone block) versus thee minimum• two., primary build :ng•fnaterials required;. c, The, proposed- slumps,tone block is not representative `,_of. the deszre�,. "textured block'; material ' recommended fair prinary building materials. C. Tree Preservation ' An arborist`report_hat been comN eted for the subjoct property, providing recommendations for''`tC� preservation; of a 38-foot; .ail Coast Live Oak tree on. the-Phase :III';portign of •the ` site, One of the preservation .techniques days thai no trenching deeper than 8 inches 'be',dosr' ,.1 ,h.iI 15 feet of the. tree trunk; If the, building "J" 7action '' i,s approved as Proposed, the arborist recpinr Ms that''areation ';units be installed at grade; A key. issue: with respect to preserving the.Oak tree is the location o F, the_proposed building "J", 11 'feet from the tree , trunk ".'he --me'-has a� maximum crown spread' ,of ,44 .sect= Building "J" is'approximately 2� feet 'in height. Constructio�. of Buildinge1J".would pecessitate removal of appro smatel,y 10 feet of the crown on the west side of the tree tows heicht.of F. about' 24 feet from finished grade, 1t;,is staffs opinion 'that severe pruning would be necessary CMa:ting'' an unapsthetic appearance in the I shape of the tree. ` Stiff recommends that the site plan be modified, to eliminate•. Vie nicessity for. removal of any of the tree crcwn'and :thai no build ng,should be located within the 'd H Pline of the Oa.'; tree. An 'unidentified 30-foot high deciduous tree, which' was dot located an the applicant's plan should also be prefArved wiih tre Oak tree in staff's opinion... *It is staff r.s ecommendati'©n that he site plan for Phase•-IIT be 'modified to.accoMnoda'te << preservation of both the .Oak .tree and ,ihe 'unidentified deciduous tree. �r- i s` co TI R �� SAL c -RR CT,lo E N- i I PLANNING COh9MISSIOW;STAFF1 REPORT ENVIR. ASSES OR S9-I2VIES April,11, 1990 l Page 3 1. Two" additional .proposed buildings, G anj H, ;which were A not shown on the:,previous' plans, are new proposed.to' be lacot6d .jn a lawn. arza--recommended by the Committee' to be develor d at a smai park with,ar plaza�,yor master planned for Gevelopm t. 2.• The, planter'-areu,s"'at the front ofbuild.ing E, F and J ' have beer increased. in width;:but not,,,to the full S'feet ln_"e.narrow areav for tree.,planting as requested. 3. Addit.ioiial 'planter areas and ji �Jants have been }rapased at the south boundary of; Pha'se'-TI and the;>��eastp%,und`ar ofPhase III. However, additional'-trees should be'.provid`ed for screening.. 4. Enriched paVin'1 at the parking lot entrances ,has been shown., However, the plazas and b�,iliing, entrahces` re not shown ;with enriched paving as requested. Since the applicant had not addressed all: df thp' recommendations as requested, the Comnittze wr_ecommended` at ' their February 22 meeting that revised plans be- resubmitted for review, addressing their concerns: 1. Alternative building materials not strictly limited .to. tilt-up co�=rete panels, should .be . utilized for ;the f` buildings. The buildings on Phase II could use some ty''ie +. of block-' material< other t1hani slumpstone block a si e " primary bui%ding •material'. Slumpstone block' could be used as an accent material.. The buildings in Phase'III could use the same ;material'.as the buildings in Phase II, or they could be constructed t,of some. other acceptable material such as tilt-up concrete. 2. Additional glass should be utit?zed to emph&size building entrances. 3. An additional `texture/material.' other= than glass :end, painted concrete should be used on the buildi�g• fad ades;y. _ per Pl'art�in,g;Commission Resolution No: 89-158.`: '. 4. Trees';proposed to 'be planted within any easements or. sewer" lines which may. thereby be restricted shall` be. identified. 5. Additjdna: 1andscaping, should be. provided at the-south edge of Phase i.~ Ouild.in'g "G" should .be.located �fuiather r to the north: I order-to provide a planter are a-at',the y, k. PLANN.TNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENV IR.I ASSES.. DR 89-1�2 - DAVYFS ' April4 1I,'1990 ` 9 south end of buildirj 1^ if the proposed landscaping is in conflict with the drainage easeme;,'1-;. ti 6. Additional landscaping should be provided at the:,drainage, easement to the south of building "P 7. There ;should_ be an 8-f6ot minimum width. planter are$ along the east side of building ",h" for",sc'reen'°pl.anting;.. 8. Potential impacts on the Oak tree,,Aue to the proximity of the tree to proposed building'."J", should b`e further inVestfgated. 9. The, plaza to the:, north° of. building'' "E" should,"be relcca, ed to a mrel central location such as the:,. , northeast corne,= ofbuilding '71 for exampls. 10. Interlocking pavers'`shal1: be used L. for the "enriched pavinc. area" at the parking Tots driveways: The extent of, the pavers should be ; xpanded, to include the;.full dngth .6f the driveway and includ;i the '^avid" stalls. Handicap staid should be located adjacent to-driyaways'to, accommodate this concept. , il. Enriched paving should be' used to deI neate .pedestrian' areas_ across the parking iota, ";,onriecting building entrances with plaza areas or` with .each,,other, for example. 12. Building entrances and walks should utilize °tenriched paving,'' ; 13. An alternative surface such as turf block should be used for the emergency access road. On March 9 1990, '-staff received a letter from the applicant's architect (Exhibit "A") which stated that the applicant.: disagreed with the tlRC `recommendation`s and requested that the project be scheduled for Planning Commission .in order to resolve the issues at that level. Therefore,. the City Planner has referred this item tc�,'the Commission. I:. The 'plan; submitted for Planning Commission are the same as that submitted for the last Design Review. None of.the Design s Review Committee recommendations or comments"from the February' meeting have been addressed, except, ;veH fication that `trees cannot be planted within the tiff' drainage easement aril that I the 'location, of the proposed'.building J should'-not'impact_`the, I roots of ther existing Oak tree: f. t 'PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOPT ENVIR. ,ASSES. ',DR,M-12 - DAVIES s April 11, 1990 Page 5 Staff also notes that the project esign is inconsistent with Manning Commission Resolution 89-158, adopted on December 13,.1989,_in the following areas: a. The'' architecture does not "p-oect a high .=qualt.ty, + progressive, sophisticated style o,f developme,nt." :. b. Only, one pri-mary, building , material' is proposed (slumpstone .block) versus the' minimum two" primary l buildiiff:Materials required:. aI c.; The, proposed :s,umps:tone block. is not -representative .of the dest\,ed "textured block" material recommended for primary b4Alding materials: . _ C. Tree-Preserya,ion An arborist,rep ort has been completed for the. subject property providing recommendations_ for the preservation of a 38-fo6t tall' C oast 'Live, O,ak. tree" on_ the :Phase. IIh°,portion of the site. One of 'the preservation techniques was,;that no trenching deeper than 8 inches"MAone within 1- feet of the t�"ee���trunk It the `building "J" locati"on: is",app.roved as proposed, the arborist r_ecomnends that �areation, units, ";be- :installed at graded . A key -issue with respect to preserving the Oak tree ,i.s- the location of;the pr�,aased;`building "J" °11 feet from-the tree trunk: The tree` has a mad imum 'crown spread 'of. 42;feet. Building "J" is approximately 22 feet in height 'Construct'i`on of Building?"J," would necessitate removal.of apFro`x,imatei,y_10 feet of the crown on the west side of a-hii`.tree to, a Might�of abcat 24 feet from finished grade I, 'is.-staff`sYopinion that severe pruning would be necessa Y r-r"eating ,an unaestitettc appearance in the ' hape, of the tree:, .;`-Staff%recommends 'that the site plan be ;.modified to >eliminate the'necessity for removal. of any,of the tree crown and that no building should . be located within the dripline of"the_,Oak tree An unidentified 30-foot high deciduous tree, which'' was:»ot, located on, the applicant's plan` hould also be p`rese-rved`t�ith the Oak tree ir; SWa S or rniow;,.,It is<staff's recommendation that ,the site olart for .chase. IP be modified' to }accammfldata Freservation� of .both the Oak,` tree and " the unidentified deciduous.tree. ; t � i .{f. •„ 3Fr PLANNING COMMISSION-STAFF-REPORT ENVIR. ASSES:rQR 89-12 - DAVIi:S April 11, 1990 Page 6 D. Techt ical'"Re iy ew 'committee .The sechnical RdyiOWL CoMittee '. r reviewed t on.,Oc tol')er 17% 1989,and' determined, that. with;,certa,n, stadi ari,'-.and ep'ec a� conditions of appr'^oval, the project wou�,1'c�• be cont•iste'nt with appljcable stane�ard' E. Environmental ,Assessint r Part I of the In7tial 'Study has been:completed by-:the.appl icant. Staff has, complet6d Pdrt of the Environmental;, Checklis.'t and ;`found ; no si;'gnificant adverse envaonmentar:aimpacts as th'e,.resuit of this protect =III. Facts for Findings: -The following.'finding's, are provided ror the Commission's cnnsidEratfon: .". 1) The proposed arrhitettara?.>`designs are incompatible viith the overall design goals-of the Gener'_i Plan,. 2)- The 'proposed :designs .-are inconsistent with',the-,,physical form ;and appearance, requir`ements of the Yndustr aI Specific. PgAn'$ Urban Desi;'On Ccncapt. 3) The revisions'to the proposed plans as:recommended .,y`'the Design Review Committee are appropriate, given ' the appearance, of" other buildings of si'm.ilar use Within the City V'I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commiss,�on take oue of the :following actions: 1) Deny the request through the adoption of the attached Resolution.' ,r 2) Continue the request to all�a the applicant to develop a P -design;,Which meets the rrecommendation. of ,the Design nevi Commit�ee. it Dir ct staff; to prepare :'a Resol.utiorr with ' pecifi co d;;ions of appwoval `to be brought back to' Planning s C issio for adoption. 3� Resp fkf i`t`fu11. itte 1 s Brad Buller• City P,`j n ar BB•8A:`p' x r' PLANNING COMMISSTON=STAFF ;REPORT ENVIR ASSES OR 59-1Z.='OAVIES April 1,'1990 Page 7 1- Attachments: Exhib:t'``A'P'- Letter fromArchitect..;' ' Exh it "B" Vicinity Map ' Exhibit "G" Sjte -Utilization Map ; Exhibit "ll""-'.Typ,icaI site.:Perspective, Exkiibt "rE Master Site Plan t'` Exhib�t""Fn.-. Site Plans Exhibit !'G" Building:ElevationS. jExhib t,"H" Trasb Enclosure'Plans Exhibit "T" _Gradl;ng. Plaos Exhibit "a" Landscape Plans ; ExMb,i,t "K": "Photographs :of Trees . Resolution No. 89-I58 = 0esign,Policiev. Resolution o'f OeniaT � i `? J ig OcLates Architecture • Planning a Urban design • Interiors - Member American Institute of Architects 10722 Arrow Route Suite 604 � Rancho Cucamonga,(A 91730 b 714 987-7673 MY OF R. crio G'lv.'OPIV FAX1714-980-5130 oi-ANNINP GW,5j ON ` 1AAR091q fil March 6, 1990 n Q4S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ��,aI�14�I1�;�11�jSJb PLANNING DIVISION 9340-R Baseline 'Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attentions Mr. Bruce Abbott Associate Planner; Regarding: Davies industrial Park 'Architect lob No. 187-022-003 Dear Mr. Abbott: Thank you for your prompt ' reply regarding the De�eiopment Review Comments for our Davies Industrial Park project. Your expediency is greatly appreciated. Garcia & Associates and our client haver carefully a,tudied the Design Review Committee' s comnents. We were dismayed to find that the progress needed for us to arrive to a satisfactory solution has yet to be attained. Since our client disagrees with the recommendations, we.,have "reached ' the conclusion that it vroui:d be best for all parties involved to have this matter resolved at the conmissio" levef. _Having said that, we ask. that our project be scheduled' for the next Planning Commission agenda. Finally, I would like to personally 'thank you for all ofr your r' cooperation and 'hard work over the past few years. If you should have any questions' or ,comments regarding the topic' covered, pease feel free to contact am. Respectfully, pf-r', 'I A Rc S S AR I TECTS e a,- IA cipal` c•f cc: Mr. Bill Davies, Owner r File CITY �' trE.�t: RA i �.�.�.[�lvUNG ' TITLE: PLANNING W EXHIE!T .� ^.� LE. /0- I i If lip � .� --:�•. � � �\\\ zATI � n2 E!!�HTH' 96n ��P� z =��� s ssys�mmcwa �l 8a�ii0 i s 9�a sna►� nd v N $ s®as�aosetY�ela.aogy :i3L4VCJ Notnrar i q •i) � I I ,p y f ����' ✓,.,'� 'ram: s s J t li ti V ».oww�.�ro Emil xava nvidisnan,i IIIn LEI astlHd ; $3{AVO 3N.t03dSH3d'inn Ask r P�� �6 _ ti SK• 03 - i U R ` > Etise " � �i1ilflQNt it!!it 35ift td �? ,f .�; is 9 elo�op� S31AVO NV'1d311S Uaism i :Cq tit let 1 ?, w _- - - - -- _— ! f i Ail , n fiili9� . � J-0 Til 'HII war jrzq .4 file i C43• I t N y � ' s� ! $ itWl Uj `per �5SM _ 4i It uj it oil fig" IL 41 HIM t ' 5 0 I yam£S•3� ejj5e cQ ay +` tt v, o i. ^ter:• � .,•` � � } ..Qi ;lir ' ee Na'o 4�u+ein .. C ( rit jo 1 r� gig 3 W a r - `md IL ilil 8 xpti3i ' Quv =� z tg Mfg 3suj UJIIc J.Y:,r. i..0 ,filly" g :t Q� \• .ems � .. _. + 3� cc � s : '�'•' a a Fat a12e J y� W Li! ` t y t va, 1 �°•• t n, 2 i n n 1 '• � t J ` w 1 t 3 @= file F III I Ali• .'.....sac jj 75 ��I ! �' .ol r .+ .. C ccm iI I!'�i , y% ��"g.16 I1 I I �...� - .ilaF ' •I it I` _O:® a� e lu cn HAI I� t� II I I VL ii;. ,,{ { � III � ' �� •Oil , 1 f �' III I�• I C� *.. 1 � � ! t ' � � �..; a Itljhll. II I� ,I, II. L ' a, yea ;�� 5+ ���• � 4 �'\ � O O Y ox 0 I Lugs naF I — i ;; a8 ��• t J y D@ yy Lit p r � ••� jj Zj§ � ,; •, �:4) an ems '. ' t� a � W !je�.4 ' '��"���) ��. - — .t r } __ Q§3M�•.i Sys -- �g�, e��d�� �� {5 hoil i k •�r � n •bc• i I :`J � {� { ji{l� f3 lilt 1 4 UJ r cLJ F = ui oil � III I I•{'':h i I�� I�r I ! I ° �' !alll••1 �� fig` ' � � ����-`�." x it .,•,11( ; ! � � I`�il '.I � i' ��':� f I ANv�. n :� �3 �S f 3 { p@ ' -•k 1 • 1 r i i p w fill p t r lob 8 LU 17 t• LU Lj IiI I (' l;is+.•lur ,� !it!! r ,r tr rl� 1 , !� • ••li:j3 /� - I ITT t it 'is sli i I'll ! "tl s�+'�� ltj!' !i! !i!j (�g'"� •- ° it ' � ;i : 't!1' t •! ��� � � aHII it rt iliir . 'jj1st :l1rl' l�lltlll"ell s:) 1 j11 13 is.,;rtj11 , t 11}It;.s: �7,1" • e ; t(! jl H !�;!1�ll�iDo,t I•, 1.,. It!'.31,� teiri t' ' ��z�; t i ttllj 1 II•'i�,i t It !i It rt! =;�{t! is , i!!It r �:' a {- t� �i-�,,;`It ist;il'����;i CI il.lRii,t!!!!!}LIltttiliet��lo)l,I,EGl1,ut,:III! YA-_.. li e' r - [1[ � w I� ,, .{j+ rs , ,t tr1}, ItJ t i rj • {�SI _ (. Z Y tl t t� a ' .i� t, ' f ' t � ��► Q ga} {-� i, r a) !t.t !,} r +r a{srit SS ti � i 21 � i•t : ! }r Ir f. �9r r . I I !t� , 3 r� r.+ +}t,t jii J !, 1 i+t' aj+l; �� �' P.. }':,i 'f•. y ty t�3i s aa, yll �f} Is - t.t11..Y , �io1'i aj si +;+ -3 1jt � }- t.2 z■ '�, t}j j1'1t4.+t �t}t ..;,± ? + tJ {I }, '.j �i}tt 4j.:r r, �• � t! � Q S: �r �rl!� # ! q 4,.:1?}rtt+�a;eF}.[i•�4t4t!_iri:i i.artt i`�,1�it}t Z m. i Ir o, J�r t1 t� i a. r 17, { i i; ►t1tti I,ta�IE E i ` \ a � 3w ti.. i r yr W i• j i 6 I R Uj x LLI fillal � �a uj • a: 74� ':� W�� V1 + fee � � Atlt+A3ltt08 �, � e 3� sz� � K �•� 'l q'3�xp)��. 3c;Y =t x> ,i it tA ��.� ~ 4 1�� YNY 4w r •' s' 4. x ,'�sY. L �3 a+� �A7,• 3„ k' b�1 Cu x4r x rI .4r �u- Ny ) i 3 t i Ym - k Y y x yY 1 air ' � • ':t:. t 1 y [ , t RESOLUTION N0, 89-258 'A.RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE..CIT.Y OF RANCHO CUCAAtO�dGA ESTABLISHING DESIGN POLICIES _,FUR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS REQUIRING ARCNITECTURAI.'JREA7MENT AND `CREATIVE USZ'_ OF BUILDING, MATERIALS WITHIN :'THE INDUSTRIAI. SPECIFIC PLAN;AREA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed design concerns with' painted tilt-up concrete industrial buildings,; as they ,,lack variety, hr'ave inadequate architectural ,=treaWent, increase mdinteNance; and. create--dated building design and previous;projects have n:t"adequately,addressed the design concerns.; and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal to guide future development; and, WHEREAS, design policies are necessary to expound and implement the established urban design guidelines and standards of the c1ndustrial, Specific Plan; and ti WHEREAS, such` design policies are needed t i`d'e-to clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,`;that the'Ransha Cucamonga Planning Commission does here tiy establish design policies for the additional ' architectural treatment and creative use of building materials as:follows SECTION -1 Goal Statement The intent of, the design`.paliccies. As to assist the''designer, in understanding and complying .with the Urban Design Guidelines•and Standards ;-^f the Industrial Specitic. Plan. The goal is to�ensure high quality and timeles;a building: design, which includes building entry , Focal pq it, Sufficient--,, articulation to building=plane`; and the cre&give use ri of h�ilding matealsa - . These design policies expound the established Urban 9esin Guidelines of the Industrial Specific Plan and sha11; ag,ipy;�to all fIndust,ial buildings within the Specific Plan area. 4 ,t Yam, SECTION 2: Design Criteria A. .'Desirable architecture shall project a high quality, progressive, sophisticated of development. Variations in architectural''~sxyle, c+ons4ruction methods and materials are encouraged. f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-158 RE: ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT December 13,',1989 Page 2 8:- All building entrances shall be well articulated: and pro3ect ' a formal entrance statement through variations of architectural planes`, pavement surface treatment, and landscape plazas, as well as relate to pedestrians.. C. The articulated building entrances, together with the landscape plazas,, should be designed to relate . to and 'connect with the area-wide network of open space, thu,:, unifying and;' fostering a sense of i community. 0. The degree of architectural treatment and embellishments must relate to the scale and mass.of the building. E. Accent treatment, such as changes in exterior materials and texture, is required. F. The creative ' use of building . materials is required. A'minimum of two (2) primary building materials shall be used, The recommended,primary and secondary building materials are :s follmwz: Primary building material's concrete, sandblasted concrete, textured block, brick, granite, marble, and similar materials as approved by:the Design Review Committee. 0 Secondary building materials - glass, tide, polished brass or copper, brick, tonck.dte, painted metal elements,, painted accent. stripe, and other materials as :approved by the- Design Review Committee, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH'DAY OF DECEMBER, 1989. , PLANNING CO24ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ` arty n art ATTEST: r U , ecre ry PLANNIt CCMIFSSION RESOLUTION NO, 89-158 RE: ARCHITECTURAL YREA!MENT. � December 13, 1989 Page 3 I I, Brad Buffer, Secretary .of the;PTanning Comenisaion of the City..,of j.Ranche Cucamonga, `do hereby certify that- the foregoing Resolution was duly >and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planrting Commission of t6- City of Rancho Cueamonga, atr regular meeting of the Planning Commission held . on the 13th day of December, 1989,,by the following vote�,to-wits ; AYES, COMMISSIONERS;, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL; TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: C"ISSIONERS NONE , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE` n� .ti I Y I r: fA i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 89-12, A REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF PHASES' II AND III "OF :nil INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. CONSISTING .OF 6 BUILDINGS TOTALING 22,940 SQUARE FEET ON 2.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DI,STRICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN CN FERON AVENUE EAST OF HELMS AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-031-87 AND 88; A. Recitals. , (i) Albert W. Davies has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 89-12 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the lath of April 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the applicat.on�-and concluded said meeting on that date, (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. -This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon- substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on April 11 1990, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at Feron Avenue, east of Helms Avenue with street frontages of 151.67 feet.for Phase I.I. and 154.88 feet for Phase III and lot depth of 393,48 feet and 222.56 respectively, and is presently unimproved; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is an orchard, zoned Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea '3., the ;property to the south of the site consists of A.T. & S.F. Railroad, zoned Industrial, Specific Plan, Subarea 3; the property to the east, is vacant, zoned Industrial_ Specific Plan; Subarea 3; and the property :to the west is a manufacturing and construction service yard and office, zoned Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 3. +a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OR 84=•12 - DAVIES Apri} 11, 1990 Page Z (c) The architecture, materials and site plan do not meet the desigr``criteria established, for that district within ,the Industrial Spec-ific Plan and Planning Commission; Resolution No. 89-158. (d) The proposed architectural desires are incompatible with overall design goals of the General Pla;a; (e) The revisions to the proposed plans as recommended by Design Review Committee are appropriate for meeting the coals and design criteria of the General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence. presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and 'upon the specific findings' of facts set forth in. paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as .,l lows:,. (a) That the proposed project is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the pro posed P P project is •riot" 7' accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of tht�, distirict in the site is located; and which- (c) That the proposed project is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the 'proposed project withF.rt'the conditions applicable :thereto, will be detrimental to -t:`,e public health, safetY, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the.ricinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2i and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. this ke�solutiThe Secretary to this Commission shall .certify to the adoption of- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ITH DAY,DF APRIL., 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T, .McNiel Chairman ' r ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMIAQQ SIGN RESOLUT1 N NO., OR 89-12- - OAVIES 4 f �} April`11, 1990 + Page " �`_1 i I, Brad Byller,� Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City bf Rancho Cucamonga,.;`do hereby certify. that the foregoing Resolution -c#as'`duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission iof the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning, Commission held on the llth day of April, 1990, by the following, vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS': NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r'y I L% Aq 1 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA STAFF REPORT a DATE; April 11, 1990' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comm ssion FROM: Brad Buller,'Ci'ty Planner BY: Dan Coleman,,Principal Planner SUBJECT: TRAILS ADVISOR, COMMITTEE APPOIN.IMENTS I. BACKGROUND; With the resignation ;of Commissioner Blakesley, ,and the expiration of Commissioner To stoy-s term on the Committee, the Planning t:^ Commission needs to review their appointments to the 'Trails `Advisery Committee. The terms are 24 months and shall be staggered 12 months apart to maintain continuity pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-43. The Oommittee is currently composed of the following members: Term Expires: .a Suzanne Chiti'ea* ' Jl 2T Peter Tolstoy', July`27, 19 19 90 Pamela Henry** 89 Jaly 219, 1991 r Mark Whitehead** __ ana ,;6, 1990 Greg Pitcher*' iy,27, 1990 Alternates: David Bl.akesley ; Molly Krtchell** * Aopointed by Planning -LcirAissitnn ** Appointed by Park and Rec—ation Commissior, Ili RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commiss on should review and appoint a new altercate and either reappoint Commissioner Tolst,,y ,or appoint a difFerent Planning Commissioner for 1 year. The Commission may also 1+ant to consider at this tf a appointments for these terms which are due to expire in July (Chitiea and Pitcher).' , Respectfully s .mitted',, .rad Bu ler City Planner BB:DCljfS ,t ITM H