The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes Jan-Jun 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM NGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 22, 1988 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancher Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7: 5 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led; in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David GlaL sley Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emeric , Peter Tolstoy, Larry McNiel COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT': None STAFF PRESENT: Mi i Dratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Rang, Associate Planner; Drrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Manson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Runner; Debra Meier, Associate 'Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; William Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Joe Stefa, Associate Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Grad Duller, City Planner, announced that Director' s Reports Item Z, West Valley Detention Facility, would' be advanced in the agenda and heard by the Commission following the consent calendar. He further- announced that the Commission was in receipt of requests for continuances by the applicants of Items I & d, ;T & U, and Y. Mr. Duller also announced that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan will receive the ARA award' for Outstanding Planning Document and. City Manager Lauren Wasserman the Distinguished Leader award on Thursday, June 23rd, at the Castaway Restaurant in San Bernardino. Reservations have been rude for the Commissioners, City Council and City staff.- Chairman McNiel commended Dan Coleman and the Planning staff for the excellent job in the Design Excellence Awards program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, to approve the Minutes of June B. 1988 with an amendment by Commissioner Chiti a to page 17. Motion carried, with Commissioners Blakesley and' Tolstoy abstaining. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1354 - IIX DEVELOPMENT - Deign Review of bui ding elevations an plot plans for a'; previous ;y approved: tract map consisting of 19 single family lots on 5 acres of land in the Lour Residential District -4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of 19th Street - APN - 4 -1. . B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-48 FILPI The evlop ent o two �n ustrial bui ings Iota Inq 44, square feet on .84 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea , located at 467/9495 9th Street '- APN: 09-031-72. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-54 - CHI - The o ent of a 7#174 square toot restaurant on' 1. acres o land in the feveT ndustrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the northeast corner of Red ;Oak and Laurel Street - APN. 08- 51- 3`. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8-08 GOLDEN WEST The eve opment-of three mutt-tenant buildings Iota inq155,14 square feet on 10.49 acres o land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3), located on the north side of-7th Street, approximatel,y 600 feet east' of Hellman Avenue - APN- 0 -1 1 5N. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 88-22. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by; Blakesley, unanimously carried to adopt; the Consent Calendar. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS' Z. WEST VALLEY DETENTION FACILITY - COUNTY REVIEW -03 - Courtesy' Review of the `4BG, 0 square foot etenton fati it,y proposed by 'San Bernardino County at the horthv�est corner of Ei warda Avenue'and Fourth Street Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Emerick was concerned with the` zoning compatibility of businesses which normally locate adjacent to jails. He called attention to the current ' jail site in San Bernardino with its unsightly surrounding businesses and was concerned that this situation would repeat itself in Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Commission Minutes Jude 22, 1988 Mr . Kroutil advised that the City would have land use jurisdiction over the adjacent property which would assure compatibility. Scott Pinkerton, construction manager for the facility, gave an overview of the project design. Chairman Mc i el expressed a concern with the type of security lighting ;which is; normally very visible from outside such a facility. Mr'. Pinkerton noted the concern and advised that the design would be sensitive to the lighting issue. He advised that the type of lighting to be used 'would be wall mounted along with the standard street lighting. , Chairman Mciel questioned the type of perimeter fencing and landscape screening. Mr. Pinkerton advised that the project would be surrounded by a 10 foot cyclone fend intended more to keep out curious 'outsiders than to keep inmates in. He stated that security was designed inside the building and that at no time would inmates be allowed outside the structures.; He 'pointed out that the buildings would be sitting inside the bermed area of the site and that only the roof tops would be visible to the street. He stated that trees and shrubs would be planted around the perimeter of the facility, however, the landscape plan is in early stages at this time and has not been finalized. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the different types of roofing; proposed for the cells and the administration building. She suggested that if the same roofing material could not be used for security reasons, the material should at least reflect continuity in color and design. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he could not commit to this change since he was not the project architect, however, would note the concern. Commissioner Emerick questioned the parking ratio used. Mr.! Pinkerton advised that the parking ratio was based on criteria established for detention institutions. He explained the project parking and stated that parking would not spill over onto surrounding streets. Commissioner Emerick questioned the proposed signage. Mr.' Pinkerton advised that signs have not been finalized at this point, however, the project will comply with the State's sign criteria. He pointed out that the intent of si nage would not be to invite' people in, but be directional in nature. Chairman McHiel opened the hearing for public comment. Planning Commission Minutes - dune 22, 1988 Abner Levy, Rancho Cucamonga resident, questioned if this would be a maximum security inmate facility, Mr. Pinkerton advised that the facility would house minimum to maximum level' inmates. He further stated that this facility was designed to met maximum security specifications. There were no further public comments. r'. Kroutil recapped the Commission' s comments and advised that staff would include the Commission's concerns relative to lighting, landscaping, and roofing material in the list of concerns to the County. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -OS - SMITH The evelopment of a 20 unit apartment complex on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential ' District (14- dwelling units per acre) , located at the terminuses of Sierra Madre Avenue and Main Street -' APN.' 07-251»' . Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Smith, applicant, asked that the requirement for a spa/Jacuzzi be eliminated. He felt that the site was too small to `provide this feature. He pointed out that Planning condition (d) called for a decorative block; wall and stated that his understanding at the Design Review Committee was that a wrought iron fend could be used along the north property line to minimize graffiti . Mr. Smith objected to the condition requiring installation of curb and gutter along Sierra Madre in front of the three parcels not owned by this development, as well as street improvements to the entire street. He additionally objected to installing sidewalks the entire length of Sierra Madre. He ;also objected to the required in-lieu fee fo ' undergrounding overhead utilities within the railroad easement. He pointed out that the lines are 100 feet from his site, and felt the responsibility to underground should be that of the railroad. Mr. Smith asked for clarification of Standard' Condition N 2 and asked if the intent was to relocate existing; utilities only on his site. There were no urther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNi el asked the 'Engineering Division to respond to Mr. Smith' s comments, Planning Commission Minutes - - dune 22, 1988 i `I Carrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, clarified that Standard Condition N would pertain to utilities on site. In response to the sidewalk issue, Mr. Hanson suggested that , Engineering condition 7 be eliminated and that Engineering condition 1 be modified to clarify that sidewalks would be constructed ;along the west side of sierra Madre and be required to cover the entire parkway from the block wall to the curb'. He advised that the in-lieu fee for utility undergrounds rag; was a standard Planning Commission policy regarding properties abutting the railroad; He advised that staff had required Sierra Madre to be improved to assure the strut was brought sup to current City standards and to provide a more aesthetic look to the roadway. He pointed but that after the necessary testing, it may: be possible for the developer to do less than total reconstruction. He further advised that the condition provides for reimbursement upon redevelopment of the adjacent parcels. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that the Development Code requires projects of this type to provide recreational amenities. Based on this requirement, the Design Review Committee felt that some type of active recreational amenities should be added. Commissioner Chitiea further clarified that even though this was a small project, the Committee felt that it should provide some recreational amenities. Therefore, the Committee determined that a spa/jacuzzi would be more in scale with this particular project. Commissioner; Toltoy stated he would prefer to allow the developer some flexibility in determining what type of recreational' amenities to add to the project. His preference would be to have the developer` work with staff on this issue and bring the results back to the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Commissioner Chit ea advised that the Design Reviews Committee had suggested that the developer provide an alternative, however he chose not to provide one, On the issue of; the block wall , Commissioner Chi ti ea Mated that the color of the block should be compatible.. She concurred that the use of wrought iron with decorative block pilasters along the north property line was discussed at Design Review, and suggested that this option be added to Planning condition 3d. Commissioner Tolstoy addressed the street improvement issue and concurred with .staff that Sierra Madre should be brought to City standards. However, because of the length of the street and the fact that a portion of the street has been paved as a private access way, although in need of repair, he felt that the City should provide some assistance with the street improvement. He did not think it likely that the developer would be reimbursed from the adjacent parcels, since he considered redevelopment of those parcels unlikely. He suggested the use of systems' fees. Planning Commission Minutes - _ June 22, 1988 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the Planning Commission could' not commit City reimbursement for the street repair, but could recommend that action to the City Council ." William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, advised that the State Subdivision Map Act, which regulates systems fees, stipulates that systems fees are to be used on major arterials. Since Sierra Madre is a local street, it would not qualify for the use of systems fees. Commissioner finerick supported Commissioner Tolstoy on the street improvement issue. He supported the Commission policy of the ire-lieu fee for utility undergrounding within the railroad easement. He concurred with the requirement for a` spa/jacuzzi and felt it was important for a project of this size to provide a feeling of community. CommissonerRlakesley was not a particular proponent of spas and felt the developer should be given flexibility to provide an alternative to the recreational amenity requirement. He concurred that Sierra Madre should be fully improved and brought to City standards. He supported City assistance with the street improvements if it is available; however, the street should be fully improved whether or not that means exists. Commissioner Chi ti ea concurred that Sierra Madre should` be fully improved` She considered the in-lieu fee' for utility undergrounding appropriate and consistent with Planning Commission policy. She supported the requirement for the spa;/jacuzi and pointed' out it would take less space and would not cause the aesthetic impact of a volleyball court or hardscape type of recreational amenity. She did not consider the fees to be unusual for this type of project and stated that the applicant has the appeal process available to him should` he 'wish to appeal to the City Council . Chairman McNiel stated the street improvements are necessary to bring Sierra' Madre up i to current code. Relative to reimbursement, he felt it would be more appropriate to leave the condition as written. The applicant would then have the option to appeal the item before the City Council , Motion. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review with modifications to require to spa/,Jacuzzi location, size and design to be; reviewed by the Design Review Committee; modification to Planning Condition 3d` allowing the ;option of a wrought iron fence with decorative block pilasters along the north property line; modification to Engineering condition 1 to add; "dedicated" to the existing portion ` of Sierra Madre and inclusion of the requirement for a sidewalk to be constructed along the crest side of Sierra Madre which will cover the entire parkway from the 'block wall to the curb; and, deletion of Engineering condition 7. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -5- ; dune 22, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTCY, EMERICK, RLAKELEY, 'CHITIEA, MICNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT,- COMMISSIONERS; NONE -carried ` F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-25 - MODIFICATION - OAS - The request to modify a condi Lion of approval regarding reci pr°oca1 access for an approved' specialty shopping center located at the northeast corner of Foothill, Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: O -101-10, 11. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion. ' Moved by; Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to approve the modification to ,Cond tional Use Permit 8 -25. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTO ` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE -carried G. MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES The development of an integrated community shopping center c on""fisting of` four major retail buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, adjoining mall ; shops totaling 132,228 square feet, nine satellite retail buildings totaling 42,500 square= feet, two satellite office buildings totaling 25, 22 square feet, four restaurant ` pads, and a 30,000 square foot theater. Conceptual approval for a design center consisting of ten buildings totaling 195, 0 square feet. All on 71 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Tura Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corder of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard a' APN: 1077- 21-05, 06 and 13¢' Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi el opened the public hearing. Tom Bond, representing western Properties, gave an overview of the modification. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 22, 198 Commissioner Chitiea expressed a concern that there appeared to be a loss of landscaping to the rear of Major 2. She suggested that this be looked at during Design Review. Commissioner Tol stay supported the conceptual changes and considered them an improvement to the project design. Motion: Moved by Tplstoy, seconded by Chiiea, ,to adept the Resolution approving the Modification to Conditional Use Permit -1 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TOEST Y, 'CHITI'EA, BLA ESEEY, EMERIC , MCNIEE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9897 - MODIFICATION WSTERN PROPERTIES -A sub i l si on of 17®O8 acres of l and i nto B parcels' in the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the southeast corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - A N 187 - -106, 1077- g -17. Joe Stow, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil' Engineer, suggested a condition be added to the Resolution requiring submittal and approval by the City of a master plan for the landscaping of the medians within Terra Vista Parkway for its entire length, and Church Street from Haven Avenue to Rochester. The master plan i to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the submittal of the improvement plans. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ralph De Marco, representing; Western Properties, asked for clarification of this condition. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, clarified that the condition would be for the submittal of a conceptual median landscape master plan for the mentioned. stre ets. Mr. DeMarco agreed to this condition. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes - - June 22, 1988 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 997' with the additional condition requiring submittal of a master; plan for the landscaping of the medians within Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street. Motion carried' by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -02B _ FIRST CITY PROPERTIES - 1 A request to amend the Circu B—on Element of the General' Plan to widen Cherry Avenue from the intersection of 24th Street (existing Summit Avenue) to 'Interstate 15 from a collector to a secondary arterial with an 110 foot right-of-way and to widen 24th Street, east-of-the-loop, (existing Summit Avenue) in the vicinity of Cherry Avenue to an 110 foot right-of-way. ( ) Amend the Master Plan of Trails of the General Plan to relocate the trail on the south side of 24th Street, east-of-the-loop, (existing Summit Avenue;) to the north side of 24th Street, east-of-the- loop, along the northerly City boundary and to delete a portion thereof. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8-01 - FIRST CITY PROPERTIES - (1 A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan o widen Cherry Avenue from the intersection of 24th Street (existing Summit Avenue) to Interstate 15 from a collector to a secondary arterial with an 110 foot right-of-way and to widen 24th Strut east-of-the-loop) existing Summit Avenue)` in the vicinity of the intersection with Cherry Avenue, to a 110 foot right-of-way. (2) Amend the Master Plan of Trails to relocate the trail on the south side of 24th Street, east-of-the-loop,' (existing Summit Avenue) to the north side of 24th Street, east-of-the- loop, along the northerly City boundary and to delete a portion thereof. Chairman McNi el advised that the applicant for this item requested a continuance to the July 13, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded byEmerick, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment. 8-02B and Environmental Assessment and Eti rwanda Specific Plan Amendment to the regular Planning Commission meeting of duly 13, 1988. The following items were heard concurrently Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 22;, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE -06 - CUCAMONGA COUNTYWATER DISTRICT - A request to reduce the lot width for Parcels 1, and 3 and the lot size for Parcel 3 for a 3 lot subdivision on 5.67 acres of land, in the Office District (Subarea 1) and Community Commercial District (Subarea- ) of the Foothill Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue - APN: C -1 1- 3. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10238 - CUCAMON A COUNTY HATER D7ISTRI CT - A sub vision of 4 acres of Tand into parcels i'n the'i Flood Control designation, located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego'Avenue - APN. 07- C - . Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the Variance report. Staff requested that the Planning Commission make a determination on the development district designation of Parcel 1 through Minute action. Joe Stoa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the Parcel Map staff 'report, Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim Cline, representing Cucamonga County 'Water District, stated concurrence with the conditions of approval . Wally Shultz, owner of parcel 15, objected to the vacation of 'San Diego without allowing public right-of-way along the back side of the parcels. He advised that the property owners had attempted to have the flood control easement removed from their properties at the expense of over $3,000. He felt there should 'be a better way to provide commercial development of the entire project. Ed Combs, owner of Parcel S, objected to the vacation of San Diego andi concurred with Mr. Schultz's comments. He pointed out that the Foothill' Plan shows access to Vineyard going through Parcel 15. He questioned how Parcel 5 would gain access.; Steve Lucas, 90 Foothill Boulevard, stated that he participated in the development process for the Foothill Specific Plan and did not recall' any compelling reason to vacate San Diego. He pointed out that this hearing was the fir t opportunity for the property owners' to address this issue in a public forum. He advised that this property is now in escrow with one single user who is satisfied with the parcel layout. He felt that the goal of the Foothill Plan to require master planning essentially' delivers' Foothill Boulevard into the hands of large property owners. Richard Chado, adjacent property owner, opposed the vacation of San Diego and considered it an important street to the community and to the development of the affected parcels. There were no further comments, therefore the public nearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes - -- June 22, 198 Chairman McNi el was under the impression that San Diego had been vacated as part of the Foothill Specific Plan process. He asked for clarification of this issue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the street vacation was i scoss d at bath the City Council and Planning Commission levels during the preparation of the Foothill Specific Plan, The actual action to vacate was not taken at than time, but was deferred until submittal of a project directly affected by the street. He advised that the parcel wrap submitted by the Watery District is in compliance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan policy direction. = The sheet vacation would be handled through the normal vacation procedures, which require public notification and input'at the time of the hearing. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that approval of the parcel map: world be contingent upon the City Council ° s approval of the vacation of San Diego Avenue,, and that the conditions should be so modified, Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the viability of the parcels if San Diego is not. vacated. Mr. Hanson pointed out that the parcel map cannot record unless the street is vacated. Motion: Moved by Tost oY seconde d y l akel e y� to ad opt t e Resolution on approving Environmental pp a Assessment and ;. g n Variance D Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS. TOL TIIY, DLA CSLEY, CHITIEA, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ASSENT: ` COMMISSIONERS: NONE' -carried Motion: Moved by Ernerick, seconded by Blake ley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel' Map' 1023 , with a modification to condition 3 that approval is contingent upon the City; Cooncil ' s approval of the San Diego Avenue vacation. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERIC , ELA ESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TO STOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried It was the consensus of the Commission that Parcel 1 be included in the Medium Residential land use category. Planning Commission Minutes _10- dune 22, 1988 10.00 p.m. Planning Commission recessed 10:10 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened with all members present M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 115E3 - BARTON DEV EL—OPMENT COMPANY A; ivision of 9.04 acre's of land 'into 1.1 parce s in the Generl Industrial District (Subarea H , located west of Red Oak Street, approximately 510 feet north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-142_ 34. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Cale Frisbe,; representing Barton Development, asked clarification that the street improvements as well as offsite sidewalk and parkway landscaping on the interior public p c streets would be deferred` until development of the parcels* Rarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, concurred.` There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was cloyed. Motion: Moored by Tol stay, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution' approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 1156 . Motion carried by the following vote- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: T LSTIIY, RLA ESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERIC , MGNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13 ILLIAM LYON COMPANY A one lot subdivision for condo inium' purppses a n desrgn' reviw for 14 units on 7.78 acres of land in the Median-Nigh Residential District (14- 4 dwelling units per acre)` of the Victoria Planned Community located on the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Atwood Street - APN: 111- 1 , 13, 28, 34, and 35.` Associated with this project is a Tree Removal Permit. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned how the Design Review Committee' s concern with the elevation of Building 3 had been addressed,, Planning Commission Minutes _11- June 22, 1988 Ms. Meier advised that the applicant had provided the change in the revised plans. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Sherri Martin, 8540 Archibald, representing the applicant, concurred that the design change had been accomplished in the revised working drawings. She stated she would concur with a condition requiring that element to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Doug Lion, Rancho Cucamonga resident, objected to the Tree Removal Permit. He considered the trees to be in healthy condition and suggested that additional plantings be required in the spaces between the trees. Stan Morris, representing the applicant, advised that the trees would be replaced with a safer species of Eucalyptus, as those which were planted across the street on Victoria Park Lane. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel explained the City' s Tree Preservation Ordinance and supported the replacement of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus with a more appropriate variety., Commissioner Tolstoy concurred and pointed out that the trees in question have not been maintained and are dangerous. He supported tree replacement. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13873, with an additional condition requiring the central element of Building 3 to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10981 - GOLDEN WEST g vi i--on---oYf- -T8-.-2-8�-ic-r-e-s--o--f-i-a-n-d--I'n-to--T--pa—r-c-els— �ITY siildi I si in the' General Industrial Development District (Subarea 10) , located between 7th and 8th Streets, east of Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-171-58. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 22, 1988 7 Bruce McDonald, 2910 Inland Boulevard, Ontario, representing the applicant, objected to conditions= requiring street and parkway ;improvements to the north: side of Sth Street and to the in-lieu fee required as contribution to the future undergrounding of overhead railroad communication fines . He considered this project to be a special case because the likelihood for reimbursement from adjacent properties was slight since that property is owned by the, railroad. He advised that; the applicant was dedicating 36 feet of frontage along dth Street, but felt the requirement to improve property across the street with no chance of reimbursement was an ' undue hardship on this developer. He noted that the improvements to the north side of 8th 'Street are not necessary for the access of this subdivision or the effects of the completion of this subdivision. There were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel did not consider the conditions required for development of this parcel map to be excessive of those required for the development of similar parcels. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that in-lieu fee for undergrounding is consistent of conditions placed on other properties throughout the City. William Silva , Deputy City Engineer, stated he had met twice with; the developer in an attempt to clarify the fact that dth Street is a frontage road, similar to a flood control channel or freeway right of ray. Therefore, when primary access is off a frontage street the developer is required to complete the full street improvement. arrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, pointed out that the City has required full width improvements elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Emerik stated that all sites have inherent advantages and constraints. He felt that, unfortunately, if this developer does not improve th Street on both sides it will not be improved. He, therefore, supported the undergrounding and street improvement conditions.' Commissioners Tol stay and Blakesley concurred that the conditions were consistent with City policy. Motion: Moved by Emeick, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel (dap 10981. Motion carried by the following vote;, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EME IC , BLAKESLEY, CdITIEA, TCEST Y, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -13 June 22, 1988 Motion; Moved by Emer ck, seconded by McNie , unanimously carried to continue past 11.00 p.m. adjournment. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT -05 reRues preone a acre por ion o an ernar no oun unincorporated area (for annexation purposes) to Low Density Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) , located at the nort hwest west corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street AR 5 C71 5 Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT d -Cl - T RRANCE a eve oilmen agreem—en or a acre ;E��arapprove dino County unincorporated area (for annexation purposes), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and th' Street - ARN: 5-071- 5. Mika Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNel opened the public hearing. Gary Mitchell , 9330 Rase Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, gave an overviews of the request to prone and the development agreement. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project' based on concerns with traffic, density, proposed size of homes, possible decrease in property values, impacts on sewer, streets and schools. Rill Clover, 6214 Blue Gum Court, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Wren, 6225 Colony Court, Rancho Cucamonga Thelma Standart, 5913 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Paul Bestelmeyer, 6271 glue Gum Court, Rancho Cucamonga Gary Burke, 6238 Blue Gum Court, Rancho Cucamonga Dean Taylor, 6236 Colony Court, Rancho Cucamonga Karl Katz, 6233 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Sandy Hauser, 1301 Blue Gum, Rancho Cucamonga, California r* Mitchell res ended t the resi d n e s concerns sand stated he would welcome meetings. with e residents and City stiff when the actual tract ma p is solidified and ready for presentation to the City. He advised that the tract will be designed with lots no smaller than those in the adjacent Tact 12659, with many lots in excess of 17,000 to 18,000 square feet..: He noted that the actual project density will be 2.3 dwelling units per acre. There were no further co eats, therefore the public hearing was closed. Pla nning Commission Minutes 1 dune 22, 1988 � �� . !r "�. ! �"'. • The applicant was not heard to disagree. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the request to annex, since without it the City would have no control over the development. He asked that the developer be required to hold neighborhood meetings when the tract map is ready for review. Mr. Buller advised that this is a typical requirement during the Design Review stages of a project. Commissioner Blakesley felt the request was appropriate and supported the density concern. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Agreement 88-06 pre one to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS.* TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: ,Moved by cNiel , seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Agreement 88-01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MC EL, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-13 - CRHO - The ng 11 apjiroxi 74,697 square feet on 2 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District (Subarea , located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 209-142-16. S. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, 88-31 - CRHO - A request to remove approximately 10 mat7uyZ6_fFees i'-n---co—nj--u-6c't Ton--wi—fF-the development of an office structure at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Haven Avenue - APN: 209-142-16. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 1 June 22, 1988 Bob Hornbeck, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional use Permit 88-13 and Tree Removal Permit N- 1. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, T LST Y, BLA ESLEY, EMERICK, MC IEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.- COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 11-40 p.m, Planning Commission Recessed 11:5 Planning CommissionReconvened P i swith all members present T. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8-15 DESIGN COOPERATIVE ee opmen o a , squAare bo res aurae do . acres o an within the Office Professional District, located at the northwest corner of Arrow'Route and Archibald Avenue - APN: 8-811-58. U. VARIANCE d - - DESIGN COOPERATIVE - A request to allow a reduction in regu' re s red si a 1 i nR setbacks and the average` landscape setback for a 1,700 square foot restaurant on .38 acres of 'land within the Office Professional District, located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue - APN: 08-811- N. Chairman McNiel announced that the applicant for this item requested a continuance to the duly 13, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hearing. There was no public response. Motion: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Ehitlea, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88-15 and Variance 87-06 to the regular Planning Commission meeting of duly 1 , 188. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - dune 22, 1988 NEW BUSINESS V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-3 - MAURY MICROWAVE e opmen o square oo addition o an i tin - 0 square foot industrial buy1din , for a total square footage of 43,476 on 2.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at '8610 Helms Avenue _ APN;' 209- 22-10 and 11. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mark Maury, applicant, objected the Planning Division condition requiring a landscape planter along the north property line. He felt that the planter would further reduce the width of the driveway`. He stated that the existing plan provides over 16 of landscape on the property, which exceeds the 12 ' requirement. He additionally objected to Condition 2 requiring continuous shrubs and trees 'along the 'west property line and proposed that the applicant be allowed to retain the current amount of trees and provide a dense screening of Oleanders along the back of the property. Frank Gazowski , representing the applicant, objected to thecondition requiring a "No Parking At Anytime" zone on Helms Avenue along the frontage of the property. He indicated that parking along the frontage was allowed on adjacent parcels and felt it was unfair to eliminate that privilege from this parcel . He asked that some relief be granted for the utility' undergrounding conditions due to the excessive number of utility lines surrounding the property. He provided the Commission with a 'map depicting the applicant's' proposal for utility undergrounding. He considered it more appropriate to secure the fee payment for undergrounding along the north project boundary through a lien agreement. There were no further public comments. Russell Maguire, City Engineer, concurred that the No Parking condition could be eliminated from the conditions of approval . Narye Hanson, SeniorCivil Engineer, addressed the utility undergrounding issue and advised that the condition was written under strict interpretation of the policy resolution. He advised that the Planning Commission could determine that this project meets some of the exemption criteria, thereby allowing flexibility for a compromise of the conditions. Commissioner Nlaesley stated he would concur if there was a mechanism t secure the condition. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that a lien agreement would bind the property and not the applicant. He pointed out that the disadvantages of a lien agreement and cautioned that if the City has to foreclose on the Planning Commission Minutes -18- dune 22, 1988 property to obtain the undergrounding fees, it may not be successful if the property is heavily mortgaged. Commissioner Chitiea supported the landscape requirements and considered the conditions appropriate. She agreed that the two foot planter may be tau small to plant trees; however, other plant material such as vines could be used to soften the side of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the landscape requirements as required by the Design Review Committee. Brad Huller, City Planner, 'advised that the choice of tree could achieve the sage effect as requiring double the normal requirements for tree planting'. Chairman McNiel stated he would not be opposed to granting flexibility to the project's landscape architect; however, was opposed to the use of Oleander as a fill-in shrub. He supported the landscape requirements and did not consider the conditions inconsistent with normal policy. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred that the intent was o achieve the criteria dense landscaping, by whatever means. He suggested that the condition be modified to eliminate the requirement for double the normal requirements for trees, thereby allowing flexibility for the applicant to develop a plan to the approval of the City Planner. Chairman McNiel asked for discussion relative to the utility undergrounding. ar°rye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested modifications to the conditions for the Commission's consideration should they determine the project meeting some of the exemption requirements. The proposed modification included the option for the developer to secure fee payment for the undergrounding of utilities along the west project boundary to the center of Helms Avenue through a 'lien agreement. Commissioner Emerick stated he was uncomfortable with lien agreements; however,; would accept this condition this time only. t was the consensus of the Commission that this project was a special circumstance and therefore a lien agreement' would be acceptable'. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by gla esley, ; to adopt the Resolution` approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 87- 5, with modifications to Planning Division condition 2 by requiring the dense screening along the west property line to be subject to the City; Planner's' approval and deleting the requirement for .double the normal requirements for tree planting along the west property lino and modifications to Engineering Division conditions to require in in-lieu fee for ;undergrounding utilities along the west project boundary to the center of Helms Avenue prior to the issuance of building permits'. The developer" may, defer the payment of this fee if secured by a lien agreement. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes _19- June 22, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITICA, BLAKESLEY, CMERICK, ,MCNIEL, TCLSTCY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried W. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW d -Sb - DAVIS DEVELOPMENT dve ree rare ui ings; o a ng , square feet on 9.8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heave Industrial District (Subarea 9) located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -- APN. 9-111-0F Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, ,presented the staff report. Chairman McNel invited public comment. Alan Tuntland, representing the applicant, stated; that the conditions of approval call for the relocation of the Olive trees on thee... site. He suggested that the Olive trees be removed and replaced with -inch box size trees which would be consistent with their proposed landscape plan. he addressed Engineering condition S which requires the storm drain in the proposed cul-de- sac to be extended to the intersection of Jersey Bou e ard. He asked that the developer be granted the opportunity for reimbursement for the increase in size of the storm drain line from adjacent properties as they develop. There were no further public comments. William Silva, Deputy City ;Engineer, advised that reimbursement was available for the incremental increase in storm drain pipe size. A special condition was not necessary; once installation of the storm drain is completed the developer would request a reimbursement contract which would be processed through City Council * Commissioner Blakesley stated he would like to see the Olive trees preserved. If they could not be preserved on this site, he suggested the possibility of relocating them to another site. Commissioner Chitiea did not consider the Olive trees inconsistent with the landscape plan, She felt they could be utilized in some manner on the site. Commissioner Tolstoy started that the streetscape should be consistent with the surrounding property. If the tree could be moved to another site on the property to enhance the project, he would prefer that the trees be relocated. He suggested that the City Planner review and approve the landscape plan. Planning Commission Minutes -20- dune 22, 198 # * * : f ♦ r ## m * i ♦♦ "a ♦ * . ♦ r a ». a � ,.. ♦ » # ♦ ♦ �..♦ *.-.. # * :.:is is r ♦# e a ♦# * „#:. ♦, :. . . - ♦ # # ♦ i ♦ Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the shared access was necessary since i would serve the driveway for the Otis Elevator site in the future. Mr. Peotter restated his objection to the Joint use driveway and indicated the driveways is on property not owned by this applicant. he felt this would provide public access to a private property that is not owned by this applicant. He felt the more appropriate time to address the access issue was at the time the Otis Elevator property develops. Russell Maguire , Aty Engineer, explained that approximately of the southerly driveway* is on this site and only groves across the adjacent property line to accommodate the building. He felt this driveway access was necessary to provide the necessary traffic circulation and ensure public safety. He suggested that if the developer cannot provide the access, the notch in building should be proved north to accommodate the easterly half of the common drive to the Otis site. The Commission concurred that the ,point driveway was necessary for public safety and the Condition should remain. r'. Silva addressed the issue of the storm drain condition and advised that this subject had been discussed with the applicant several' tames prior to this meeting. He advised' that staf's recommendation would be to retain the condition as written, Motion: Moved by Chitie , seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review d -ld as proposed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, BLA ESLEY, MCNIEL, T LSTUY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried X. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 -6 4 APPEAL BUTLER - An appeal of a Condition o pprova requ r fi ns a a ion o ape es Tian acdesswayrr to Bear Gulch` School from the project site, located on the; south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN, 08-1 -IU. Chairman McNiel announced that the applicant for° this item requested a continuance to duly 1 , 1988. Motion: Moved by Bla esley, seconded by Emerick, unanimously carried, to continue the appeal of Minor Development Review 8 64 to the r°e ul ar Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1988. Planning Commission Minutes - - dune 22, 1988 COMMISSION BUSINESS Staff was directed to place; on the July 13, 1988 Planning Commission Agenda a proposal for possible amendments to Subarea 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1:40 a.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Brad Boller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 225 1988 Chairman Larry McNiel called the June 22, 1988 Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:30 'p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to present the Rancho Cucamonga Design Excellence Awards. In attendance were Planning Commissioners Larry McNiel , Suzanne Chit ea, Bruce Fmerick, David Blakesley and Peter Tol t y. Also in attendance was Mayor Dennis Stout, Godncilmembers Pam Wright and Chuck Buquet, as well as City staff and guests.= Honored in the residential division were the Lomita Court Apartments by P.S.B. Realty Corporation, Villa Del Rey by American Retirement Villas and the Rwanda Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by Rancho Cucamonga Stake. Commercial division winners;were Deer Creek Car ;Wash ;by Ted Bert, Dwight Bert, Jim Keluer and Jim kolboid; and Vineyard National Bank on Foothill Boulevard. Industrial honors' went to Rancho Pacific Business Center by Pacific Scene, Inc, Best Office Complex winners were the Banks and Ritchie Legal Offices by games Banks, Jr. and Marsha Meeks Banks; and the Forecast Office Building by the Forecast Corporation. The Victoria Groves Village by, the William Lyon Company was awarded first l ace horrors i n both the master 1 and d p_ landscape a divisions. p p Best rehabilitation project was awarded to the Albert House by Carrie Candice Johnson-Hall and Ronald Mark Hall. Mayor [Dennis Stout presented a special award to Ralph Lewis, Lewis Homes, recognizing his contribution to building in the community as well as< congratulating hire for being named "1987 Builder of the Year" by Professional' Builder magazine and induction into the National Association of Horne Builders Housing°s Hall of Fame The awards presentation concluded at 7:00 p.m. with a catered reception. Res ctfully �id 40 rad Bull r Deputy Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 8, 1988 Chairman Larry McNiol called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order< 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center,; 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman ` McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS. PRESENT. Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry McNiel , COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: David 8lakesley, Peter Tolstoy i STAFF PRESENT. Brad Duller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Tom Orann, Assistant Planner; 8arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; William Silva, Deputy City Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that this evening' s meeting would adjourn to 6:30 p.m. on June 22, 1988 for the Design Awards presentation. The awards presentation will precede the regularly scheduled meeting, which will begin at approximately 7:45 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Approved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, carried,; to approve the Minutes of May 25, 1988 as amended, CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88- 7 - SWAN POOLS The developr�ent of a 1:H acre industrial' Master Pan consisting of three industrial buildings, and Phase I development consisting of a 7,409 square foot building for a contractor' s office, yard, and warehousing use on 0.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subaru 13 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east side of Rochester Avenue, south `of 6th Street w APN 9- 88-038 Planning Commission Minutes -I- June 8, 1988 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by; Emerick, carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman McNiel announced that the applicant for Item H had requested a continuance; therefore, the item was advanced in the agenda. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-10 - DIVERSIFIED _; The development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial sopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,80 square feet on 12.96 acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of ' Haven and Highland Avenues - APN 01- 71-E5 and 71 (Continued from May 11, 1988). Chairman M Niel opened the public hearing. Where were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Development Review - 10 to the August 24, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87- - FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - A request to allow the installation of a temporary modular structure to serve as a multi-purpose facility to be located in the Medium Density Residential District (8 14w dwelling units per acre) , located at 6627 Amethyst Avenue PN O -1 1-11. (Continued from April 13, 1888). Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman MNiel opened the public hearing. Bob Corcoran, Foothill Fire District, concurred with the conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing ;was closed, Motion: Moved by Emeric , seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment` and Conditional Use Permit 87- 7. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES, COMMISSIONERS:` EMERICK, CHITIEA MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: ' NONE ABSENT : COMMISSIONERS: BLAKES EY, TOLSTOY -carried Planning Commission Minutes - - June 8,, 1988 Commissioner Chi ti ea clarified that her vote in favor of this project was with the understanding that the City is looking for major improvements to this site in approximately 2 years time. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - ACACIA FAe i anti al subdi vi si on and des gn review of 1SC single farmly approximately4 acresofland in the Low-Medium (4-8 g uni isper acre and Medium (8_14 dwellin units per acre) tial Districts located at the north sine of Highland avenue, South of Banyan Avenue, west of Deer Creek Channel , APN 01- 1-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, 42 and Let' "0". Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Staff read a modification to Design Review condition 1, which clarified the Committee' s intent with regard to the project' s perimeter wall . Barry+e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, read a modification to Engineering Condition 1, which further defined the dedications and improvements to Highland Avenue* Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, Rick Snyder, 101 W. Batanchury, Fullerton, California, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval , Commissioner Emerick asked for an explanation of the expanded parkway along the eastern tract boundary. Cary Andreason, project engineer, gave the history of the Tract as it proceeded through the Trails and Design Review Committees. Ms. Nissen explained that in their review of the Tract, the Trails Committee recommended a 50-foot expanded parkway along the south side of Banyan. The Design Review Committee concurred with the recommendation of expansion; however, recommended that the applicant submit a redesign. The applicant returned with a 3-foot expanded parkway, which was increased to 35 feet by the the Design Review Committee. She advised that the expansion was necessary to more easily accommodate the Community Trail and to provide a smooth transition from the western tract boundary. She added that the expanded parkway would be consistent with the General Plan policy of preservation of open character 'i n the areas surrounding Chffey College. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing ;was dosed® Planning; Commission Minutes ' - - dune D, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea a wised that it was a concern of both she and Commissioner Tolstoy that the parkway design be sensitive to the Chaffey College area and that the feeling of open space be maintained. She felt that the compromise of 35 feet for the parkway{ expansion was appropriate and fret the intention of the General Plan policy. Commissioner Emerick stated that because the trail would narrow as it crosses the Deer Creek Channel , he would not be opposed to the 35 foot width recommendation. He supported the concept of maintaining the open space and <character around Chaffey College. Chairman McNiel supported the recommended 35-foot parkway width and felt the trail system as ;proposed would blend well with the surrounding area. Commissioner Chitiea suggested a condition be added requiring that if river rock is used on the1 elevations,ons, it should be natural< stone material . ; She addressed the issue of cedar or redwood fencing and was not concerned with just the issue of staining; the material , but the fact that the wood next to the stucco of the houses is incongruous. She pointed out that natural wood elements are not repeated in the elevations. Commissioner Emerick concurred and supported the maintenance and appearance concerns noted by the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel was concerned with the fencing, particularly that which would be seen from the street. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested a condition which would require return fences or walls in public view to be of masonry material subject to Design Review Committee or City Planner approval . Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Nor. Snyder stated he would like the opportunity to provide a solution other than masonry. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the condition could be worded to require a decorative treatment. This was acceptable to the applicant. The public hearing was closed. r. Buller asked for direction as to the review of the wall treatment. The Commission concurred than the item would be placed on the Design Review Committee consent calendar. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 8, 1988 Motion: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Chides, to adopt the Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract 13890, with modifications proposed by staff the Engineering Condition 4 and Design Review ;Condition 1, and additional conditions requiring the use of natural stone material if river rock is to be used and decorative 'treatment to all return walls or fences exposed to public view subject to Design Review Committee approval . _ Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERIC , CNITIEA, MCNIEL NOES': COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88- - MERCY BUL ,NCE The request to esta'b ish` an ambulance service substation in a eased space of 2,000 square feet within an existing multi- tenant industrial park on 5.22 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1 , located south of Arrow Route, on the west side of Vineyard - APN 07- E -4g. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Angela Gonzales, 8190 Mango, concurred with the conditions of approval ... There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea supported the relocation in that it provided the necessary response time. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emeric , to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit OS. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAESEEY, TOLSTOY -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 8, 1988 Et ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-19 - PACIFIC PHYSICIAN SERVICES - The request to establish me ical offices in leased space 16, SS square feet within an existing industrial park on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ) , located at 1087 Laurel Street ' APN 08- 51-57 Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dan Richards, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . Chairman McNiel asked if this use was in affiliation with one of the area hospitals.- Mr. Richards responded there was no direct affiliation at this time. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated she would support the request used on the developer's solution to eliminate one of the buildings in order to accommodate the parking requirements. Commissioner Emerick stated his original concern was the parking issue, which i he felt had been adequately addressed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, to adopt. the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit -1 . Motion carried by the following vote AYES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIE , EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IILA ESLEY, TOLSTOY carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 4 - JAC S N -' The request to establ ish a hair so on in a ease space of C, 7 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial park on 7.09 ages of land in the Industrial Park District, located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN' D - D1-D1. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public' hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June E, 1988' Moti on: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Chi tiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88-24. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY -carried OLD BUSINESS G. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f c to establis h a request to amend the tiwan a i Community Equestrian Trail on the west side of East Avenue from a point roughly 1,400 feet north of Highland Avenue to 24th Street. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, proposed an additional alternative for consideration which would provide an 8 foot trail , 4 foot concrete walkway and a 4 foot landscaped area adjacent to the curb. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Patrick McGuire, 6192 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the trail alignment on East Avenue due to potential safety concerns with the speed and proposed traffic volume of the street. He stated the most appropriate location for the trail would be through the flood plain area. Mr. McGuire presented a formal letter of protest for the record. Doyle Lyman, 13431 Cassia, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his concern with the proposed volume of traffic on East Avenue and the position of the trail on East Avenue. He concurred that the proper location for the trail may be through the area known as the flood plain-, however, was not sure of the feasibility since he was under the impression that houses may be built on that property. He sympathized with Mr. McGuire in that the proposed trail would take a portion of his property. Barbara Vogel , representing Lewis Homes, also opposed the trail on East Avenue due to safety concerns. She was also concerned that the trail would further encroach upon Mr. McGuire's property, thus leaving him with a substandard lot. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 8, 1988 Chairman McNiel asked staff; for information relative to the area referred to as the flood 'plain. Mr. Hanson stated that the area in question is subject to flooding; however, the City's capital project improving San 'Sevai'ne would help to alleviate the flooding. He advised that houses could be built on the property with the proper flood control measures. Mr. Buller noted that it is the City' position not to place community trails in areas subject to flooding duo to maintenance concerns. Commissioner Chi ti ea was concerned with the safety of pedestrians as well as the equestrian users, and suggested that the alternative might be to meander the trail through the 'Lewis project, as proposed in Exhibit "C" of the report. Commissioner Emerick saw a major conflict between the traffic and the horse trails and considered East Avenue the least appropriate location to place the trail i He did not support the alternative requiring two north'/south trails along ''East Avenue and considered it an over expanse of the use. Motion; Moved by Chitea, seconded by McMiel , to direct staff to advertise and prepare an amendment to the Etranda Specific Plan requiring two Community Trails, one on each side of East Avenue, that would be located internally within any future '`development. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: C ITIEA, MCNIEE NOES:: COMMISSIONERS: E IERIC ABSENT® COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESEEY, TOLSTOY carried I . DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 - CARYN The design review of bui ding e ovations an dotal e Ste' Plan of 84 single family lots of a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 154 single'; family lots on 67.85 acres of land in the Low Density Residential ' District (2-4 dwelling units; per acre) located on the south side of 24th Street, east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN 22 - 1 .1-02. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -8- dune 8, 1988' Sarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested that an additional condition be placed on the map which would require 24th Street and the Cower loop Street to be constructed in conformance with the latest City adopted cross section in effect at the time the final map records. He pointed out that this would assure that should Commissioner Tolstoy'� s recommendation. relative to the construction of median islands in this vicinity he approved as part of the General Plan amendment, the project would be in conformance. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tim Unger, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. linger objected to Planning Division condition 7 requiring construction of a wall along the western property;line He felt it was , unfair to burden this project with a condition which would benefit the unapproved tract to the west. He asked that if this condition is required, it be enforced at the time of building permit issuance. Mr. Hanson stated for the record that required walls for flood control would remain as conditioned and not be deferred' to time of building permits. Mr, linger addressed the 'issue of front yard landscaping and stated he was not particularly opposed to this condition; however, the homes would be priced in the $200,000 market range and he felt the homeowners would prefer to install their own landscaping. He suggested as an alternative that additional trees be planted within the front yards of each lot. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had explored the possibility of including a landscape bonus package, Mr. Unger stated this option is not offered because it would he necessary to include the cost in the purchase price of the home. He was concerned that this would complicate the loan appraisals. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel questioned the treatment of return galls and fences between units. Mr. Murphy advised that currently this was not a condition of the map, and if this was a concern of the Commission a condition should be added to require decorative treatment of return walls and fences. Commissioner Chitiea firmly supported the front yard landscaping j requirement and felt that irrigation and turf should be provided i addition to trees. She considered front yard landscaping necessary to provide an overall , more attractive look to the project. Planning Commission Minutes -9- dune 8, 1988 Commissioner Emerick concurred and further stated than the applicant' s landscape architect could design a landscape plan which would be consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Alan, Chairman Mciel agreed and added that a new homeowner has many expenses with the purchase of a new hone, and sometimes landscaping is not high on the list of priorities. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested wording for the landscape condition which would provide flexibility in the landscape design. He suggested that the landscape plan be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval . Chairman Mciel asked for discussion relative to the fencing along the t western boundary. Mr. Unger restated his request that the condition be deferred to the time of building permit 'issuance due to the unknown factors with the western tact. Mr. Buller suggested that the condition remain as written, the applicant could request an amendment if the situation with the western tract changes. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with that the condition as written in that it would allow construction of a wood fence along the western boundary of the lot to the extreme northwest of the 'tract. She was particularly concerned with the situation which might exist after the lots are graded. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, suggested wording to be added to Planning Condition 7 that would require a decorative perimeter block wall to be constructed along the western ' boundary ;of the extreme northwest lot, regardless of what happens with the western tract. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tentative Tract 13566 with amendments requiring decorative' treatment of all return walls and fences between lots, front yard landscaping to be approved by the Design Review Committee, modification to Condition 7 requiring a decorative wall treatment along the western property line unless a map is approved on the adjacent property, in which ease a woo d fence may be utilized. Regardless of whether a project has been approved on the adjacent property, the wrest boundary of Lot l is to receive a decorative` block treatment. Engineering Condition 6 was added requiring construction o 4th Street and the` tower Coop Street to be in conformance with the latest adopted City cross sections. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -10- June R1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY -carried J. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 7-61 - MARRIOT CORPORATION - An appeal of staffs decision to deny a modification of building elevations of an existing restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian Street - ARN 01-811-56. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi el' invited ubl i r comment. Mitch Haase, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. There were no further comments. Commissioner Emerick did :not support the appeal and stated he liked the appearance of the restaurant as it presently exists. He did not consider the awnings appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and dad not think it was necessary for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to have a generic Bob' s Big, Boy Restaurant. She felt a trellis might be more appropriate than the awnings requested. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, to deny Minor Development Review 87-61. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:' COMMISSIONERS:' EMERICK, CHITIEA MCNIEL NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:: BLA ESLEY, TOLSTOY -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. AN AMENDMENT TO THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP SECTION OF THE CITY SBOIVISION ORDINANCE TO INCLt1OE THE REGOLATION E NONRESIDENTIAL S5ff1_V I S I NS Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 18 Chairman McNiel invited public comments. There were no comments relative to this issue. Motion: Moved by Emeri ck,, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend approval of the ordinance emending the Subdivision Ordinance to the City Councilor Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERIC , CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There> were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motions Moved by Emerick, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Awards Presentation to e held on June 22, 1988 at s 0 p.m. , Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga. The awards presentation will precede the regularly scheduled Manning Commission meeting which will begin of : 5 .m. Afuliy s itied,1ler•Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 8, 198 j a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM NGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May ; , 188 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT; David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry McNiel , Peter Tol stay COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy; City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; William Silva,; Deputy City Engineer; Richard Alcorn, Cade Enforcement Supervisor, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, Cynthia Kinser,; Assistant Planner; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner ; Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion. Moved by Chitiea seconded by Plakesley, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of`May .11 , 188 as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 -13 REITER - The development of six o ice an mu'l ti-tenant industrial buildings totaling`, 89,374 square feet of 6.37 acres` of land within the approved Master Plan in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 8) , located at the northwest corner of Utica Avenue and Bentley Street - APN: 10-081-18. III B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13476 - NEST VENTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ' - The design nevi ew of 'bui l ding elevations and a detailed site pl are for prev�i ousl approved tentative tract consisting o 37 single family lots en g�7 acres of land in the Low Density Residential District ( -'4 dwelling units per acre} located on the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Tr*yon Street - APN; 08_111_n C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-54 - CHID -, The development of a restaurant totaling 7,174 square feet on '1.2 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the northeast corner of Red Oak Street and Laurel Street - A N* 08- 51-2 . Motion; Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carded, to adept the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02B - ' FIRST CITY PROPERTIES 1 An amendment to the Circulation Element of the Genera PM widen Cherry Avenue from Summit Avenue (24th Street) to Interstate 15 from a collector to a secondary arterial with an 88' right- of-way road section and amend Summit; Avenue to an 8' right-of-way road section* (2) Arend the Master' Plan of Trails of the :General Phan to relocate the trail on the south side of Summit Avenue to the north of Summit Avenue along the easterly City boundary. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 FIRST CITY PROPERTIES '- 1 An aarendmnt to he` Etiwanda specific Plan to widen Cherry Avenue from Summit Avenue (24th Street) to Interstate 15 from a collector to a secondary arterial with an 8' right-of-way road section and amend Summit Avenue to an 88' ight-of-way road section. (2 Amend the Community Trails Map of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to relocate the trail on the south side of Summit Avenue to ::the north' of Summit Avenue along the easterly City boundary. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, gave a brief overview of the amendments.: Staff recommended' that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to June 22, 1988. This would allow time to readvertise the items with an amendment to widen the right-of-dray for Cherry Avenue to 110 feet. Chairman MNiel opened the public hearing. ' Doug Lyon, 12477 Ironbark, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the reasoning for widening Summit Avenue. William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, explained that Summit would be widened to its ultimate right-of-Way width to bring it into consistency with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Further, the widening would enable the street to handle the projected traffic load.. Mr. Lyon indicated that this was his first exposure to the amendments and he had several questions. Chairman McNiel suggested that Mr. Lyon meet with City staff prior to the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting when the items would' be heard in depth. Pla nning n Commis sion Minutes 2 May 25, 1988 There were no further public comments. Commissioner Toisto,y proposed that as part of this amendment the Planning Commission consider extending the median from its current termination point at 24th Street and the Loop Road intersection. He suggested that the median be extended across 24th Street to Cherry Avenue and that a median also be provided on the Lower Loop Road® He noted that there may be constraints; however, suggested that the Commission direct staff to explore the Median possibilities. The Commission concurred with this direction. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Dlaesley, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 8-028 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 8-01 to the Planning Commission meeting o June 22, 1988. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02A - ACACIA CONSTRUCTION - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential on approximately 4 . 6 acres; of land, located north of Highland avenue, south of Lemon Avenue extension;, and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 207- 71-3 (portion) , 41 (portion) and 42. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88-01 ACACIA CONSTRUCTION ! A request to amend the Development District Designation ' of Medium Residential' to Low-Medium Residential on approximately 42.26 acres, located at the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Lemon Avenue extension and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN 201•- 7 - 4 (portion) , 41 (portion) , and 42. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi el opened the public hearing. Gary Andreason, 450 Mariposa, Upland, California, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Andreason concurred with the Resolution and Conditions f Approval . ' 0 There were no further comments , therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea commented that it was nice to see a request for a decrease in density come before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - May 25, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. He pointed out that the property to the rest of this project contains an already approved Medium High density project which contains two and three story structures. He felt that sensitivity to the density transition should be given to the tract map for this project when it is submitted. Motion; Moved by Emeriti , seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment B -C A to the City Council Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TDLSTCY, BLAKESLEY, CHITI A, MCNIEL NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion. Moved by Emerick, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment : and Development District Amendment 8 -01 to the City Council * Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, RLAKE LEY, CHITIEA, MCNIE NOES. COMMISSIONERS': NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87- 4 - OERB R' CHLDREN'S CENTERS IBC. dove opment of a 7160 square foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of 14nd 'with n the Low' Density Residential District, located at the southwest corner of Rase line Road and Turner Avenue APN 1077-041-57. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE.. PARCEL MAP 11311 - OERBER CHILDREN S CENTERS, INC. - ' A subdivision 'of 18 acres of and into parcels in the Low Residential District ( -4 dwelling units per acre , located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue AP : 1 77-041-57 Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She advised that Standard Condition 0-7; of the Resolution should' be checked to require Notice of Intention to form and/or 'join the Lighting and Landscaping District. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 25, 1988 Phil Brown, 2150 H. Arrowhead, San Bernardino, California, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Brown concurred with the Resolution and Conditions o Approval * He additionally referred to the roofing issue and ,advised that the applicant would prefer to use asphalt shingles, however, ;would concur with the Commission' s direction. DougCarls on, on 7BB � Cambridge, Rancho Cucamonga, asked .for clarification of several issues. He stated that under the County, this property was' designated as R-1' and asked when the zoning was changed to allow a project of this nature. He requested that a parking lot not be placed behind his house, that no entrance be allowed on Base Line, and that a block wall be required around the entire perimeter of the project. Mr. Carlson also questioned the hours o operation, lighting of the parking lot, whether or not the entrance to the school would be locked at night, if this project would bring his property value down, and if there would be two story structures on the property. H questioned drainage of the project. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, concurred that the property was originally designated by the County as -1, which would allow a preschool with conditional use permit ,host as the current City ` designation allows He advised that the structure would be one story and that a' block wall i required around the perimeter of the project as a condition of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman McHi el explained that the parking lot but would be lit; however, the lighting would be such that it would not impact the surrounding residences. He further stated that entrance the; the facility itself would be locked at night, but that entrance to to parking lot would not. He also noted that the school ' s hours of operation and hours of outdoor play activities were limited by conditions of approval . He did not believe that property values would be adversely affected by this project. He asked for discussion relative to the access issue and asked if a right-in, right-out 'driveway would be feasible. Mr. Coleman advised that access to Base Line had been moved as far west as possible to keep it away from the Hermosa intersection for safety reasons* He was concerned that a right turn only drive forcing traffic onto Hermosa might' be a dangerous situation during the flooding season. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he was sorry to see a historic structure carved up and put on a postage size lot. He additionally stated that the project architect had done a good job of trying to capture the flavor of the historic Minor house. He stated that even though the Planning Commission normally does not like to see composition roofing used in the City, in this case he felt it was important to be flexible and to retain the image of the= neighborhood as it looked in the past; therefore, he supported the composition shingle roofing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 25, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea disagreed on this issue and felt this was an opportunity to improve the character of the neighborhood. She did not think that the roof would make the structure historically different but more attractive and of higher quality. She pointed out that the type of the used would emulate wood shingles, but be more durable in the long term. Commissioner Olakesley supported the requirement for a the 'roof and noted; that a wide variety of the roofing material is manufactured to closely resemble wood shingles. Commissioner Emeri ck stated on this particular building he would support the composition shingle roof. He feet the City should be flexible in its roofing requirements and not adhere rigidly to requiring tile roofs on all projects, especially when a structure architecturally attempts to mimic a historical style. Chairman McN'iel supported the the roof and opined that it was a better material in the long term. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt ;the Resolution approving, Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 7- , with an additional condition requiring a the roof, subject to review and approval by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYE COMMISSIONERS: C ITIEA, OLAkESLEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL, TOESTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioners Emerick and Tols oy clarified that while the supported the project they did ;not support the tile' roof condition. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 11311. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CIT'IEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY' NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 25, 1988 1. NVIR NMENT L 111111MIIT AND VARIANCE 87- 4 LENK - A request to reduce the minimum required lot depth from 160 feet to 146.5 feet on 9 lots in conjunction with the development of 18 single family lots on 11. 9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling; units per acre) , ;located on the west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street - APN: 1061-41-03. K. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13674 LENK DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision of 18 single farm y lots on 1.3crf land in the Very Levy Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) , located on the west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View ARN. 1061-401--03. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that Condition ( ) of the tract map should be modified to require the in-lieu fee for Amethyst to be paid to the City prior to approval of the final map. Chairman Mciel opened the 'public hearing. Phil Brown, representing the applicant., concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval'. Mr. Brown advised that the applicant was agreeable to establishing a minimum unit size of 2500 square feet, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the property would be parceled out for devel opment. Mr. Brown advised that to his knowledge the applicant' s intent was to gain approval of the tract map and then to proceed with the project. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the type of fencing to he used on the southern boundary of the tract. Mr. Brown advised that the trail fencing would be that of City standards. He further advised that the trail would be open to public access on Amethyst. The following individuals addressed the Commission raising concerns relative to potential loss of view, drainage, alignment of houses, pedestrian and traffic hazards posed by the width of Amethyst, and lack of street lights: Cynthia Pilear, 9494 Valley View, Rancho Cucamonga Ralph Masagl , 9430 Valley View, Rancho Cucamonga Sally M s gli , 9430 Valley View, Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Brown, 9416 Valley View, Rancho Cucamonga Dick Dahl , representing the applicant, expressed a willingness to work with the neighbors to resolve their concerns. There were no further comments, therefore the public nearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes ` -7- May 25, 198 Chairman Mciel asked for clarification of the street widening along Amethyst. 3arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the developer would be required to improve the project <side of Amethyst. only. Chairman McHiel asked for discussion relative to the trail . Commissioner Chitiea stated that the location of the trail was appropriate and noted that the trail is also intended to accommodate pedestrians. She pointed out that the developer has agreed to leave the trail open to public access. Chairman McNiel asked for discussion relation to the street lights. Mr. Hanson advised that the developer is required by conditions of approval to t place street lights within the project. ' He suggested that the residents consider making an application to southern California Edison for street lights in the existing area. Commissioner Emerick supported; the Variance request; however, was very concerned with grading for the project. He suggested that the tract map be sent back to the Grading Committee with a requirement for a conceptual plan. Commissioner' Tol stoy stated he had no problem with the Variance for 'lots which are 3 1/2 feet short.' He felt that; with the drainage mitigations measures proposed by staff, drainage would be handled appropriately. He had a great concern, however, with the western lots and the fact that the lots would b developed as custom lots on a piecemeal basis. He was not comfortable approving the map unless it could be conditioned that the individual lots and plans would be required to be submitted to the Design Reviews Committee and Grading Committee for review and approval . Commissioner Emerick concurred and :further suggested that the surrounding residents should be notified when the ;plans are reviewed. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that grading concerns were justified. She stated that obstruction of views was a difficult issue to, deal' with; however, if the individual plans were reviewed by Design 'Review and Grading Committees,: it would assure that the situation was more equitable. Commissioner Blakesley ;was concerned with the variance and felt the decrease restricts the building' foot print by 'allowing the lots to become shorter and wider. He felt it would be more appropriate to have the lots banger and narrower. Commissioner Chitiea pointed out that a narrower lot forces the homes closer together, resulting in potential view obstructions. Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1988 chairman McNiel was not concerned with the variance. He supported the grading concerns and concurred that the issue would need to be resolved prior to approval of the tract map. He pointed out that the tract of homes to the south is significantly lower than this project and cautioned that, unfortunately, the view will be somewhat obstructed. He asked for discussion relative to, the concern raised with parking along Amethyst. William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, suggested a condition which would require the posting of "No Parking" signs along Amethyst subject to approval by the City Engineer. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for Counsel ' s direction on a method' to mitigate the Commission's concerns while allowing the tract map to proceed with recordation, Ralph Manson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that since the applicant stated that the project would be developed as a residential subdivision, a condition could be placed on the tract map requiring a total development package to be submitted and approved by the Design ' Review Committee prior to tract recordation. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested the following condition: Prior to recordation, a total development package, including plot plans, elevations, and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee and shall also include public notification of the same. Chairman McNiel suggested that natural terrain be encouraged wherever possible. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Variance -I4. Motion carried by the following vote: _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, TOLSTDY, DLA E LEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS NONE -carried I Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13674, with modifications to condition ( ) as proposed by staff, and additional conditions relative to the submittal of a total development package, 'minimum unit size o 00 square feet, and "No Parking" signs posted along Amethyst subject to the City Engineer. Motion carried by the following vote.' Planning Commission Minutes _g_ May 25, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTCY, ';BLA ESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT': COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried. 8:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed g':OO p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT B -1 m MARC BERRY NSTRIICTION - The request to establish a builder' /contract is office in a leased spade of 2,210 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial center in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) , located at 95 Arrow Route - APN: 09-01. -1 . Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the ;public hearing. Janet Juit, representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval . Chairman McNi el asked if there would be any outside storage of materials or vehicles. Ms. Juit advised that this site would be used as an office only. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the <Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit -17. Motion' carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CNITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: ` COMMISSIONERS:' NONE -carried Planning' Commission Minutes -1 - May 25, 1988 M. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1. - MARRY" MICROWAVE CIIRPOR TION' - A request for a time extension for the use of four temporary office trailers on a site containing an existing 10,000 square foot industrial facility on 1.0 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) , located at 8610 Nelms Avenue - APN. 80-0 -10. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing* Mark Maury, 8610 Helms, Rancho Cucamonga concurred with the Resolution and conditions of approval . Chairman McNiel stated that the Conditional Use Permit was originally approved in 1986 and; asked how long prior to that date were the trailers on the site. e additionally asked when construction was anticipated to begin. Mr. Maury replied that the trailers were at the site approximately one ,year prior to the conditional use permit. He advised that the project would' go to bid in November 1988, with construction completed around duly 1989.' There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that since the construction process seems to be underway she would support the request* She clarified that her support would be with the understanding` that this is the final extension that will be granted. Motion. Moved. by Emerick, seconded by 8lakesle,y, to adopt the Resolution approving the modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-1 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMEICK, DLAKESLEY CUITIEA, 'MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes - 1- May 25, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5 -02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An' amendment' to the Land Use Element for the followi g parcels within the Victoria Community Plan area: from Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) APN: 227- 411-75; from Medium ( -14 dwelling units per acre) to; Low-Medium (4- dwelling units per acre) APN: 227-091-9, 25, 49, 50; from Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Medium-High (1 -24 dwelling units per acre) APN: 27-091-18 through 22, 25, 43; from Medium ( -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium 4-8 dwelling units ;per acre) A N:` 227-111-1, 33, 38; and from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Residential ( -'14 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 227-171-19 Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Mci el opened the p public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the pudic hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tol. toy, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval , of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 88-02C `to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA,` TOLSTOY, OLA E LEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT:' COMMISSIONERS: NONE _carried 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 8-04 _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMUNGA to Section 17.08 070-C, 17.12 OS0- , and the addition of Section 17.10.650-0 of the Development Code pertaining to the parking and storage of vehicles on private property in the Residential , Commercial and Industrial Districts. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Doug Lyon, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked for a clarification of this amendment. Mr. Alcorn advised that the amendment addresses residential parking ;and limits the quantity of Vehicles based on lot area and limits the 'length of time vehicles can be stored on a-lot. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning; Commission Minutes -12- May 2 , 1988 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 88-04 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS P. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-05 - SEIFERT - An appeal of staff' s decision r the building elevations of an ce/Professional District located iq2M9P ase Line Road - APN: 208-431- Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mona Seifert, 7333 Hellman, urged the Commission's approval of the awning and change in tile. She presented slides which depicted awnings used on various buildings throughout the City. Larry Seifert, 7333 Hellman, supported the modifications. He felt the four buildings reflect individual themes and that the change in the color would not take away from their compatibility. There were no further comments. Commissioner 'Tolstoy gave the history behind the development of this corner of the City. He felt that the change in the color would break the continuity of the buildings and supported the original tile color or a similar color in shades of red or rust, with awning of the same color. Chairman McNiel agreed that the the should remain as it currently exists on the building. He considered awnings appropriate, with the exception that the sample color provided was a rather bold blue next to residential . Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the proposed decorative the would be compatible with the surrounding structures and also picked up the color of the the roof. She stated that awnings are appropriate to this style of home; however, was concerned with awnings in the City due to the wind factor and resultant maintenance problems. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 25, 1988 Commissioner Blakesley supported the modification as proposed* Commissioner Emerick supported the the change and Use of awnings. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to approve the modification allowing the the change to blue with awnings a shade darker than the color sample provided. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA BLAIESLEY, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL, 'TDLSTOY ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried Q. INTERN AGRICULTURAL USE�USE DETERMINATION Staff is seeking policy direct�'on on Inter1m griraI uses in hon-r sidential districts. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. It was the consensus of the Commission that interim agricultural uses in non- residential districts would be appropriate. Staff was directed to closely monitor points of ingress and egress. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS R. EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED ON THE N TH DE OF BASE FINE R AD EAS THE RAILROAD TRACKS _ APN; OI- Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Tim Beedle, representing Reiter Development, gave an overview of the request. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if there would' be adequate parking with the extension of this use, 'because the existing project has a parking problem. Mr. Beele explained that the design shows a high ratio of parking which would actually be above the existing project, Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 25, 1988 Mr. kroutil advised that the current parking problem is because the light industrial buildings are being used as a rather high intensity office use. The developer would have to meet the parking provisions for the new project` based on the proposed land use. He pointed out that the actual project design would come before the Commission at a later date; the purpose of this hearing was to establish the appropriateness of extending the use. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if the Alta Loma. School District was considering this as a potential site for heir administrative offices. r. Beedle advised that the applicant is currently negotiating with the school district, but pointed out that they also have a site on Beryl under: consideration. Commissioner Tolstoy advised that the applicant should be sensitive to l shielding the use from the 'existing single family residential to the rear of the project, Chairman McNi el suggested that staff provide the Commission with ,a list of possible uses which could locate in this 'center at the time the Conditional Use Permit is reviewed. Commissioner Blakesley was concerned with noise and bringing truck traffic in off Amethyst via Lomita and 'Layton. It, was the consensus of the Commission that the extension of the non- conforming use would be appropriate. Staff was directed to present a list of possible uses to the Commission at the time of the Conditional Use Permit review. S. MEMO FROM LLOYD B. ALMAND, DIVISION CHIEF ARSNALL F THE FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT REGARDING ADOPTION' OF COMMER IAL/INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE DETECTIUN AND AUTOMATIC FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS ORDINANCE. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the report to the Commission. He_ ` pointed out that the proposed Ordinance addresses commercial and industrial . Residential fire sprinklers .l a , will be addressed` n o a separate bass doe to possible litigation. Commissioner Chitiea appreciated the report, but was disappointed that the: Planning Commission was not given the opportunity to be a part of the process. She felt that the City needs to work together with the Fire District on this important issue and hoped that in the future the City would be allowed the opportunity to provide 'input. It was the consensus of the Commission that they be notified of future Fire District hearings at which residential fire sprinkler requirements will be discussed. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 25, 198 T. PRESENTATION UE 198 -8D PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND PRDJECTB BY CITY ERINEER Russ Maguire, City Engineer, presented the Capital Improvement Budget and Projects. The Commission reviewed and commented on the projects and forwarded the budget to the City Council for final adoption. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Emerie , seconded by Blak sley, unanimously carried, to f adjourn. 11:15 p.m. - Planning;Commission Adjourned Res efu11 n�i , Brad Duller, Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 2 , 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May II, IBB Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7.00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, BICI Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga., California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. RILL CALL COMMISSIONERS. PRESENT. David Blokesley, Suzanne Chitie , Bruce Emric , Larry McNiel , Peter Tol soy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT. None STAFF` PRESENT. Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy; Fong, Associate Planner; Tom Grah'n, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Engineer; Otto Kroutil , 'IDeputy City Planner; Debra Meier, Associate' Planner;; Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; William Silva, Deputy City Engineer ; Alan Warren, ' Associate Planner; Chris Westman, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blaesley, to approve the Minutes of April 13, 1988 as modified. Motion passed -0-0-1., with Chairman McNiel abstaining. Motion: Moved by Ch'itiea, seconded; by Emeric , to approve the Minutes of April 27, 1988 as modified. Motion passed -0_; -I with Commissioner 'laesley abstaining. Brad Buller, City Planner, announced modifications to this agenda. Items C and D were withdrawn by the applicant. At the appl i cants' s requests, items P and T were being continued to the May 25, and dune 8, 19meetings,` respectively. Items E and F' will e heard concurrently by the Commission, ;as well as items G,, H, and I . Items d and Q will also be combined. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9349 _ SMITH - A division of 1.3 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Development District (2 dwellings units per acre), located on the south side of Strang Lane, west of Carnelian Avenue - AN 101- 1-07 Motion: Moved by T lsto, , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS' B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -01 - CITY O RANCH UCAMONGA - Various amendment"iiiiis tb the Sign Ordinance regarding neon signs, 'window signs, and temporary signs for the City sponsored events .., (Continued from April 1 , 188 Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He advised that the Chamber of Commerce is requesting that this item be continued in order that the Commission and the Chamber could meet in a workshop forum. Commissioner Tolstoy� pointed out that the original Sign Ordinance allowed the sign area to not exceed G feet, and the amendment allowed u to 20 feet above the finished grade. He asked for an example of where this might occur. Mr. Buller explained that there are a few instances in the larger existing shopping centers where the architectural design` included higher windows. The amendment was intended to not only ;address signs on new facilities, but those on existing businesses as well . Commissioner Chi ti ea pointed out that the amendment provides O as a minimum coverage for; temporary signs but does not provide 'a maxima m. She felt a maximum should he included. M . Buller concurred a maximum should be added; Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 11, 1988 Ralph Manson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that if the City were to stipulate any exclusions to the placing of signs within rights-of-way, such as allowing placement of temporary signs by the City, it could not legally prohibit the placement of political signs within those same rights-of-way. The only way to prohibit the proliferation of political signs within rights-of-way is to exclude all signs. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Ma nerino representing the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, indicated than until ,lust recently he was. under the impression that a workshop would be held with members of the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce in an effort to address the Chamber' s concerns with the Sign Ordinance Amendment and that this hearing was to be continued* The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the Sign Ordinance Amendment as presented. It was the opinion of those addressing the Commission that florescent window signs should be allowed. They were also in support of a workshop between the Chamber and the Commission, Larry Rosenthal , owner of a Foothill Boulevard Coffee Shop Vic Armejo, owner of the Pet Stop Mike Mitchell , '1054 Kingston, Rancho Cucamonga Craig Mefferd, 8724 E. Foothill , Rancho Cucamonga Stella Medley, 8637 Base line, Rancho Cucamonga (Sweet Merchantile) Cheryl Mefferd,' 8724 F. Foothill , Rancho Cucamonga Irving Voorheis 5922 Villa Drive, Rancho Cucamonga (Sunri e Market) Bob Forrest, 8049 Rosebud,' Street, Rancho Cucamonga Carlos Hernandez, 9166 Foothill , Rancho Cucamonga (Carlos Hair Design) Dominic, 9850 Foothill , Rancho Cucamonga (3-D `Carpet) Lisa Johnson, 930 Timberline, Rancho Cucamonga Sign Painter) Danielle Morasse, 9455 Hemlock Pet Stop, Ranco Cucamonga Lynda Unger, Star' s Fitness Center, 'Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman MNiel stated that he was unaware of any discussion which may have lead the Chamber of Commerce to believe that a workshop between the Commission and the Chamber would take place. He pointed out that the original posture of the Planning Commission was that the Sign Ordinance remain in , its original state, which is more restrictive than the amendment now being` proposed. He advised that the ordinance was undergoing its current revision at the direction of the City Council , Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of one issue raised during the public hearing relative to temporary window signs in businesses within the Office/Professional category. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 11, 1988 Mr* Buller advised that temporary window signs were allowed in Commercial designations ;only. He stated that it was a concern at the City Council level that office projects are not designed for retail advertising and window signs 'detract from the Office/Professional image of a center, Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that Rancho Cucamonga is a city with almost 95,000 citizens, which would seem to promote the prosperity of any healthy business. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that interior neon signs should not be required' to be fully encased. He also suggested that in the design of their neon sign, a business should be allowed to use a graphic deputing the type of business. He supported temporary window suns painted in a color to complement a centers color decor, and opposed the use of florescent paint. Commissioner Blakesley stated that everyone wants an attractive community and wants to support prosperous businesses. He supported Commissioner Tolstoy<'s position relative; to neon and temporary signs. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that amendments to the Sign Ordinance were generated by the City Council She agreed that temporary window signs should not be the color of the wilding, but should be ; of a color palette to complement the colors of the center. She could not, however, support the use of florescent paint. She stated that a maximum space coverage needs to be established for temporary window signs. She stated that the Council was more permissive in that they allowed the use of neon signs and she would not like to liberalize that section further, particularly by allowing the use of. graphics." Chairman Mc Niel was concerned with the issue of temporary signs for businesses within the Office/Professional designation and suggested that the City Council should review that area closely. He was not opposed to allowing temporary signs for those businesses Commissioner Tolstoy disagreed and stated that the intent of allowing support businesses in the Office/Professional centers was that they were to complement and be ancillary to those uses. He questioned if they mot that criteria why they would have to attract from the outside. Chairman Mcielked.. for a consensus relative to internal neon signs. Commissioners Tolstoy, Blakesley, and Emerick supported the use of neon without the requirement of its being encased and allowing graphics in the design. Chairman Mciel and Commissioner Chitiea were opposed. Chairman Mciel - then asked for a consensus relative to colors for temporary signs. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 11, 1988 Commissioners Tolstoy, Emerick, Chitiea, and Blaesley supported the use of contrasting colors to complement the color palette of the center. Commissioner Chitiea clarified that the City Council should discuss this issue further with the business owners. Chairman "McNiel stated he was not opposed to the use of florescent colors. Mr Buller suggested that an alternative would be to develop a policy with regard to temporary sign colors as it might be too specific to define color ranges within the ordinance. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to forward the Sign Ordinance amendment to the City Council with the recommendation that the Council consider Section 3 and 4 for possible modifications based on City Attorney advise, and possible modifications to the neon sign provisions. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TCILSTUY, ' BLAKESLEY, EME ICK,'MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88-01 CUCAMON A COUNTY WATER UISTRICT - The request to reduce the required minimum lot size of acres o 0.29 acres for Parcel 2 and 0.89 acres for Parcel 1 in the Mixed Use District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at the: southwest corner of Klusman Avenue and San Bernardino Road - AN 20 -151-24 (Continued from April '27, 1988) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11044 - NAVARET`1"E A subdivision of 1 acres of land rota 2 parcels in the Foot hi Boulevard Specific Plan., Subarea S, located at the southwest corner of Kl sm n Avenue and San Bernardino Road - APN 08-151 4 (Continued from April 27, 1988)_ Chairman M Niel announced that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-19 MODIFICATION - PARCO - A modification try an approved site plan for_a 35,700 square foot neighborhood retail center located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue in Subarea S of the Foothill Specific Plan, Communi t,y Commerci al , on 3.245 acres, of l and APN 208- D1-1 , 1 , 17. F. VARIANCE BO=OS - PARCO _ A request to allow a reduced rear ,yard Planning 'Commission Minutes -5- May 11 1988 ,'I building setback for an approved neighborhood retail center on 3.245 acres; of land, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue in Subarea 3 of the 'Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Community Commercial - APN - 1-1 , 16, 17. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff had presented the applicant and the Commissioners with a revised Resolution for the Conditional Use Permit modification. The revision included Conditions 1 -16, which are standard conditions relative to maintenance and upkeep of the shopping center. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Cave Bals , representing Parco Development, gave an overview of the project and indicated their support for the amended resolution. Peter Ferrero, 8212 London, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the required use of the alley. He stated that the alley had not been maintained for years and was a dumping ground for, oil and radiator fluids from an adjacent business. There were no further comments', therefore the public hearing; was closed. Commissioner Chitiea asked for clarification of the alley issue. Mr. Buller advised that the alley will be fully improved immediately south of the development. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, recalled that the alley is usable; however, is not fully paved. The intent at this time is to merely improve the alley adjacent to the center. Commissioner Toistoy stated that he attempted to use the alley, but there was a blockage in the vicinity of the Bank of America. Chairman Mci el reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Ferrero to speak to this issue. Mr. Ferrero explained that the alley takes a hard right curve in the vicinity of Hampshire, and that one of the businesses has constructed a chainlink fence at their property line. He stated that the passage way is very narrow and there are many veer deep chock holes.- Chairman Mciel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea questioned responsibility for the maintenance of the alley. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 11, 1988 William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, advised that if the alley is dedicated, the City has the authority to make repairs. He stated that staff would research this issue. He further stated that this developer is required to improve the entire alleyway one-half the distance between Ramona and Archibald. Commissioner Tol stoy requested staff look into possible code violations by the adjacent businesses. Commissioner Chitia supported the modification since the proposal brims the project into conformance with the Foothill Specific Plan. She stated that the alley situation is unusual and felt that the granting of a variance in this particular situation would not be precedent setting. Further, that with cooperation between the developer and the City the alley will be cleaned up and made usable once again, Commissioner Blakesley stated that the modifications were an improvement to the project, particularly with respect to circulation. He supported the variance and stated it meets the intent of the Foothill Plan. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Per°mit .BS-1D Modification. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY, TOLSTOY, CHIT EA EMERICK, M NIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ®carried Motion. Moved by Tdlstoy, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 88-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS. TOLSTOY, EMRICK, HLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE -carried O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 -O B. - WEIRICK FKUFtRf1ES - A Development Agreement and request to amen the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Office to Neighborhood Commercial for 3.58 acres of land, Located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue`- APN 0 -1. 1-33. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT B -OB WEIRICK PROPERTIES - A Development Agreement and a request to amend j the Developm nt District Map from "OP" (Office/Professional ) to "NC" (Neighborhood Commercial ) for 3.58 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lomita, Court and ,Archibald Avenue - APN 02-15 BB. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 11, 1988 J I . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-29 - WEIPIC PRIPEPTIES - A proposal to develop a neighborhood commercial center Frith ,an office building and CCC 'square foot restaurant totaling 9,9 square feet in an Office Professional District on .' acres of 1and, located at the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - AN 2C2-IS13 � Alan Warren, Associate Planner presented the staff report relative to the General Plan Amendment, Development District Amendment and associated Development Agreements. Mr. Warren advised that the Resolution approving the Development District Amendment should be modified by striking the negative clauses within the findings section. Staff concurred with the applicant' s request that the tenant improvements not be tied to determining the completion of the project with ;the exception that the tenant improvements to the restaurant should be considered fulfilled prior to the project being completed. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the Conditional Use Permit. He advised that the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit should be modified to include a condition stating that approval would be contingent upon approval of the Development District and General Plan amendments by the City Council . Chairman McNi el opened the public hearing, Hardy Strozier, representing the applicant, requested :modifications to the Development Agreements. He requested that Development Agreement allow a restaurant site in the 4,000 square -foot range to allow design flexibility. He felt it would be appropriate to allow modifications in architectural design to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission rather than requiring an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Buller stated that as currently written the Development Agreement states that if the applicant comes in with a mirror development review whether on the restaurant or any where else on the center, it Would be subject review and approval by the City Planner. He suggested that in order to address the applicant' s concern, language could be added to state that modifications for an appropriate restaurant user shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He concurred with the issue of square footage as addressed by the applicant. r. Stroier additionally requested that should the restaurant use not materialize, the applicant be allowed to transfer that space to retail use to keep the same 0/4 percentage of office to retail uses. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning 'Commission Minutes -8- May 11 1988 Chairman McHiel recalled that each occasion that the Planning Commission reviewed this project it had been the position that the site be retained as office/professional because of the number of elderly people who reside immediately adjacent to the property who need to have these services provided. Also, the property to the south was denied on the basis of ghat was being developed on this property. He pointed out that the City Council negotiated the 60/40 percentage with the developer* however, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission during its review that from a planning perspective this project> would not be of benefit to the surrounding area. He could not support he request to transfer the restaurant site to retail , should the restaurant usebe deleted. Commissioner Chitiea stated it is particularly important to retain the office/professional use on this property especially in light of the recommendation for denial of the project to the south. She felt that since the restaurant was the pivotal point in the Council's deliberation, she considered the use very important and it should be provided. She did not think it appropriate to add more commercial to this area. Commissioner Emerick; stated that the best way to encourage a restaurant is by not making the alternative too attractive. He felt that by providing a commercial opportunity it would make it too attractive. Commissioner Blakesl y concurred and pointed out that this is the most commercially intensive corner in the City and much to much so given the traffic congestion and amount of available space. He did not support this change and did not support adding to the commercial burden at this point. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the point raised relative to bringing architectural changes back through Design; Review is appropriate. Further, the only way she supported the request at all ' is with 'a Development Agreement. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred and complemented the project architect for sensitivity to the surrounding area. He felt the architecture would be an asset to the neighborhood. Motion. Moved' by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Environmental Assessment and General Plan amendment 7-04 and related Development Agreement with stff's suggested modification relative to tenant improvements, The Development Agreement modifications were that if there were architectural changes in order to attract the appropriate restaurant those would changes w d be g referred e to the Planning Commission for review and approval , and the establishment of a 4,000 square foot minimum for the restaurant site. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 11, 1988 i AYES': COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, PLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES;: COMMISSIONERS: NONE w ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE -car Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by DlaKesley, to adopt the Resolution recommending; approval of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 87-0 to the City Council , Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, DLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Dlaesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 07-29, with an additional condition stating that this approval was contingent upon approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 87-04B and Development District Amendment 87-03 by the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RLAKESLEY, TOLSTOYCHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC LAN AMENDMENT -02 CITY OE RANCHO CHCA NGA A request to amend the tiwanda Specific Plan to establish a Community Frail on the west of East Avenue from a point roughly 1400 feet north of Highland Avenue extending north to 2th Street and to establish a consistent wall design and setback for East Avenue. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman M cN i el e ned he t p _ public h r eaang. Mr. McGuire, Etiwanda' resient, opposed the trail alignment as currently proposed, Mr. McGuire also addressed the realignment of East Avenue and felt it was more appropriate to straighten out the street rather the curve proposed. Planning Commission Minutes _10- May 11, 1988 There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. 'I Commissioner Emerick supported the wall design and setback for East Avenue. He was, however, concerned with the trail issue given the traffic figures for rEast;Avenue as supplied by the Engineering Division. Commissioner Chitiea advised that this item was brought to the Commission as a result of the Trails Advisory Committee' s review of Tentative Tract 13808. During review of the Tract, the Committee noted that adequate north-south Community Equestrian Trail connections had not been provided by the Eti wanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Chi ti ea concurred with the wall design and rsetback as proposed for East Avenue. Commissioner Tolstdy stated his concern with the proposed trail connection based on the amount of traffic projected for East Avenue. He suggested that the Trails Committee review the location for' alternative solutions. Commissioner g1 keel. e supported� ppted to concept of o � p providing n a north -south th south g link to the trails system; however, concurred that the appropriate location should be studied further. He supported the wall design and setback portion of the amendment. Mr. Murphy advised that staff could take this item back to the Trails Committee at their May lfh meeting, Mr. Buller suggested that if the Commission' was comfortable with the wall design and setback for East Avenue, the Resolution could be modified to exclude the trail alignment from the approval . Staff would then refer the trail alignment to the Trails Committees for their recommendation to the Planning Commission. He advised that Mr. McGuire would be notified of the hearing before the Planning Commission. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, advised that Mr. McGuire would also be notified of the public hearing for the tentative tract, which would be the appropriate forum for discussion of the realignment of East Avenue, Motion; Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution accepting the wall design as consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The trail alignment is to be excluded and brought back to the Commission under a separate item. Motion carried by the following' vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TCLST Y, CHITI A, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 1 :1C P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 1 : 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Planning ;Commission Minutes -11- May 11', 1988 L, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-40 - DERRITT - A request to establish an adult day program in a leased space of 2900 square feet within an existing commercial building in the Community Commercial District (Subarea , located at 9550 and 9552 Foothill Boulevard - 'APN 208-151-15 Tom Crahn Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alma Derritt, applicant, gave an overview of the request. She explained the program and clarified that the program deals mainly with adults who are developmentally disabled. Chairman McNiel asked if the clientele of the 'program would pose a threat to the adjacent businesses, Montessori School in particular. Ms, Derritt explained that the criteria for entrance to the program would not permit, people who were of danger to themselves or others. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Emerick supported the request and stated it is a valuable community service. As long as criteria establishes that the people are not a threat it would address his concerns. Commissioner Chtiea, was concerned with possible confrontation between the adults attending this program and the preschool children attending Montessori School . If this center was ;proposed for another location, she would welcome it; however, at this location with Montessori School in operation .she could not support it. Chairman McNiel pointed out that Montessori School is completely enclosed. Commissioner Tplsto,y stated that the type of service proposed is certainly needed and welcome in the City, His concern is with the proximity to Montessori School and could not support the request based n the location. Mr, grahn advised that he had contacted Montessori School and was informed that they intend to relocate to another site as soon as thirty days or as late as the end of August. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when this facility intends to open. Ms. Cerritt staged that she would be ready to open upon approval by the Planning Commission, Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 11, 1988 Eommi ssi over Bl akesl ey did not feel that the people who would be attending this center would pose any greater threat to Montessori School than the public at large. Therefore, he supported the use. r. Buller advised that., as with any Conditional Use Permit, should a situation arise the permit is revokable. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that the type of service this facility will: provide is needed in the City. She was concerned with the time overlap created with the opening of this facility and the relocating of Montessori . Motion: Moved by Emerick seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 87-40. Motion;carried b ` ,the.:::. y fol 1 w�n vote-. g AYES: COMMISSIONERS; EMERIEK, BLAK`ESLEY, MLNEL RUES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstay clarified their No vote by stating it was based net on the use, but on the location being adjacent to the Montessori School J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 11410 - CARNEY-THEODO OU - sdbdivsion of 11.2 acres of land into 6 parcels in the Industrial Specific Plan and the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN P D-14 -17. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-04' - CARNEY- THE DOOU - The development of an 11 acre Industrial 'Park 'Master Plan consisting of B buildings totaling 165,700 square feet in the Industrial Park and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 09-14 -17. Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the Parcel Map staff report* Staff recommended that condition B d include the following amendment: However, if the Arrow Route improvements are existing fronting the not apart parcel the Arrow Route improvements shall be extended across parcel B frontage as well as across; parcel 4. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the Development Review staff report. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the access and how it would work with the circulation plan in terms of safety® She asked for a clarification. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 11, 1988 Mr. Westman explained the project circulation and access points. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a changed circulation plan would affect the parcel lines of the Parcel Map, Mr. Westman stated that the Parcel Map was designed around the Development Review. In order to get the correct number of parking spaces for each of the buildings which are going to be on separate parcels, the parcel lines had to gerrymander. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Cecil Carney, applicant, concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Blakesley stated the traffic Situation with the out parcel needs additional work. He liked the project as it makes a good transition between the Haven corridor and the industrial area. Commissioner Chitiea had a concern with the way the access meets the out parcel , if that could be resolved she could support the project. Chairman McNiel stated that the project before the Commission at this time is not going to be affected by the out parcel . He felt the access to the subterranean parking makes sense. He supported the project. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the plaza areas. Commissioner Tolstoy advised that the plaza areas are to be submitted to the Design Review Committee. He felt the project was a good one. His concern was not with this project but with the parking of the out parcel . Since that project is now coming through technical review, he felt that any problems would be taken care of then and if any adjustments need to be made on this parcel they can be made. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the architecture of th Arrow e buildings along Mr. Carney explained the architecture and how the buildings were related to those along Haven. Commissioner Emerick liked the architecture and felt it was very interesting, Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 11410, with the additional condition suggested by staff. Motion carried by the f011owing vote: Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 11, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley;, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 8 - 0 . Motion carried by the following voted: AYE'S: 'COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS : NONE -carried OLD BUSINESS M. MINIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS - City Council initiated study to review minimum size requirements for multi-family dwellings. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Kroutil presented a letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of the William Lyon Company, Chairman MNiel opened the hearing for comments. John Mlcher, representing Lewis Homes, stated that the middle range of numbers suggested by staff is a workable set of numbers. He concurred that the mix criteria suggested by William Lyon Company was appropriate; howe ver, would su pport staffs recommendation. He was concerned with how dens or lofts would be dealt with. He pointed out that they are currently being regarded by staff as additional living space but not as bedrooms for purposes of tabulating parking requirements and hoped that sane interpretation would apply to ' establishment _ of minimum areas .. He requested that a minimal averaging provision be allowed within each unit category to allow some deviation' of approximately C of the mid range. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel asked for discussion relative to unit size® Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the Commission saw some very livable small unit spaces, but felt that the market seems to indicate people are wanting larger space now.; If Lewis Homes feels alternative' B would be marketable in this community, she 'would' support that alternate. She stated she would not be as willing to accept the smaller unit sizes if she had not seen various alternatives presented and the well designed Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 11, 1988 living spaces of some projects. Commissioner tolstoy concurred that design is the key and that small units should be provided as long as they are well designed. He supported either Alternative A or B. Commissioner Lmeri k felt that the demographics for the City will support need for smaller unit sizes. He was in favor of A or H. Commissioner 5lakesley supported 5 or C. Commissioner C'hitiea supported the 5` with combination of efficiency and one bedrooms. She did not consider 50 appropriate. Commissioner 5lakesley saw one bedroom units as not only being occupied by couples but singles as well and stated he would hate to mandate them out of the market. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with the 35 mix. Commissioner Emerick stated he did not see 50 s a detriment to the goals and objectives of the =City as long as the project is designed well . He felt the market would actually dictate the type of unit constructed. Chairman McNiel stated that a lot can be done with small' spaces and would concur with the 10- 5 and 55 percentage mix. r. Kroutil asked for point of clarification if a developer chooses not be put in any efficiency ;units; but one bedrooms, they could go up to 5 on those units. The Commission concurred. Staff was directed to proceed with amendments to the Development Code which would reflect minimum sizes for efficiency/'studio units at 550 sq.ft. ; 550 s . ft'. for 1-bedrooms; 800 Sq. ft. for -bedrooms; and 950 sq. ft. for -bedrooms or larger~. Additionally, unit mix criteria should be developed using the 10 to 5 maximum range for efficiency/studio and -bedroom units. N. MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING SETBACKS WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi el invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 1 , 1988 John Melther, representing Lewis Homes, supported Alternative C to increase setbacks within Terra Vista, but tailored to meet specific needs and design criteria for the planned communities. Commissioner Chitiea was firmly committed to the idea' that the planned communities need to be 'brought into conformance with the rest of the City. As planned communities, she felt they should aesthetically be equal to or better than other projects in the City and should also comply with Code requirements for the rest of the City. Commissioner Tolstogr agreed that setbacks should not remain as they currently exist in Terra Vista, but could not concur that the setbacks should be the same as required by the Development Code. He supported alternative C which allows some flexibility within t he planned communities. Commissioner Blakesley stated open space and master planning are some tradeoffs with design features of planned communities.' He agreed that setbacks are too small in some of the areas now, but was concerned that some of the variation would be lost if the Development Code standards were enforced. He supported `Alternative C on local streets, but felt that setbacks along major and secondary streets need to be much closer to the Code. Commissioner Emerick felt it would be unfair to require setbacks to Code because of economies. He stated that the City requires a large investment in off site open space corridors parkways, etc. , and was not sure 'a developer can recoup his money on the open space provided. ' Chairman McNiel disagreed that economics should be a determining factor. He agreed that there; should be some flexibility; however, his direction to staff would be to use the Development Code as a starting point. nt. Commissioner Chitiea didn' t consider the Development code so strict that there is no flexibility* she also don't believe developers always have to development to the minimum. Mr, kroutil clarified the Commission' s position that along the major arterials and secondary streets the standards should closely parallel the Code. He suggested that staff' start with the existing Development Code requirements and see how they would apply to specific areas and try to build in the flexibility to satisfy some of the concerns. t was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to proceed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Cmerick, unanimously carried, to continue past 11:00 p.m. adjournment. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 11, 1988 C. TENTATIVE TRACT 13748 FREEWAY WALL - AHMANSON - Review of the design for sound wa l up feet ei T5 i height al±ong the south boundary of a previously approved tract located at the northwest corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Craig Page, representing the applicant, stated he was available, to answer any ques,tions. There were no further comments. Commissioner Blakesley suggested the wall be constructed with uniformity back and forth between different materials. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the stucco portion be increased to ,10 feet. She did not concur with a 50-50 split between the two materials. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented an alternative to the Commission which depicted a 6 foot stucco on top of split face block. The block would pick up the changes in grade. He further suggested the use of stucco pilasters 200 to 300 feet on center to break up the expanse of the wall . Commissioner Tolstoy felt the pilasters should be spaced closer. It was the consensus of the Commission that the fence be constructed of 6 foot stucco on top of split face, with stucco pilasters spaced approximately 275 feet. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-56 - DAVIS deve opment of three warehouse/storage buildings totaling 175,808 square feet on 9.8 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District, located at the southeast corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN 229-111-07. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Alan Tuntland, Davis Development, concurred with the recommendation of staff. Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 11, 1988 `I There were no further public comments. Commissioner B`lakesley stated he was a 'strong proponent of rail service but could not see it was justified in this instance. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and further stated ;this project does not warrant rail service because the building ,sizes are not those sizes which would normally require the use of rail . Commissioner Chitieo stated it is important to include rail' service for projects in the City. However, this particular propertydoesn't need the service and it seems an interruption for other properties` in the area. Therefore, she would concur 'with the deletion of the rail service requirement for this project. It was the consensus that rail service not be required for the project. 12:20 a.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 12:25 a.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members, present S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW! 88-1 - A A - The Phase 'I I development of a l i g t industrial concioma ni um on 2.99 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ) , located on the north side of Arrow Route, between Utica and Red Oak - APN 88-E - 05. Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNi el invited public comment. Steve Przybylowski , representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . There were no further comments. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded, by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88-1 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, `CHITS;EA, B'LAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL HOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS; NONE ®carried Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 11, 1988 P. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-0 K SEIFERT An appeal of staffs decision to deny a modification of materials for the building within the Office/Professional District located on the east side of Hellman, south of Base Line - APN 08w 91- 8. Chairman McNiel announced that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance of the hearing. Motion: Moved by Bl akesl ey, seconded by Emeri ck, unanimously carried, to continue Minor Development Review 88-05 to the Planning Commission meeting of May, S, 1988. T. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-10 - DIVERSIFIED T e ' eve opment of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center' consisting of two retail buildings totaling 1 ,800 ' square feet on 196 ages of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Highland - APN` 01- 71-65 and 71. Chairman MONiel announced that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance of the hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded, by Emerick, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 810 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1988. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS U. USE DETERMINATION 88-0 - ;CITE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to clarify the Automotive and Light Truck Repair --Minor definition of the Industrial Specific Plan. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea referred to the staff report and concurred that all instances would be appropriate with the exception of a freestanding retail sales auto parts store (no repair services offered) on an individual parcel . She felt that if there were no repair services, i would be an intensive commercial use on the parcel . Commissioner Blakesley stated felt that a retail auto parts store within a multi-tenant industrial project or an auto service was no problem, but any other type would be an encroachment and belong in a commercial area. He did not consider it appropriate to bring retail business into n industrial area. Commissioner Toltoy agreed with Commissioner Blakesley. Planning Commission Minutes - 0- May 11, 198 It was the consensus of the Commission that independent auto retail is appropriate if it is in conjunction with an auto service mall or industrial project that is auto service related but n ° � of on its own or independently. V. DIRECTOR' S REPORT ON BUSINESS WITH DRIVE-`6NRU FACILITIES - To consider a Resolution for establishing design goals and interim policies for businesses with drive-thru facilities. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, Commissioner Tolstoy was opposed to the IOO foot minimum from residential uses, based on noise, light and traffic. Commissioner Bl akesl ey concurred and stated 100 feet would net provide an adequate transition. ,Commissioner Chitiea stated that the current parking and stacking requirements are inadequate and should be further reviewed. Mr. Buller pointed out that these are policies at this point and are merely guides for staff to use in their reviews of projects. He suggested that the distance be increased to POO feet. He advised that the criteria was written in such a manner that the requirement for stacking Faust be based on a traffic report. He suggested that this criteria be retained, with the understanding by staff that the Commission may ;want to increase the stacking requirement. Motion* Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution establishing interim uteri design eels a i A and policies f g g p s or businesses with drive-thru facilities, with a modification to increase the minimum distance from any residential use to 200 feet. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS . TOL TO , EMERIC , BLA ESLEY, ;CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Mr. Boller asked for a consensus of the Commission regarding the best time for the Awards Program for Design Excellence.` It was their consensus that the program be part of the regular Planning Commission on June 22, 1988. Planning Commission Minutes - 1- May 11, 1988 Mr. Buller asked if the Commission desired to have a discussion of roofing requirements placed on a future agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item he placed on a future agenda. ' Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolst y, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12: 5 a.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. 44d&> Brad ;Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -22- May 11, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 27, 1988 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at '7:0O p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman cNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry McNiel , Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: David Blakesley STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner-, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Larry Henderson, Senior Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Beverly ;Nissen, Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner; Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner; Russell Maguire, City Engineer; Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, City Attorney; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. ANNOUNCE14ENT5 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Items H and I on the agenda were requested to be continued by the applicant to the May 11, 1988 meeting. Item M is also being requested for a continuance to the May 11, 1988 meeting. Mr. Buller stated that adjournment from this meeting will be to the Design Review Committee meeting on May 5, 1988 to review the Excellence Awards nominations. In addition, there will also be a workshop to discus,s the City gateway monumentation project. Mr. Buller stated that Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, has accepted a position for the City of Moreno Valley and will be leaving the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1988 r. Buller also announced that Karen Ki sack Planning Commission Secretary, will be leaving the City of Rancho Cucamonga to relocate to South Dakota. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Chitiea, carried to approve the Excerpts from the April 13, 1988 minutes as modified. Chairman McNiel abstained from voting due to his absence during that meeting. CONSENT AR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 1 AND PARCEL MAP gg B F e- eve oilmen o ' a may er an or a acre �n us r a park and the first phase of construction consisting of a 58,000 square foot mini-storage jfacility with a caretaker's residence, on 2,95 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7 , located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - A N. 29-011-10 19, '21, 26, 27 and 28. R. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - SCHNLTZ A 21 custom lot su Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling wits per acre) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Calle Del Prado APN: 249-921`-03 and 04. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the Consent Calendar, Commissioner E erick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES.: COMMISSIONERS: CHITEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL,` TDLSTDY DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.- CD ISSIQNERS: BLAKESLEY - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11044' - NAV'ARETTE su t v s on o acres o an i n o 2 parce n tbe-FoothUT Specific Plan, Subarea 3, located at the southwest corner of Kl usman Avenue' and.. San Bernardino Road - APN!: 208 151-24. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue Item H to the May 11, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 27, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * * --carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88-01 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT' ---TW&--iwe—qa-e-�t--� ore Uuc—e re-qUi 'red' mina mum acres fo- 0.29 acres for Parcel 2 and 0.89 acres for Parcel 1 in the Mixed Use District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Klusman and San Bernardino Road - APN: 208-151-24. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue Item I to the May 11, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * *1 * * * * * --carried M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-19 MODIFICATION - PARCO - A modification to an approved sae plan or a square foot neighborhood retail center located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Community Commercial , on 3.245 acres of land - APN: 208-301- 15, 16, 17. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue Item M to the May 11, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * * --carried C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development to 11 an intejFRed co*u-nTTy§fi6555j` con ter _'consisting of four major retail buildings totaling 111,010 square feet, adjoining mall shops totaling 137,395 square feet, nine satellite retail buildings totaling 43,550 square feet, two satellite Office buildings totaling Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 27, 1988 27,325 square feet, four restaurant pads, and a 30,000 square foot theater. Conceptual approval for a design center consisting of ten buildings totaling 195,66U square feet. All on 71 acres of _l and in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN. 10 7-4 -D6, 5 and 13. (Continued from April- 1 , 188) Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Bill Silva, 1 Deputy i t Engineer, modified the e Engineering Division on Condition S to read A11 driveways shall be located' as shown on the approved Conditional Use Permit. .." The remainder of the condition is the same.` Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Ralph DeMarco, Luis Homes representative, 1156` North Mountain, Upland, California, stated they are in agreement with staff"s recommendations. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing* Commissioner Emerick moored to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-12 as modified, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: CC I IONER : EME ICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOL TOY NEE COMMISSIONERS.* NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: QLAKE LEY --carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13703 KAJIMA resi en is u v soon And destjif-reivi-e-w-of e ami' y lots on 11 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4 8 dwel l i g units per acre) , located on the nest side of Haven ` Avenue, north' of Banyan Street` - AP : 01-181-67368. (Continued from April' 13, 198 ) Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, amended the resolution with a condition to read "Slopes shall not exceed .1 within the Haven Avenue parkway and adjacent landscape area." Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing. Mr. Albert Velasquez, representing Kajima Development, applicant, stated agreement with the recommendations and conditions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 27, 1988 Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick proved to approve Tentative Tract 13703 as amended, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: j i AYES. COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TDLSTDY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY --carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT (PRE- ZONE) 88--03 PULSAR_ DEVELOPMENT—-- A request--to-pre-zone a portion 6T the a-6 ernar ino oun y unincorporated area, for annexation purposes, to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Highland Avenue, south of Summit Avenue extension, east of the Day Creek Utility Corridor, and west of the County/City boundary APN: 5 1 1 35 3 ,37',38, ,53,SS and 61. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.- Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Wayne Blanton, representing the property owner, stated they agreed with the staff report. Mrs. Julie Rusdad, 1366 Highland, Etiwanda questioned the future of the private easement for ingress/egress on her property. Mrs. Rusdad objected to the zoning of Low Density -4 dwelling units per acre) and believed that a half acre lot is more acceptable. Mr. DougLon 1 477 lronbark Etiwanda questioned w _ Lyon, � � staff is q recommending a higher density than the neighboring parcel that is within City boundaries, Brad Buller, City Manner, clarified that the General Ptah designates the area to the east of this to be one zone and this area to be another. The recommended Development District it consistent with the General Plan land use designation adopted in 1981. Mr. Lyon stated that it should be consistent with the adjacent land uses. Brad Buller, City Planner, further explained the area north of Highland has a variety of land use classifications. Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 1988 r. Jacob Baltinte, 1. 4 Highland, stated his objection to the prebning of this property. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that if there is an easement in effect right now that development below it will not necessarily take away that easement, it cannot be landlocked: The development might change :that access route to a paved surface, Mrs. Rusdad questioned if the easement would remain private. Chairman McNiel clarified that there is no plan right now but if there is a road coming up to service the houses, Pars. Rusdad; will have, access to her property. r, Wayne Blanton clarified that the applicant will stub in streets. Mrs. Rusdad will have the right to keep their private street or utilize the development's paved streets, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that for traffic flowing north Mrs. Rusdad has granted an easement across her property for properties to the north of her to cross her land* With this proposal Mr. Blanton is stating that all access to those properties north of her will be given permanent access through has development and therefore should abandon the easement across her property, if she desired, because there would be no further need to use it. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that Low density would be a legitimate concern on the ""super" side. Commissioner Chitiea felt that sine there is open space designated to the north, Low-Medium on the south, and it appears that directly north there are larger acreages, Very Low would b consistent with what is to the north. Commissioner Emerick agreed that 1-2 dwelling units would be preferrable but then there is no incentive for the developer to come into the City. If he can develop at 3 dwelling units per acre with the County, the City would most likely not be able to cooperatively annex this land into the City. The 3 dwelling units per acre that the developer presently has with the County ;centers right in between the 2-4 dwelling units per acre.' Commissioner Emerick stated would advocate -4 dwelling units for this project. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner E ` rick and pointed out that it is important for the City to be able to :control the drainage. If it is part of the County, this might be disregarded. Commissioner Chitiea stated that there could be an equally attractive and desirable project under the other density range and would like to see a lower density for this project. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 27, 1988 Chairman cNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Blanton stated that if the Commission denies the density, the developer can go to the County and get the same density. The developer would prefer to do the project within the City and under City jurisdiction. Their current density is 3 1/2 dwelling units per acre now; 8200 square feet lots. The developer has consistently worked with the City and would like to be;a part of it. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that under the West Valley Plan, which the County has adopted for this area, there is still provision there for density bonuses. Developers are consistently requesting some density bonus requests and though this is Residential 3, the developer could go higher under the County. Mr. Andre Rusdad, owner of Parcel 57, questioned if the City was prepared for a higher density since the need for streets, schools, parks, equestrian trails, etc. is increased? ' Chairman Mc Niel reclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the advantage for bringing this piece of property into the City, along with the fees associated with it, the controls associated with it, override the change in density and supports bringing it in at the recommended density. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Development District Amendment, Comissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * * --carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-08 MDDTFTCAT1ON---_— CHRISTIAN ___FEEOWSM Feques-t---to estiblish 'addIt Iona l classroom space as a part ofan existing church in a leased space of 2,000 square feet within an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) , located at 9038 Archibald - AP N: 209-171-46. Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Fitch, Senior Pastor for the church, stated they are in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. Planning Co fission Minutes 7 April 27, 19�88 Chairman ,c iel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Conditional Use Permit T-D , Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion, Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TDL T Y, CHITIEA, EIERIC , MCNIEL i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CO ITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 - IDCAB E ruques o es a s ee an-T-tack store in ease srace of , DD square feet within an existing neighborhood commercial center on 5.6 acres of land in Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road - AP 207-022-03. Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the type of storage snit for hay. Ms. Kinser stated that a metal building, subject to City Planner's approval , was suggested by the applicant. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r. Glen Mocabee, applicant, clarified that the storage unit would be similar to an overseas cargo container, kept outside, to cut down on the dust of the hay and the potential of fire. r. Melvin Shryer, owner of the commercial center, stated they would comply with the City's standards. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would , not like to see any type of temporary, portable container connected to the back of the store. If there' is a need for outdoor storage of hay, there should be a provision for the structure to go through Design Review and be architecturally sound. Commissioner Emerick concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy' comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with the other Commissioners and the present storage of hay on a truck would be allowed during the interim. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - April 27, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the storage of hay over a short period of time would be permissible but not over a long period of time. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that one option could be very similar to the trash enclosures that is required for shopping centers, which is a block wall , a chain link cap, and a screen on the top. This is typically subject to City Planner approval . Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that consistent with Mr. Buller's suggestion Condition #5 of the Resolution could be reworded to state "A permanently screened storage area to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee shall be erected within six months on the south side of the building for the storage of hay and in the interim truck storage is allowed." Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Mocabee stated a screen enclosure would not be weather or tamper proof. Chairman cNiel clarified that the suggestion was what is typical of a trash enclosure. In this situation, something other than chain link would be suggested. The direction of the Commission would be the requirement of'a permanent structure® Mr. Mocab stated that approximately the storage of 15-20 bales of hay would be cost prohibitive of a permanent structure for storage of hay. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt that the Commission should not seta precedence to have people build anything but permanent-looking structures for storage of excessive stock. Comissioner Tolstoy felt that the size of the store should be sufficient for the storage of that stock, either within the store or in a permanent storage facility outside the store. Commissioner Emerick concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy and felt hay on the truck is different from other stock on a truck. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there is a need to upgrade the back of shopping centers. Commissioner Chitiea stated another solution could be perhaps erecting some interior wall within the store to prevent the dust from the hay from the main part of the product. She felt that temporary containers on the premises give an unfinished look to the center. Chairman McNiel stated that this center has some natural terrain disadvantages which has diminished visibility. In terms of the quantities of the storage of hay, some type of a small structure would be supported. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 April 27, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that modification to Condition #5 of the Resolution could include ""Should any outdoor storage be proposed, a permanent storage unit to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. In the interim, truck storage ;is allowed;*" Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-15, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, TOLSTCY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES:: COMMISSIONERS- NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * - carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13642 - NORELL - A esa en l a su l v si on lots on 5 acres of land !i n the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of th Street - AN: 0a-041-15. Scott Murphy, ,associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r. Tim MimMack, representing the owner of the property, stated they concur with the recommendations and conditions of the staff report. Mr. Steve Topa , Project Manager, stated they concur with the staff report. with regards to the recommendations of the river rock being natural , they would comply with staff's direction. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Tentative Tract 13642 as amended, Commissioner hitie seconded the motion. Motion ; carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTCY, CHITIEA, E ERICK, MCNIEL NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: QLAK ESLEY * --carried :40 - Planning Commission Recessed :CC - Planning Commission Reconvened Manning Commission Minutes - 10 - April 27, 1988 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT - - - n amen men o annex a even F^ rn a ac oria anne ommunity - APN: 27-011-3 thru 11; 227-091-4, 45, 46; 227-411-75; 227-091-9, 26, 49, SD 22 -091-18 thru ,22, 25, 43; 22 - 11-1, 33, 38 22 -171- 9; 2 7-161-10,; 24, 26 and 27-111-27, 3O and 27-1 1-21; 22 -211- , 28, 39I 229-021-58; 227-211-3, 30. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT -02 - CITY CUCAMONGAn amengmen c ange eve oilmen is rac esigna ions as ' hey currently exist to' Victoria Planned Community (V.P.C. ) for eleven areas within the Victoria :Planned Community - APN;227-011-8 thru 11; 227-091-4, 45, 46, 22 -411-7 I 22 -091-9, 26, 49, 60; 22 -091-18 thru 22, 25 43, 227-111-11%, 33 383 t 227-171-19,, 227-161-10, 24, 25, and 227-111- 7, 30 and 227-1 1-21; 227-211-7,; 28, 39; 229-021-58; 227-211-3, 30. Debra. Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Parcel 1 - APN: 2 7-all-8, 9, 10, 11. Recommended Victoria Land Use: u ac . There being no public testimony, the Commission felt there was no change required. Parcel 2 - APN: 227-091-4 45, 4 . Recommend Victoria Land Use: e 1qm ac ere eing` no public testimony, the Commission agreed there was no change required. Parcel APN:: 227-411-75. Recommended Victoria Land Use: Low-Medium u ae or ow a ac Bob Casal etti , owner of Casaletti 's Polka Palace, questioned the intent of the land use change and why William Lyon wants to annex their property in the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Casaletti stated his objection to the annexation into the planned community. Chairman McNiei clarified that in the eventuality that the property is sold, whoever builds there would then build to the conformity of the balance of the community. It ensures that this piece of property then falls under the development standards applicable to Victoria. r. Casaletti felt this change would make it harder for him to sell the property if and when he decides to sell . He questioned the assessments and would' they benefit him. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that selling the property and continuing the same use is allowed under the nonconformity provisions of the City, This is only Ion range development and Casal etti 's Polka Palace is as marketable as right now. , taff''s recommendation of 'density remains the same density as what is existing now as under the Planning Comission Minutes - 11 - April 27, 1988 Development Code. The Victoria Plan only brings in certain development standards than are different from the City code. This is the only affect on their property. Mrs. Casaletti requested a letter from Mr. Hanson stating that she could sell the property with the continuation of the same use. Doug Lyon, representing William Lynn Company, stated in response that the Casaletti Polka palace contributes to the community and he hopes they are able to stay there as long as they wish. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, clarified that bringing all eleven of these parcels into the Victoria plan does not put then into the assessment districts that the Victoria residents are now participating in for lighting and landscaping. Those kinds of of assessments would not occur on these parcels until they develop themselves and then they would be conditioned to join the assessment district. These annexations were not initiated by the Lyon Company but by the Planning Commission when they were discussing the planning area in previous meetings. The Commission agreed that the Land use for Parcel 3 shouldbe Low Medium (4-8 du/ac). Parcel 4 APN: 7-091-9, 26, 49, 50 - Recommended Victoria Land se: ow- a i'um a ac or a 1um -14 du/ac). There was no public testimony. Commissioner Too stay suggested', Loan-Medium as the land use designation. Commissioner Chi ti ea felt it would` be appropriate to match the Medium designation above and below. Commissioner Emerick concurred with Low-Medium land use designation. The Commission's direction would be Low-Medium on parcel 5. Parcel 5 - 7-091-18 through 22, 25, 43. Recommended Victoria Land se: Medium a ac or Medium-High - 4 du/ac). There was no public testimony. The Commission recommended the land use change be Medium-High. Parcel 6 APN.- 7-1 1-1, 33, 38. Recommended Victoria Land Use: ow- a gum du/ad) or a gum du/ac) Mr. David Dean, Leah"s Greens, stated his objections to the annexation to the Victoria Planned Community. His concerns were regarding the access, Victoria Park Lane, the idevaluation of his property when he sells, and the potential improvements of his property. Planning Commission Minutes _ 1 - April 27, 1988 Ralph Hanson,, Deputy City Attorney, stated this property falls under the nonconforming use for what is on there right now. When the district changed to the residential district, then the nonconforming provisions took affect. Mr. Dean stated he did not choose to be annexed into the Victoria Planned Community and questioned what recourse he had. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that the final action would be made by the City Council and if the Council acts to annex, the recourse would be legal action. Ms. Marilyn Ellena Little, owner of one of the parcels, stated her problem regards the legal access to her property. She stated she now has an offset 35 foot driveway that is seven feet over the property line on David Dean's side. Where this secondary access is projected is not going to hurt her. The reason given by staff for downgrading the density was caused by the Victoria Community Plan. She fel t it was unfair for the City to harass the older residents because of the density change. She felt is morally wrong. �r. Mark Noakes, resident of Victoria, stated that the proposal is completely unfair and does not work for the residents in Victoria. Mr. Noakes questioned the reasoning behind the change to Dean's Greens and Ms. Little property. Mr. Noakes further questioned grading issues and the street, Commissioner Emerick moved to limit discussion to matters relevant to the issues regarding the Victoria Planned Community amendment. Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY Ms. Nancy Bonanno, questioned whether the issue is whether the property should be annexed. She stated her concern is regarding the small developer. Gwen Harris, resident of Victoria, stated her support of Dean's Greens and Ms. Little's property. The Planning Commission recommended that the land use designation be Low-Medium (4-8 du/ac). Parcel 7 - APN: 227-171-19. Recommended Victoria Land Use: Medium (8- Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - April 27, 1988 There was no public testimony. The Commission recommended the land use designation; be Medium (8-14 du/a ). Parcel 8 7-111- 7, Q; 7-161-10, 24, 25 and 7-171- 1. Recommended Vicidria an se° u`ac . Mrs. Helen Diamond supported net changing the designation. The Commission recommended the land use designation be High ( 4- U du/ad). Parcel 9 - APN: 7 11-7 B g Recommended Vict oria a Land Use: egr 6na e e 9 ce o erci a Parcel 1 - APN: 9-0 1-58. Recommended Victoria Land Use: Regional e a e Rce 7 Co—merc1a T T. The Commission recommended no change and supported the Regional Related Office/Commercial designation. Parcel 11 - AIPN: 111- , 30. Recommended Vittoria Land Use: egina en e . The Co mission recommended no change and supported the Regional Center land designation. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified that the parcels requiring a General Plan Amendment ,4,5, ,7. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to recommend to City Council approval of Parcels 1, , 8, and 11; land designations and directed to staff to initiate General Plan Amendments for Parcel ,4,5,6,7 land use designations. Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion tarried by the following motion: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TDLSTGY, 'EME,RICK, CHIT EA, MCNIEL' DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY Commissioner Chitiea moved to recommend to City Council approval of Development District Amendment 88-0 , Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes 14 - April 27, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * * --carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88-05 MMAUSOW--,-A I I r6quest to amend the, eve en -District's -&-p-Tr—om "rood Control ) to "LM" (Low-Medium Residential , 4-8 dwelling units per acre) for a 1.06 acre parcel , located north of Highland Avenue, west of Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 201-271-55. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman cNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Page, representing Ahmanson Development, stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendations. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to recommend to City Council approval of Development District Amendment 88-05, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * * * --carried 0. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-05 - SEIFERT - An appeal of staff's deci-sWr eny---a-m-0--dff Ica tion--o-f---m-a-terials for the building elevations of an existing Office building within the Office Professional District, located on the east side of Hellman, south of Base Line - APN., 208-431-28. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant was not present at this meeting but he had met previously in the day with the applicant. The applicant was to have submitted a letter requesting a continuance to the May 11, 1988 meeting. Since the applicant is not present, staff will request a continuance to that meeting. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue Item 0 to the May 11, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes - 15 - April 27, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS.* CNITIEA,; TCLSTCY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT® COMMISSIONERS: RLAKESLEY --carried I P. SIGN ;PERMIT 87-109 - LYON - Review of master sign program for off- a u 7 sa signs wi hi n the Vic tori'a Planned Co ►�ni ty. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. f Bob Reid, Director of Sales and Marketing for the: William Lyon Company, stated they are in agreement with the staff report and 'recommendations. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Sign Permit N -1O9, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: C OMM ISSIONERS: ; CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, E ERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NLAESLE --carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Q. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Larry Henderson, Senior Planner; and Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff reports. Discussion was heard on the priority of the Geographic Information System, Hillside Grading Overlay District, Development Code Update, Design Criteria Guideline Book and Trails Study. Commissioner E erick stated he would like' to upgrade the priority for the Hillside Grading Overlay District* Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that she would like higher priority for the Trails Study. Planning Commission Minutes - 16 - April 27, 1988 1 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Trails Study should receive higher priority. The Planning g Commission discus sed t he Hillside l i de Grading Ordinance having a priority in the Advance Planning Work Program. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that the recommendations of the Commission would be considered and the final Work Program weld be presented for approval . Commissioner Tolstoy moved to continua the meeting past '11:00 p.m., Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. T. RECOMMENDATION OF TRAILS ADVISORY ITTEE TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PEAR TO' ""' COMMUNrT7 TRA OUR THE WEST---Slut OF IAVE U� HIGHLAND AV'ERUE' ra Re or Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the oral staff report. ' 'vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Mr. Patrick Maguire, 6192 East Avenue, stated with this proposal he is the only one affected and it outs his lot in halfdestroying his future plans for the property. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the pudic hearing. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that the reason for this item on the agenda is for the purpose of the 'Commission to determine whether they want staff to initiate an' amendment as it is proposed. Staff would then come back with modifications, a public hearing, and background documentation regarding the proposal . Commissioner Chitiea questioned that when the Lewis tract goes in it will be a' lame horseshoe shape around this particular lot at that location's If the trail were Implemented on the Lewis property, would it necessarily be implemented on Mr. Maguire"s property, or would whatever other right-of-way which presently exists remain? Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, clarified that the Improvement normally get put in front of the parcels that do develop but not the one that is excluded. Exceptions; from that would be if where the curb or pavement would go present a hazard to traffic and whether or not the trail is important. Normally it is not done unless the parcel is part of that subdivision. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned Mr. Maguire the size of his 'lot and his future plans, Manning Commission Minutes - 1 - April 27, 1988 Mr. Maguire responded that it was not; quite an acre, 4 of an acre, When Lewis bought the property from his family, Mr. Maguire desired to build a house similar to Lewis' . Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the sire of the Lewis' lots. Mr, 'Murphy stated there are approximately 25,000 square Feet average, one-half acre lots.. Mr. Murphy explained that part of Mr. Maguire's concern is with the development of the Lewis property with the radiuses for East Avenue which they are increasing significantly, they are reducing his setback from where East Avenue substantially. This would put the front of his house approximately 17 feet from the curb and with the addition of the trail , if the improvements go in, then it would be seven or 'eight feet. Part of those improvements will take more of his land off the front so he will have even less land than he has now. t Commissioner Chitiea questioned if the Lewis homes going in around Mr. Maguire were equestrian lots' and questioned if there was a community trail on ;the north side of the Lewis project and on the south side and this was intended to connect the two community trails. r. Murphy responded these are equestrian lots and that was the intention> of the Trails Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like further 'background information and determine how this will impact this property. The Planning Commission directed staff to initiate an amendment for further discussion by the Commission. R. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. ' Commissioner Chitiea suggested that three out of the four corners reflect the contemporary international style architecture. Chairman McNiel stated his objection to ;activity centers at intersection believing that intersections houl open', spacious, and inviting. r. Rick Gomez, representing Luis Homes, stated they support the concepts as presented. The Commission suggested that 'Rochester be included as Activity Center. SA CARTS/BUGGIES ON TRAIL SYSTEM Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.' Chairman McNiel questioned how manor buggies or carts are now in use. Planning Commission Minutes - '18 April 27, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea stated that under 25, probably closer to half dozen carts are not in use. Mr. Murphy stated that staff is looking for direction from the Commission whether to pursue this issue and if directed, staff would come back with more information. Commissioner Cmerick questioned the cost of modification of the trails to accommodate buggies and carts. Chairman McNiel questioned safety of horses and buggies on the trails. Russell Maguire, City Engineer, stated that the buggies/carts cannot use the bike side of the trails. It is highly unlikely to have key checkout for the use of the channels. Mr. Maguire stated that depending on the standards of the Commission, $ CCC-$5000 could be spent at each corner to take out the trees, landscaping, irrigation, and regrading of the access at approximately 12 locations. Chairman McNiel stated he felt that expense is not justified. Brad Buller, City ;Planner, stated that if the riding club presented additional information showing lower figures, then the Commission could further study this issue. Commissioner Tlstoy questioned that if the barriers were taken out that are placed on the trails to keep undesirable use of the trails from occurring, what will that impact be. Commissioner Tol stay also stated than where there is a north-south trail; or where there i a grade, then there is a water problem. Buggies would have a problem with structures o correct erosion, etc. Mr. Murphy clarified that the direction of the Commission is not to pursue this issue at this time. If, however, one of the riding clubs wants to supplement the Commission�'padditional information, the Commission would re consider the item® COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission Business at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Commissioner Emerick, seconded by Commissioner Tol stay, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the workshop and Jury following Design Review, Thursday, May b, 198 , at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes - 19 - April 27, 1988 1 : 9 A.M. - Planning d is io Adjourned.. - Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 13, 1988 Vice Chairman Suzanne Chitiea called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :DD p.m. The meeting was held at Lions park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman Chitiea then led in the pledge o allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad' Duller, ;City planner- Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner,; Larry Henderson;, Senior Planner- Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Tom !Grahn, Assistant Planner, Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner- Brett Horner, Assistant Planner- Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner- William Silva, Deputy City, Engineer- Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer- Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney- and Kelly Arta, Senior Office Assistant. MKOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff is in receipt of a letter from the Chamber of Commerce regarding Item S, Sign "Code Amendments. They are requesting that Item S be continued for two weeks. r. Buller stated that Kelly Drta, Senior Office Assistant for the Planning Division will be taking minutes for the meeting while the Planning Commission Secretary, Karen Kissack,' is being married in South Dakota on April 17. APPROVAL MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Blakesley, seconded by Commissioner Emerick, carried, to approve the minutes of March 23, 1988 as modified. Commissioner To'lstoy` abstained from voting as he was not present at that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes I - April 13, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-01 - CITY ariou amen ens ign rFinance regar ng neon Signs, window signs, and temporary signs for the City sponsored events. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant is requesting a one month continuance to the May 11, 1888 meeting. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the 'public hearing for the purposes of continuance. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to continue Sign Ordinance Amendment 88-01 to the May 11, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Blakdsley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote.- AYES.- COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHIT , EMERICK NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE` ABSENT.- COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL * carried CALENDARCONSENT A. TRACT 13445 DESIGN REVIEW - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - Design review o rag a eve ens, aj a1 e s e p an, and lot--line, adjustment for a previously approved tract map consisting of 215 single family lots on 28.5 acres of land in the Low-Medium Density Residential District 4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - AP .- 7-081-10, '11, and 40. B. TRACT 13443 DESIGN REVIEW REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT - design review o r Ung a va adns an e 'a e s e p an forzFpreviously approved tract map consisting of 144 single family lots on 25.53 acres of land in the Low-Medium Density Residential District ( -8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Planned Community, located a the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - 27-011-01, 02, 43 and 7-081 41. E. TRACT 13722 DESIGN REVIEW WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - Design review o n T I ai nj--el ova cans, a a� a si te an, 7or a previously approved tract map consisting of 120 single family lots on 24.67 acres of land in the Low-Medium Density Residential District (4 8 dwelling units per acre) 'within the Victoria Planned Community, ,located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park _Lane - APN. 0 - 11-1 and 14. Planning Co` fission Minutes 2 - April 1 , 198 Vice Chairman Chitiea pulled Item A from the Consent Calendar for further discussion of Condition . Commissioner Tolstoy moored to approve Items 8 and C on the Consent Calendar, Commissioner 8lakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK DICES:. COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNI` L --carried r A. TRACT' 1 445 DESIGN REVIEW WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - Design review of 501 di ng el eva ions, a1 s e p an, in line adjustment for a previously approved tract map consisting of 215 single family lets on 28.5 acres of land inthe Low-Medium Density Residential District 4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Planned. Community, located at the southwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - -081-10, 11 and 40'. Brett Horner explained that the Engineering Division has requested that four driveways be relocated from "their present locations to adjacent side streets to alleviate potential traffic conflicts. The Design Review Committee discussed this requirement at their February 18h meeting and decided that the layout submitted by the applicant remain as plotted* Brad Huller, City Planner, clarified that when traffic circulation makes a right turn and there is a driveway soon after the end of the curb, there should b a longer visibility' time. Mr. Horner stated that the concern of the Design Review Committee was that if the units were replotted for the driveways to access off the adjacent streets, the rear ,yards would be backing onto the sideyards of adjacent units which will interrupt the way the units are plotted. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. r. Stephen Ford, representing the William Lyon Company,, stated at the Design Review Committee meeting the developer's concerns with turning the houses would present an awkward situation on the lot and may impose and even more significant traffic hazard. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Chitiea clarified that the issue was whether the driveways should remain as proposed by ; the applicant or be constructed the way Engineering has proposed. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 1 , 1988 Commissioner Bla esley stated that though safety is foremost in designing a project, relocating the two houses would isolate them and destroys the rest of the tract; Commissioner Blakesley felt it should remain as proposed by the developer. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with Commissioner Blakesley. Commissioner Emerick stated that the streets are interior streets where the speed on the streets should net be 'that high so a safety factor is not that involved. Vice Chairman Chitiea agreed due to the specific location on the interior street and the overall plot layout,' she felt isolation `of the homes would be very destructive to the tract. She would ;support the proposal as presented by the developer. Commissioner Tol stay moved to approve Tract 13445 with the deletion of Condition #6, Commissioner Bl akesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote:' AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS., NONE` SENT: C OMM ISI{INERS: MCNIE * - carried PUBLIC HEARIWGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-04C - ,NOUR E request t6 amena thi ene'ra an an Use p rom ew- elm Residential 4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential 4- 0 dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - API: 08-0 1-18, 19. (Continued from March 23, 1988) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87-05 request to amend a eve dpmen s r e s Map r ow e i (4 8 dwelling wits per acre) to High Residential ( 4- 0 dwelling units per acre) attached; with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base' Line Road, west o Archibald Avenue - N.- 08-0 1-18, 19. (Continued from March 23, 188) Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 1 , 1988 E. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 87-02 NOURSE DEVELOPMENT - A Development greemen ween ffie, City o anc ucamohga and Nourse Development for the purpose of providing a Seniors Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 17. 0 040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 211) for 170 apartment units to be located on the south side of Base Line Road, crest of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-18,; 19. (Continued from March 23, 1988) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOURSE DEVELOPMENT - A three-party eve opmen greemen a wreen e 1 y of anc o ucamonga, Nourse Development and West End Investments for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 17. 0.040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 11) .for 170 apartment units and office medical complex to be located on the south side of Base Line Read, crest of Archibald Avenue - APN; 08-031-18, 19. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENT 87 04H - WEST reques o amen-F- e lana usereffi-e-n-fof the W'Fil Plan from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling snits per acre) to Office for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side o Archibald Avenge, south of Base Line Read - N: 0 -03 -1 , 54, S, 56 and 57. (Continued'' from March 23, 19 8 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND-DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87 0 - reques o amen the eve opmeh' rc 's map from 16-w�:Medlum Residential (48 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professional for 1.69 acres of land.., located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Rase Line Road - N: ' 0 -031- 7, 54, SS, 56 and 57. (Continued from March 23, 1988) 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ; 87-33 - NOURSE DEVELOPMENT _:: e eve opmen o son or apar en s on . acres o' and__" the tow-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - N: 08-01-18, 19. Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit 88-14. (Continued from March 23, 1988) T. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-3 - TEST END ev+ opmen o a , square oo me ca office building on 1.7 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (General Plan Amendment Pending), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south o Base Line Road - N: 0831-1 , 54, , 56 and 57. Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit 88-14. (Continued from March 23, 198 ) Larry Henderson Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, clarified the three party Development Agreement regarding development phasing. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 13, 188 Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. r. John Mannerino, representing the applicant, West 'End Investments, stated the problem with the concurrent development of the two projects is that they are two separate projects, two different developers, financed independently, tenants of two different markets, and the size of the two projects differ markedly. r. Peter Pitassi, Pitassi-Delmau Architects, stated with regards to the Master plan, they were of the understanding that a Master Plan prior to this 'meeting was net necessary. Regarding the private open space, there would be 56 and 70 square feet, respectively, for the one- and two bedroom units. With regards to the parking issue, he stated that the Senior Overlay Zoning District has' a requirement of .7 stalls per unit and feels it is unfair for this project to be judged versus the standard market rate multi-family housing project that would require in the range of 2.25 stalls per unit. They believe the design parameters they have provided exceed the requirements. Mr. Peter Nourse, Nourse Development Company, stated the new agreement requests a 30-year time period whereas before they had a 0-year agreement. He :felt that over a period of time lifestyles can change and it is difficult to program something for 3 -year period. There is not a requirement for the City for a 30-year period, particularly since the developer is not requesting any fee waivers or contribution financially from the City. The qualified tenants were changed from 50 percent to 75 percent and the developer' feels that clot of seniors in Rancho Cucamonga would like to live in this project. However, a 'good many; seniors in Rancho Cucamonga would be above the income requirements and would be precluded from living in the project, Mr. Nourse also addressed enforcement and fee title. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney,: stated that the requirement for fee title- prior to this agreement being effective is required under state law and also because that, Development Agreements must be entered into between owners of property. Effective date would be after the two readings before City Council plus 30 days which is the normal referendum period for the ordinance. r, John Lewis, 7435 Klusman, stated his objection` to the zoning of the ihden 'density designation _of the r property. 9p p y. He expressed his support in favor of the Commission denying the increase to a High density zoning*_ Mr. Harley Lovitt, representing Nourse Development,` 5173 Amethyst, stated that other senior housing projects indicate that only 50 percent on the seniors drive and only during daylight hours. He did not oppose the High density issue since he felt there were no adverse' impacts on this property. Vice Chairman Ehitiea closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 13, 1988 Commissioner Blakesley questioned how the low-income provision works, maximum rents charged, and the qualifications of the tenants. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the low-income qualified tenants are 80 percent of the San Bernardino median income and then the rents are at 30 percent of the 80 percent for that type of family based on HUB standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that senior citizens are not second class citizens and deserve as much open space as anyone else. He felt that senior citizens do use their open space and the open space provided for in this: project is not adequate. Commissioner Tolstoy addressed the lack of covered parking spaces and felt they should be some 'provided in the project. He felt that this is a good project for the location because it affords senior citizens getting to shopping centers without use of their cars, it is adjacent to a small shopping center; with an urgent care center. This is in a far better location than other senior housing project within the City. Commissioner Tolstoy proposed 10 square feet for open space. The amount of parking is adequate but some of it should be covered, perhaps one-half of the parking required.. Commissioner Emerick concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the amount of open space and the amount ;needed by seniors. Regarding covered parking, elderly people need to have some type of protection in inclement weather. Commissioner Emerick addressed traffic concerns and felt that more traffic impacts with the Medical enter would occur upon that intersection. He Mated he supports the senior project but does not support the medical center project in that location. Commissioner Blakesley stated his agreement with Commissioners Tolstoy and Cmerick and he, too, felt the need for covered parking spaces. He stated his primary concerns were traffic congestion with the medical center. Commissioner Blakesley stated he did not support the medical facility. Commissioner Emerick stated he felt the Development Agreement should be C years instead of the 20 year term, based upon demographic fact.' Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had reservations about the medical office facility because of the traffic impact on Archibald.., especially at Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue'. The Immediate Base Dine vicinity has a glut of office; space. Additional offices will be available when the City moves out of their current offices. Commissioner Tolstoy cited several locations with open office space. There are already medical facilities at the corner of Archibald and Base Line. There is available space in the center for additional�tipnal urgent care center space. The other two senior housing projects do not have medical offices anywhere near them.' Commissioner Tolstoy does not support a medical office facility at this location and feels the property could be best` used additional senior housing or some other noncommercial use, Tanning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 13, 1988 compromise around 100 square feet. Covered parking space for the seniors is desirable. Commissioner Chitiea supports the 30 year agreement. She also supports the 50 percent which would not preclude the current residents who night be interested in living at the project in the future. Commissioner Chitiea feels that the seniors project is appropriate for this particular location but with the lower trips by the seniors she does not see this being a High density as with other multi- family dwellings. She understood the traffic situation regarding the e m dical facility but indicated her support for the medical facility in conjunction with the senior project. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would also li ke to see pets allowed for the senior project. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified that the Development Code requires the 150 square feet fi gure of open space for ground level open the units is within the 00's. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the Development Code's requirement met. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission may wish to decide whether to separate the senior project and medical facility as two projects or consider it as one project. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the applicants have stated that this is one joint project.` He questioned the developers whether splitting the two projects is worthwhile to consider, all denied or all approved. Vice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing. r. Bob Dutton, representing West End Investments, state the City Attorney has a correct assumption that this should be viewed as one project. Economics, improvements, and land costs should be considered. The medical facility is the best possible solution to compliment the senior* housing project. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commission that they could stove to deny General Plea Amendment 87-04C, Development District Amendment 7-05, Development Agreement 87 D , Development Agreement 7- 0 A, General Plan Amendment 87-04H and Development District Amendment 7-06' by the attached resolutions of denial .` In those cases where no resolutions are attached, the Commission could direct staff to prepare a memorandum of denial . Commissioner Tolstoy moved to deny Items D, F, F, C, and H as the Deputy City Attorney presented, ' Commissioner Blakesley seconded the notion. Motion carried by the following vote; Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK HOES: COMMISSIONERS: ' CHITI A ABSENT: C OMM ISSIO ERS. MCNIEL Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is a second motion with Items I and T being the Development Review. These are quasi-judicial actions, the others were legislative actions whereby these require a finding. Rather than having to bring back a resolution with findings, the motion would be a motion to deny on the specific finding that the projects, Development Review 87-33`` and 87-34, are not consistent with the General Plan and Development District of the City. Commissioner Blakesley move to deny Items I and T as presented by the Deputy City Attorney, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion "carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, :TOLSTDY, EMERICK HOES.' COMMISSIONERS.- CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL * --carried J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-1 - WESTERN PROPERTIES -; The development o 'an 1T—n egFma co uni y Shopping center cons sting of four major retail' buildings totaling 319,000 square feet, adjoining mall shops totaling 137,395 square feet, nine satellite retail buildings totaling 43,550 square feet, two satellite office buildings totaling 7,35 square feet, four restaurant pads, and a 30000 square foot theater. Conceptual approval for a design center consisting often buildings totaling 195,660 square feet. All on 71 acres of hand in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN. 1077-4 1-05, 06, and '13. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. r. Ralph De Marco, representing Western Properties, stated they have no objections regarding Conditions 19 - 22. However, the developer feels that the noise level abatement probably should be placed in an ordinance rather than a lease agreement, which would be more appropriate. They would like to continue the hearing to enable the developer to review and study Condition #23 regarding the loading and unloading of trucks noise interfering with residential . Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the noise levels are part of the Development Code. I Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - April 13, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that because of the design of the center and the surrounding neighborhoods, the; condition could be modified to limit only one or two places that are most adjacent to the residential . Commissioner Tolstoy stated regarding the traffic on Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, something in the Conditional Use Permit should be stated which specifically spells out curb/median cuts. William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, the Master Plan for this commercial layout identifies a curb opening at the intersection of Aspen and Foothill and one at Town Center Drive on Haven. All of the other access points to this commercial center would be right turn in or right turn out only at Haven. It might be appropriate to add a statement on Item 6 in the Resolution indicating that a ;specific driveway as shown on Exhibit A be those approved for access and no other median openings be allowed other than those at Aspen and Foothill , Town Center Drive and Haven, and one at Spruce, the east end of the shopping center complex. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see that statement included in the Engineering report at the next meeting confirming the traffic pattern. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to continue' Item d to the April 27, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.- COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL --carried Vice-Chairman Chitiea recessed at 8 30 P.M. for a break. Vice-Chairman Chitiea re-opened the meeting at :40 P.M. _ K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13703' IMA res en a s v s o an es jn r6View o sing a am lots on 11 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distri t (d-8 dwelling units per acre) , located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Banyan Street 01 18 -67, 68. Scott Murphy presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 ® April 133, 1988 Albert Velasque , with Dwight French &, Associates representing ' a ima Development, stated they accept the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. He stated he would like to comment on two items. The first is the letter from Chaffey College. He stated that from the beginning of the project,; they have been in contact with the College. He stated they had received no communication of concerns from them. The second item is that they are not trying to get around the 50` foot setback requirement. He stated the geometries of the design does not allow it without a radical re-design or the changing of street standards to accommodate 50 feet. He stated they would like to comply, but they are limited. Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public nearing. Commissioner Emerick stated that he and Commissioner Tolstoy were a Design Review and thought the 50-foot setback should be decided by the full Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt it should be 50 feet the whole length of the project. He stated he thought the developer could re- design the southern 3 lots on Haven Avenue, with maybe losing 1 pad. He stressed he felt the need for the open space continuance Tong` Haven Avenue. Commissioner Blakesley concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy. Vice-Chairman Chitiea started she agreed with the Commission on the 5 feet. Brad Duller, City Planner, stated that the Commission could asked the developer for his approval for a continuance to examine the re-designing of the project with maybe the elimination of only 1 pad. Albert Velasque , representing Kajima development, stated they do not have a problem with losing a lot if it meets full compliance. He questioned if it was possible to get approval by the Commission subject to the loss of lot and modification to the site plan to incorporate two homes instead of three. He stated he did have a remised plan. He stated that his only concern is that there will be the full back side of the structures exposed to Haven Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner 'recommended that the Commission could continue It for two weeks with staff reviewing the new plans. Albert Velasquez stated they agreed to the continuance. �I Commissioner Emerick moved to continue this item to the April 27, 1988 meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote; Planning Commission Minutes _ 1 _ April 13, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: ERIC , TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT. COMMISSIONERS.- MCNI'EL --carried L. YACATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT BETWEEN LA RAZ :COURT AND AVALON STREET--FM 13820 Walter Stickney, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Emerick questioned if there were any arguments for keeping it open. Walter St ckney .steed that staff did not recommend closure or keeping it open. He stated they have received response from Hamilton Ranch residents to keep it open to maintain an access way to the high school * Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there are actually three uses for this access, I Fire District access, which is no longer valid from the Eire District letter, pedestrian right-of-way, and 3) drainage. He questioned how the easement could be abandoned. Walter Stickney stated that the pedestrian portion only could be abandoned and reserve the emergency vehicular and drainage. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how it would be closed off. 'Walter Stckney stated that needed to be determined. He, stated the applicants have expressed a desire to close it off to prevent all pedestrian access. He stated the City still maintains the drainage easement. Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned if this was constructed with the expressed ' purpose of having fire access, if 'so why was it not constructed to the standards. Walter Stickney stated that he did not know why turf block was not installed or the higher curb to prevent fire vehicles. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - April 13, 1988 Lou Parga, resident of 6956 La Paz Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the public easement is a problem because of a` one-way easement providing all the benefits to the residents of Hamilton Ranch and the problems for the residents of Hillgate homes on La Paz Court. He stated people visiting residents of Hamilton Ranch use La Paz Court for a parking lot. He stated they bought their hoaxes on a cul-de-sac for less foot and oar traffic and because of the 'easement, they have the opposite. He stated high school kids speed up La Paz to pick up or drop off friends. He stated kids from Hamilton Ranch can use the easement to go to school , but: Hillgate kids cannot use it to go the Jr. high school' . He stated Hamilton Rancho constructed a gate operated by them to use, and Hillgate is requested the same privilege. He stated their suggestion is to vacate the public easement with a' block wall across the easement. David Barnes, resident at 694 La Paz Court, stated the access takes 20 feet of his property. He stated' he has been informed h P y that h p t e is liable for any damages that occur on the 'pedestrian and emergency access. He stated he is very concerned about this. He stated his insurance agent informed him if claims begin to come in, he would be put on a high risk. He stated he does not want to continue being responsible for part of his property he 'is not allowed to pass through. He stated if the city does not close the accessway, he will net accept any further responsibility. He stated he is concerned about; the chidren's safety. He stated mailboxes were vandalized on September 26, 1987. He stated much of the mail was found inside Hamilton Ranch, He stated he is not saying it is the residents of Hamilton Ranch, but the accesswey is an invitation to trouble.' He stated mail has not been delivered because of cars parked in` front of the mailboxes. He stated that. within Hamilton Ranch, there is a minimal provision for guest parking. He stated that between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., there can be no ;street parking. He stated that there have been a number of tires that they have parked La Paz Court and gone into Hamilton Ranch. He stated that neither community is happy about the easement. He is concerned about the Jr. High School kids getting to and from school . He stated the residents 'feel that are being discriminated against. He stated that no other entrance to Hmi l ton Ranch is closed off or posted saying it is a private community. He stated that request is to close off the easement in bath directions. Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned if the gate is locked from one side with Hamilton Ranch residents having keys and Hillgate not. r. Barnes stated that was correct. Robert Navarro, resident of 6950 La Paz Court, stated that he has had alot of problems In front of his property because of pedestrian traffic. He stated that La Paz Court is the main street for students going to school . He stated that after the students pass by, the residents are picking up trash. He stated that they have to make sure their properties are not vandalized and their children are not harassed because of the constant flow of traffic. He stated that because there Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 1 , 1988 I is no parking on the streets of Hamilton Ranch, their visitors park on La Paz Court and therefore, sometimes they can not get mail . He stated it seems like it is a one-way; street. He stated it is very stressful to live, under these circumstances that arise from their walkway. He stated he feels everything is for Hamilton Ranch and not for Hi'llgate. He stated the best solution would be close the walkway off completely. Andrew Baluchi , resident of 6943 La Paz Court, stated that he is concerned; about the easement on his property and his liability. He questioned if could get any insurance of the City that if anybody was hurt it would not be his liability because all of the traffic is coming from the other side* Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that it is the same as having a sidewalk in front of his house. He stated that normally the City has only an easement for the sidewalk, and the land owner has fee title. He stated that customarily the adjoining land owner is not liable for a dangerous condition of the public property or the right-of-way unless they have contributed to a dangerous condition in which case, they are Jointly liable. He stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the primary liability source. Andrew Baluchi stated he would like to see the easement closed to prevent any liability on his pert. Terry gavel sted, resident of 68 harl a, stated that they had checked into this with the City and the Fire Department and they said it was fine. He stated that now they are having;these problems. He stated that ;the gate to the City street sidewalk is no more than 20 feet and the rest belongs to the Homeowner's Association of Hamilton Ranch. He stated that they tried their best to provide for their community and they ;did what they could. Commissioner Blakesley questioned why the one-way access. r. Travel'sted stated it was because of the insurance liability. He stated that are a homeowner's association and if there was an injury, the homeowner's association would be sued, not the City. He stated they are not trying to offend anyone in Hillgate. He Mated both are having problems. He stated some of the problems has stopped since the gate vent up. Commissioner erick questioned what the 'view `of homeowner's association toward a total closure of the gate. Mr. Travelsted stated that it would close them off from coming onto a City street and that the kids that are going to the high school will be blocked off. He stated that the homeowner's association is against closing off the access. Planning Commission Minutes -14-, April` 13, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there is a provision in the homeowner's CC&Rs that does not allow parking on the streets in the community. r. Travelsted stated yes, between the hours of 10.00 R.M. and .00 A.M. , so part of the day you can park on the street. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if there was a party that lasted past 10.00 in the evening then the visitors would park on La Paz. ; r. Travelsted stated no that they can get a pass from the homeowner's association board to put on the car to park` in the street. He stated that when the 'opening was there without the gate, there were a`lot of kids from Hillgate and other areas using the swimming pool . He stated that it cast them alot of money to maintain it and it can affect their t liability ;insurance. Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned how Mr. Travelsted felt about the Jr. high students who need to access to the north. Mr. Travel'sted stated he could feel for them, but that as a homeowner's association, they look at the liability. Debbie Ingram, resident of 6861. Rains Place, Mated that in November and December she had spoken with the City Planning Department and Fire Marshall Board and ;received okay from all to put up the gate. She stated that the main reason was that Mr, McMurtry, Superintendent of Alta Loma School District, told here that they were discontinuing their bussing and that the kindergarteners could walk. She stated that at that time Hillgate was not totally finished and they felt that was okay. She stated that Mr. McMurtry said that if they closed off that access, it would be unsafe for the kindergarteners to walk 'down Beryl , which has no sidewalks. ' She stated that the Hillgate residents are worried about their Jr. high school ' students going up Beryl . ' She stated that she felt 13 and 14 year olds would he a little bit more responsible walking on Beryl than S and a year olds. She stated that there is a lock on the gate with a non-duplicate key that is access to the pool and ;yard only. She stated she was surprised by the letter from the Fire Board because it is opposition to what she was told in December. She stated.. that .she does not understanding the residents of Hillgate not receiving mail because of Hamilton Ranch's parked ears because there is parking during the day in Hamilton Ranch. She stated that they feel the gate should be left as is. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned as to how long the gate has been in place. r. Travelsed stated two weeks. Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 1 , 1988 I Pete Peterson, resident of 6880 Charloma Street, stated that about years ago, the Planning Commission spent aloe of research time deciding if this community needed two primary entrances either pedestrian or vehicular. a p He stated that it was determined that this was the best place for one. He stated that they would like to keep it. He stated that he too was surprised by the Fire Department. He stated that if turf block needed to be put in for fire vehicles, 'he would not be opposed to that to maintain the easement. He stated that the ho meowner's s of Hi11 at eshould have been notified at the :time of the purchase by Citation guilders that this easement existed. He stated that he had written letters to the Commissioners stating his views. He stated he would like to keep his kindergartener on the bus. David Barnes stated that his wife had talked with the elementary school today and asked them about this access. He stated that they had said , that if there was a gate, then they would bus the elementary ' school students. He stated that they had clocked the miles between going from the access on the Hamilton Ranch side going down to Beryl to the High School and from the accessway through their community down Carnelian to the High School and the mileage was the same,' 1.1 mile. Andrew Baluchi questioned that if this easement maintained open, was it possible for his name be taken off the property. Ralph Hanson stated that would involve deeding that property to the City and it would be up to the City to accept that deed. He stated it was possible, but cannot commit that the City Council would accept it. Vice-Chairman C`hitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cmerick stated the Commission assumes everybody knew there was an easement when they purchased the property even though they did not know the law imposes to look at their title report. He stated that it bothers him that the easement is being used above and beyond the purposes it was meant for, ie. , people parking to the south and going north into Hamilt on Ranch He stated that a locked ` gate wo uld hel p alleviate this situation than if it was open. He Mated that it bothers him that it does not work both ways, Vice-Chairman C'hitiea questioned if there are any other gates on any other streets or locations in Hamilton Rancho. Halter Stickney stated no, but there is a crash gate that is really a fence. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the crash gate has access to Beryl . Walter Stickney;stated yes. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that there was then open unobstructed access to their private streets. Planning Co fission Minutes -1 - April 13, 1988 Walter Stickney stated that there was from the north on Migonette Commissioner Blakesley stated that he was confused about the open access from the north, but their liability sags they have a problem having access to the south. He stated that he has an emotional reaction to private communities that somehow the community at large is not worthy to walk on their streets, He stated that he did see anything as he looked there that would support vandalism. He stated that he would like to see the emergency access upgraded so ghat it is usable and maintained. He stated that he feels the pedestrian access is unacceptable as it is. He stated that he feels it should either be closed off or opened up so that it works both ways. He stated that he is uncomfortable having the Commission put in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. He stated that he is a little disappointed that the Commission is. Commissioner `col stay agrees with Commissioner Blakesley. He stated that the Planning Commission has always uphold pedestrian, ; bike', and horse traffic. He stated that they have talked about the mice feeling that they were trying to have in the City of easy pedestrian access to as many spots in the City as possible. He stated he would not like to sae .any pedestrian flow cut off. He stated that there was a problem and the Hamilton Ranch residents addressed that problem the best they could by the construction of a gate. He stated that the gate has only been up for a couple of weeks. He .stated he wondered what would have happened if the gate had been installed in the beginning. He stated that he wished the Commission could delay a decision to see if the gate would alleviate any of the problems of either community. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she was on the Commission when the original decision was made in regards to the access to the community,unity, where it might be, etc. She stated it has always been the position of the Commission to provide for access throughout the communities, connecting neighborhoods together. She stated access from apedestrian and 'safety standpoint is important. She stated she was concerned about hoer this did not get built to the necessary standards because fire safety was 'a major concern. She stated that having a gated community closed in one location and not in others does not add up® She stated that maybe pant of the problem comes from the Alta Loma School District and the ruling of bussing. She stated that a one-way access without reciprocal :use is really unacceptable. She stated she would support leaving the emergency opening. Brad Buller stated that the only issue before the Commission tonight is the vacation. He stated that the Commission can take action on the issue or simply retain the easement as it exists now but reevaluate it again with 3 to months. This would give the Commission and staff more evidence as to how the new gate is working. Commissioner Rlakesley questioned if there was any way to upgrade the emergency access. Planning Commission Minutes April 1 , 1988 Brad Buller stated that if the Fire District has no desire or intention to use it, he did not know whys it should be upgraded. Commissioner Tolstcy stated that if it were built to Froper specifications, it might be used Co►aani ssioner Tol stoy moved to deny the vacation and that the Doi n ssi do review it in 4 months due to the newness of the gate. Commissioner crick seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote.# Commissioner eridk . stated he cold al so like to see additional information on the insurance on the open situation' as opposed to gated p e situation. p g Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that she was concerned about this also. She stated that she was concerned about the school childrenfi She stated that she would like to see it tome hack to the Commission sooner. AYES MISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS.* CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-0 - RANCHO? UHUMAreque o es s a square 0o e urc n an e s n industrial perk in the Industrial Park �istridtubarea }'} located at the northeast corner of Haven A�tenue and Acacia Street - Nrt Cg-4il1-�1. Tom Crahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned on how staff arrived at the two-year time. Torn Grahn stated that there was no set time, but felt two Fears was enough time to allow the church to 'establish itself and let the tenants occupy the complex. Ralph` Hanson stated that the Co i si on :could bring it back for review at any time. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 13, 1988 Edward Nagell , representing the Friends Community Church, stated that they agree with the conditions established by the staff report. He stated he would like to review the two year time. He stated he felt i was redundant with Item 4. He stated that he felt two years was a problem because the tenant ;improvements was based on a three-year amortization period. He stated that this might make the owner re- evaluate their rent in two years instead of three years. He requested that; either the condition be deleted or changed to a three year requirement. Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the pudic hearing. Commissioner Blakeley stated that the only reason he liked the condition was because then the Commission 'knew it would have to he brought back for review, but that he would support Mr. Buller's r suggestion. He requested that the minutes reflect the Commission's request to have staff report back on this matter in two years. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-07 with the deletion of Condition B. Commissioner Bl`akesl'ey seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHIT EA, EMERICK NOES: C OMMISSIONERS: NONE' ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS,* MCNIEL --carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 6 - FOOTHILL reques o a ow < e ins a s ion o a temporary -modular 'strR ure to serve as a multi-purpose facility to be located in the Medium Density Residential District (8I4 dwelling units per acre), located at 6627 Amethyst Avenue - AP: D - 01-11. This 'item was been requested to be continued by the applicant. Commissioner Emerick moved to continue this item to the dune 8, 1988 meeting. Commissioner Tolstoyf' seconded the motion', The motion carried by the following vote: AYES. C ISSIONERS. EMERICK, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY NOES.' COMMISSIONERS: NINE SENT: C OMM ISSIONERS: MCNIEL --carried i Planning Commission Minutes -19- April' 1 , 1988 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-1E ® MOBIL e reques o es a 1s rain ng den er in a ease space 6,' 90 square feet within an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located at the northeast corner ofUtica Avenue and Sixth Street - N: 209-411-17. Tom Crahn presented the staff report Vice-Chairman Chiti+ a opened the public hearing. Dwight Capatani, Pacific Scene, stated that they agree with the recommendations and ;conditions;* r Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there were any special fire safety items that have to be complied with for a school as opposed to a church. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that it is not considered public assembly, but an office use. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-16. Commissioner Olakesley seconded the motion* The motion carried by the following vote. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.* MCNIEL --carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 88-03 - CITY ammen en o ap er o e eve oilmen o e mo fying certain development regulations for Low- Medium Residential . Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT Comamen @n # a erne' a un y Plan text m—o-d rtain development regulations for Low-Medium and Medium Residential . R. 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT' 88-03 amen en o e 1 or a o ` unl an' text modifying car ain development regulations for Low-Medium and Medium Residential . Planning Commission Minutes 0- April 13, 1988 Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Emerick questioned if staff had reviewed the memo received from The William Lyon Company in regards to previously approved tracts being exempt. Dan Coleman stated that staff had reviewed it with the City Attorney. e stated that when you have an already approved tentative map, that map remains valid and the City must approve;a final map consistent with the tentative map, therefore the changes in lot sizes would net affect any approved tentative 'map. However, the setback requirements and other development standards would have ;an effect on any subsequent design review application, which is the point being made by The William Lyon Company. He stated that is yet to be seen because staff does not have specific product to review. Vice-Chairman Chities noted that the result may be than The William Lyon Company m have va lid slid' tract. map, but that they p y + might not b `b� be to build on the lots created by the map. Dan Coleman stated that is correct. He stated that the Ordinance, as written, does not exempt previously approved tracts. Vice-Chairman Chitia questioned that if the Commission decided to exempt previously approved maps, what would be the procedure. Brad Buller, City planner, stated that the Commission could approve the ordinance as is which would then require the developer to request a variance if they could not develop units on the approved lots e second option would be for staff to write a provision in the ordinance exempting tracts approved prior to the effective date. Commissioner Emerick questioned if staff had reviewed 1t o. in the memo from The William Lyon Company. Can Coleman stated that staff had. He indicated that The William Lyon Company is stating that they have no objection to the minimum lot width proposed, but they ;do object to the 5,000 minimum/5,500 average. He stand that Lyon feels they can design a center plot single family detached home on a lot down to 3,000 square -feet and still address the innovation and design quality concerns of the Commission, such as the "wide-shallow" concept. We stated that the "wide-shallow" concept would be an innovative concept which would be a 3,500 minimum lot area/4,000 average, which 'still makes a difference of 500 square feet. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 1- April 1 , 1988 Steven Ford, representing The William Lyon Company, stated that on Item No. 1, they are developing many of their projects as a custom lot subdivision, they sell these to other builders. He 'stated that this could have a severe business' and economic impact because many of the builders have purchased and many have closed escrow on those lots based on the approved product exhibit. He stated that the impact that could happen is that the side yard setback requirements in the new ordinance are greater than these approved on those products and it could affect their ability to develop a product that could meet their goals because they would now have to be creating a narrower width house. He stated that it would be somewhat in conflict with the goals of the City to create a ; very strong architecture statement at the front of each house. He stated that in regards to the center plot, if the innovative product standards would allow for center plot houses, that does address his concern. n Coleman stated than in the past, the Commission has deemed the center plot, "wide-shallow" product' to be a form of innovation, e Commission concurred. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt the Commission needs to encourage developers to do innovative projects. Brad Buller stated that for future references, maybe the top section should be titled "'typical center plot product" because there is innovative center plot and a typical center plot. Vice-Chairman stated that maybe the typical center plot should be added. Steven Ford stated ' that if something' could be added that clearly identifies that there is an opportunity for center plot products. Dan Coleman stated that maybe a "wide-shallow" concept could be illustrated and label it an innovative product and in that way, it would be very clear* Steven Ford stated that would address his concerns in regards to the center plot product. He stated that in regards to the 5-foot sideyard setback t ack on center plot redact h ' suggestion p products, their suggestion is that the Commission might want.: to consider having, a total of 15 feet of sideyard setback required with one of them no less than 5 feet but not restricted o_ t a foot and 10 foot. He stated the reason for this was to allow some flexibility to a builder in the plotting of center plot houses on their individual 'lots. Commissioner Emerick questioned how many tracts The William Lyon Company has that have been sold. Steven Ford stated that they had 7 or Ha Planning Commission Minutes - - April 1 , 1988 Jim Bailey, The William Lyon Company, stated that this would be a very difficult situation in regards to the projects that they ,have sold to other builders. He stated that would really appreciate the Commission work with them on the ones that have already been approved and not encumber those with the new setback requirements. Commissioner Emerick questioned if all the tracts have been sold. Jim Bailey stated that they have 6 sales right now and out of those 6, 3 have closed escrow. He stated this would be a hardship. Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Brad Buller stated that he spoke to John Melcher of Lewis Homes, and he would support a continuance if the Commission decided to do so. Mr. elcher stated that they would like to evaluate what has been approved to date and how it would affect their projects that have been approved. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that in the past the Commission has been willing to work with the developers on projects than have been previously approved.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission has discussed this before. He stated that the Commission's comments have been heard by staff, staff has written the changes, which he stated' he agreed with. He stated' that the Commission should exempt any previously approved tract map. He stated that he also supported the suggestion regarding the innovative product option.; Commissioner Bl'akesley stated he supported all the'comments. ` Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned what the Commission thought about the flexibility on the sideyard setback. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with that. He stated that the whole idea is to get the feeling of space and that the Commission needs to be flexible with the developer community. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission can adjust this in design review if it is not working. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that the flexibility suggestion that was made by Steven Ford would be appropriate and to allow the exemption for the already approved projects. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the ordinance should contain provisions stating these changes would not pertain to those subdivisions where a' tentative map was approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance, providing that no material amendments to such previously approved tentative maps. Planning Commission Minutes - 3- April 13, 1988 i 'i i Commissioner Blakes ey moved to approve Development Code Amendment 88-0 as modified. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES': COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNTEL --carried Commissioner Blakesley moved to approve Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 88-02. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the 'following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY, CfHITTEA, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL> --carried Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Victoria Community Plan Amendment 88-0 as modified. Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CNITTEA, EMERICK NOES: C OMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL --carried J. FOOTHILL FREEWAY WALL POLICY Commissioner Emerick' move to approve the Foothill ' Freeway Wall Policy. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote.- Planning Commission Minutes - 4- April 13, 1988 AYES. C OMM ISSICNERS. EMERICK, TDLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: IQ NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL >--carried V. TRACT, 13037, 1052 DESIGN REVIEW WILLIAM LYCN COMPANY - Design review o u1 ng elevations' an p o pans or tWopreviously roved tracts consisting f 15 single pp a famil y lo ts located on 7,1 acres of land in the Lowy Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units peracre), located west. of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line i Road and south of Highland Avenue N 27-49-53-56 7 47-61_ 6; 27-48-66 68. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened public hearing. Jim Dailey, representing William Lyon Company, stated that it will nice to see some changes,come about along Etiwanda Avenue. He stated that it really does have a rural look and his project will enhance that. He stated that there is clot of rail fencing in the City that Is not adjacent to a horse trail . He stated that they are proposing to give this area an image in setting the pace for Etiwanda Avenue. He stated that he did not think anyone was going to anything there for a long time. He stated that the houses were designed to relate to nice, crisp white rail fencing, being wood on PVC. He started he had a special entrance in mind and has not found any PVC than would lend itself to that. He stated that the street has really decayed. stated that they ; are trying to set a pace or standard` for Etiwanda Avenue. He stand that in regards to line of sight, the sidewalk is 17` feet to the curb and another 2 feet to the fence and circular driveways, so there is plenty of room to see what is up and down the street. He stated in regards to the two lots on the lower part of Etiwanda Avenue, they desire those to be horse lots. He stated that there are equestrian lots that do net have a trail adjacent to them. He stated that he wants all 15 lots to be equestrian. He stated that in regards to the off-site curbs, if he has to some repair, he stated he would like it to be the absolute minimum repair. He would like the staff to be directed to set up and inspect what areas need to be repaired. Vice-Chairman Chitiea questioned what needs to be done to allow horses on the two 1 ots. Brad Buller stated it is a land use decision that would require an amendment ent to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes - 5- April 13, 1988 Otto kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that are argument at the time was to whether areas outside of the equestrian district ought to allow horses on 1/2 acre lots, or whether the size of the lots should be different. He stated that regardless of the zoning, the Etiwanda Plan calls for'2 1/ acre lots minimum for keeping horses. Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slkesley stated he had a problem with the corner already addressed. He stated that the -=fencing whether curved or not can obstruct the view. He stated he was concerned about bikes. . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the issue is not whether they can or cannot have a wall , the issue is if the wall can be of the same material as the horse trail . Commissioner Emerick, stated that the Design Review Committee discussed if white horse trail fences were appropriate in Etiwanda, which would he all the way up and down Etiwanda Avenue. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that the fencing is already on the rear and side of the lots. She stated that the 'white fencing would look attractive, not detrimental . She stated that the surface changes and a directional sigh at the corner could adequately indicate the appropriate use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that whatever is done will set the tone for Etiwanda Avenue. He stated he would like to see a white fence, but with different design than that of a community trail to announce that it was not a community trail . He asked Mr. Bailey what he would think of the white fence a being a two-rail rather than a three-rail . r. Bailey stated that has been looked into. He stated it does not work because there would be a different fence across the back and side than that in front. He stated to that people will know that it is not a horse trail . _ Vice-Chairman Chitiea clarified that Mr. Bailey stated he would be willing to compromise with a wood material . r. Bailey stated yes. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would accept a three-rail white fence in wood. ' Commissioner Finerick stated he did not like wood. He stated he did not like white fence up and down Etiwanda. Commissioner Hlakesley stated that the PVC matches and will wear better. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she concurred. Planning Commission Minutes; -26- April 13, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that PVC was fine. Vice-Chairman stated that the Commission would approve a white, PVC fence. Commissioner Emerick stated as to the issue of 'horse keeping, he was concerned' that the only ingress and egress was unsafe. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that net everyone that buys a house in an equestrian area has a horse. He stated that he does see that it Is that important. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that safety is a consideration. She stated that if there was safe access, she would be more supportive.' Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Tract 13037, 1305 Design Review as modified. Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion, The motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS.* TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS.* NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL --carried Commissioner Tolstoy moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote.- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES: MISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORT W. FOOTHILL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (Continued from March 23, 1988) - Oral Repor Larry Henderson, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. e information and 'material was received by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - - April 13, 1988 X. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM - Oral Report Otto kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Otto Kroutil stated that the Planning Division has had a 43 increase in appl,ications la st ear. He stated that the applications ations are reviewed, then re-name streets or deal with ordinance revisions. He stated that Planning now has Historic Preservation Commission, trails planning and i plementation, and an increased expectation on Code Enforcement from the City Council . He asked the Commission to think if there were some projects that have not been 'included on the Planning Commission Work Program, and if so, please let him know. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that instead of working; on next year's program, the Commission needs to be reviewed on what the work program i this year and what has been accomp�lisheda Otto Kroutil stated that the Commission will be given a status report on the progress or lack of. Y. FAST FOOD STUDY - To consider design standards and guidelines for ri vex ru ac i ty F Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Blakesley questioned the location relative to one another. He stated he was sure if he was comfortable with 300 feet® He stated that did not know if it would be better to cluster them in a few places or 'spread then all over town. Commissioner olstoy stated that he wondered if 100 feet from residential uses is enough. He stated he thought maybe not, Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed. Nancy Fong questioned if the Commission wanted more study done on locational criteria. She stated that the 300 foot suggestion is for the freestanding drive-thru facilities ''so that they would not he all lined p, but to have some separation. Brad Buller stated that the provision for master planning says that you cannot go closer than 300 feet unless you are part of a master plan. Commissioner To'lstoy stated that he felt 300 feet is not enough when traffic is considered. Nancy Fong stated that the reason 300 feet was suggested was because of the access policy from major arterials which states that if an access is granted is should be 300 feet apart. Planning Commission Minutes -28- April 1.3, 1988 r Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she had a concern with stacking. She felt it need to be 1 ookd at further. She al so fel t they need to l ook at size of interior space, seating capacity and adequate parking. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in regards to stacking, he would like to see each establishment have a provision for a pay window and ,a separate pick-op window be incorporated to speed up the traffic flow. e stated that some special berming or landscape treatment be used to cover the stacking and that it would be nice to encourage an outdoor plaza for eating. He stated that he wanted to make sure the language makes it clew that it is not only fast, food, but any drive-thu situation. Nancy Fora stated that some wording; would be added to clarify that. f Brad Buller stated that they will take what the Commission has suggested and incorporate it into a policy Resolution.. _ Commissioner Tolstoy stated the only thing he would like a little more direction on is� the distance of 100 feet from residential . Brad Buller questioned if the Commission would feel comfortable with having it 300 feet from an intersection and 600 feet from any other drive-thru facility unless it is within a shopping center or master plan. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission Business at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner erick, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the Design Awards workshop and jury, April 21, 1988 11.50' P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. etf 11 ub ed, Brad Bul er Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 9- April 1 , 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 23, 1988 Vice Chairman Suzanne Chitiea called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community` Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman Chitiea then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitlea, Bruce kmerick COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Larry McNiel , Peter Tol stay STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner;' Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner; ;Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, William Silva,' Deputy City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, and Karen issck, Planning Commission Secretary. ANNOUNCEMENTS: i Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff recommended that Item A, Foothill Sphere of Influence Status Report, be continued to the April 13, 1988 meeting due to the absence of two of the five commissioners. Mr. Buller also announced that this meeting would be adjourned to the special workshop on Sunday, April 10, 1988 at 10:00 a.m. , 9320 Base tine Roan, Rancho Cucamonga. The workshop is a fief trip on Multi Family Setbacks Within Planned Communities and Minimum Unit Size for Multi- Family Dwellings. APPROVALMINUTES: Moved by Commissioner Emerick, seconded by Vice Chairman Chitiea, carried t,7 inprove the minutes of March g, 1988 as amended. Planning Commission Minutes - 1 March P , 1988 i CONSENT CALENDAR: DESIGN REVIEW RI fAR DEVELOPMENT - Design review of nN a eve ions an e e s e p or 23 single family homes, within a previously approved tract of 82 lots on 86.53 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District on the north side of Almond Street at Beryl Street - A N, 10 1- 11-1 , 16 1061 21 , , 6, 7, -22. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-61 RIERSO ev opme'n o' a ware Ouse r u i on i o ng 77,51 square feet on 3.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1 , located on the west side of Rochester Avenue (old) , south of 6th Street - APN: 22 - C3-C . Item A was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Vice Chairman Chitiea for further discussion. Commissioner Emerick moved to approve Item 3, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, C ITT A DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TCLSTCY * -carried A. TRACT 11626 DESIGN REVIEW BRIMAR DEVELOPMENT _ Design review of ui ' rng 'e eve ions an e a e s e plan for 23 single family homes within a previously approved tract of 82 lots on 86.53 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District on the north side of Almond Street of Beryl Street - APB: 1061- `11-12, 1 10 1-R21 , , o, 7, -22. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated her concerns were the view corridor, the location of corrals, and the ;location of Community Trail across Lots A and R. Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice' Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. r. Care Brewton, representing G.F.B. and Associates and Brimar°, ' state the developer has tried to provide a view shed for the existing residents south of the development by the proposing 'l anger lot size. The developer does not believe that equestrian users will be in the project but they have provided for the equestrian element. Mr. Brewton stressed the landscaping of the project. He also stated that this is Phase I of a three phase project. The developer i feels they have Riven consideration to the existing residents and have tried to mitigate their concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 23, 1988 r. and Mrs. Ruben Arroyo, 9195 Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their concerns were the two story homes that block the line of sight. Mrs. Arroyo presented photographs of the construction showing the height of the foundations of an existing cutom home ''under construction. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated these are not custom homes and subject to different conditions. r. Arroyo stated the custom homes now being built do not suit the neighborhood by being too large. Mr" Arroyo stated 'there had` been a petition submitted which was signed by the residents against the two story homes proposed, Mrs.' Arroyo stated they are not in objection to the development' but to the gigantic two story homes that block everything. n k Commissioner Ala esle questioned how many h n h a omen the south of } and y y were two story hormme s. r. Arrow stated almost all of the homes south of Almond are two story. r. Larry, 4 " h, , resident on Almond, questioned why custom homes are no under the guidelines t_ e t esame _ernes as a"tract homes. _ 9 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated` there are two provisions of review. one is if you build a tract development, four or more homes collectively, which then go through the 'Design Review process and the Planning Commission. The other provision is building one home at a time which is subject only to the Development Code as standards by which to build and then issued a building permit. r. Murphy asked about the setbacks, depth of lots, and also whether the current trails are going to remain as they are established now. r. `Brewton stated these are split level houses and feels this is a quality project. He believes they are proposing the very best in design and are mitigating their concerns regarding the view shed. Mr. Brewton stated that two of the six homes are two story split level . In response to the setbacks, there is a variation from 30 - 40 feet, with the minimum setback 30 feet; Responding to the question of the depth of the lots, Mr. Brewton stated over 200 feet. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing, Vice Chairman Chitiea clarified that the current bridle trails will remain and there will oe a community trail through this property and through Lots A and R which are not going to be developed. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that it is very difficult to protect completely anyone's view' in any direction but the solution has to be workable for both sides. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 March 23, 188 Commissioner Emerick questioned the width of the proposed lots on Almond Street. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated the widths are 1' 0 feet; the code minimum is 90 feet for this particular zone. Commissioner Emerick stated the developer made the point that there is only 1.75 feet height difference between the one story and two story plans. There is no guarantee to anyone a view but they can minimize the impact somehow. Commissioner Blakesley felt he would not change the project as proposed by the developer as to the placement of the homes or the number of two story versus one story homes. Commissioner Blakesley concurred that there isn't too much more than can be done that hasn't already been done to address the view shed. Vice Chairman Ehitiea stated she agreed that the larger sized lots and fewer hones with space in between does indicate that the developer has been sensitive to the view to the north. The difference of two feet between the two story and single story plan is not significant. Commissioner Blakesley stated that the residents on Almond would have greater problem with the landscaping than with the houses. Vice Chairman Chi tiea stated that one of the things the City is looking for in a hillside project is a plan that will adjust to the hillside itself so that they can minimize massive grading , and large slope areas. This project has been sensitive to that issue. Commissioner Emerick stated that the lots can accommodate the larger homes because of the 10 feet width as opposed to a minimum of 90 feet, This is a benefit to the residents on the south side of Almond because there are not as;rany'-homes on the north side. ' Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the resolution, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion; Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EERIE , RLA ESLEY, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCN EL, TOLSTOY -_carried Planning Commission Minutes - 4 March 23, 1988 - - -- PUBLIC HEARINGS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 _ 4C NCIiRSE reques o aniond' thi GiFiril Plan Land Use Map--from owe- a ium__ Residential ( -8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: -031-1 , 19 (Continued from February 10, 1988) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 7-05 - reques o amen a 6-v—e-1 opment Di ric s ap rom ow- Ti m ( -8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential ( -30 dwelling units per acre) attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - AN: -01-18, 19. (Continued from February 10, 1988) E. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 8 '-02 - NOURSE DEVELOPMENT - A; Development q oe en e y o anc uamonga and West End e�e wie t for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 17.20.040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 211) for 170 apartment units to be located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-0 1-18 19. (Continued from February 10, 1988) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 -04H - WEST END- INVESTMENTS - A reqRif t7o iffiRd1and Use emen of--the enera an rom .ow-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre`) to Office for 1,59 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - APN: 2 C31-17, 54, 55, 56 and 57. (Continued from February 10, 1988) G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87-05 - WEST ENO-INVESTMENTS----K reues o amen a eve! opme 1 roc s Map fFBFn ow- a iu Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professional for ` 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue`, south of Base Line Road - APN: 208-031- 17 54 55, 56 and 57. (Continued from February 10 1988 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-33 - NOUR E e eve oilmen o senior apar e s on acres o and in the Low-Medium Residential District ( -8 dwelling units per; acre;) , located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-03118, 19... Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit 8 -1 . Planning Commission Minutes - 5 March 23, 1988 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-34 WEST END I VESTMENTS—-- -The opmen eve a , square foot medical office building on 1.7 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (General Plan Amendment pending), located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - APN: 08- 31-1 , 54, SS, 56 and 57. Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit -14. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff' report. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is an addendum report outlining the revisions to the Development Agreement, Scott Murphy, Associate Planner presented the staff report for Development Review. Commissioner Emerick questioned the ceiling rents for the senior housing with regards to the $38,000 median income for Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Cook Mated that the $38,00 figure is for Rancho Cucamonga but the median income for San Bernardino County, the basis' for the oiling rent, is under $20,000. Vice' Chairman Chitiea questioned ;that since the properties are under separate ownership,; what guarantee does the City have that adequate emergency; access, drainage easements, etc. are provided should one project develop prior to the other or if one does not develop at all? Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the need for the access for the senior project is a fire district ' requirement, the drainage is a nature of the site and could be conditioned on that project. It would be pp to the applicant to work with the neighbor for the medical building to acquire those easement rights and those could be reciprocally conditioned. Mr, Murphy stated that in both of the resolutions for the Development Review for the medical building and the senior project, there is a requirement for drainage easements, and emergency access easements across the medical building site to serve the senior project as well . Barry+e Hanson, ;Senior Civil Engineer, made a correction to the resolution, L-3, regarding Base Line Street improvements, stating it should added "reimburse costs to the City". Those 'improvements are currently being constructed by the City through capital improvements project. Mr. John Mannerino. representing the applicants, Nourse Development and West End' Investments, introduced M . Pete Pitassi, the project architect. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 March 23, 188 . Pete :Pitas;si , Pitassi-Delmau Architects, presented an architectural overview and review of the project and commented on the private open space of the project. Mr. Pitassi stated this is a senior; project and not a market rate project to provide for the needs of d variety of residents. Vice Chairman Chiti a opened the public hearing. Mr. John Lewis, 7345 Klusman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, neighbor to the west, stated he is adamantly opposed to the project. He stated his neighbors have also expressed their concerns regarding the project. Their concern is regarding the direct line of sight into their homes. The original plan with Low to Medium Density met with the neighbors approval and not the High Density. Mr. Jim Beard, 7450 Klusman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, neighbor to the west' and south of the project, stated his concern was traffic circulation and outlet. Mr. Beard also addressed his concern about drainage. This has been planned as Low Density and now the High Density proposal would require more traffic lanes. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that none of the drainage would go to Klusman but would all drain to Archibald. Mrs. Wilma Brenner,, senior citizen, stated she supports the senior project and the medical building adjacent to the apartments. Mrs. Brenner expressed her concern regarding the City"s contract with the apartment owners and the on-site managers. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Vice> Chairman Chitiea stated one of the issues before the Commission was the development of both properties concurrently which was the original intention and proposal . This is now complicated by the dual' ownership. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City would like to see the medical building developed prior to or concurrently with the senior project which was the original proposal . Because these are two separable and independent projects and developments, the City would be binding the senior project to conditions completely beyond the control of their property. It would ;be beyond the power of the Commission to impose this condition. if e guarantee is needed that both projects would be controlled as to the phasing and development of them, the only way is if both parcels entered into a joint development agreement. If than was; desired, ` this could be prepared with cooperation of both applicants. Brad; Buller, City Planner, stated that one of the other issues discussed earlier is the feasibility to the office designation. Planning Comission Minutes .. 7 March 23, 1988 Commissioner Emerick stated that as the land stands now it .has 4-8 dwelling units per acre designation on the General Plan and questioned what would be the trips generated from ;that land use versus a much more dense senior project plus the medical enter. Mr. 'Cook stated that the numbers for dust the office site would be nine to ten trips per day per residence as Low-Medium Residential . Mr. Murphy stated for the senior project site if it were to remain as Low-Medium Residential and estimated ' at 29 homes, there would be approximately 290 trips.: Commissioner Emerick stated there` is a significant difference between the office and two residential in trips per day® Regarding the Development Agreement, Commissioner Emerick questioned that increasing the density, giving up the covered parking ;and the parking spaces per unit, what is the City gaining as far as affordability and the projected rents now based on the formula set forth by the; San Bernardino median income. Commissioner Emerick questioned the ceiling rent for the two types of units proposed versus the market rent if there was no formula applied? r. Cook stated that a: one-bedroom unit with a two-person household would rent for; 0 per month< and a two-bedroom unit with a four-person household would be $606 per month. ; This figure can change as the median income changes. Mice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing. r. Bob Dutton, property manager, Mated that this project would be tied to a 20-year Development Agreement which creates a ceiling on the rents. in a no growth mode, the supply of housing is limited. As the society grows older, there is going to be a -need for senior citizens to live. The rent is affordable and will become more affordable because it does have a ceiling. Commissioner Emerick questioned the definition of qualified tenants citing it states that the qualification will be based on the County of San Bernardino formula as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ' Should that be discontinued, it then states that it will be tied into the median income of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Emerick stated this could work to the tenants' disadvantage. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, clarified' that the intent was if the HUD figures for the San Bernardino area was ever discontinued this could give the City wide latitude in determining at City level or geographical level options. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 March 23, 1988 Commissioner Emerick stated the options tie the City into using the median income for Rancho Cucamonga or geographic area which would not be fitting. 1t should be based on the county and not the city median income. Commissioner Emerick questioned the rationale behind the change from 30 years to 20 years for the length of the Development Agreement. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that two previous senior projects were at 20 gears and is used as a oasis. Commissioner Blakesley questioned when the 20 years start. Brad Buller, City planner stated upon occupancy and the construction period is not included® Commissioner Emerick stated that 50 percent of the units are controlled under the rent formula contained in the Development Agreement and the other 50 'percent are not under the limits of the rent control oiling* Commissioner Emerick questioned whether the other two senior projects have 100 percent rent controls. n h h i 1C r Cook stated that one is at_ _ t3 percent a the other s at C percent. Commissioner Eme,rick stated that 50 percent of the units being proposed to be exempt from this rent agreement have no rent control structure so the City could in the future have control . Commissioner Emerick` stated he may not want to tie the City's hands to this agreement. Mr. Harley Dovitt, 6173 Amethyst, Alta Loma, an associate with the senior housing project, stated that in previous applications on senior housing projects there were certain funds that were waived by the City in helping the project along, park fees, beautification, etc. The developer is not asking for a waiver of fees. The recent park fee which ,dumped $1UO,OOO since January 1st is now $2 7,000. The developer is faced with a total fee structure of between $400,000 - $500 CQo on this project for fees alone. This was one of the reasons since there were some tradeoffs they asked for 50 percent target tenants. The District Attorneys office stated that if the applicant asked for a waiver of fees, it is mandatory that it be a 0-gear contract. The developer is not asking for: the waiver of fees but for a 0-year contract to coincide with the other projects.: r. Cook clarified that this project is ' 5.05 dwelling units per acre. r. Manneri no 'pointed out that the 50 percent deregulation would allow senior tenants to 'live; on the property despite the fact that their income may be more than the ceiling which would allow them to live there if it were 100 percent regulated, Mr. Mannerino also stated bath the applicants would be willing to entertain discussion with the staff to Planning Commission Minutes - '9 March 23, 1988 enter into a joint Development Agreement with the City for the purpose of developing the project jointly so ;that the City may exercise some control over the manner in which the entire project is construt'ted- ice Chairman reclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick stated that the traffic issue is still of great concern and also the private outdoor space. Mr. Murphy stated that of the two senior projects that are completed, only one of them has private outdoor space. The other one does not have any. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned the `drive access on Base Line and Archibald and if there were any proposals for right turn only lanes or anything "else. Barye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering felt that both driveways are in optimum locations and align with other driveways across the street. Commissioner Blakesley stated he felt that this was a good location for the senior project since it is in close proximity to all of the commercial area. He felt that there could be more than one vehicle parking space for each unit since ;parki'ng is a problem in apartment and condominiums. Commissioner Blakesley expressed concern regarding the SC percent affordability since this seems low. Generally, he supported the senior's project where it is. Commissioner Bakesey stated he is concerned' about the traffic and the extensive development of the entire corner. It is very busy now since there is a great intensity of use. . y putting the office building there, it degrades the residential use on Archibald` and also ' isolates the existing residential . ' There is office zoned in close proximity north of this intersection. Commissioner Bl akesl ey stated he could not find a compelling reason to support the medical office building in that location. Commissioner Emerick stated than one option would have the entire project senior housing. Vice Chairman Chitiea Mated that the senior project relies on the adjacent piece of property for; emergency access. Commissioner Blakesley stated he felt it was an inappropriate use there and either put it entirely in senior project or some other combination. he would rather not see furthers encroachment of the commercial or office of that corner on the residential that surrounds or greater intensity of the use of that corner. Commissioner C erick agreed and felt that the office would further impact a bad corner generating that many trips per day. Planning Commission Minutes - 10March' 23 , IgSS Vice Chairman Chitiea agreed on the senior aspect of the project and she felt them is definitely a need in the community. She stated she liked the idea of putting a medical facility directly adjacent to a project of this type because of the seniors who could take advantage of the facility. Vice Chairman Chitiea felt that the projects are tied together nicely ardhitectually and supports the revised plan for the medical building. Commissioner Blakesley felt that residential use is more appropriate. Vice Chairman Chitiea clarified that the consensus of the Commission is to reinstate the 0-year limit and a minimum of 75 percent. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified that the position of the majority of the Commissioners tonight is to recommend denial of the project and the Commission would recommend to these items to the April 13, 1988 meeting for all five of the Commissioners to discuss the issues. Vice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for the purpose of public testimony. Commissioner Emerick moved to continue Stems C,a,E,F°,C,N, and M to the April 13, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: E E IC , RLA ESLEV, CNITIEA NOES: �,M ISSI HERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLST Y -'-carried 9:16 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 9: 0 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R -A6 TOMS e re d-e-§`t--tb-_0stablish a carpet store in a ease space o square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial center in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) , located at 915 Archibald Avenue -APN; C - 11-44. Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present.. Planning Commission Minutes - 11 March 23, 1988 Nearing no public comments, Vice Chairman Ehitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley moved to approve the resolution, Commissioner Brick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, EM RICK, ENITIEA DES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON --carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87- MARTENS AND ASSOCIATES e eve oilmen o an au omo '� a servile ma consisting o buildings totaling 47,220 square feet on 4.46 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 2, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Ninth Street - APN: 209-012-17. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. r. John Martens, Martens and Associates Architects, representing Auto Serve Malls, the applicant, stated the developer concurs with the staff report except for the condition regarding the driveway situation to the north of the project. _ Commissioner Blakesley questioned the triple driveway ;on the east side of the project. Mr. Martens stated that this was once a third phase of a large project, the one immediately to the east was the second phase and is being implemented at this point in time. The developer had several site plans for the original piece that were differing from the master plan that was approved previously and subsequently came back to a site plan that was close to the original . In the interim period of time, it was requested of the developer to provide access from that puce of property (Otis Elevator ;piece), It was determined they would need traffic flow from the south and out to Ninth Street. r. Greg Holtz, representing Auto Serve Malls, stated that the Auto Serve Mall proposed for Ninth and Vineyard is a high quality project which will provide an opportunity to relocate auto service from Foothill Boulevard; corridor. Mr. Holtz requested the Commission consider approving the access to the north. Planning Commission Minutes - 12 March 23, 1988 r. 'Scott Peotter, representing Messenger Investments, submitted to staff a proposed master access plan. Mr. Peotter stated that Auto Serve is desiring the access to the north for their retail or their driveby users and Messenger needs access for the Otis Elevator building for the potential tenant of the building towards the south end of the building for trucking access. The benefit is that Otis Elevator would potentially reduce traffic onto Vineyard by taking their access down to Ninth Street where there is a signal for the sothbond people out of Otis rather than making a left hand turn across Vineyard. The compromise would be to have the two access points now with the access onto' Ninth Street reducing the total volume than would go onto Vineyard. If they do net get the one access point for; Auto' Serve, they would the one driveway up by the truck area for Otis Elevator. The impact on Vineyard would be worse than what is being proposed now. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned Mr. Peotter as to how the proposed driveways line up with the existing driveways on the west side. Mr. Peotter stated that the proposed northerly driveway would line up with the stlng driveway across the street. The other driveway is half' way n the two existing driveways. The driveway separations met the nua rial Specific Plan policy of 300 foot separation and 100 foot from intersections. r. Steve Lucas, 9389 Apricot, representing the buyers., stated this is the only` viable site for an operation like this for the use to be compatible with surrounding uses and still have a main boulevard visibility which would allow for commercial viability. They were not aware until escrow that this driveway was removed as a condition of approval of the plan and there was no driveway. The City policy has been on boulevards where traffic has to be minimized to provide a joint access on a property line. The 'Auto Serve Mall negotiated with the neighbors to the north and worked out a joint access' that had also a benefit of moving the driveway north of the intersection and moving it away from a telephone pole to allow for a slow down lane. The driveway is necessary for the economic; viability of the project. r. Rod Lucio, representing Capital Industrial Properties and the owner of the land, read a letter from Mr. Carl Stater, President of the company, in support of the project and urged the Commission's approval Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public 'hearing. Commissioner Blakesley questioned why Otis Elevator would benefit from two southerly access points other' than one that would be more 'central and why the access to Ninth would be restricted. Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated they are now getting access through this property to Ninth Street which otherwise would be 'unavailable. Planning Commission Minutes 13 March 23, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that because there is only one application before the Commission that being the corner of Ninth and Vineyard. The only aspect of the northern parcel , the Otis Elevator, is the ;policy of the City is the access points; on Vineyard. The ultimate goal for traffic safety would be to eliminate all access points on Vineyard. With this recent proposal , the only access that it has is the two points of access from Ninth :Street and none from Vineyard unless they are able to work a joint access to the property to the north which is not part of this application. It is not a required access point. Engineering has determined that one on Vineyard would be acceptable. There was discussion to relieve the traffic on Vineyard, Muck traffic and left turns onto Vineyard from the Otis Elevator site, and taking access to grow Highway. Mr. Buller clarified that Mr. Putter stated that if the Commission cannot agree to two driveways out onto Vineyard, Messenger will withdraw their proposal to pot a driveway from the Otis Elevator site to Ninth Street. This would force' more traffic out onto Vineyard. Commissioner Blakesley clarified that the traffic that has to exit the Otis site could, under the developer's proposal , exit Ninth Street and if not, then go out onto Vineyard. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the proposal is approved, the Commission would be approving a site plan which allows an opening to the north from this project and that should there be an agreement for an access point on Vineyard. That agreement would go through a separate process through Engineering for a drive approach. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the Engineering condition specifically states that the location shown is not acceptable p y because Engineering does not think Messenger will actually use that one. It should be further north.; The condition states that they can have a shared driveway to the north if all three of the existing ones are closed and one is put in. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that this is a clarification of the position of the City and not necessarily a condition of approval . Commissioner Blakesley questioned the length and size of the deceleration lane which >would' be required by the driveway such as they are proposing. arrye Hanson,' Senior Civil Engineer, stated' about 250 feet in length. The one shown goes from the proposed driveway to a large utility pole. Vice Chairman Chi ti ea questioned if the deceleration lane was included would it change the landscape setbacks and affect the placement of the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes - 14 March 23, 1988 Ms. Fong stated it would not change the building setbacks but the developer would have to make up for the average landscaping that they lost through the extra left turn lane. They would have to close up some extra parking spaces. Commissioner Blakesley stated that this is a fairly reasonable and supports the project. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commis,sion could suggest amending Engineering Condition No. 2 to read "If a driveway is proposed, only one driveway is permitted onto Vineyard." The Commission is not taking action on another driveway, this could be an administrative position of the City Engineer to approve a driveway to close off the others. Vice Chairman Chi tiea stated she would support the suggestion and felt that the site planning overall and the architectual improvements make the project more palatable. The driveway coming down to Ninth to help alleviate come of the problems with Otis would be helpful , Mr. Peot-ter stated that Messenger Investments cannot allow a joint use driveway if this is the only driveway on Vineyard at that location. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified that if Messenger Investment were to come in with an application for a permit to construct a driveway along Vineyard, the Commission has indicated their position on driveway$ on Vineyard and that is only one would be permitted. Their action is only a reflection of that position and not relative to this project unless Auto Serve Mall brings it into their proposal . Their proposal has the required access points that technically and legally meet all the building and fire code requirements to have a project on that property. They have two points of ingress and egress on Ninth Street. Mr. Peotter stated the developer does not have a project without a driveway on Vineyard and they do not have a driveway on Vineyard unless the master plan can be made part of their submittal and two driveways are approved on Vineyard. Messenger does not have access for Otis unless Auto Serve gets their driveway also. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission's position of one driveway only is a restatement of a current policy. The, developer can apply in a formal manner through the Engineering Division to have a driveway placed on a property that is not under review today under a separate application and whatever action occurs as a result of that application is appealable and then on to City Council . Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the resolution as amended, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes - 15 March 23, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS.* CMCRIC , B A CS EY,; CNITi A NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTDY --carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT" 13823 - ALTA LW_--OXFORD L Irest en a su ivls on an es gn re sew o con omini-u units on 18.9 acres of land in the medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwellingunits per acre), located on the south side of Lemon Avenue, east of Haven Avenue AP : 01- 71 75. Associated with the proposal is Tree Removal Permit 5 C . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-22 AMENDMENT requs o amen e approve as er an o a ow ago s ory waits along the Lemon Avenue frontage and to allow an increase in density within the northern 145 feet from 8 dwelling units per acre to 9.6 dwelling units per acre for phase III consisting of 265 condominiums on 18.9 acres of land in theMedium-High Residential District ' (14 4 dwel l i ng units per acre) , located on the south side of Lemon Avenue, east of Haven Avenue - APN. 01- 71- 5. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Cmerick questioned the staff report stating that the wall not be constructed along the east property line. r. Murphy stated that in review of the situation, staff has received a development proposal to the east. Staff felt that 'i f the developer constructed the wall immediately, this could create some problems later in coming, back in with a 'development ,yet to he constructed. At the time of occupancy, more of the details will be known and one wall can be constructed to address both developments. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned- the landscaping along the eastern boundary with ' the implementation of the storm` drain system.' She questioned if the dense and continuous effect will be able to he achieved along that eastern boundary, and if the wall does not go in will the planting be able to go in at this time to achieve some growth, or will the wall create problems with root system. r* Murphy responded that staff prefers to try to get the wall installed immediate and install the landscaping at that time. If that could not be done, hold off on the landscaping directly adjacent to the wall until such time that it would not affect the root systems. Planning Commission Minutes - 16 March 23, 1988 Commissioner Blake ley questioned if the location of the wall would change any with the development of the adjacent property. Mr. Murphy stated the location of the wall itself would not change unless they would do a lot line change. Any grade changes that may take affect would be undesirable. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned if staff had talked with the developer of the adjacent property. r. Murphy .Mated the developer has formally ;submitted an application to the City for a tract map and a General Plan Amendment to redesignate than area from Medium down to Low- ediu` . Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Eisenburg, representing Oxford Development, the applicant, Mated they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the resolution. With respect to the wall issue, it is the developer's understanding that the adjacent property owner's application will probably be heard as their working drawings are proceeding. r. Tom Reilly, Lawrence R. Moss Architects, landscape architect, stated their proposal of the landscaping along the wall . Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned how close is the planting area to the wall`. r. Reilly stated the under shrubbery is about five feet, the actual trees will be about two feet from the property line. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned what type of tree is ;proposed that can provide screening. r. Reilly stated there is a list of trees, i .e. , pine, pepper, and eucalyptus trees. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cmeritk stated concern about the trees close to the property line, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if a wall was designed right on the property and the footing was completely on this property because the other property i had not developed at that point, there could be a 'footig that could extend but as much as two feet to support a typical garden wall . As a result, there would not be any tree planting in the two feet. Planning Commission Minutes -' 17 March 23, 1988 Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that architectually the; project is very pleasing. She felt that it was unworkable; however, unless there was some other way of providing landscaping along the easterly boundary along the storm drain. It is necessary to get the landscaping in the project. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission may wish to look at scaling the buildings down to all two story or putting one story elements along the eastern property line to better transition to the residential . The proposed landscaping does not screen 'along the eastern property line, Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the Commission does not have support for the project and it should go back to design review to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Rlakesley stated because of the density of the project, he felt that none of the ' interior open space should be sacrificed for additional landscaping. Vice` Chairman Chitiea suggested that there also be room for lan scaping on the southeast corner of the project. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission could either continue the item ' to allow it to go back to Design Review with modifications or if the Commission is addressing just the east property line, the Commission could defer that matter to Design Review and approve the property with the condition that the east property line s it relates to buildings and landscaping be subject to Design' Review. Commissioner Elakesley moved to approve Item , Vesting Tentative Tract 183 with the provision to solve the transition problem through Design Review Commissioner Emerick seconded h` seco e the motion. Motion carried': b the e following vote: . y AYES. COMMISSIONERS: DLAKESLEY, E ERICK, CHITIEA NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY Commissioner Emerick moved to approve Item K, Development Review 84- Amendment, Commissioner Dlakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, EHITIEA NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY --carried Planning Commission Minutes - 18 March 23, 198 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-55 elfe o o red in us ria wary Ouse uildingt totaling 171,641 square feet on 7, acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea `) , located at the northeast corner of`Rochester 'and Atchinson, Topeka, and 'Santa Fe Railroad - APN: 9-11- 1 and 22. Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented 'the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing Mr. Bob Fullmer, representing Fullmer/Rochester, stated they concur with the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Chitiea questioned the line of sight from the freeway in regard to the addition of spandrel glass on the northeast corner of the building along the freeway. Vice Chairman Chitiea felt it would be appropriate to add that design element whether or not the area is within line of sight from the freeway. r. Gage clarified that the applicant initially submitted some site line studies which reflected that the building would be visible from the freeway right-of-way. In the course of Design Review, the Committee came to the conclusion that if the building was tilted up and the site lines which were originally submitted by the; applicant were not actually reflective of what 'portion of the building was visible from the freeway, the ` applicant would then be allowed to delete that portion of the spandrel glass element from the east elevation of Building 3. This would be contingent upon the City Planner or his designee to ascertain the ' degree of site lino from the freeway right-of-way. The applicant has indicated that there would no roof-mounted equipment; they are intending to use a split level heating and ventilation system. a Vice Chairman Chitiea stated she; preferred to see that they wrap the corner of the building and give a complete, finished look to the project as a whole. She fait .this project works well for a difficult site and supports the project with the requirement that this element be included. Commissioner Emerick moved approval of the resolution as modified, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EM RICK,' BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLS OY --carried Planning Commission Minutes - 19 March 23, 1988 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA VILLAGE SNIPPING CENTER 9CUP 86:05) ; lazifid it e fibFiRM corner of Base me oa an even venue. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the City Council has been looking at some of the proposals on the sign ordinance from the; Chamber of Commerce. She questioned if the issue` of 70 percent or maximum amount f coverage, whichever is smaller, been discussed. Ms. Fong stated that the range of the sign length that the City has been approving for sign programs gees from 65 to 70 percent, but no more than 70 percent. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Chamber of Commerce only dealt with neon and window signs and did not discuss size of permanent identification signs. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that rather lame buildings might be overly covered, and perhaps some standards could be applied to buildings depending on their size. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that when the sin ordinance was first put together, ;great many signs were can signs. The dimension of two foot height and 70 percent height was basically initially designed with the 'idea of setting up a backdrop for the sign ;itself. There were other problems with the aesthetics of can signs, so the City went from can signs to freestanding signs, but the size limitations have not changed, The ordinance outlines a maximum and doesn't mean that all signs in all centers have to be designed to the maximum allowable. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission has the ability to determine; whether the sign program for a specific center is appropriate for the architecture. The discretion is up to the Commission. Commissioner Nlakesley stated, that the signs are too dominant for the center, the satellite in between the majors. r. Pepper Gomez, Innovative Graphics, representing the developer; of the shopping center, stated they have worked on the sign program with staff for the last six months. They have reduced sizes and made all changes suggested by staff. Now that tenants are ready to move into the center, they don't have a sign program to follow. Mr. Gomez stated they concur with staf's recommendations. r. Ed Gardner, Innovative Graphics, representing' Hughes 'Market, stated the criteria for the sign program was written by City .staff and the developer agreed to it. He requested the Commission support the sign program. Planning Commission Minutes20 Parch 23, 1988 doy Palgreen, representing decker-Warmiogton Property, requested urgency from the tenants` point-of-view on the sign program. Commissioner Blakesley stated his concern is the height variation from 18 inch to 24 inch on the signs on the satellite tenants. Vice Chairman Chi ti ea suggested establishing ;a limit on the area so that as long as a tenant has square footage to work with he could utilize it. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that perhaps the 70 percent is excessive in dealing with a large area of space and it should be 70 percent or a maximum in a wall area. Brad Buller, City Planner, Mated if the urgency on the applicant is currently for the major tenants and if the Commission felt comfortable with the sign program for them, then they could be approved. Staff could work with the applicant to revise and brim back the rest of the program another alternative at the next meeting. Vice Chairman Chitiea suggested consistency or uniformity with the lettering, the height of the letter, and color. r. Gomez stated that the developer is willing to go to 18 inch letters on all the copy if the Commission would approve the program. Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that all minor tenants including satellite tenants be uniform in the 18 inch height of the letter, and the color red in the sign program for Terra Vista Village as recommended by the Planning Commission. C. FOOTHILL SPHERE CP INFLUENCE STATUS REPORT t was recommended by staff to continue this item to the April 1 , 1988 meeting} COMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission business. Commissioner Emerick moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. , Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMWNTS - There were no public comments. ADJOURNWNT Commissioner Blakesley moved to adjourn the meeting to Sunday, April 10, 1988, 10:00 a.m. , 9320 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. ' Motion unanimously carried. Planning Commission Minutes 1 March 23, 18 11:15 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 22 March 23, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 9, 1988 Chairman Larry McNi l called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The 'meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 911 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Mc Niel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL L COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Bl aikesl ey, Suzanne Chi ti ea, Bruce Emer ck, Larry McNiel , Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Otto Kroutil , 'Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman;, Senior Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Russell Maguire, City Engineer; Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; and Karen Kissack,, Planning Commission Secretary. ANN0JUCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVALI S Moved i y Commissioner Chitiea, seconded by Commissioner Tblsto , carried, to approve the minutes of February 24, 188 as modified. Commissioner Blakesley abstained from voting: as he was not present at that meeting, CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-4 - TOWER PARTNERSHIP e eve dpmen o a two-story o ce re a u i ng b a i rig 1,000 square feet within an approved integrated business center (Virginia Dare) in the General Commercial District located at the northwest quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue AP : 1077- G1-06. Planning Commission Minutes _ 1 M March 9, 1988 R. TRACT 12643 DESIGN REVIEW - KAUFMAN AND BROAD - Design review of building a eva ions ` or a portion of previously approved tract map consisting of 466 single' family lots on 104 acres of land within the Caryn Planned Community, located north of Highland Avenue on the west side of Rochester Avenue -' APN:' 5-141- , 27, 1, 43 and 5-1.51 , 7, 8, 10-17. Chairman McNiel opened it up to the Commission and public if anyone wished to address the items on the Consent Calendar. Hearing none, Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the Consent Calendar, Commissioner la esley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following votes AYES:` COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, SLAKE LEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL;, TOLSTOY NOES:' COMMISSIONERS: NONE` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS-. NONE carried PUBLICHEARINGS C. MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL O PARCEL MAP 95 7, ;PARCEL iiqUiit ' Eo- modify the Conditions of Approvalrequiring the undergroundng of utilities along 9th Street for the development of an industrial Park and related Parcel Maps in the General Industrial District (Subarea ), located on the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and th Street - APNs 09-01 -171` 0, & 21. (Continued from February 4, 198G) .' Joe Stofa,' Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the ;staff report. r, Scott Peotter, representative of Messenger Investment Company, 1691 -A Von Karman 'Avenue, Irvine, CA,` stated Messenger requests the relieving of the responsibility of undergrounding in front of their neighbor's property. They concur with the staff report and request that the requirement be deleted on their maps. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel questioned Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, whether the letter' received from the property owner on Parcel 1 is a binding document. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it is not binding since we don't know the terms it was expressed to this person. He suggested that a condition be added to each of the approving resolutions stating the modification is expressly contingent upon the owner of Parcel I executing a covenant to be recorded against Parcel 1 evidencing' the intent to underground adjacent to Parcel 1. This would be binding and could give notice to this owner or any future'property owner. Planning Commission Minutes - March 5, 1988 Scott Peotter requested that the public hearing be reopened, Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. r. Peotter questioned the restriction on the property of the adjacent owner and wouldn't the existing condition on the parcel map which he is part of suffice for the condition of undergrounding There is nothing indicating who is responsible for paying for what portion and it is just a matter of timing. Revising the condition to state that it is upon the development of the adjacent property would still bind it for that condition. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney„ stated it would and the modification being granted is on the presumption that the adjacent owner i comfortable with this and it is imposing a new expense on them, This is the reason for the recorded covenant. Chairman McNiel agreed this was the safest position to take. Commissioner Rlakesley agreed.` Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve all three resolutions of Item with the modification as suggested by the Deputy City Attorney, Commissioner gakesley seconded the motionMotion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHI IEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, IMCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE --carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11222 - su 1 vi si err o acres of lind into parce in aGeneral Industrial district, Subarea 1 , located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN. 229-26 -1`0, 11, 12 and 13. Joe Stofa, Assistant Civil Engineer;, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel questioned the depth in Parcel Map 6 of the long, slender lot as this will be an awkward lot in which to _deal with .later_. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated approximately 15 feet. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March g, 1988 r, Bill Harris, representative of Joseph B. Hyde,'Civil Engineers, 5150 E. Hunter, Anaheim, CAA concurred with the staff report and Conditions thereof. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated this parcel map separates it into individual buildings that can be sold and since it has been through the Design Review process, she did not see any problems. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if a building has been proposed for Parcel 5. Commissioner Chitiea stated that a building had not been proposed for Parcel 5. She also 'noted that since the street alignment is already set there isn't much they can do' to increase the depth of that particular parcel . Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution, Commissioner Blaesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, SLAKE LEY, EMERICK, MCNIE , TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE --carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13825 - PANNON - 'A r 11 esidential su NI si on an esi gn rev,ew o sing a family lots on 1.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District ( -4 dwelling units per acre), located north of lgth Street, east of Hermosa Avenue at the northern terminus of Rrissac Place.; AP : - g - . Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Blaesley questioned if the freeway was elevated? r. Murphy responded that it was. Commissioner Tolstoyf questioned if there was going to be a wall around the project. r. Murphy stated that there would be one of the conditions in the resolutions states the wall along the freeway be approved by the Planning Commission which is consistent with previous actions to maintain some continuity along the freeway corridor. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, Manning Commission Minutes - 4 - March g, 1988 Mr. Peter M. Laden, 23277 Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, CA, expressed his appreciation of staff°s work. They are in agreement with staff's report. Mr. Laden requested verification on the design of the freeway. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff is developing a request for the 1988-89 budget to hire a consultant to do the entire freeway corridor.` In the interim, the developer will present a design to show they are compatible with the adjoining properties in the near vicinity. It should be consistent with surrounding properties and other approvals. The design of the wall will go' through the Design Review process. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley moved approval of the resolution, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motions AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BLAK SLEY, CHITIEA,' EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * --carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-01 -SAN ANTONIO e eve p m ent of--a ca cen er conus rng of 39, square foot ambulatory health care facility and 82,932 square feet of medical offices on 10 acres of land in the Mixed use (MHO) District within the Terra Vista Planned Community, looted at the southeast corner of Milliken ,Avenue and Church Street - APN: 7-151-1 , 14. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11. 1 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY- - A subdivision of o an into parce i n e erra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Church Street and Milliken Avenue - APN - 151-15, 14. Related File. DR` 88-01. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. George Kuykendall , Senior Vice President of Operations at San Antonio Community Hospital , 999 Sari Bernardino Road, Upland, CA, stated the project would provide ambulatory care services, emergency services , and physician offices in an integrated and planned development. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the concept of health care has changed recently to where the medical personnel searing this facility will be housed within the facility? Therefore, the need for peripheral offices will not occur.' Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March g, 188 . Kuykendall `responded that this concept will provide a concentration and locus for health care and more convenient for patients to have physicians and specialists available to them in this setting. San Antonio Community Hospital does not have control over where physicians may locate elsewhere within the city, Commissioner Tolstoy stated his concern regarding this was the design and uses surrounding the hospital within Lewis development. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned who would be the major users? Chairman McNiel stated this would need to be asked of Lewis Development; however, they may construct some ancillary buildings to the hospital . Commissioner Emerick questioned whether the doctors who don't practice at San Antonio Community Hospital will be allowed to rent space. r. Kuykendall stated there can not be a legal restriction to an arrangement like this but obviously they would prefer to have doctors on their' medical staff at San Antonio Community Hospital . Chairman McNiel- closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated this project will be an asset to the City. Chairman McNiel stated this is a good-looking' facility and it is probably the closest to ghat the City is looking for in regards to a hospital . Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the resolution for Item F, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CNITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Blakesley moved to approve the resolution for Item G, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:' COMMISSIONERS: BLAKCSLEY CRITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES, COMMISSIONERS: ; NONE' ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE' * --carried.. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - March g, 1988 OLD BUSINESS H. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 CRISTIAND - A custom lot res Ta su Mion o on approximately 85 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Hillside Drainage Channel APN: 201-121- 4. (Continued fro February 24, 1988 . arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned Engineering if in the future the triangular piece should be available and some one else should acquire it, will 94 lots be able to financially support a crossing of the channel . r. Hanson responded that it can occur. Commissioner Bl akesley stated the exhibits show a street coming out of Tract 122 that ends in a cul-de-sac and if this develops, will there still be the availability for access. . Hanson stated there would be. Bill Silva,, Deputy City Engineer, added that it would be fully improved to the tract boundary, bath strut extensions o the east would be extended to the limits of the tract. This would be curb and gutter an paving. Chairman MNiel opened the public hearing. Bob S olq aver, representing Cr stiano companies, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard,; Newport Beach, stated they have tried to mitigate the issues that were discussed at the last meeting. They are in agreement with the staff report. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Alta Loma, stated there are several concerns of the homeowners regarding the access. Their major concern its emergency access and she feels this has not been solved. The triangular piece at the top would have to be developed before the condition of access would be answered and there is no tract map on that piece. The wedge piece would also have to be developed and this has not been sold by the Flood Control District. In the ;reports, Associated Engineering taped about some emergency access; alternatives. There; is an existing bridge at the top so residents could possibly get out and go northerly across the existing ' bridge and come down the Flood Control' District's easement on the other side of the channel . However, without emergency access easement, emergency access is still the major concern. After spewing with the fire department, Ms. Hahn stated they, too, would like to see an emergency access to the east.' She questioned Engineering if there are plans to extend Milliken. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - March g, 1988 r. Hanson stated that the bridge is used by Southern California Edison and Los Angeles Water and Power. However, the difficulty with it is getting from this tract to it. There are some easements concerns and the actual usability of the facility. It does not look particularly viable but has some potential in an extreme emergency, more so for emergency vehicles to get; in and less feasible for residents getting out that way. From Haven, ,you could get there; it is a gavel road however. Regarding 'the progress on Milliken, the property to the east of Beer Creek Channel is owned by the Flood Control District and Engineering feels it is highly unlikely that Milliken will be developed straight north as shown by the developer's engineer because of the restrictions on the property on that side of the channel , it may curve to the east. The Flood Control district has not declared that property surplus so Engineering has no idea when or if that will happen. If it does, it will be a much smaller street than Milliken south to Wilson. Marc Roy, 5068 Calypso Court, Alta Loma, stated that as the tract ;map is presently designed 80-8 percent of all the traffic to the west will have to exit on' Ringstem as a natural course of traffic flow which means according to the Traffic; Department of 3300 trips per day. This is going to create some traffic circulation problems. The present development and the part to the east is drawn in a whole series of small cul-de-sacs of 15 lots per cul-de-sac. In the back part of the map, there is no consistency of the project with what was designed or developed in the front part of it. Instead of having shortcul-de-sacs, there are some cul-de-sac but an extremely long, winding road with 30-SU lots on there also adding to the congestion. In reference to the traffic flow and consistency ' throughout the tract map, the residents would like' to see something else done. They would also like to see something definite on easement agreements. They would like to see something firm that says that at this particular point in time the people who live there could exit at certain exits when 'there is +a problem. Larry Clark, 678 Teak Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he supported. Mr. oy's: comments. The residents would like to see an ability to exit through the east side to balance the traffic flow and the proposal doesn't afford this capability. The current developers are reluctant to build the bridge and, provide the access. The problem will be magnified in years to come. Frank Williams, Associated Engineer representative, 316 East "G" Street, Ontario, clarified they (as the developers) understood that 'ability for the adjacent properties to support :the construction of the bridge would include a third property, the property south of the Hillside Channel . They understood that ;all three properties would trigger that circulation element. Regarding emergency access, extensive discussions with the Flood Control District, the Bureau of Power and Water, and Southern California Edison have been held and though they have not said it can not be done, it is a long-term process and there are no guarantees. The Flood Control District is very reluctant to grant access unless somebody Planning Commission Minutes ® 8 - March g, 188 other than the flood Control district assumes the liability for the use of the access. They do not view a developer or a homeowners association as a proper party to assume liability. They look to the City to assume that liability. Ms. JoAnne Knatcher, 5083 Bramble Court, Alta Loma, CA, stated her concerns regarding the access roads, traffic flow, and the high crowns in the streets. Hisam Durrani , resident of Haven View Estates, stated he concurred with Mr. lar 's comments and stated that the City should have initially reviewed these matters when first approving the plans. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel clarified the three issues before the Commission were: 1) emergency access, ) intersection visibility on north-south streets, ) street widths. o issioner Tolstoy stated because of the length and width of this tract, he felt there should be some type of emergency access. Further, he felt that the drainage is quite a problem on the north-south streets and some other mitigation measures other than the crown shold be considered for any new construction. r. Hanson stated that there are comments in the resolution to try to spread or make the humps wider but this runs the risk of making very y steep streets and this needs to be looked at very carefully, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since these are private streets the only way to make them safer is for the homeowners association to put stop signs on the existing streets. The City doesn't have jurisdiction over that. Commissioner Ch,itiea stated she agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding that some type of emergency access should be provided. Regarding the visibility in the crown of the roads, she would like to see some different design used and possibly four-way stops at those locations where there may be a problem. Chairman McNiel requested clarification of access easements, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the developer has attempted to acquire emergency access easements across the Flood Control property but have been told no unless the City wants to take responsibility and liability for that access. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that though economics' are important to the developer, but the money needs to be spent now and not later; for a direct, positive exit from this project to the east. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - March 9, 1988 Chairman McNiel questioned if the south side of Hillside 'Channel was developed" Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes and no, the property immediately south of this >proposal and west of the easterly property line of this tract is currently being developed, but southeast of this project is vacant and no formal application for development has been submitted. Commissioner Chi i ea questioned why the City would have to accept liability for the access and why not the homeowners association? arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated this is 'a requirement of the Flood Control District. Commissioner Emerick stated here is a condition in the resolution that requires the developer to design a cul-de-sac at the southeast comer of the tract with both a turnaround and an access to the property to the east as approved by the City Engineer. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the matter before the Commission tonight is the extension of the map. The Flood Control District east of this map is the key if emergency access to the east is required at this time. Without Flood Control cooperation emegency access to the east may not be possible`. Chairman McNiel stated the Flood Control people are not going to grant an easement without the liability transfer. Brad Buller, City planner, added if access is required, Flood Control might be more likely to grant easement across their property if the request was only for the southern tip of their property. If an access easement is required from the north to south along the entire length of the Flood Control property, it can be expected that Flood Control may be a little more reluctant to granting an easement. Commissioner Emerick stated that .it was unfair to expect taxpayers to extend the Cit, 's liability to ensure ingress and egress over County Flood Control land for the benefit of residents who reside' on private gated' streets. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated ,that conditioning the map with offsite improvements' across property owned neither by the developer or the City creates a problem, it is not a valid idea to put a condition: on the map. A problem 'arises, too, when the City acquires through eminent domain an action which is already public land put to a public purpose. This relates to the willingness of the Flood Control District to cooperate. Commissioner Emerick shared the City Attorney's legal concern that 'a private developer' s right to develop his land cannot be conditioned upon the occura ce of events that are outside of his control . Commissioner Emerick stated that Haven would be 'heavily impacted in the event;of any Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - March g, 1988 emergency, fire, flood, or earthquake. He also stated that many of the potential disasters, i .e. fire, flooding, would come from the north and east and therefore was not sure emergency access to the east would be good. solution. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated currently there is no emergency access to the east across the Flood Control land until you get down to Highland. Commissioner Blakesley stated he agreed with Commissioner Emerick and Ralph Hanson that there isn't a way to obtain an access and action should be on the matter presented. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers representative, clarified that when the developer met with the Flood Control District on the easement issue, they asked the Flood Control District what would happen if the developer graded a road across their property to the gravel road along the channel which exists. The Flood Control [District responded; they would not prevent there to do so as long as the developer did not put it in on top of the levees or some other point of danger. They would require the developer o ga te te the access h g_ ss t q that road with some foray of crash.:.gate. Commissioner Chi ti ea raised concern that the Commission might waive public safety for the development of this land, Bob Szolomayer, Cristiano representative, stated the developer has made a formal request to Deer Creek to buy a lot for the purpose of access to the south. He believed access to the south through Deer Creek would be of mutual benefit. They totally denied this request. ' They have triad many 'options. They would more than happy to provide a graded emergency access® Bruce Ann Hahn; questioned what would happen if 'Cristiano sold their property since Cristiano does not build homes Howe would this ;be conditioned? Chairman Mold el stated development of the property would go through the City's Design Review Process. Chairman McNiel reclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick moved approval of the resolution. Commissioner Blake ely seconded the motion. Motion carried by the fallowing vote: AYES. ' COMMISSIONERS: EMERiCK, BLA E E Y, MCNI C NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HCHE Planning Commission Minutes - 1 March g, 1988 Brad ;Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission entertain minute action to direct staff to work with Flood Control to encourage their participation in developing an access to the east. Co i ssi over Tol s toy stated that he felt the tract is a good design but public safety is more important. --carried NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL OF THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR ALTA LOMA PLAZA SHOPPING e ap peal of we, c6fiai ions of approva o a Uniform 1gn rogram imposed by the City Planner for the tenants within the Alta Loma Plaza Shopping Center located atthe southeast corner of '19th Street and Carnelian'' Street. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff is in receipt of a letter withdrawing the appeal . . 5 p.m. - Planning; Commission Recessed= 8:65 p.m. Planning' Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. MULTI-FAMILY SETBACKS WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES K. MINIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS - City Council n a s u Y o review s ze requ�ren s for multi-family dwellings.- Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner C i iea stated she felt it very desirable to bring the setbacks in conformance to the standards elsewhere in the City. The additional setbacks really add to a project. Commissioner Emerick stated the Design Review Committee was looking at an apartment complex and 'i t appeared it be too close to the strut with the units fairly close together which gave it an unpleasant appearance. This is what spawned the Commission to review the setbacks for multi-family land uses. Commissioner Emeriek agreed with Commissioner Chitiea's comments. Commissioner Blakesley stated he felt uncomfortable with :the 22 foot setback on a major arterial strut and felt the setbacks should be consistent with the Development Code. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March g, 1988 r. John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes Management Corp. developers of the Terra vista Project, stated in the original design of the planned communities there were certain considerations, trade-offs, etc. were proposed, Among them were the lesser setbacks in the belief that higher quality architecture, better site planning, enhanced Community amenities offered a balance that would offset the kind of results that would be achieved by the wide setbacks that individual projects have to observe. They would like to see a workshop session to review the setbacks. r. Stephen Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, developers of Victoria Planned Community, stated he supported Mr. elcher''s comments. He stated an arbitrary action to automatically increase the setbacks to conform with the Development Code does not take into consideration the effort that went into developing the Community plan and the benefits that are inherent in the development of a master planned Community. There are significant requirements of the Community plan for developing open space over and above those required anywhere else in the City. Mr. Ford stated that the planned communities have unique design standards and criteria and another approach would be to review a number of things; as each project comes in Commissioner Tolstoy stated that planned communities certainly offer the City a much better product. If there is a planned Community, the trade- off for having a planned Community is allowing some differences from the rest of the City. He felt some of the trade-offs in victoria certainly must be offset by the setback differential. Chairman McNiel: stated the felt there isn't much difference in planned communities. One of the things traded off were 3,000 and 4,000 foot lots because they are not found anywhere else in the City. Also traded off was bq and 700 square . foo dw ellings wet n_ 1 s no t found elsewhere in the city. g Commisioner Blakesley stated he felt that them is too great of a disparity between what the rest of the -City abides by and the planned communities and City should narrow the gap or close it entirely. Commissioner Chitiea stated she felt this was not an arbitrary direction but based on concrete examples that were put in place that are somewhat less than 'successful . The contrast between the vistas, the wide open spaces, and the setbacks for the single-family dwellings along the street are more noticeable when the dense project is pushed right out to the street. There is greater mass, height, and density right up to the street and this has not proved to be successful . Commissioner Chitiea stated there should ;be some relief since the streetscape is important and felt that the planned communities should be brought into conformance. Planning Commission Minutes - 13 March 9, 1988 Commissioner Tdlstoy; stated he was not against making the setbacks wider than what they now are but they should not be like the rest of the City. Commissioner Tol study stated there should be discussion and seeing some ;neighborhoods with certain size houses and certain size lots where them could be readjustment. He did not agree that they should be like the rest of the City'. Chairman McNiel stated they need to be reviewed and there should be a visual review of the planned communities. Commissioner Tolstay stated he felt the architecture s equal or even better outside the planned communities. Mr. Melcher suggested as since it was a Terra Vista project that brought this matter to the Commission, he would like to offer to bring that project to Design Review for further discussion. He would also bring along a summary with illustrations of what has been done to date. This should be done in the same manner as the architectural workshop. Mr. elcher stated they, too, would, like to arrive at a number for the setbacks. Chairman McNiel suggested a group tour to review' some of the projects would be beneficial .. he also suggested a visual review of the minimum unit size formulti-family dwellings be done at the same time. The Planning Commission agreed to set Sunday, April 10, 1988 10:00 a.m. for their tour on multi-family setbacks within planned communities and the minimum unit size for multi-family dwellings. K. MINIMUM SNIT SIZE FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS - City Council ni a e s u o irevaew e s e req i men s for multi-family dwellings. Brad +Buller, City Planner, stated since the tour for the multifamily setbacks within planned communities and the minimum unit size for multi- family dwellings will be combined, staff will not continue to hold up consideration of the lot size issue and will bring back a report on the lot size to the Commission without the unit size for multi-family dwellings. r. Melcher pointed out that the staff report states that staff intends to develop the information and bring the issue back to the Commission on April' 13, 1988. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated the report, due to the tour on April 1. , 1988, would not be brought back on April 1 , 1988. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the report on the lot size would be brought back on April 1 , 1988 Planning Commission Minutes - 14 - March 9, 1988 L. COMMUNITY TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that Sapphire is programmed, this year and the rest next year. part The Commission was in agreement with the trail improvement priorities. M. 1987 DESIGN AWARD PROGRAM Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, ,presented a oral report. The Commission received the information and suggested that the awards be "1988 Awards for 19$7 Projects". COMMISSION BUSINE �I There was no further Commission business. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNKENT Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tol'stoy, seconded by Co issipn workshop Rlaesley, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the to discus Winery Hill Project. at Design Review Committee meeting on Thursday, March 17, 1988 at 6:00 pair. 9:46 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 1 March g, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 24, 1988 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry McNiel , Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: David Blakesley STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner; Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner; Russell Maguire, City Engineer; Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; and Kelly Orta, Senior Office Assistant. ANNOUNCEMENTS Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that Brad Buller, City Planner and Russ Maguire, City Engineer are attending a Victoria ACTIVE meeting and may be attending this meeting later. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that staff received a letter of continuance for Item L, Tract 12332, Cristiano Company. He stated that it might be appropriate to move Item L to the first public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to approve the minutes of January 27, 1988 as modified. Moved ft,,, ' ssioner Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried to approve the min, February 10, 1988 as modified. Chairman McNiel abstained from voting as he was not present at that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -1- February 24, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS L. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - CRISTIANO - A custom lot residential subdiv s on ` on, approximately 85 acres of land in the Very Lew Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of the Hillside Drainage Channel - APN: 01 1 1- 4. (Continued from January 27, 1988) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Commissioner Chitiea droved to continue this item to the March 9, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote; YES. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, OHITIEA, E ERICK, MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY - carried CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RELATIVE TO SETBACK REDUCTIONS FOR re que's o reduce the requi're oo an some se ac o feet along Arrow Route and the required '45 foot landscape setback to 35 feet along Vineyard Avenue for approved.. Tract 11734 consisting of 98 townhouses on 8.5 acres of land in the 'Medium Residential District 8-14 dwelling' units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue w APN: 07-19 -01 through 98. B. RESOLUTIONS OF DENIAL RELATIVE TO THE GUEST PARKING SPACE REDUCTION request o re uce thi require goes par Ong spaces' to 20 parking spaces for approved Tract 11734 consisting of 98 townhouses on 8.5 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 07-19 -01 through 98. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-60 - BARTON - e eve o men o in us r a ui ings totaling 125,260 square feet on 8.43 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the west side of Red Oak Street, between Jersey Boulevard and Edison Court - AP : ` 09-14 - 4. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 24, 1988 Chairman cNiel opened it up to the Commission and public if anyone wished to address the items on the Consent Calendar. Hearing none, Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Consent Calendar, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * --carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. MODIFICATION To CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 9537, PARCEL MAP____997T__AND DR -MESSENGER- - _re_qu�es -to-mo�iy tW CUnUftions __o p pro-V-aTFe-q_ufri—n9---We undergrounding of utilities along 9th Street for the development of an Industrial park and related Parcel Maps in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) located on the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street - APN- 209-012-17, 20 & 21. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Scott Peotter. Messenger Investment Company, presented background on the project asp,: r.a reaons for their request of modication. Chairman Mc Niel questioned that Messenger had not included Parcel 1, Scott Peotter stated that they had not because the map was not recorded in time. He stated that in their efforts to the get the map recorded as quickly as possible, some of these conditions were overlooked. He stated that at the time of discussion on the parcel map there was a condition recommended for underg roue ding the Vineyard overhead lines and tie the, same condition to the first occupancy permit on either parcel . However, the Planning Commission decided to tie that back to Phase III development or Parcel 1. He stated that they are not arguing that it should be undergrounded. Chairman Mc Niel closed the public hearing. Chairman cNiel questioned as to the chronology of this. He questioned how Parcel 1 is affected and if the applilcant is being required to underground Parcel 1. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that that was correct and referred to Page D-12 of the staff report. He stated that the first parcel map, 'i'Darcel Map 9537, was processed and it created Parcel 1 and 2. He stated that he was not aware of the ownership situation as Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 24, 1988 explained by the applicant. He stated that he assumed that Messenger owned both parcels and the " Not A Part" parcel. He stated that that was still his understanding that they owned that. He Mated that Engineering recommended a condition to underground' the whole frontage at one time. He stated that the reasons were: 1) spread the cost to both parcels, ) it would clean up the entire frontage at one time, and l that the Parcel 1 future developer would complain' of the corner hardship. Commissioner Emerick questioned that before Parcels 1 and 2 were split up by Parcel Map 97, if they were, under one ownership. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated ;yes. Commissioner Emerick stated since there was one owner when Panel Map 97 was approved, he supported the condition of undergrounding the entire frontage. Chairman McNiel stated that he agreed <except that he did not know if there is anything within the Commission's poorer to change or to encumber a reasonable percentage to Parcel 1 and the balance to Parcel 2 to make it at least equitable to the two property owners. He questioned if Parcel 1 is going through the process now. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, affirmed that it is. Chairman McNiel stated that the conditions already exist on Parcel 1» Ralph; Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that when the original split occurred, 'whoever built first, 1 or 2, was required to comply with the condition of approval, He stated that as it turned out with the development review and subsequent parcel map, development of Parcel 2 is 1 coming first. He stated that same condition was placed on the subsequent action. He stated it is the same condition on all three actions. Commissioner Chitiea asked why was Vineyard not included in the requirement for undergrounding Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the Commission deleted � Vineyard. Commissioner C itiea stated that she is trying to determine if the Commission is asking Parcel 1 to be burdened with essentially all of it. Barre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated no. He stated that the question is if Parcel 2; should still be burdened with the portion of Ninth Street fronting Parcel 1. He stated if the Commission relieved the applicant of that then Parcel '1 will have to do both Ninth Street :and Vineyard. I Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 24, 198 Commission Chi ti ea stated that if Parcel 1 came first then they would have to do it. Barrye Hanson,; Senior Civil Engineer, stated that they would have had to do the other except that Engineering had good information that it was not going to ' o that way. He stated that was why the intent was to spread the cost to the big parcel which should be reflected as put of the financial arrangements in the selling price. Commissioner Emeric±k stated that when both parties entered into their escrow they should have been aware of what the conditions of the parcel map approval were and should have taken+ that contingency into effect as far as reimbursement. He stated that at one time is was one parcel and then apparently the owner sold Parcel 2 to Messenger. Commissioner Emerick stated they should have looked at the parcel map condition and grade an arrangement for some kind of reimbursement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. He stated that he does not see it being a City mistake in that the Commission did not notify the 'owner and say that the first parcel that develops has to underground the 'entire thing. Chairman McNiel stated that there seems to be an inequity, but it seems than it is an inequity that is not the Ei ty's making or responsibility.. He, stated that it is something that Messenger will have to negotiate with the party from which they bought the property. ' Chairman McNielre-opened the public hearing for Messenger's sponse. Scott Peotter, Messenger Investment Company, stated that all Messenger is asking is to amend the condition that was put on previ souly so it reflected that each parcel undergrounds its frontage and he stated that he still , based on the way he understands documentation, presumes that he would still be eligible for full reimbursement from the property owner when he developed his property. Chairman McNiel questioned Scott Peotter if was in the process right now. Scott Peotter stated yes. He has a building that he would like to get an occupancy permit for, which he cannot until it has been undergrounded. He Mated that he does not have the time or money to be able to afford to get it in a timely manner for an occupancy permit. . Peotter stated that the parcel map that divided the two parcels originally with the first requirement, then the development review came in which took Parcel 2 and the same requirement that we had undergrounded in front of Parcel 1 when they <got an occupancy permit for their buildings on Ninth Street. he stated that then they came in with another parcel map than divided Parcel 2 into 3 parcels 'which was a problem they had with their lender as far as why they came in with an additional parcel map. He stated that here a development review and second parcel map came in which had no relationship to _Parcel 1, yet they were conditioned to underground in front of Parcel 1 He stated Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 24, 1988 that technically if those things were looked at individually on their own, without regards to the previous parcel map, it should not have dealt with it. Chairman McNiel stated that when the lot was split, it should have been handled at that time. The lot was split and it was net handled and now the Commission is being asked to undo whatever inequity exists as a result of that being missed. Ralph Hansen, Deputy City ,Attorney, questioned if there was any mechanism for reimbursement between Parcel 2 and 1 that publicly exist or through the Engineering Department. 5arr, e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated yes. They regularly allow developers to enter' into reimbursement agreements. This usually deals with the development across the street, but this could be done in this particular case. The one item he wanted to caution the Commission on is if the Commission does that, then you have lost the spreading capability which was the initial intention here. He did not know if it would be full reimbursement or how it would be viewed. He stated that was the one important reason for requiring it. If the Commission is going to grant the reimbursement, then it perhaps would make as much sense to Just defer the undergrounding. Commissioner Emerick stated that it was figured that by looking at the acreages that it would be unfair for Parcel 1 to underground 51 feet on Ninth and at the same time, underground on Vineyard. arre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated yes. Scott Peoter, Messenger Investment, suggested that the Commission does not forget that this is a corner parcel , so theoritial ly` it is more valuable. Chairman Mc Niel re-closed the ;public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it makes sense when the original owner divided it into 2 parcels. Unfortunately, at that ti , two new buyers came `i n and acquired Parcel 1 and , different buyers at this point. e stated that he would like to see if the Commission could work out some kind of a reimbursement such as have Parcel 2 do all of the under grounding ,at this point, with a provision for a reimbursement when Parcel 1 is developed. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that she would like to leave things alone. The mistake that was made was not of the' City's doing. They ought to be able to work out something between them privately.' She pointed out that the Commission might be put in the position` of interfering with prior dontractural and financial arrangements. Chairman Mc Niel questioned Harrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, if there was a mechanism for reimbursements already. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 24, 1988 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the condition does not say it. That could be a modification that the Commission could make. He Mated that it was probably better that the Commission does do that. It was the intention with this condition not to do that, not to get a full reimbursement from Parcel 1. Some type of equitable reimbursement would make sense. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would be in favor of a modification of that type. Chairman McNiel Mated that he would also be in favor of a modification. He questioned whether it would take some time to prat together some conditions accordingly* Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that resolutions would be required for each of the two panel maps and the development review. The Commission's motion would be to direct staff prepare resolutions. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that the intent of the original condition was to spread the cost on the basis of acreage. If the reimbursement comes in, the intent would not have been met. If the Commission's intention is to say no, Commission should grant the � applicant's request rather than through reimbursement. If the Commission disagrees with the original intention,. the _Commission show gram a request for them partially. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the applicant wants; a partial reimbursement. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if it would be done on the basis of acreage. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he would have to look at the numbers and see. ' It would be something like that to spread it evenly between the two. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner questioned whether the property owner of Parcel 1 was notified of the appellant's request. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he did not know. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, 'questioned if that would have to be done before there was a; modification of the condition that affects their parcel . Barry Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer;, stated yes. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission could either move to deny or defer until contact has been made with the other property owner. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chi ti ea moved to continue this item to March 9, 1988 and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and to contact the property owner of Parcel 1. Commissioner Emerick seceded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL DOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * -carried Scott Peotter, Messenger Investments, stated that the condition reads that first occupancy, either ' Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. He goesti fined if Parcel 1 were to go for a occupancy permit first, they would have to pay for his undergrounding. He stated that then the intention would not fulfilled if it is to be divided to the majority of the acreage. He does not think that the condition was written to extend it over the entire property, but more timing vise to clean up the whole sheet at once. Chairman Mc Niel concurred. He stated that what the Commission has done is to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial . Rarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, will investigate the conditions of the sale and find what kind of burden the other property is involved, since that owner is not present. Scott Peotter stated that was reasonable. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HH-Oo - CALVARY CHAPEL - A request to es a as a c urc 6fra i6a saaay- saw in a leased space of 1,280 square feet within an existing business park on 4.92 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) located at the south side of 7th Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 09- 11- 36 and 4 * Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff 'report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Nick Hara, 3419 Del Norte Street, Ontario, representing Calvary Chapel , stated he was available to answer any questions and concurred with staff report. o questions heard. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 24, 1988 f Commissioner Chitiea moved approval of the resolution as modified. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHIT EA, TOLST Y, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- - WESTERN PROPERTIES development ofa us!Hess par oonsi ing o s u ngs totaling 155,029 square feet on 12.9 acres of land in the Office Park district of the Terra Vista Planned Community located at the northeast corner of Elm Street and Torn Center give - APN: 1077-4 1-06, 077-091-1 . Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, Candace Frank, representing Western Properties, stated that they have reviewed the conditions of approval and accept them, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she felt this project has come a long way and with minor changes that have been requested, it will be an interesting project and she would support it. Chairman McNiel concurred. Commissioner Tol stoy stated that he supported the way the applicant has treated the trail , being part of the major greenway of the Terra Vista Plan. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The notion carried by the following vote': AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLST Y, E ERICK, MCNIEL NOES:` COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY --carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 24, 1988 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-02 ALTIS The-request to estiblish a rop-ractic--cT—inici ease space of 6,037 square feet within a multi-tenant industrial center in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) located at 8628 Utica Avenue APN: 209-142-18. Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Or. William J. Altis, 8628 N. Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, applicant, stated that the rollaway doors were already covered up by the Elks Lodge. He stated that he sees no problem in whitening that in. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved for adoption of the resolution. Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * --carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-04 TWITIONAE- wRraN KAwE - The request__t6-es 51iih a—l'ar-a-te- sch-o-o-F—in a__1 ease space o-f 3,840 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial center in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) located at 9057 Arrow Route - APN: 209-012-19. Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the Foothill Fire District was still evlauating the project and that a condition was added to require compliance with Fire Department regulations prior to occupany. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Fred Burke, 8324 Vineyard, No. E, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions and concurred with the staff report. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes _10- February 24, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL, EMERIC NOES. CO ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY -carried 8:05 P.M. - Commission Recessed : 5 P.M. - Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 88- proposa o amen e_Wctbriia C5ffiffiunity an e require a Conditional Use Permit for shopping centers and certain commercial uses. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT propoa o amend the Terra s o ' un an ex o require a Conditional Use Permit for shopping centers and certain commercial uses Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Candace Frank, representing Lewis `Homes, stated that this amendment is the first amendment to the Terra Vista Planned Community initiated by the City. They support the goals the amendment is seeking to achieve. They welcome the additional scrutiny of their projects that the process will provide. They recommend the amendment be adopted:' Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she supported this amendment. She thinks that it offers better protection to the residents of the planned communities and the City;as a'whole. She is glad it has been brought to the Commission's attention and it is bung expedited. Chairman McNiel agreed that it is a good move. Commissioner Tolstoy supported what has been said, but wanted to add one thing. He stated that he felt anytime there is a commercial endeavor, it is essential to have public input, which this Ordinance will see that that occurs. Commissioner Chitiea moved to adopt the Resolution for Item I and forward the Ordinance to City Council for adoption. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. ' The motion was carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 24, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TULSTOY, EMERICK, MCNI L NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: RLAKESLEY Commissioner Tolst y moved to adopt the Resolution for Item d and forward the ordinance to City Council for adoption. Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, E ERICK NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BLAKESLEY Chairman McNiel Mated that he had heard that someone had received a response from William Lyon and they support this as well . --carried K. STREET NAME CHANGES FOR TERRA VISTA PARKWAY AND ELM AVENUE A propsa o aiiij6itie Terra Westan errs ista Parkway East and to designate West' Elm Avenue for a major arterial and a collector sheet respectively within the Terra Vista Planned Co b n i ty F. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed, ` Commissioner Tolstay stated that he supports the name change because of the importance of being able to identity exactly where you are, but is wondering if that is enough of a change i "Terra Vista Parkway West" and. "Terra Vista Parkway East". He was concerned that in an emergency "East" and "West" might he lost. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission would not be setting a precedent with respect to West and East, every community has a north, south, east and wrest streets. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they do not usually intersect the same street twice. He stated that it might be better to call it "West Terra Vista Parkway", rather than "Terra Vista Parkway Vilest" Commissioner Chitiea stated that she felt that would make more sense. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that is the system used in Victoria on their loop streets.. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea suggested the same for East Elm because someone could drop the West' from'Elm. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the reason that was not done on that stretch was because it does generally run in a east-west direction, but when it hits Church Street, it is basically running south. If the Commission was going to change it, maybe the nacre should be changed completely. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would not like to see the Commission alter the theme of Terra Vista Parkway. He did not think West and East Terra Vista Parkway would violate that. He stated in the case of Elm Street, there should be two different names. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing. I Candace Frank, Lewis Homes, stated that it made sense to them that El Avenue at Foothill remain Elm Avenue, because if you make it East Elm, you will be driving north on Elm, cross Foothill , and. ,you will be on East Elm. She felt that would be too confusing for people. She stated that they discussed it with City staff and that was the suggestion they came up with. Chairman McNi el questioned if Elm runs below Foothill as well . Candace Funk stated that yes it does. That was why they did not want to change it to West Elm and East Elm. They felt it was important to have the cointinuity at Foothill . They felt that designating the street as Nest Elm Avenue, the west would not get lost. As far as Terra Vista Parkway, it was suggested Terra Vista Parkway East and West. Terra Vista Parkway West is currently constructed, Terra Vista Parkway East is not. She stated there 'will ' be no addresses on either street except there are currently addresses on Terra Vista Parkway west that are apartments. She would assume that from the start, everyone' living east of Milliken, if they lived on Terra Vista Parkway East', would know that is that name with no confusion. She believed the preferred designation was Terra Vista Parkway East and Nest, but they would be willing to work with that. She stated that she felt it was very important that Elm Street remain that at Foothill:. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she still agrees with Commissioner Tolstoy that west needs to precede it. She stated that as far as keeping Elm at Foothill , that is reasonable. Chairman McNiel stated that the proposal he would support would be prefix Vista Parkway with East and West and to leave Elm Street and Vies treet Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution as modified. Commissioner Tdltor seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TDLSTDY, MCNIEL, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * --carried NEW BUSINESS M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-5 e eve oilmen o 1ve r n user a 'ri buti on buildings totaling 42 ,827 square feet on 22 ages of land in the; General Industrial District (Subarea 1 ) located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue' APN: 229-26 -1D through 1 . Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing Lee Redmond, with O'Donnell , Armstrong, Brigham, representing the j applicant,, stated they concur with the staff report, Y Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chi tied moved to approve: the resolution. Co i ssi over Tolstoy seconded the motion. The notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BL SLEY * --carried N. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 8 -C PRATHER - An appeal of s a s K sin t-o-deny-the removal of three Eucalyptus trees at the rear of a single family home within the Very Low Residential District 2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9200 Golden APN: 1052-2219. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, ,presented the staff report, Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 24, 1988 i Otto; Kroutil , deputy City Planner, stated that the the applicant had indicated they were willing to replace the trees with another type of tree. Chairman McNiel questioned whether there was an appropriate tree to relieve their problem. Otto Kroutil , Deputy it Planner, stated that in his discussions with the applicant, they were willing to replace them with virtually any tree the City wanted. He stated that there is another kind of Eucalyptus that is used for replacement windrows, Eucalyptus Maculata, that could be planted in its place. He stated that staff looks at this more as a precedent setting discussion, than specifically what to do with these trees. It would be helpful to know what the Commission feels about existing trees in these circumstances. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jim Prather, 64 lus n, Alta Loma, applicant', stated he had just received.. a copy of material Commission has received. There was one letter left out and pictures of damage that has been done to the house since all of this has taken place that he would like to distribute to Commission. He stated that in the last wind storm they had, there was ;damage that occurred to the neighboring house where a branch flew in took off the edge of the drain and roofing. Also, there is a block wall that is laying down where a tree started this and this last wind storm finished it off and blew it over. The house' that is under construction at this time had received damage from the wind storms during construction from limbs coming down there. The major and most important thing to him is his children. He is concerned with their safety playing out in the backyard. They are putting in a- swimming pool , volleyball , etc. The existing trees 'do pose a `hazard because of their height;. 1t is a safety matter that he is very concerned about. David tong, 13021 Vista Street, Etiwanda, developer of Tract 9484, which this lot is a part o , stated that when they originally did the subdivision, they took out almost 200 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and left as many as they could. Unfortunately, they found out they had aproblem with the trees and had them all topped at 40 feet at that time. They also had them topped three years ago to 40 feet. He stated that the new branches grow out very rapidly and break off and they have also had trees come down. He stated that he is under the obligation to report to any one he sells a home if there is a problem with the property such as flood, etc. He has to declare that and he does that `with each owner. He leaves the option up to them whether they want them to take the trees down. Anyone that has ` wanted the trees down, they haven't had any problem in the past taking them down. The City has issued them the permits ,,e them down. They have had damage to the house that they are unc(m° . struction with now. He stated that the pictures that the Commission are looking at shove the tree that came down next door and it took off the west cave of the house, hit the wall , and with the last Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 24, 1988 wind storm, knocked the wall down He wanted to make it public record that he disclosed that. He does not want the liability for it i someone comes back, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission is dealing with 1) an issue of these specific trees that most represent some hazard and ) overall issue of aallowing staff some flexibility of staff to make some decisions in regards to the Tree Ordinance so that similar si tatui urns would not have to come back before the Commission. Commission Tolstoy stated that from the pictures, the Blue Cum Eucalyptus trees are over-mature trees. They are past their useful life. He stated that when those trees are 'i n a grove as a windbreak, they get irrigated for long periods with the grove, for 8 or 9 hours every 21 ;days. Since they are no longer located within a grove and irrigated, they are going to be under stress and the Eucalyptus Borer Beetle will be by very soon. He suggested that when this occurs, staff should make note that the trees are over mature and not being irrigated and should be taken down and replaced with a more suitable tree for a neighborhood. He also stated topping of Eucalyptus trees, which he has noticed a' number of developers have done this at the direction of the City is not a good practice and the result has not turned out to be very good. Chairman Mc Niel stated that topping does one of two things, either sends h h r : brut or it kills the tree. u he hoots that ore. eat 1e p t s Commissioner Tolstoy concurred and stated that his suggestion for replacement is in order. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. The extensive arborist's report that the Commission has received regarding the Eucalyptus in the City would fiend to support all of this information. These trees are at a risk point and will continue to be. The probability of their being saved or living much longer does not probably exist and the opportunity to replace these trees with something that is more suitable would be appropriate. She stated that when the Commission has the opportunity to replace them and to halt this hazardous situation, the Commission should do this before there is any further damage.: At the same time, a new windrow can get started ;so that it actually functions in a; manner it in which it was originally designed. Commissioner Emerick stated that some dead branches do not necessarily mean the tree is unhealthy. That seemed to be at odds with what taf ' s finding was that the trees are in 'healthy condition. He stated that at the same time he did want to stand in the way of people who are trying to protect their property and children from the vicious winds that we in the City have. He feels that everyone is very sensitive to what wind can do. He stated that in this particular case, the Commission has Planning Commission Minutes -1b® February 24, 198 I evidence that the trees have caused damage. He stated that he is favor of them coming down. At the same time, he did ` not want staff to be handcuffed with respect to approaching people and suggesting that trees be pruned, selectively or thinned as opposed to topped or taken out altogether in certain situation. He stated that'he felt review should still be on .a case-by-case basis and that staff ;has to exercise judgement. He stated that if there is doubt, it should be deeded to let the tree stand because once the tree is taken down, you cannot put it back up again. If the tree remains per staff decision, the applicant can come to the Commission, appeal it, and then the Commission can take a second look at it. He stated that in this particular case, he is in favor of the gees coming down. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing. Chairman McNiel questioned Mr. [lave Long as to how many trees still remain along the tracts ;property lines. Dave Long stated 8 or g can four lots. Chairman McNiel questioned '°�f thre e of those os trees are behind Mr. Prather's property. Dave long stated yes. Chairman McNiel questioned if he would be adverse to take them all down. Dave Long stated no. Chairman mi..N i el questioned if he would be adverse to replacing the windrow with lo-gallon trees. Otto kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stated that if they wanted to go by the Tree Ordinance, planting would be H feet on center. Irrigation would also be required. Dave Long stated that he would like to do that as he develops the house. =Chairman McNiel stated he was; concerned about redeveloping the windrow, so that there is reasonable windrow and the houses that are already constructed and have the trees gone. Chairman McNiel' stated that the developer has four more lots to go and the one the' Commission is dealing with right now which makes five of eight. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated this is one of the four lots, the developer has three left to build. Chairman McNiel stated that he was not sure if he was in concurrence with not ng staff some more flexibility. He stated that he felt there are to when judgement can be used and there is a replacement statute in the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 24, 1988 a Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, stat ed that staff if. s not nece ssarily asking that the Ordinance be redone as a result of anything that comes up tonight, just to have a sense that staff has some flexibility in similar situations. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it seems to him that the Eucalyptus tree that is traditionally used as a windbreak for the citrus farmer has outlived its use in the change from citrus to housing. He stated that he thinks it is a good idea that this type of tree e to be removed and a more appropriate tree put in its place. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy. Otto Kroutil , Deputy City planner, stated that staff would like some direction as to the number of replacement trees. Chairman Mc Niel stated 2U trees, or eight feet on center. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she felt this would be appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the appeal . Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL, EMERICK NOES:: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA E'SLEY --carried. 0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-45 - MODIFICATION - COOPER A request to mo i y a con ion o approve requirn e pay nt of an in-lieu fee for the future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. along' Beryl Street for a proposed medical office building at the southwest corner of Base' Line Road and Beryl Street APN 0 - 59 - 0. Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Joel Cooper, 4091 Riverside Drive, ; Chino, applicant, reviewed his request for the reconsideration of the undergrounding of utilities as stated in the letter' included in the staff report. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing® Commissioner Emerick stated previous requests on other projects for reconsideration of the undergrounding requirement have been denied. He Planning Commission Minutes 18 February 24, 1988 felt that Base Line is a short frontage and there should be a requirement for that and did not support relief on the short side of the property, Commissioner Tolstoy stated extensive deliberation at the public hearing in October was heard and someone had stated at that time that the line did not go the full length of the property. This was clarified per Engineering. The decision in approving this was conditioning this on something less than ghat actually exists. Commissioner Tolstdy felt that; the possibility of getting the Beryl Street line u+ndergrounded would not be very good because the other side of the street is already developed. He felt that Base Line is the most important street to get undergrouhded and concurred with the staff report. j Commissioner Chitiea stated perhaps a compromise position could be reached. The Commission attempted to give relief In the beginning recognizing this is a very high quality project on an unusual property situation. But to maintain the attempt to get as much undergrounding as possible is important, arrye Hanson, Senior Emil Engineer, stated that in-lieu fees paid by developers have to be applied to that location; they cannot be moved up or down the street or go to mother location. The decision would have to be made to earmark the fees for one side or the other. Commissioner Chitiea stated she felt Base Line is more critical than Beryl . She suggested that the undergrpunding be required on Base Line and extend south on Beryl partway for an overall_;total one half' of the linear foo a Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. r. Cooper stated this same parameter, even on another corner of a lot that ;was squared off, would give over q � e an acre in square foots which g q .. g would reduce the cost on a per acre basis from a $ , 0 - $80, 00 per acre to a $35,000 per acre. This is a one-half acre project. Chairman McNiel questioned Engineeringwrhat th e overall footage o h n this s project around 'front B i 9 Base Line and 'a Beryl . Barry`e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated 321 feet for Beryl and 14 feet for Base Line from he center of street calculation for a total o 445 feet. Chairman McNiel stated this is a substantial 35 percent reduction considering the Commission had already given a break in the beginning, Commissioner Telstoy stated that he would prefer to underground Base Line and around the corner for about gB feet and would support this recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes - gFebruary 24, 1988 Commissioner Chi tied moved to approve Item 0 as modified, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Chairman McNiel clarified the intent stating the formula is to take the total linear footage, divide by 2, and apply that to Base Line and the balance remaining to Beryl . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, T LSTDY, EMFRICK MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ';NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * --carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-5 - FONTANA STEEL, ( e eve oilmen o an , square foot pT an, an administrative building on 15. 4 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District;, Subarea 15, located at the south side of Arrow Route, east of 1-15 - APN: 9-11- 5. f Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing* r, Raul Tooner, representative of the applicant, Krcco Engineering, stated they are in concurrence with the conditions set forth in the staff report. Chairman McNiel questioned if the material was originally seen by the Design Review Committee. Greg Gage stated that the Design Review Committee recommended it be altered because it was unhappy with the symmetry in appearance with that material . Accordingly, the material shown tonight is to show the texture that would he provided, the color brochure is illustrative of the material that is being proposed now. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated this metal building is of unusual design and not what is one might expect of metal buildings* Commissioner Chitie stated she; is pleased with the building. Commissioner Emerick questioned the landscape plans. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, clarified the types of trees that are being used to provide a canopy to shade the pavement per code requirements. There is a row of existing pine trees across the entire frontage that is going to remain. Planning Commission Minutes -20- February 24, 1988 ICI Greg Gage stated that one of the conditions of the resolution is to supply evergreen plantings on the eastern and western boundaries. Commissioner Chi ti ea mowed to approve Item P, Commissioner °Tol stay seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote; ,AYES': COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, TCLS CY, E ERIC , MCNIEL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY * carried DIRECTOR'S REPOTS Q. EDISON TRANSFORMERS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a slide presentation regarding the padmounted type transformers'. Bill Silva, Deputy Civil Engineer, stated these transformers would be put into public utility easements that would be 'outside the limits of the right-of-way. These would` be required to be placed further from the curb 'where there would be space who're they could be screened. Cheryl Karnes, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, introduced other reps r-1—Lives for Southern California to answer concerns and questions Manning Commission. Mr. Bill McNeil , Planning Manager, presented background on why Southern California Edison is going to the padmounted transformers versus the underground installations, stating several reasons including erosion problems, corrosion, availability, costs and maintenance for _ � the decision. Screening can be done on an individual basis with' a developer and Edison feels it is necessary for very selective placement preferable along property lines. The policy of going to padmounted transformers will be initiated with new tracts that are being developed. If a problem with an existing underground, or bird transformer arises, they do not anticipate replacing it with a padmounted transformer. Mr. McNeil also presented a slide presentation on padmounted transformers. Chairman McNiel stated he did have objections to;, the padmounted transformers. Since he strongly believes in the undergrounding of utilities to beautify the city, he feels this is a giant step backwards because regardless of how the transformers are sc=reened they are unsightly. Though he understands the reasons why Edison is going to the padmounted transformers, he is highly concerned with the issue and has difficult;:, : _.n pprti ng it. Mr. McNeil stated Edison is willing to work with the Planning Commission and the Planning Department on mitigating the problem trying not to Planning Commission Minutes - 1- February 24, 1988 ai create an adversary position. They are the utility company, but they understand the Planning Commission wants a beautiful city. They want to propose locations in their initial layout and include them in their landscaping plans. Commissioner Chitiea agreed the padmounted transformers are; going against everything the City is trying to do to upgrade the City and prove in a forward direction aesthetically. She stated that one of things that she feels destroys and detracts from the aesthetics of a number of apartment complexes is the placement of utility boxes. They also can destroy the streetscape. Commissioner 'Chitiea suggested that selected placement of the boxes or partial screening is not satisfactory, r. McNeil stated that the grates placed around the transformers are for ventilation purposes. and this cannot be made solid. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned Edison if them is a problem with graffiti on the transformers. r. McNeil stated that in this area typical residential and in apartment type structures, they have not had a serious problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it used to be that lines and poles were placed in the back of the property and now the majority of the lines go in in the street. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what would happen if the 'transformers be ;put in the back of the property. r. McNeil stated that a if a problem ;with the transformer arises, it would take a 200-250 font crane to reach in the back yard to lift it out. Typically they cannot gain access to a back yard. Maintenance or repairing a cable can be very disruptive to the property owner's backyard. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitiea stating this is a step backwards for the City, What happens when there is a small 'lot neighborhood where they is hardly any space between curb and building or zero lotline type situation, where do the transformers go in that situation? Mr. McNeil stated this would be reviewed on a case-by-case situation and continue putting in a bird transformer. They would not put this in to obstruct a driveway or someone's yard* Commissioner Emerick concurred with the other comments of the Commissioners. Commissioner Chitiea started that for consistency sake residents with larger lots and more expensive homes 'would want the sane aesthetic consideration that small 'lots would have. Mr. McNeil stated that Eison's attempt to go back to a more economical and effective system is very difficult. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea stated that better* educating the homeowner as to not only the proper function but the maintenance of the padmounted transformer would help Edison's needs. Chairman Mc Niel stated that :the comments of the Commission ission would be forwarded to the City Council . Commissioner Tolstoy stated the placement of the boxes is never known by the Planning Department until they are put in. If the City does have to inherit the boxes, what provisions could be made to know where they were and try to do some design in screening. r. McNeil stated that.. perhaps Edison could submit the maps directly to the Planning Department or the developer submit them. Cc i s si oner Tol stay stated it is hard to plan ahead for the mitigation of appearance if they don't knew where the boxes will be. r. McNeil stated there probably could be a mechanism put in place to satisfy the concerns. Chairman McNiel questioned Mr. Michael Beard, Customer Service Planner regarding the padmounted transformers and new installations. Mr. Beard; stated it is their goal to install padmounted transformers in new installations, but this would be taken as' a case-by-case, especially in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Edison feels that padmounted transformers are econo °o .: l and they are also looking at the ratepayer, the customer. their preference is a padmounted transformer and it is their direction that in new tracts there will be padmounted transformers. Commissioner Chiiea stated that one of the many reasons that people come to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to live is because many of the utilities are underrounded and this leaves a very pleasing; skyline and stretscape. r. Beard stated they are flexible where the boxes are going to go and the aesthetic value and they appreciate the City`s concerns about this aesthetic value. Cheryl Karnes stated the overall reasons for installing the padmounted transformers is to reduce Edison's costs, the outage time to the customers, and the costs to the ratepayers.' They are trying to hold down the cost of their product to the ratepayers and this is one way they can do it. They would be glad to take to City Council a report on the proposal of padmounted transformers. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission's comments would be forwarded to City Council'. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 24, 1988 R. POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND USE PROVISIONS OF THE Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Scott" Peotter, Project Manager for Messenger Investment Company, stated their project is near the corner of Arrow and Vineyard next to the old Otis Elevator Building and which has rail service. This was the original rail serve building in this subarea. There is no tenant there now and they are trying to locate a tenant in the medium manufacturing base 'which would require 'a Conditional Use Permit and hopefully use the rail service here. Since this is an older facility and does not meet the current planning standards of the City, with a Conditional Use Permit they would incur upgrades from the City increasing the costs and reducing the market available to the builder. The grades within Subarea , especially north of Ninth Street, tend to be difficult to bring the rail service up to them. Chairman i d b hearing.' cN el close the. a lic p Chairman McNiel clarified to the Commission the two issues regarding these modifications: I whether rail service provisions are appropriate for Subarea 2 and ) or if the restriction of uses are appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea stated the rail serve argument has been used in the past. The Commission has seen rail lines ripped out in southern California because planning in the past was influenced by similar assumption of railroad service being on the way out and' curerntly` out of vogue. Removing the rail options is a concern to her; As economy changes and development in the area occurs, there is still flexibility in the area with rail service. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would b shortsighted to scrap rail service. In terms of long-range planning, rail service has been considered, to be appropriate for this area. Because it might not be viable for a particular project is not a strong enough argument to remove it from entire Subarea 2. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with Commissioner Chitiea and saw no reason to change the ability to have the rail service. Commissioner Emerick stated he agreed with Commissioner Chitiea also. Chairman McNiel`' stated he did not want to give things away that could be significant to the City in the future. Chairman 'McNi el stated he felt the area should stay with rail Service, and he saw no need to modify the standards at this time. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 24, 1988 Otto Krouti1 , Deputy City Planner, stated it is now up to Messenger to either make a formal application for an amendment or to explore other options. S. TRAILS COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Discussion was heard regarding modifications regarding the membership of the Trails composition and appointment. Further discussion was heard on appointments and reappointments terms. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that through discussion with the Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission, it was his preference that the appointment be by the Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission. It should be parallel and equal to the Planning Commission appointments. The current Council policy on appointment and reappointments to commissions occurs when there is vacancy invitations for applications are accepted for anyone wanting to be on the commission. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve the resolution as modified, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, E ERICK, CHITIEA', MCNIEL DES: CC SSIDNERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY --carried T. USE DETERMINATION 88-01 PLAXICDN - A request to determine that -the propose use, mane ac uri ng o plastic bottles, be classified as light manufacturing. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned staff when referencing plastics are they ;listing specific plastic products that can be manufactured in a certain designation? Nancy Fong responded it would be a tremendous job to try to list l l the plastic products but they could be categorized. Under light manufacturing, they do not produce or use hazardous materials nor are there odors. They have to fit in the general characteristics of light manufacturing of plastic 'products. Commissioner Tolstoy stated any plastic ' that contains hazardous materials or byproduct should be excluded. Planning Commission Minute's -25- February 24, 1988 Commissioner Chi i ea stated this would be a broader way of controlling the operation. Chairman McNiel Mated here are byproducts or gases that are hazardous but can be controlled under EPA. Commissioner Chitiea stated there is a distinction between toxic and hazardous materials.' Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r. Mark Kinney, one of the managing partners in the building, gave background on the building and stated the difference between light and medium manufacturing as to relatingthe a of whether itproduces use . _ n d noise, hazardous r toy materials Plaicon � �n', h light . , s the 1 t g manufacturingu r definition use e but in the revised guidelines of 1986 p the example of plastic manufacturing was added tomedium manufacturing. Plaicon is a clean, non-hazardous producer and there are no particulates in the air. They do not produce toxic or hazardous material waste, noise vibration, or any characteristics ofmedium/heavy manufacturing. With respect to the 50,000 square foot limitation added in 1986, their` building was 'built in 1983 and permitted as a single tenant building. The guidelines have now been updated and modified after the building was built and this is where the conflict lies. r. Vic Kricco stated the product made is FDA approved; it is P.E.T. resin polyester. Chairman McNiel questioned if Pl axic'on was within EPA standards regarding dust toxic' pollutants' Mr. Kricco stated EPA visits at least once a year and Plaxicon has always been approved. The container produced is for consumer use which is used for all, kinds of food products. It is a very sterile process. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cnitiea stated the proposed use does not fall into a controversial category and would not object to Plaicon's use of this location. Commissioner Emerick stated since it was a' clean operation it would belong in light industrial . Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not see any problems with the use. e stated this building will need` to be modified for the use ;and he expressed concern about the design and location of the proposed' silos. Commissioner Tol stoy questioned if the silos could be integrated with the internal of the building' or gust they be on the outside of the building? Planning Commission Minutes -26- February 24, 1988 i Mr. Kinney stated they had originally thought they would put put the silos in the rear of the building but that would require the removal of the rail 'spur. The rail spur is in an easement, however. The silos need to be rear the rail serve since they have at least one rail delivery per week in which plastic 'i s put in the silos. They would like to put the silos on the side of the building and create a metal screen effect. The silos are 30 feet tall and the building is about 28 feet tall There is a one-stagy industrial project in front of this building which screens the side of the ;building, Brad Buller, City Planner, said the square footage issue is regarding the warehousing and not necessarily the manufacturing. The 50,000 square foot limitation is to help guide the developers in the subarea to know in what subarea they should locate in, light or heavy; industrial . This is an existing building and the 50,000 square foot requirementmay require reevaluation in the future. The square footage is a guide and above or below it would be on a case-by-case basis. The Commission agreed with staff's report regarding this light industrial use for the project. COMMISSIONBUSINESS There was no further Commission Business at this time. PUBLIC COWNTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURWENT Motion: Moved by Commissioner Chitiea, seconded by Commissioner Emerick, unanimously carried, to adjourn' to the March 9, 1988 meeting at 7:00 p.m. , 11:00 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - - February 24, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 10, 1988 Vice Chairman Suzanne Chitiea called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman Chitiea then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner-, Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Barry e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. MMOUNICEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Item F, Lincoln Properties, had been withdrawn by request of the applicant. Following this meeting, Planning Commission would adjourn to the February 16, 1988 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Discussion topics will include the Hazardous Waste Management Plan as presented by the County of San Bernardino and the goals of both the Commission and City Council . CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-39 - FLORES - An appeal of staff's dRision to-d-en-y-56 proposed addition of 230 square feet to an existing non-conforming residential structure within the General Industrial Land Use District (subarea 8), located at 13233 Arrow Highway - APN: 229-171-21. Planning Commission Minutes -I- February 10, 1988 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12420 - MERICKEL DEVELOPMENT - Tli-e eve opmen o sing a am ; y a ace its on 14.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) , located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN. 09-151-04, 05, and 05. Vice Chairman opened the Consent Calendar to the Commission and; public if anyone wished to address the items on the Consent Calendar. Hearing none, Commissioner Emerick movedto approve the Consent Calendar, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERIGK, BLA ESLEY, EHITIEA, TOLS OY NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-048 - WEST goes o amen a enera an an se ap from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential ( 4-80 dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald - APN: 08-0 1-18, 19. (Continued from January 13, 1988) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT -05 - reques o amen' thi DiVelopmen rtts�- Maa-0—from owe a rom (4-8 dwelling units per acre to High Residential ( 4-30 dwelling units per acre attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOO) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue' - A N: 08-0 1-18, 19. (Continued from January 13, 1988) D. ENVIRONMENTAL SESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-04H - WEST RgRff too im—eRa thi EiR Use Element _o_f__thd 'Te_neraT__Man__Trom tow-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald 'Avenue, south of Base Line Road - 'APN. 08-0 1-17, 54, 55, 55 and 57. (Continued from January 13, 1988) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87 06 - WEST ERFINVESTRENTS -_-A reques o' amen a eve1 bpnifit Districts ip fF6m ow- a iU� Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professional for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - APN* 08-0 - 17, 54, 55, 56 and 57. ('Continued from January 13, 1988) Planning Commission Minutes - - February 10, 1988 E. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 87-0 - WEST ENO INVESTMENTS - A Development Agreement a -w—ee thi 1 y 6f WZ66 Cuciifibng and West End Investments for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 17. 0.040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 11) for 170 apartment units to be located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue' - APN: 08-01-1 , 19. (Continued from January 18, 1988) Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff is recommending continuance to the March 23, 1988 meeting by request of the applicant. Staff further recommends due to the many continuances on this project, that this be the final continuance for the project. If further delays should occur, the Commission could deny without prejudice until the applicant has all materials available. Vice Chairman Chi ti a recommended that this be the final extension for the project. Commissioners Blakesley, Tolstoy and Emerick concurred, Commissioner Blakesley moved to continue Items C, 0, and E to the March , 1988 meeting, Commissioner Tol stoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BLAK SLEY, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried F. TENTATIVE TRACT 13227 - LINCOLN PROPERTIES - The total development o acres off-1- n in the e i_um esidential District (8-1 dwelling units per acre) into a single lot residential subdivision for the development of a 212 multi-family complex;, located at the northeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road APN: - 91-4 . Vice Chairman announced that Item F had been withdrawn by request of the applicant. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 8 -19 - BAR AN - A request o re uce the required 55 fo6tan scape se ac o 45 feet on Arrow Route and the required aS foot landscape setback to 35 feet on Vineyard ,Avenue; and, to reduce the required 24 guest parking spaces to 20 parking spaces for approved Tract 1174 consisting of 98 townhouses on 8.5 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units peracre) , located at the northwest corner of 'Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 07-192-1 through 98. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 10, 1988 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. r. Andrew Barmakian stated he wished to reserve his comments until after other people had addressed the Commission. r. Doug Studwell , 881 Autumnhill give, homeowner at Mulberry Place and spokesman for the 'other homeowners, provided pictures for the Commission to review. As spokesman, Mr tudwell stated the homeowners would like to see the variance approved', any expediting the Commission or the Building Department can do to help get the project moving, any relief from back fees that the former company, American Motional , may have ;paid towards development (if it is possible that some of those fees could go towards alleviating some of the present fees to help Mr. Barmakian retiling the roofs) , the roofs damaged by ;wind damage, and any pressure that the Planning Commission or City Building Department can do to bring on Gateway Savings to move the property. They would like to see it developed versus it becoming a slum or place for dumping or any place where crime can take place. Commissioner Tolsto,y questioned Mr. Studwell if there are problems with guest parking. Mr. Studwell stated that there are only four paved spots for 35 cars, there is west parking problems. If there was 24 for gb cars, adding the other 20 sites would help alleviate the problem. Vice Chairman clarified that the request is to leave it at 20 rather than increase to the current standards of 24.; Mr. Studwell stated they would like to see 24. Commissioner Tolstoy stated should the Commission consider the 24 Instead of the 20, adding more parking spaces would reduce the landscaping. r. Studwell stated that parking is more` important. s, Judy Wagers, 8846 Autu nhill Drive, stated that most of the homeowners are not in opposition to changing the variance on the setback. The greenbelt makes` the development more attractive but they are more concerned with the parking. . Phyllis Graff, 8433 Autumnhill' Drive, stated she 'felt the setback should remain as is and it shouldn't be changed. She also indicated she was concerned about the extreme lack of parking spaces and feels there is a `need for 24 parking spaces. She, too, supports the idea of having I the roofs. Commissioner Chitiea questioned staff if increasing the parking: to 24 spaces to meet code would that require the removal of one unit. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 10, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it is likely that if the variance is not granted a unit would be lost. Mr. Clay Raypole, 8827 Autumnhill Drive, presented a layout indicating there is actually h' northwest a t space the ort west corner of the take property two buildings and turn them to gain two spaces. He felt that two spaces would be a compromise, Mr. Andrew Barmakian, applicant, stated that if he turned any buildings one foot there would be a problem ;with the recorded map. The reap for the entire 96 units was approved hack in the early 1980's. if they have to reeve one lot line, this would create a problem. The whole idea is to get the project moving, they have to find the shortest timetable. They have had a very difficult time finding a financial lender to lend money for a construction loan. They found no local lenders locally but found a lender from a Japenese building company to make the loan. Their land acquisition dollars would be provided from them also. They heed to move quickly and it is imperative that they have the buildings built and for sale by June or July of 1988.. They would work with staff with laying out the parking spaces. They used the original plan because it was approved again. If they made any changes, the entire process would start again with Engineering as a new tract map. As far as the parking spaces, Mr. Barmakian believes they can provide the parking spaces requested but he doesn't know if they can meet the new code requirements for guest parking. Ms, Terri Brantly, 8466 Bayberry, stated the majority of the financial problems with ;the project stem from the complex not being built out. She pointed out that when people bought into the complex, they bought in with the idea that all the parking would be provided. She stated she supported the 20 spaces which would be 'adequate for their needs. They would be in support of the variances for parking, s. Wagers stated agreed with Ms. Brantl,y. ice `Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tol sto,y stated he did not have any problems with the setbacks but has a problem with the parking and asked Engineering if it p g g g would be possible to make lot 'line adjustments. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated yes but through an amended map because it is too difficult to keep track of the lot lines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would support the requirement of the 24 parking spaces. Commissioner Emerick stated that perhaps a compromise could be met with 22 spaces versus the 20 or 24 parking spaces,' He would'advocate as many parking spaces as possible. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 10, 1988 Commissioner Blakesley stated he did not have a problem with building the project as it was originally conceived, however, parking is the crucial issue here, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he would recommend staff to work with the applicant and see how many parking spaces they can get. Staff could; analyze hew many space's would be available by moving and not moving buildings and bring back a report to the next meeting for the Commission's action.` Commissioner Chitiea stated that Arrow and Vineyard are special boulevards and the reason for the setbacks is to make the streets more attractive with the streetscape. tinder the circumstances with this being an old tract map, she would ;support the variance on the setbacks, Vice Chairman Chitiea asked Mr, garmakian if he would be agreeable to a two week continuance for the purpose of exploring parking® Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission does not need the applicant's approval for a continuance in this case. In the past', consent of the applicant has generally been with a subdivision map with an extraordinary short time line where action must be taken. On a variance action, there is a minimum of six months and it is within the authority of the Commission to independently continue the item. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the building permits and the Design Review have expired; the only thing on this project is a tract map`. The project must go through the Development Review process. ' Commissioner Emerick stated this confirms his desire to continue the item for two weeks Mr. Carmakian could perhaps solve the parking situation at Design Review. Vice Chairman Chitiea informed Mr. Barmakian that the Commission does not necessarily` have to have his permission to continue this item.' Mr. garmakian stated he talked with his ';financial lender and asked them if he could get a two week continuance from them. He feel s than until he gets a stand on the parking, it is not within their power to give him the extra two weeks. He would rather not give up units to gain parking spaces. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the project would have to come back to Design Review for elevations and design criteria on the whole so it appears there is a lengthy process as to the redesign of the project. Commissioner Blakesley stated he would not favor the parking as written for the 20 spaces. Commissioner Emerick moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving setbacks along 'Arrow and 'Vineyard and a resolution of denial for parking, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried y the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 10, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, 'TQLSTCY, BLAKESLEY, C ITICA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the resolutions would be brought back to the 88 meeting o ' �J / s Consent Calendar items g a --carried H. VARIANCE d -18 - HOME FEDERAL - A request to allow the sign copy to Rzi wor s ny ime Teller" on two ( ) new faces of existing wall signs, located at 9596 Base Line Road. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice 'Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Mr. Curt A. Bauer, 10845 Wheatlands Avenue, Santee, representing the applicant, addressed the issue of design of the sign and stated this is a registered trademark. He pointed out that the sign ordinance states that signs are for ""public convenience"" and gust be "compatible with adjacent land uses" . Mr. Bauer cited examples of other businesses with signs with supporting information on them within the City. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if the sign was visible to traffic. Mr. Bauer response the sign is visible only to west bound traffic and not readable from east bound traffic. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesl'ey stated he would not support the variance for the sign and upholds the sign ordinance of the City. Commissioner Emerick agreed with Commissioner Blakesley. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred stating he did ' not want to set a precedence. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the signs Mr. Bauer referred to were signs that pre-date the sign ordinance and pre-date the incorporation of the City. These are the very signs the Commission is taring to discourage. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated she strongly supports the current sign ordinance of the 'City. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve' the denial of the variance, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote Planning Commission Minutes - - February 10, 188 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TQLSTQY, 'BLAKE LEY, CHITIEA, EMERIC NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL * --carried NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 7-5'9 OELMAR e eveiopmen o an office, ma n 0 ac u—ri nnan researc and development facility totaling 56,923 square feet on 4.88 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Center Avenue APN 10-381-9, 10, 11 and `10 391-16, 17, 18. Chris Wes an, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and advised the Commission of a error on the resolution. Mr. Westman stated that on Condition I under Planning Division, the word " ncomppl eted" should be 'incorporated". Vice`Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Mr. Adrian Young, Vice President of Delmar Enterprises, 8115 Rosebud clarified that the owner of the adjacent parcel is not the same ownership; as the parcel in question. Mr. Young also addressed the request for the dedication stating that it is not consistent with the past development in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Paris. Mr. Young asked for the consideration of consistency. He also addressed the issue of in-lieu fees stating that none of the poles on Fourth Street are coming down* Mr. Young indicated they wuld rather pay the in-lieu fees rather than underground. The basis for the in-lieu fees is for the length of the property being developed from ;property line to property line. The property in question is 250 feet wide, and the center line of the adjacent street, which is Center Avenue, is 25 feet, which is a total of 75 feet. The basis for the reasonableness in allowing in-lieu fees to a developer is less than 300 feet and. not underground adjacent. They are neither 300 feet nor adjacent. He requested the Commission consider the requirement of undergrounoing. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Chitiea clarified there are two issues to be discussed, the undeglrounding condition and the right-of-way width standards;® Commissioner Emerick stated he would support undergrounding and not in lieu fees. He questioned Engineering why they re requiring undergrounding and not the fee since it is under 300 feet. Planning Commission Minutes - - February 10, 1988 Harrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the 300 feet is a suggested length and they felt this is a case where there are similar size lots to the east. The lines would not be undergrounded and Mr. Hanson was under the impression that he was the owner of the property to the east. Mr. Young had indicated he is not the owner of the property. No matter who owns it these are short frontages with no undegrounding. Commissioner Chitiea reminded the Commission that Fourth Street is ;a special boulevard. i Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the Industrial Specific Plan change required that the dedication be increased from 25 to 33 feet. This is the ordinance requirement and it does have the added requirement that it be done ` and the added benefit of a required sidewalk. It allows for placing the sidewalk at the parkway which looks better. This is the standard within the City. Vice Chairman Chitiea clarified that if the Commission were to eliminate this requirement there would be a curb adjacent sidewalk as opposed to one with landscaping or a meandering sidewalk. Commissioner E erick stated he would favor the dedication. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he concurred with the dedication and the unde g ou ding requirement. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated it would be very appropriate to place the sidewalk away from the curb to soften the edge and make it a far more attractive streetscape. She favored keeping the dedication as suggested by staff. Commissioner E erick moved approval of the project, Vice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing for 'information purposes only. r. Mark Kadlec, architect for the project, 9600 Lomita Court, stated that one of the points regarding the curb adjacent sidewalk is consistency and aesthetics development and plans for Lusk Business Park. The aesthetic precedent should be continued within the area. The relief of` landscaping between the sidewalk and buildings should not be reduced. He felt as proposed the project set into 'a more parkl i ke setting, Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Olakesley stated he was strongly in favor of parkways. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he also favored parkways. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 10, 1988 Commissioner Emerick moved approval of the resolution as modified, Commissioner Tol stoy seconded the motion. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: ' EMERICK, TOLSTOY, BLAKESL Y, CHITIEA NOES:< COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL r. Adrian Young questioned if he could address the Commission. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the public hearing was closed. r. Young requested a continuance of the project. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the action of the Commission was final'. In response to Mr. Young's question if a .meandering sidewalk would be allowed, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that a meandering sidewalk would be allowed and be up, to the Commission's` discretion. --carried J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-1 - JUANZEMIS The establishment of 'a retail ass business in an ex ifffig a andon d service station, in the Specialty Commercial District and Activity Center, Area 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 08-1505. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report stating one correction that the property to the east is Archibald Flowers and not iller's Outpost. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. Hearing no comments, Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesl'ey stated he would favor a denial without prejudice. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the reasons this is a denial without prejudice is because it enables somebody to apply for a 'similar use within a year. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated this is similar to a withdrawal . 'Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what the status of the Historic Preservation Commission's determination of the old gas station. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 10, 1988 Fong stated that Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the gas station and has determined not to designate it as a historical landmark. Commissioner Tbl stoyr moved to deny without prejudice, Commissioner lakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TDL TOY, BLAKESLEY. CHITIEA, CMFRI K NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL - carried P.M. Commission Recessed 8:46 P.M. - Commission Reconvened COUNCIL REFERRALS K. MINIMUM LOT SIZE/UNIT SIZE STUDY Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and presented a slide presentation, Mr. Coleman presented several options for Commission discussion. Mr. Stephen Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, commented it has been their position that the other open apace amenities provided in the Master Planned Communities should be taken i n consideration with respect to lot sizes in the planned communities. Mr. 'Ford 'pointed out several exhibits that the Commission had approved. He pointed out the exhibits represent a 3,000 square foot' minimum lot and does create a very pleasing street scene. The exhibits shown land planning relating to the significant open space amenities. Both of the wall lot subdivisions are immediately adjacent to parksites. This was done intentionally to provide' additional benefit' to significant' open space amenity. A zero lot line program was approved in Victoria in the Vineyards area for which no product as been developed at this point and a larger lot Heide shallow lot program, Mr. Ford Mated these have been very well; received` as 'a whole and urged the 'consideration of the standards than already exist in the planned communities and those be taken into account. Regarding the options recommended by staff, he requested consideration on any center lot in the Low-Medium designation, flexibility be allowed in the from setback. Perhaps maintaining a 20 foot requirement for a driveway, the additional parking area would be sufficient. They agree that zero lot line products can be desirable and innovative and create attractive neighborhoods, he urged the Commission to consider center plot houses even though they may be on small lots. Planning Commission Minutes _11- February 10, 1988 r. Ford stated with respect to multi-family minimum unit size, he questioned about senior housing. Some of the smaller sized units can he quite efficient and be smaller than the 65U square feet. Mr. John Melcher, representing Lewis Hones, stated he was in agreement with Mr. ord's comments. Mr, Melchor clarified that the staff's presentation presented that the issue of minimum lot size/unit size is to be taken back to City Council for further directions He extended an invitation to the Commission to visit theirs apartment projects for a complete visual understanding. He felt that the suggested numbers are too great for the apartment market place. r. Richard Fu+ rste n, 9582 Golden Street, Alta Loma, stated over the period of years this has been discussed, there should be consideration about street width and parking, driveway depths, the design of the projects on the overall look., and the amenities offsetting the projects. Commissioner 8lakesley stated he favored the direction that staff has taken. He generally favors the larger units but nice apartments can be even lower than the 650 square feet. Commissioner gla esley stated that the use of alleys so that the; garage can be i n the back should also be considered'. This way ,you see only the house from the street. He approves of the direction of staff can the lot size. Commissioner Crerick stated he did not <like alleys feeling they are a nuisance trying to keep them clean. By increasing the size of the lot, they are affecting the affordability in the market segment. Commissioner Emerick stated he is in favor of increasing the lot size as recommended by staff because of the aesthetics. He stated he also favored option 2 for the innovative lot concept. He favored a lower multi-family standard on the minimum unit size. Commissioner Tol stoy stated the size of the lot impacts the quality of life of the people who are living in the City and it is important to have the quality of life which needs a larger lot and the aesthetics that a larger lot brings to the community. Commissioner Tol stay stated he liked alleys, too, and he feels that with theiCity's sophistication of planning maybe the design of an alley could be presented that doesn't have all the negative aspects of an alley. He 'favored Option -for center plotted housing. Regarding innovative type products he would like to see representative projects with a little more innovation and the City should be flexible enough to allow than Regarding unit size, Commissioner Tolstoy reserved' his opinion after seeing some products. Senior Citizen housing could have some flexibility by a smaller living area. Vice Chairman Chitiea Mated street width and parking availability contribute to the overall feel of the neighborhood and this is something the Commission should consider in the design of a tract. Driveway depths need to be deeper than as have been allowed. Design arrangement and offsite amenities contribute to the overall neighborhood attractiveness significantly. She agreed with staff's suggestion to Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 10, 1988 increase the center plot to the 5,000 square foot minimum with the appearance of density. If there is a larger lot, it might be necessary to put it at the full 45' feet with a little more in the sideyard and in the back. Regarding the innovative product, it can be done and would like to keep it at the higher Option 2. If there is not enough liveable yard space, people just get to close to each ether. Regarding the minimum unit size, Vice Chairman Chities reserved her comments until she, ten, would like to see a product type as suggested by Mr. Melcher. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated an important criteria is the determination of innovation. What is innovative today, if used on a regular basis, no longer becomes innovative. Innovation is a constantly moving criteria, and will be a difficult criteria to evaluate without continual review and anlyis by the Commision and staff. DIRECTORS REPORTS L. STREETSCAPE WALL DESIGN ` GUIDELINES (Continued from January 27, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff is looking for direction from the Commission regarding the streetscape wall landscaping 'design guidelines. Staff recommends an interim policy until such time that staff can proceed with the development of specific streetscape wall designs. The City will be improving streets and working with professionals to get design guidance regarding freeway right-of-way. Commissioner Tol stoy stated it is imperative to have a policy now and as soon as possible address the specific streets. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that an interim policy is a ' way to get things moving in the right direction and getting people to understand what is occurring and what is to be expected. Commissioner Blakesley questioned staff where this will be applied. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it is not a goal to have every street look the same. Quality will be the emphasis. Commissioner Tol stoy stated the sooner this is doge, the less money it will take to g ' back and retrofit. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned Engineering if the current Archibald plan was almost completed. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that the current plan is processing through staff level joint committee and then it will go through Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 10, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when Engineering puts a capital improvements program together, it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission' and that will be the time to 'reviews what is going to be done and when. COWISSION BUSINESS There was discussion regarding the following items; 1 Passible sign ordinance amendment suggested by Vice Chairman Chi ti ea. Review of setbacks and guest parking for multi-family projects in the Planned Communities suggested by Vice Chairman Chitiea. Review the process for shopping centers in the Planned Communities whereas they should be required a Conditional Use Permit as elsewhere in the City requested by Vice Chairman Chitie . 4) Commissioner Cmerick stated he would like an update an the Sphere o Influence. Commissioner Tol stay stated he would like staff to review and study the design of short cul-de-sacs. Commissioner~ Toltoy requested a clarification of purpose, direction and membership of the 'Trails Committee. PlJOLIC, COWENTS There were no further public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner lakesley, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the February 16, 1988 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting at :00 p.m. 9:57 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Depute Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -1 - February 10, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 r e in Re °� January 27, 188 Chairman Larry McNi el called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance* ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry Mci el , ;and Peter Tol stay COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: David Blakesley STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Larry Henderson, Senior Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant planner; Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner; Tom; Grahn, Assistant Planner; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer; Barye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; and wren Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. APPROVAL IN Moved by Commissioner Tot stoy, seconded by Commissioner Chitiea, unanimously carried to approve the minutes of December 9, 1987 as corrected. Moved by Commissioner Chitiea, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy, unanimously carried to approve the minutes of January 13, 1988 as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. B. TRACT 1 444 DESIGN REVIEW - J.P. RHO ES DEVELOPMENT - Design review ofui ang a ova ions —and--detaileds e pan for a Planning Commission Minutes I- January 27, 1988 previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 55 single family lots on 12.5 acres of land in the Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Planned Community located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue .and the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN; 227-011-019 02 and 07; 2 7- 051-01, 08, 09 & 10. C. TIME.: EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 9431 - RRIMAR INDUSTRIES - A division o . ac res' o part- s n ery ow w- i ng units per acre) Development District, located on the east side of Beryl Avenue, south of Hillside Road - APN: 1051- 11-04. Commissioner Chitiea moved approval of Consent Calendar Items B & C, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHI IEA TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL< NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY --carried A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - CRISTI NO - A custom lot FRi'de—ftTal subdiviii5fi bf 1 lots on approxima - y 55 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than two dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Haven Avenue north of the Hillside Drainage Channel - APN: 01-121-24. s. Bruce Ann Hahn;, 5087 Granada Court, Alta Loma, Haven View Estates, expressed safety concerns, specifically the street width. ' .She stated that the two main streets that go through are 32 feet curb-to-curb which is too narrow for parking. She also addressed the problem of poor visibility at certain street intersection on cul-de-sacs going south. She further stated that they are landlocked with hillside Channel to the south and Deer Creek Channel to the east and even though there are two accesses out, they both go out to Haven. If anything were to block Maven where the channel crosses, residents could not get out anywhere. . Hahn stated she had 'talked with the Flood Control District regarding Milliken going through and the possibl ty of an emergency access going out ;the other way. If Milliken were to go through, it would be better than using Haven. Mr. Marc Roy, 5068 Calypso Court, Haven View Estates, reed a letter addressed to Mayor 'Dennis .Stout with reference to the November 10, 1987 Planning Commission meeting regarding this tract. The letter stated the concerns of the residents retaining and preserving the lifestyle of Haven View Estates. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 27, 1988 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there is no solid timing on the extension of Milliken since this is dependent on the disposition of the land on the other side of the side of the channel . Nothing has been proposed at this time. The idea of making an access available would probably -take the removal of a lot; on this tract and this would be a new condition of approval . Since this project was not: advertised as a public hearing, the establishment of conditions of approval could not be done now. Regarding the 32 foot'street width, it was approved at the time and considered adequate. If it was a public street,; it would be posted for no parking but since this is a private development, they will have to police the parking. If there is no parking along that street, there shouldn'"t be a problem. The 'streets were raised to prevent drainage from going down the small streets and to direct the water to a designated location. It would be very disruptive to widen the existing streets and take those high points out. Commissioner Emerick questioned if these were private ;or public ;streets and would the City be going back in and be retrofitting private streets. Chairman MNiel clarified these ;are private streets and this is an extension of an existing' street. Commissioner Emeri ck staged since this would then create two different street widths 'would` this creme an awkward transition. Rarrye Hanson,; Senior Civil Engineer, stated the main street is 32 feet and probably would be continued on the next tract.. The real problem area: would be on the looping streets which have front-on lots and there will probably be parking there. The rest are side-on lots where the possibility of parking is reduced. It would be a new condition of approval to require the wider streets. Commissioner Emerick stated due to the size of the lots the residents have long driveways, so there is :very little street parking. The need for street parking in a tract such as this is so much less than the traditional subdivision., Commissioner Tot stoy stated there should be more than one access point out of the tract. Mr. Phil Douglas, Civil Engineer for Cristiano, stated as far as the access when the tract was conditioned upon approval , there was a condition made that another additional access be allowed for to the east of the flood control property. This is easterly of the tract but westerly of the existing channel in the event that the flood control decided to give up the property and make it available for development. At one time, the flood control district was going to give up the property for development but the developer has not contacted them within the last year. The easement` would be in the area of the small cul-de- sac that is in the southeast corner of the tract. The 1 ots would be reconfigured and the access would be extended to the east line of the Planning Commission Minutes - _ January 27, 1988 tract. In the event that the upper corner also developed a secondary access to the east could happen in that corner -adjacent to the triangular piece of property. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what is directly east of the tract and how far away is the flood control district property? r. Douglas responded it is a strip of land that is owned by the flood control district. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that with the vacant piece of land to the east belongings to the flood control district, and if the flood control district deemed it possible to let it go, where would the access go? r. Douglas responded the access would have to be conditioned to be from this tract; it would go to the' easterly extension of the existing tentative tract and go to whatever was designed in the next development. It would have to go across the channel . Commissioner Tolstoy started it was unrealistic, moneywise, for such a small parcel . The problem will still exist for the property whether it is flood control or developed. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the City would have to investigate with the County Flood Control District the "disposition of those lands which is currently under study. There would have to be preliminary comments on the feasibility of running a street through all the flood area. It could loop down and meet with Milliken possibly or Wilson Avenue in some configuration but there would be perhaps more than one bridge involved which is a significant cost. A bridge across Hillside Channel to the south is possible but it would also involve amending the conditions of approval on the Deer Creek tract to the south to provide a street up' to the bridge. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that another access to the east is probably not in the immediate future. Commissioner Chitiea expressed concern regarding the access questioning possible 'alternatives. She wondered whether a channel bridge would prove safe during an earthquake and felt that a secondary access should be further addressed. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to continue this item with the applicant's consent to further study this problem and explore some options r. Douglas consented to the continuance. Commissioner Chitied moved to continue Item 'A to the February 24, 198 meeting and directed staff to further investigate options for access, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion, Motion carried by the following vote. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 27, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, M NIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY ---carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB A m 511 i_f amp I y resi d en f i a eve c mpri si ng o f 9F uni s on .69 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 3 ' north of 19th Street - APN: 01-474-1 . (Continued from January 13, 19HN) Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned staff as to what type of changes had been made, Debra Meier stated the; access that the Foothill Eire District was requiring has now been eliminated with the condition that the buildings be fire sprinkled which the developer has agreed to do. They have eliminated the access and moved the building to the north to take advantage of the extra space. The building size and site density remain unchanged. A few minor" changes were made architecturally, including wood siding and stucco detailing. The size and the scale of the structure is identical Commissioner Tolstoy stated in the last review of this project in Design ReviewCo Committee, the y yaw the elimination mr nat�on of the fi re lane access so this is really; nothing new. One of the concerns regarding the project at the time was the fact that the building height was out of scale with the neighborhood of one story single family homes across the street. This building was 30 feet high and it was asked of the applicant to address this in a design ;change and it doesn't appear that the applicant did so. The next time this project would go back to Design Review, it would not reflect the kind ofchange the Commission is looking for. Debra Meier stated it would not reflect any changes to the bulk or height of the building. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Lynch, Planning Consultant and representing the owner of the property, stated the developer has addressed four issues in order to meet the objectives and the concerns of the Design Review Committee. At that time, there was no issue regarding the height of the building but Planning Commission Minutes ® - January 27, 1988 how the perception of the height of the building and how it could be changed or modified and the softscape be enhanced so to minimize any visual impact that could be construed on any adjoining residential properties. Mr. Lynch stated Mr. Ake had presented those four specific issues to the Design Review, Committee and an additional one greatly enhancing the softscape of this facility so than there would a substantial number of trees, shrubbery, etc. incorporated into the site. The perception from the front of the property would be extremely softened in its visual characteristics from the street. Berming would also be utilized in softening the perception from the front of the street. Mr. Lynch stated the lowering of the building pad itself was submitted to the Grading Committee, a facility by which they could incorporate the lowering of the height of the building four feet lower into the ground which brings additional relief. The coloration of the facility was incorporated to be harmonious with the adjoining properties. The roadway is now a meandering sidewalk with landscaping which was precluded last time because; of the fire department wanting this open for emergency access to the rear of the property. Mr. Lynch stated that all the buildings would be fire sprinkled. With the removal of the emergency access lane, the developer' can move the building and provide for more lush landscaping. These units are all three bedrooms to serve families where parents and children can enjoy the facilities. The 'lowering of the roof would have given up an additional bedroom in both the end units.. They have changed the roof line to give a visual , horizontal as well as vertical , relief to the building. They feel they have met with all the concerns of the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if the developer was lowering the building by four feet how would they drain its . Lynch stated Mr. Ake had met with Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner, and the drainage would be provided through a sup pump operation. This has gone before the Grading Committee but the developer had not heard the results from that Committee. Debra Meier stated that the Building and Safety Division is not supporting the use of the sump pump and it was M . Meier's recollection than the building was not lowered quite four' feet. planningDivision's opinion was that the building was not lowered enough to crake the architectural 'statement that planning -felt risked using a sump pump. Building and Safety felt much more strongly about this than planning. Commissioner Chi ti ea questioned if the developer was familiar with the flooding problem on Hellman? r. 'Lynch stated the sump pump was an alternative that the developer responded to as requested by staff and the developer has gone beyond that by adding; a tremendous amount of softscape. r. Ake, consultant for the applicant, stated that at the Design Review Committee one of the possibilities discussed was if the bedrooms could be put in the front of the building which would obviously help to lower Planning Commission Minutes - - January 27, 1988 the building. The architect for this project stated this would put the project over the setback limit so the alternative was to press the building down on the site and raise the berm up for visual impact. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the tines the Design Review Committee first rei'ewed this project, he had stated t that time that he felt the developer was trying to overdevelop the piece of property with too much project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the second time he = saw the project some changes had been made allowing for more useable space but the height of the building has always been a concern. This has been talked about at two Design Review Committee meetings. The house across Hellman are the houses Commissioner Tolstoy is concerned with, not the houses to east of the project. The elimination of the emergency access certainly helps buffer the project from the east, but the scale of the project from the streetscape, which is Hellman Avenue, has not been sufficiently addressed* Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that this is just too much project for this piece of land, Commissioner Emerick stated he concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy;'s comments and also stated his concern with the building silhouette from the street. Commissioner Emerick stated he agreed with the resolution of denial in that it is not keeping with the residential character across the street. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that building mass and scale is a iserious problem with this project as well as the potential flooding problem. Hellman Avenue is probably the worst street in the City for flooding and to allow a devel opment on this street below street level is unreasonable. To send this project back to Design Review is not going to work. Commissioner Ehitiea is willing to deny the project without prejudice so that the developer can spend the amount of time required to o the project without having to wait a year to refile. Otherwise, she cannot support the project. Chairman McNiel stated essentially the same problems have arisen but the basic problem is that there is just too much project for this piece of property and it is inappropriate. Commissioner Emerick moved to deny without prejudice the project, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES': COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, MICNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: RLAKESLEY * --carried Planning Commission Minutes - - January 27, 1988 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13727 - JANSS NS - A res,aentis su sion o singTe_ fami I y I o s on o and in the :Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) , ,located at the southwest corner of Carnelian Street and Highland Avenue APN. 201- 1 -11. (Continued from January 13, 1988) . Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.: Chairman McNiei opened the public hearing. r. 'Eugene Lowe, 52 E1 Dorado, Pasadena, counsel for the corporation, stated the developer is in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Lowe desi±red clarification regarding the assessment for the requirement :of the undergrounding of utilities. r. Carl Kobbi ns, engineer for the developer, stated in the conditions of approval it states that the owners payin-lieu fees for the undergrounding of utilities. The owner would pay from the center line of Highland Avenue to the center line of the proposed freeway. In this instance, there would be 480 feet of property, including the freeway right-of-way to be 'under rounded. The owner would appreciate it if the assessment be gust that portion of the: property that actually abuts on Carnelian Street and that half of Highland Avenue, 250 feet of frontage, which is the standard. The freeway will be depressed so at the time the freeway is built all of the utilities will have to be dropped. Chairman McNiel closed the pudic hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that it is her understanding that the State of California is not going to pay for undergrounding and the City will be responsible for: that aspect at the time when the freeway gees in. The Commission should carefully consider the applicant's request for relief on the requirement on undergrounding of the utilities* Commissioner Tolstoy questioned staff what the status is of the land directly across the street from this project? Can Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that the land is planned for Beryl Park. Commissioner Emerick stated he supported the undergrounding requirement in which the developer would underground the additional footage along the east tract boundary and continuing south; Chairman McNiel stated he supported the undergrounding requirement. He staged that it is an extreme case when the Commission grants relief of utility undergrounding to a developer. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January ,27, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the design of the wall should wait until staff does a study regarding a consistent wall along the freeway right- of-way, This should be done in a priority fashion due to the eminent number of projects coming up. Commissioner Tolstoy mowed to approve Item as written, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote, AYES': CO ISSIONERS: TOL TOY, CHITIEA, CMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAESLEY * carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13359 - WALTON - A cus om o subaivrsiaF e= , acres o an an parce s in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-691-9, 10, and 11, (Continued from January 13, 1988) Related File: Variance 87.15. D. ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87-15 - TON A request o re-duce a minimum average o s' a ro square feet to 21,392 square feet in area in conjunction with a six (6) lot subdivision located' on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Sapphire Street, south of Hillside Road - APN: 06 -691-10 and 11, (Continued from January 13, 988) Related File: Tentative Tract 19, Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, Mr. Murphy stated there was an additional' condition is to be added stating that the approval of the tentative tract map is contingent upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment to change the current park designation to Very Low Density Residential which; is consistent with the standards that the applicant is developing to, Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, r, Arlan Walton, 5675 Sapphire Street, Rancho Cucamonga, applicant, addressed the issue of the undergrourding of the overhead utilities requesting that the money be pint in an interest-bearing account, Mr. Walton stated the condition regarding the storm drain from Turk Strut to Demens Channel makes his project absolutely worthless. He requested that this condition be ''omitted or at least the wording on the storm drain since the drainage calculations that his engineer compiled showed that the street would accept the water. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January ' 7, 1988 Chairman McNiel stated that a lien agreement concept has not been successful and instead the City approves the:. concept of in-lieu fees. r. Bill Smelser, engineering consultant for the applicant, submitted statistics about the project and the drainage condition. Mr. Smelser indicated that during an intense storm this 3.8 acre project, in its undeveloped state, would be responsible for 9 CFS (cubic feet per second runoff). After it is developed, they calculate' it to go to e little over 11 which is very minor runoff. The drainage has been going ,to Turk Street and dorm the routing described in the: information submitted. The figures were calculated for a very intense storm 4 inches per hour) and the grater would stay within the street. They do not see there i s problem and the condition should be modified to taste the requirement out for the storm drain. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick questioned Engineering if the applicant was correct about the pipe being surplus?' Barrye Henson, Senior Civil Engineer, Mated that he was not satisfied with the applicant's calculations definitely proving that there was not a problem out there. With minor corrections in a couple of locations, the ;pipe would not be needed. This is a fail-safe measure. Chairman McNiel clarified that the condition states that there should be a study done to ensure that this is not going to be a significant problem in the future. if the results indicate that a stoma drain is needed, then one would be supplied Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this requirement was to expedite the project and give the applicant approval at this time. Mr. Tolstoy felt with the figures submitted and after analysis with the engineers and through plan check, whatever problem is there will be solved. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the language should be retained and if then there isn't a problem, then it will be eliminated. Regarding the variance, Commissioner Chitiea felt that this is a benefit: to the City and not detrimental` to the neighborhood. Chairman McNiel stated he favored keeping the condition regarding the study regarding the storm drain and finds the variance acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Tentative Tract 13359 as modified, Commissioner _Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. Planning Commission Minutes _10- January 27, 1988 AYES. COMMISSIONERS* TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY Commissioner Tolstby moved to approve Variance 87- 5, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS; TOLSTOY, CHITiEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.* COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * -carried 8:125 P. M. Planning Commission Recess 8:47 P. M. - Planning Commission Reconvened H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <87-26 - OAS e eve o en o an n ogre s o ping con er nc fiu ing the 'preservation of the existing Thomas Winery building, totaling 111,000 square feet on 10.51 acres of land in the Specialty" Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill' Boulevard. APN: 208-101- 0, 11. Associated with his project is Tree Removal permit 87-52, requesting the removal of the 12 mature trees consisting of 1 Bottle tree, 6 Elm trees, 5 Sycamores, and 1 Pepper tree. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. M . Fong stated additional conditions to be added would include that the wood shakes would be of the thick butt size and treated for fire retardant and fire sprinkled. If the developer can not meet this requirement, there the roof material should be of the Flat concrete tile. Other conditions included items such as, special design of the trash enclosure for architectural compatibility and large enough to accommodate two trash bins with an overhead shade trellis, etc. Other conditions to be included are that the graffiti should be removed within 24 hours and the site should be kept free from trash and debris. ` Ms. Fong stated there was a modification regarding the construction traffic and this would be on San Bernardino Road only. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r, Howard Adler, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, managing partner and one of the landowners for the property, spoke positively about staff's work mitigating the issues of the project. Mr. Adler stated Planning Commission' Minutes -11- January 27, 1988 they have read and agree with the staff report and find the conditions laced upon this project acceptable and have no objections* Mr.. Adler stated they � pp full support the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. It is their intention to keep the Thomas Winery in its historic condition. In response to Commissioner Emerick's suggestion during a work session meeting, the developer would like to include a historical directory of all the historical landmarks in RanchCucamonga and include thisas one of the features Commissioner Emerick questioned if there were going to be actual grapevines in the landscaping? Lynne Deane Barbaro, landscape architect for the project, stated they have suggested the use of actual grapevines ;planted in rows typical of the vineyards historic in this valley. These would be planted in three locations in front of the winery. The winery' itself now has grapevines growing rowan on those trellises. _ Commissioner Emerick questioned the types or species of grapes. It would be interesting to have them tagged by name or species. s. Barbaro stated the historical architect working on, this project has done extensive research on the types of grapes grown for the wine during that time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the predominant grape' for the wine is the Mission gape. r. W.M. Schultz, President of a Red Hill homeowners group, questioned the traffic mitigation on Vineyard' Avenue, the street width, the lanes, etc Chairman McNiel stated the southbound traffic would have access; at San Bernardino Road; there would be no left hand turn below that other than that at Foothill Boulevard. In response to haw this would be prevented, there is no median there and it would be double yellow lined. Mr. Schultz questioned what the lane arrangement would be. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it would he four lanes but there is a left turn there® With the signal and the modifications at San Bernardino Road, most of the traffic will take their left there. If there is a left turn problem at that intersection, the City will install a median in the future. Mr; Adler' stated that the striping plan that the Engineering Department has does include a left turn permitted into the Sassy Steer Steakhouse which is on the other side of the street. There was no intention to close off access to either of those but if it did become a problem, it would be closed off by the median. This is one of the reasons that Engineering required the upgrading of the signali ation at San Bernardino Road and the project entrance on San Bernardino. Planning Commission'Minutes -12- January 27, 1988 Chairman McNiel clarified that Engineering states that a left turn lane has been 'provided on Vineyard and should it become a problem a" change will be made by installing a median. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated to Mr. Adler and his staff that they were probably one of the easiest groups of people to work with; their efforts are to be admired. Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated the sensitivity this group has shown to not only historic concerns, the aesthetic concerns, the future of Foothill Boulevard, the orientation, the redirecting of traffic and other ways to achieve a high quality project. Commissioner Chitea fully supports the project.- Commissioner Tol stay stated the project allows the City to preserve nicely the Thomas Winery and he hopes the sensitivity continues when sign program is presented. Commissioner Emerick stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the only city that has three places on Foothill Boulevard with historical significance; Sycamore Inn, Thomas Brothers Winery, and the Virginia Dare Winery and this is something that makes the City truly unique. Chairman :McNiel acknowledged the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts and staff's diligent work preserving the Thomas Winery site. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-26 as modified, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MO I L NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY --carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13753 - WILLIAM LY N _ su iV s7on 4 acres air too one 4 a�Cre o n the Medium -14 dwelling units per acre) andMedium-High (14- 4 dwelling units per acre) districts; and 129 single family lots on 25.29 acres in the Low Medium 4-8 dwelling units per acre) District within the Victoria Planned Community,, located at the northeast corner of Base Line 'Road ;and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227- 08 -0 . Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea questioned if at the time that the trail connections were actually put through, would there be some remaining stairway and who would be responsible for that. Ms. Meier responded that; a stairway would have to be added to get up on top of the future community trail along the railroad right-of-gray and the City would be responsible for that, Dan Coleman, Senior planner, stated that if the City condition the Design Review application subsequent to this tract, the developer would install the stairway. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Stephen Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, stated they have read the staff report and agree with the conditions as set forth. Regarding the trail connections with respect to any stairway going in a cash' deposit would be paid to the City and the City would built it when it was appropriate. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated since this is a much shorter distance and it will be a little bit wider, she would like to see the provision there for the trails so at such time as the railway is vacated, and the City has the complete trail system, there will be reasonable access from this tract* The method of putting money aside as suggested The William p y g 9g _y Lyon Company would seem appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Tentative Tract 13753, Commissioner Chi ti ea seconded the motion. Motion carded by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITiEA, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLA ESLEY --carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL SES MENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13281 - WILLIAM L ON iiiidiRiil su ivis on on ac s o An i-fi o si ng a family lots and a 6 acres park site in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Base Line` Road` and Rochester Avenue - APN: 7-081-06. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 27, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the condition regarding the project cannot be built until the Day C,reek Project Phase 11 is under construction and how long would this be. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated this was budgeted and estimated within a year to year and a half. Chairman McNiel questioned where the Phase II of the channel begins and ends. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it starts north of Highland a mile or two and terminates just south of Base Line Road. Phase I is from the dam southerly to a mile or so above Highland and there is some Phase I in the City of Ontario. Chairman 14cNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Stephen Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, stated they have read the staff report and are in agreement with the conditions set forth. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, stated that there is a row of 66 KV telephone poles that are not going to be undergrounded but would relocated behind the new curb. Per Comissioner Tolstoy's suggestion regarding the utility poles on Tract 13280 that bleached or white poles be used in the relocation of the poles, Ms. Meier stated she had talked with the Edison Company and they no longer allow those poles to be used due to structural problems. This condition has been placed on Tract 13753 and 13281 but it appears that the City will not be able to do that. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would object very much to having this requirement struck from the requirements because the 66KV poles cannot be undergrounded. There is a solution but the City does not have one yet. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to pursue the use of white or bleached poles or some alternate type of poles that are much less obtrusive. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that staff would continue to pursue alternatives with Edison. Mr, Stephen Ford stated the William Lyon Company stated they had talked with Edison and though they were told the Edison Company no longer allows the white or bleached poles they, too, are not ending their research on the use of a less obtrusive pole. Chairman cNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated in regards to the recreational vehicle storage garage doors should be high enough to accommodate standard trucks. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Chi ti ea Moved to adopt the resolution as modified, Commissioner Toistoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES`. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HLAKESLEY * --carried Ka ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - DES ARCH resi err i s su v si do o s ng a amp y o s on a ages of land in the Low Residential District ( - welling units per acre) located on the west side, of Haven Avenue, north of Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 0 - 01- 5 . Associated with this proposal is Tree Removal Permit 87-87. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tol stoy stated he felt that some type of irrigation along the Pacific Railroad right-of-way in addition to the planting of the drought resistant landscaping would be appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea questioned staff 'what type of sidewalk or trail system is being proposed along Haven Avenue. Ms. Norris stated at this time the Engineering Department is conducting a study for Haven Avenue and them is no trail or sidewalk- is proposed now. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that with the large drainage ditch that maybe a tail would not be appropriate there. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that north-south access on Haven for use has ;not been determined et and Engineering is requiring pedestrian ,�' g g contribution in lieu of construction for the sidewalk. Darrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that someday that ditch will a under rounded in a ,pipe and then it will be corrected at one time in the future Chairman McNiel questioned staff if the entire length of the sound attenuation wall on Haven Avenue was seven feet high Ms. Norris stated that it may vary somewhat but the barrier itself including the berm and the wall will be seven feet, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the top of the wall has to be seven feet above the center line grade of Haven Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 27, 198 s. Norris stated a potential eleven feet would be required on the south portion adjacent to the railway. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the design of the wall should be consistent with what is required along railroad tracks in other locations. Since this is in an industrial area and there is a need to grade the railroad corridor, this may be an opportunity to present a better view of the City. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Edison, 1100 South Mt. Vernon, Calton, representing the applicant, J. F. Davidson Associates, stated they are in agreement with the conditions including the addition of the irrigation along with the landscaping along the railroad. Mr. Frank Shaubee, ;10 Monte Vista, questioned the costs of the homes, the size of the lots, the square footage, if the homes were two stories, and how far apart the homes would be. he also questioned if the removal of the tees along the back of the street would create any damage to his wall and 'i f there were going to be street stop signs. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, responded that 'there are no homes proposed at this time, therefore, staff cannot answer the questions regarding the houses. The lots sizes range from 7,200 feet up to almost 14,000 with an average in excess of 8,400 square feet. The minimum separation between homes per code would be 10 feet on one side and 15 `on the other side. Eldon Moon, 10399 Monte Vista, questioned what happened to the proposal that the developer was going to have five houses to one acre. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated this would be 3.99 dwelling units per acre because of the 14.1 acres. Mr. Moon questioned what trees would be removed? Ms. Norris stated all of the trees would be removed and the trees along Haven Avenue would be replanted in a windrow fashion. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer, stated with regard to the stop signs, that in this ;particular" area, since the project does affect traffic going through currently existing intersections, the developer is required to install traffic control devices where there is presently uncontrolled intersections. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the irrigation and the vines should be an added condition and the whatever trail sidewalk system goes in on Haven that it should be of the highest quality standards. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 27, 1988 Chairman McNiel stated he felt there should be another alternative than the 'massive wal l s for sound attenuation. Gan Coleman, Senior Planner, Mated that in the update of the General Plan, the walls would be studied. Chairman McNiel stated that a six foot wall is offensive and one that is eleven is prison-like and there should be another sway to make them attractive. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution as modified, Commissioner Emerik seconded the motion. Motion' carried by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RLAKESLEY * -carried L. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 39 FLGRES - An appeal of taf ' decision or a propose adaffon d 30 square feet to an existing non-conforming residential structure within the General Industrial Land Use District (Subarea 8), located at 1333 Arrow Highway - APN 29-171- 1. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Flores, the appellants' son, 13233 Arrow Highway, stated that the Flores have lived there for over 22 years and there are four adults living in the small home. There are other similar hones in the area and they have the support of the local residents. Chairman 'McNiel closed the public hearing Chairman McNiel clarified that this is an existing, nonconforming use and the code reads that the nonconforming use cannot be enhanced, enlarged, modified, etc. The abject of the code is to eventually eliminate the nonconforming use in whatever time it may take. It is allowed to exist until whatever time it takes. Chairman McNiel' stated this is a very emotional and difficult situation to look at:clinically. Commissioner Emerik stated that if one person is allowed to expand a nonconforming `use then another person should be allowed to do so also. Commissioner Emerick stated` he does not support the expansion and therefore does support denial' of the appeal . Planning 'Commission Minutes -18- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Chitiea stated though she would agree with Commissioner Emerick this is not the only residence; surrounded by :development. She stated she does not appreciate the method that the Flores approached the problem and proceeded with the addition. They should have come to the City long before building and does not encourage their methods. This is not something that intrudes on the neighbors and is ;not seen from the street. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated she would reluctantly support the addition. Commissioner Tol stay stated he Feels that anyone living on a piece of property for over 20 gears should be given the right to improve their property ;after that twenty years. This should not set a precedence and he encourages the support of the addition. Chairman McNiel stated that staff should not be found at fault since they are governed by the code and they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Chairman McNiel supports the addition also.. Commissioner Ehitiea proved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval and bring back as a Consent Calendar item for the February IC, 1988 meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAK.ESLEY Commissioner Emerick clarified his no vote for the reasons stated in discussion. --carried i 10: S P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 10a4 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8- 1R - CITY OF RANCH CUCAMONG - A request o amend the Circulation Eliffiiff o e General PTa_n_for the purpose of accomplishing the following change: The realignment of Hillside Road to replace the double intersection of Hillside Road and Ainethyst Avenue with a single intersection at Amethyst Avenue and a reverse curve between Amethyst Avenue and proposed Klusman Avenue. Paul Roeau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 27, 1988 Mr. Robert Odell , 5505 Amethyst, stated three years ago he received notification on this and he returned his notice at which time he was told this was, going to be a dead issue. He questioned why this was happening again. Mr. Rougeau stated a few years ago this did come up with a different developer who wanted to subdivide the property; however, that proposal to realign Hillside was never brought before the; Commission. Property owners were contacted by staff to find out whether or not they would be in favor of this because when you vacate a; street, half of the street goes to each of the adjacent properties and that was a problem at that time. With this proposal now, the City does not propose that the street would be vacated. An encroachment permit would be granted so that the subdivider of the property can include that given-up street as part of his new lot although no structures would be built on them. This would become part of the new parcels planned on this property, but it would not be owned by those new homeowners but simply be included as sideyards or backyards that they could` include in their yards out they could not build anything on it. It could include a wall or a fence and could be done under an ;permanent encroachment permit granted by the City. Commissioner Chi i ea questioned if this would be done on an individual basis, as the homeowners moved in Mr. Rougeau stated this would be done as part of the tract construction. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this would be a condition for the tract to comply with the wall Mr. Neil McNiel , 5506 Malachite, Alta Loma, stated where the wall is now there is a green strip which allows a 'certain amount of privacy.. This green ship should be prime consideration. Mr. McNiel stated he did not understand why they have to do this to the street anyway since the road narrows down to one lane. If there is a traffic flow problem, making this type of change is not the solution. r. Larry Speight 5peiht Engineering, SCi East Florence Avenue, Downey, Civil Engineer representing the owner, Nottingham Ltd., appealed to the Commission not to adopt the resolution for the General Plan Amendment. It affects entirely only one piece of property: the Nottingham's parcel. Mr. 5peight presented background and reasons why Nottingham is opposed to the amendment. They would like additional time to study the affects of this realignment on their property and would appreciate a continuance. This is actually a condition on their parcel if the amendment is approved.' Mr. dim Maxhammer, 550 Malachite, Alta Loma, stated they bought a corner-lot house for privacy. Mr, Maxhammer questioned if the developer plans on any two story houses; Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 27, 1988 Chairman Mc Niel stated the Commission is not looking at anything other than the realignment of the street at this point. There is no proposal as to structures or homes. r. Maxhammer stated he was opposed to the alignment also Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing Chairman McNiel clarified that the properties that would benefit from a vacation of Hillside give on the south side are the ones that exist now. r. 'Rougeau stated this was correct that the entire street was dedicated from the southern 'portion of the property, a 66 foot wide strip of land. This would become private property and perhaps not wide enough for another lot in that zone. Chairman McNiel questioned if the houses that are south of Hillside are backed up to Hillside Dan Coleman, Senior planner, clarified that the houses side on to Hillside. The lots run parallel to Hillside. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the proposed amendment does not increase their' sideyards by 66 feet but it is proposed that Hilliside` give remain as city street dedication.:; The physical street improvements would be removed to allow the property to be used by the developer to the north as perhaps backyards. Chairman McNiel questioned if the lots proposed by the developer to the north would be Very Residential ? Low Re id n _ s e_ al ? Dan :Coleman, Senior planner, stated that the lots would be Very tow Residential , minimum 20 000 square feet, but since the stret is not being vacated, this cannot be counted as lot size. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the added width of the street that would be vacated would be an extra buffer for the people to the south. Chairman McNiel questioned staff what are the benefits of this real i gnment. r. Rougeau stated that the City Council felt that the flow of traffic along Hillside could be somewhat more continuous.; It has been done in the past such as Banyan so if volumes become much heavier on Hillside then eventually it would be a four-way stop. The flow would then be more direct. Wilson Avenue would be developed as a: major four-lane, crosstown' street. Planning Commission i nutes - - January 27, 1988 Commissioner Emerick stated that if you don't make Hillside continuous you are encouraging people to use Wilson more for east-west traffic and impacting Wilson more if this is not approved® Chairman McNiel stated that the City's east-west traffic is very impacted and considerable traffic will have significant impacts. The Route 30:. Freeway is in the far future and this is an opportunity to provide for another street to carry east-vest traffic perhaps: with a little better flow. Commissioner Tolsty stated that there is potential for development for the ;area north of the City and Hillside will be the top most east-west street in the City. Thee will be a lot of streets from the county area south to Hillside, so Hillside will be an extremely busy street in the future and it already has quite a flow on it. Many people use Hillside to get to Archibald Avenue. Chairman McNiel stated that the possibility exists here that this could be a smoother,, easier flow dealing with the future Commissioner Chitiea stated that the development of the Sphere of Influence above the City should be; considered and as this develops there will be a large increase in the east-west traffic as well as the south. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the use for emergency vehicles is important since it is another east-west way for vehicles. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. r. =Larry Speight stated that the Commission is making a determination for a General Plan Amendment and this is imposing an inappropriate action on this particular property owner exclusively. Mr. Speight stated that there should be a basis for policy statements and appealed to the Commission to defer it to another time. This General Plan cuts their property in two segments on two sides of a public street. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission needs some substantive evidence with respect to traffic that makes it valid and ,justifies the action. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering likes the realignment and questioned if the developer is proposing any type of a curved alignment anything different than this. Mr. Speight stated that the East submittal that staff sawn maintained the jog in Hillside. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the developer was willing to pursue something more in the direction that the Commission is looking for, then she would be willing to consider a continuance. Planning Commission Minutes _ _ January 27, 1988 Commissioner Emerick stated that if the developer is not willing to change from the two 90's then he is willing to support the amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it makes sense for more east-west traffic and Banyan used to have the same offset that Hillside has. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is a reasonable circulation amendment. Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the General Plan Amendment as set forth in the staff report, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the, following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT * * * * * * --carried N. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF TRACT 12671 - LEWIS HOMES re_que st---to-no-Cl fy--- e con 7 ons of aoordv-a--1 fo- cons truct signalized intersection at Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman cNiel opened the public hearing. Ms. Candice Frank, representing Lewis Homes, stated they have examined and evaluated the additional conditions and accept the conditions of the resolution. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick moved to approve, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY --carried Commissioner Chitiea moved, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded, unanimously carried to proceed past 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -23- January 27, 1988 D, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12895 R.J. o` a resl en la eve; dome o own omen on 9.03 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side ofBaker Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-581- 7, ; 207-571-79, Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, Chairman McNiel questioned the timing of the construction of the proposed signal at Baker. Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer, stated completion is estimated by April 1989. nt tin J, I Hues _e s n R P nn�n A soc�etas re rase.. ... . s h1r, Lar ry dote 1a , y 9 representing g stated this is essentially the same project that was approved previously r roof grid fence treatment. Compatibility: err th neighboring except o p residences have beer mitigated. They accept the conditions as set forth in the resolutions: r. William Foskett, BJo Comet, stated his major concern was the outlet increasing the traffic onto Comet, rw Moore stated that the access to the crest is a locked gate and for emergency use only. The only; access is onto Baker, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea started that the project as it exists today is good and all questions mitigated. ; Commissioner Chi ti ea stated she supports the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the piece of property is an infill project d the traffic entering the neighborhood to the west will not occur. The transition between single-family homes and the two-story buildings has been ''takers care of by the one-stony lime of buildings on the west. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his only concern is the time frame of the signal at Baker and Foothill *' Commissioner Emerick concurred with the comments of Commissioners Tolstoy and Chi tiea, Chairman McNiel stated he supported the project. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the project, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote Planning Commission Minutes -24- January 27, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * --carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OOI - JAMES -U. -CARTER-- A request to amen enera an an se ap rom "Uttice" to "Neighborhood Commercial" for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located can the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 08- 0 -13, 14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 07-11 - JXWES-0 E.- TARTER-7 A FiZpiii o imina the Devel +en is ricts Map from Offi' rofessianal (OP) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for approximately 3.45 acres of land, 'located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN; 08- 01-13, 14. Bruce Cock, Associate Planner, presented the 'staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy+ questioned Mr>Rougeau regarding the widening of the project on Hellman Avenue. Mr. Rougeau stated that it would remain two lanes ;but it would be a much wider two lanes and a more easily traversed two lanes over the railroad track. There is a storm drain that will be proposed in the City's budget in the next year that will accomplish the improvement of the drainage problem at the railroad so that the street can be widened to its normal width there and so that there will be room for a left-turn lane into this property. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. dames E. Carter, applicant, presented an analysis of the proposal regarding three specific' issues, including land use, the appropriateness of the site for commercial designation, traffic access, traffic circulation and ingress/egress issues related to site specific criteria, and market analysis to :determine the economic feasibility of the site for a commercial rather than office use. s. Catharine ' R. Clayter, 7360 L riet Place, O, stated her concerns were the traffic increase, crime, and parking. She would rather see` a medical building going in rather than a shopping center. r. Mike Mitchell , stated his office is on the southeast corner of the intersection and stated he would rather see commercial rather than office use which generates more traffic. Planning Commission Minutes - 5- January 27, 1988 s. Elizabeth Brandt, 988 Rase Line, stated there is an extreme amount of traffic on Base Line. She would prefer to see medical or dental rather than commercial . r. Ray Young, Urban Research Associates, stated this site has severe site constraints regarding land use, zoning or developing. The heed for careful consideration in the General Plan designation is needed now. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick stated that office vacancy for the entire region is quite high. Commissioner Emerick feels that Neighborhood Commercial is not appropriate for the site as is Office/Professional but it should remain what it is for now. Commissionerh Commissioner Eme rick. Tol stoy sta ted he concurred with Commissioner Chitiea stated the intensity of the use was another aspect neat to the apartments. A neighborhood commercial center is quite an intense use and is not compatible. Office Professional may not be viable use at this time but the use must be reserved. The proposed commercial development is not appropriate to the neighborhood and to the traffic concerns. Commissioner Ohitiea does not support the amendment change. Chairman McNiel stated the Office Professional does net develop rapidly and they must protect the sites accordingly. Chairman McNiel stated he did not support the change. Commissioner Ohitiea moved to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council for General Plan Amendment 88 01A and Development District Amendment 87-11, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: OHITIEA EMERIOK, MONIEL, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE BLAKESLY ABSENT..,..- COMMISSIONERS:_ _ -carried I OLD BUSINESS Q. EAST AVENUE WALL - CITATION - Review of a proposed perimeter gall a ong as venue or"a residential subdivision of 74 single family lots on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District ( -4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east; side of East Avenue at Catalpa Street - APN: 227-0 -07, 11 and 20. Planning'Commission Minutes -26- January 27, 1988 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chai an McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry Litton, Citation representative, stated the wall is amenable to their needs. Mr. Richard Fuerstein stated this is a well laid out plan and a good design. Most of the people favored this design over all stone. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated he did not like the wall and feels it does not fit into the Etiwanda concept since he feels it is commonplace in terms of tract image. The earthy tone color is inappropriate and Chairman McNiel stated he would rather see more grey. Commissioner Emerick stated he does not like mixing river rock with plaster or stucco. Chairman McNiel stated an Etiwanda look removes itself from the typical Spanish. He supported a smooth plaster and a cold grey or white color. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she finds it an attractive wall and would not support a woodcrete concrete material . She would like to see more stone and concrete caps to add more Etiwanda flavor. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to see a wall with more stone or with smooth concrete, no Spanish design, no plaster, and no reds. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt the wall shou,ld incorporate rock. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the wall needs to have three things changed: 1) the pilasters need to be changed, 2) color, and 3) the texture. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to see some samples on soft greys or hard whites., Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that staff was proposing to - use native stone with ball finial caps to give it a more decorative look consistent with Victoria architectual style common to Etiwanda. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see what is on the top of pilasters studied. Chairman McNiel stated there was consensus of the Commission on most of the items discussed and directed staff to proceed. R. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-28 - HUMPHREY TRUCKING - A review of the con aiions_dfAjWFdV4Tfdr a IFUMHj fir-m-15-nU—caretaker's quarters in an existing building on 8 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 8, located at 8604 Pecan Avenue, south Planning Commission Minutes -27- January 27, 1988 Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report stating that the applicant had completed these items listed for completion by the Commission and no action is necessary. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS S. EMMETT WAY STREET VACATION WHIT HOU - located between Summit venue an ray Sarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. doe Whitehouse, owner of one of the parcels, stated he requested the City to vacate the street and has been in contact with the gentleman who owns the lot to the 'north. This gentleman has not:communicated with the City and is in the process of selling the property. Mr. Whitehouse stated his concern is that the City is requesting that the property be surveyed by a state licensed surveyor at his expense and would like an explanation as to why this requirement. arre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated this is a Plan Check question and he is not aware of the details. Chairman McNiel stated that the street vacation of Emmett Way would revert back to the properties and questioned who these owners were. Mr. Whitehouse responded himself, the lot to the north, and the lot di redly south. Chairman McNiel stated the markings may not have been there to determine where the property lines were in the beginning and this is perhaps why the requirement for a surveyor and is for Mr. Whitehouse's protection* Chairman McWiel closed the public hearing. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the state laws requires a specific finding from the Planning Commission on street vacations of j conformity with the General Plan. Mr. Hanson suggested that the Commission move recommending approval of the vacation of Emmett Way with the specific finding that the property is no longer required or necessary for street pruposes and that the proposed vacation is in conformity with the goals and policies ;of the General Plan`of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Tol stay moved recommending vacation of Emmett Way as counsel stated, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes 8- January 27, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.* BLAKESLEY * * * * * * --carried T. SIGN ORDINANCE - Review of changes proposed by Chamber of Commerce. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. John Mannerino, spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce, reviewed the Chamber of Commerce recommendations for a sign ordinance. Mr. Mannerino stated that the proposed changes for window signs would correct inequity which prejudices small businesses. He also stated that the Chamber proposed to lift the absolute ban on neon signs and clarify the ambiguity regarding "exposed tubing" signs. Mr. Pete Camber, owner of Alta Loma Music and resident of Rancho Cucamonga, stated although he understood the need for uniformity in signs, he also felt the need for maintaining artistic neon signs for advertising. Mr. Joe Kim, owner of doe's Market in the Music Plus Plaza, would like to see neon used for advertising purposes. Mr. Mike Mitchell stated through his business, his retail clients feel the sign ordinance is too restrictive for them to attract business. He felt it is imperative to the growth of the City to establish a stronger retail market and without certain signs businesses cannot survive. Ms. Renee Garduna, owner of Renee's New Mexico Restaurant, stated the use of neon, properly designed, would be helpful to the business. Mr. Dale Frisby, representing the Chamber of Commerce, requested the Commission give some guidelines and recommendations regarding the revisions by the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman McNiel , in response to Mr. Mannerino's comment regarding the prejudice against all window conditions, felt that expanding the ordinance to provide a greater percentage may not be appropriate, perhaps greater restrictions on large businesses to eliminate the prejudice might be a more advantageous direction with respect to the signs. Chairman McNiel stated that though neon may be done tastefully, he does not support neon. Chairman McNiel felt there were no advantages to neon if everybody has it. Though other cities may have neon and this is very trendy, he feels it is not in the best interest for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes _29- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Emerick stated he liked neon; however, it doesn't belong o every window. He also felt it would be hard to exercise discretion and control on the quality of neon signs. Commissioner Tol stoy stated though he agreed with Chairman McNiel , he was a devote of neon. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how would the City legislate neon and control it. He is not amenable to ""beer". "liquor" , or "video" signs in store windows. Commissioner Tol soy suggested maybe using the logo of the company in graphic form would warrant consideration. He felt there is place for noon in the City if would be tasteful to the City. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with Chairman McNiel and though she has seen attractive neon inside buildings and in some instances outside buildings, she feels the ` use :of neon escalates to catch the consumer's attention. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be very difficult to judge the tastefulness of neon, it would become a very emotional issue. She felt either you allow neon and anybody can do what they want or you say no and "nobody has it. Commissioner Chitiea felt the problems far outweigh the benefits. It would be a serious mistake to allow the visual' garbage since: Rancho Cucamonga is moving towards city with much more sophistication and design. Neon is distracting and overpowers the architecture around it if it is blinking or flashing. Mr. Bob Forrest, 8734 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that neon is very expensive. He cited 'a case where the neon sign was removed and now the window is painted which looks worse than the neon. Mr. Mitchell stated that as part of the task force a survey was sent out to other cities and Rancho Cucamonga is the only city that does not allow neon. r. Carl Evans stated how a material is used in the sign can actually enhance and compliment a building. He felt that businessmen, as a community, could judge the use of neon r h 'I `h rCommerce, a ked fo t e r. Bob Thomas representative of the Chamber of s opportunity ty for neon to be used at the discretion o the Commission. , Regarding ng the size of signs, he felt that the removal of height restrictions would be appropriate r, Mannerino stated that with regards to the exercise of discretion with the regards to neon, the Commission exercises the discretion of good• taste with regards to a wall , a project, etc. Mr. Mannerino stated that the 'purpose for the existence of signs is for the business to exist economically. r, Kim stated that neon signs would allow for a smaller business to become more prominent in a large business center. Manning Commission Minutes - C- January 27, 1988 . Thomas stated that advertising in a newspaper is too costly and the use of signage is imperative for a business. r. Gamber stated he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that using logo in a neon sign would be appropriate. r. James Hahn stated depending upon the location in the City and depending on the size of the business, the current sign;ordinance can be an absolute sweeheart or a killer. The problem seems to be the form of structures and their signage. Chairman McNiel' closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that the City does provide for lighted signs and questioned how much more 'does a business; need for their signage. 1t was mentioned that a number of prominent cities have neon and though the City ;of Rancho Cucamonga`, may ;not have neon, Chairman McNiel feels this is admirable. if neon is allowed to begin, regardless of the standards applied to it, neon will rise above the standards. Chairman McNiel stated he cannot support the Chamber of Commerce recommendations as they are written. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would not like to see neon in Rancho Cucamonga since not having it crakes the City special . Commissioner Emerick stated that staff could legislate and administer neon carefully. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to listen to more information concerning the small businessman versus the large businessman's window areas. The smaller businessman is at a disadvantage and feels more consideration regarding that situation is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy also felt that some guidelines regarding neon for logo signs, without each:store owner turning his name into logo, might be supported. Can Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that the discussion of the Planning Commission would be reported to the City Council regarding the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce. s. Garduna questioned the Commission what their feelings were regarding the Sycamore 1nn's and the Magic Lamp's neon signs. Chairman McNiel stated that these establishments were very old and the signs are very well done even though he does not like neon® Chairman dial stated the City has a rare opportunity to be exclusive. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt though he liked neon he did not see a way the City could ever arrive at a way to use neon and the way he would like to use it would not meet the way the businessman would want to use it. Commissioner Tolstoy does not support neon at this point. Planning Commission Minutes 1- January 27, 198 Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated staff has received information and would forward the Commission's comments 'to City Council; U. STREETSCAPE WALL DESIGN GUIDELINES Chairman McNiel requested this item be beard at the February 10, 1988 meeting. COWISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission usi n ss at this time. PUBLIC COMWNTS There were no Public Comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion. Moved by Commissioner Emerick, seconded by Commissioner Chit ea, unanimously carried, to adjourn to the February 10, 1988, . C .m. meeting. . C A.M. Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission' Minu es - January 27, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 13, 1988 Commissioner Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Mc Niel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry McNiel , Peter Tolstoy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil , Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner; Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Planning Commissioners' Institute would be held March 9, 10, 11, 1988 in Anaheim. Mr. Buller also announced that a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission will be held Tuesday, February 16, 1988. The agenda for this meeting will include a presentation by the County of San Bernardino regarding a proposed hazardous waste plan and a review of appeals over the last two years. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, carried, to approve the minutes of November 25, 1987 as written. Commissioner Tolstoy abstained from voting as he was not present at that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1988 w CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION OF 'DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE - -11 e- diiiloilmen o a iMbl distri a 10,500 square foot administration building, a 18.170 square foot warehouse building, and a 15,600 square foot transportation/maintenance building on 5.25 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of 19th Street - APN 02-041-01 and 42. Associated with the development is a Tree Removal permit requesting the removal of four (4) mature trees. B. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87- gdes o increase a e 9 0 n spar n u1 - 9 rom one story to two stories within 100 feet of adjoining single family residencies for a proposed. 20 unit apartment project on 1.16 acres of land in the Medium-Nigh Residential District (14 4 dwelling units per acre), >located at the terminuses of Sierra Madre and Main Street - APN: 207-251-22. Chairman McNiel opened it up to the Commision and public if anyone wished to address the items on the Consent Calendar. Nearing none, Commissioner T 1 o sto ' moved toapprove the Consent Calendar Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, CNITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES.` COMMISSIONERS: NONE` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB - A mu ami y res ens eve o n comer s ng o units on . 9 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per 'acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 3 5' north of 19th Street' - APN* Ul-4 4-1 . (Continued from November 5, 1987). Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that .staff was in receipt of a letter requesting continuance to the January 27, 1988 meeting. Since this proposed project has been continued numerous times, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for the next meeting should the applicant not meet the established deadlines and complete the Design Review process. Manning Commission Minutes - `- January 13, 198 Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue this item to the January 27, 1988 meeting and that a resolution of denial be preapred by staff for the reasons stated earlier. Commissioner Tots seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS* CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MC EC NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * * --carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13727 - JANSSENS - A resiaen'ti 1 4su6division n9 a il Tats R- oh___3_.53-- 'Fe's of army land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Carnelian Street and Highland Avenue - APN: 201-214-11. (Continued from December 9, 1987. ) Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff was in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting continuance to the January 27, 1988 meeting. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved to continue this item to the January 27, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * --carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13349 -WALTON - A ctitUo—m—To—t-idbdivisio-h--bT-3 acres of' land__i`nt_6_ 6 1 par I cels"Tn the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Hillside Road - APN: 2061-691-92 10, and 11. (Continued from December 9. 1987) . Related File: Variance 87-15. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87-15 - WALTON - A request to Fe-d6ce tKe_iUn_1 mum-'-average lot feet in area to 21,392 square feet in area in conjunction with a six (6) lot subdivision located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Hillside Road - APN: 2061-691-10 and 11. (Continued from December 9, 1987) . Related File: Tentative Tract 13359. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 13, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff is in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting continuance to the January 27, 1988 meeting. Chairman McNielopened the public hearing. Commissioner Ohitiea moved to continue Items E and E to the January 27, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Tol toy seconded the motion. Motion carried y the following vote; YES: COMMISSIONERS: OHITIEA, TOLSTOY, RLA ESLEY, EMERIO , MONIEL NOES., COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * *` * --carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-04G - TA0 reques o amen a enera an an Use —ap ram low-medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre to high Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald - APN: 08-031-18, 19. (Continued from December 9, 1987) . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87-05 reqRs b amen eve o en s ricMap rem ow- um (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential 24-30 dwelling units per acre) attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, ; looted on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-18, 19. (Continued from December , 1987). H. ENVIRONMENTAL SESSMENT ;AND GENERAL PLAIN AMENDMENT 07-04H - TAO ues o amen a an se amen o e enera lan- refrom Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre to Office for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Rase Line Road - AP : 208 031-17, 54, 5, 56, and 57. (Continued from December 9, 1987 .. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87-06 - TAC DEVE PMERT _:_ -A Fe4aiit amen a eve opman is r1d s Map rem ow- um Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professional for 1. 9 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - A,PN; 208-031-17, 54, 55, 5 and` 57. (Continued from December 9, 1987). I. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 87-02 - TAG DEVELOPMENT - A Development greeen a wean e 6f anc d Neamon a and TO Development Corporation for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior dousing Overlay District Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 13, 1988 (Section 17. C.040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 11) for 170 apartment units to be located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue' - APN: 08-0 `1-18, 19. (Continued from December q, 1987). Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to continue Items G, H, I to February 10, 1988 meeting, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES.' COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESCEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * --carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11105 - THE iaaimioh o acres of land__T_nt_o_2_ piece s n ctoria Planned Community , located at the southc,,it corner of Kenyon Nay and Woodruff Place - APN: 7-011- C6,07. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report, Mr. Stofa stated one addition to the staff report, the addition of E-8 on page J-8. : Chairman McNiel questioned if there was going to be some type of separation between the park and the school site. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it would be easy access. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why was there a little finger of land at the north of the property. Elan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the reason for that configuration is because the property line follows the sidewalk that delineates the difference between city maintenance and school maintenance. The reason for the sideway was for both aesthetics; and grading. Chairman MdNiel ' opened the public hearing. r. Stofa stated that the applicant was unable to be present at the greeting due to illness, but staff was in receipt of a letter stating the applicant concurred with the staff report including Condition E-8. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 13, 1988 t' Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve as modified Parcel Map 11105, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion ' carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITI A, BLA ESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * --carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 11106 - THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY su rv1 si on of acres an n o rcs s P a or sc oo park ark facilities within Vi ctoria a Vineyards and North - Community, located on the south side of Victoria Park Lane, east of Kenyon Way APN. 7-011-7. Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman M+ Niel opened the public hearing. s. Krall stated that the applicant, Stephen Ford, representative for The William Lyon Company, was not present at the meeting due to illness but staff was in receipt of a letter stating the applicant concurred with the staff report. Chairman McNiel ' closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve Parcel Map 11106, Conimissioner Chitiea seconded the' motion. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLA ESLEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE' --carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11236 - BARTON DEVELOPMENT Sir 1v i s,ion acres o f I a nd 7 Igo pares s o and in the Industrial Park Development District, Subarea 7, bounded by Spruce Avenue, Red Oak Street, and Laurel Street - APN: 208-351-23. Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing~ Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 13, 1988 it r. Dale Frisby, representing Barton development, discussed the in-lieu fee for the Foothill Boulevard median in which the developer is asking for a lien as opposed to dollars being ;contributed for the development of that median. He also addressed the issue of the driveway to the south. Traffic generated from Harry C's to the north; of this project will put a substantial amount of traffic on the Spruce intersection combined with the Design Center on the opposite side of Spruce. The developer was intending on the south driveway on Red Oak to alleviate this or they could go to the Laurel exit as well . Chairman McNiel clarified that the access to the south on white Oak will no longer be. r. Frisby stated it is on the; approved original conceptual master plan. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned staff when will the median go in on Foothill , Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there is no calendar but Lewis Homes is trying to do it as quickly as can they with the Town Center project. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Town Center project would incline the median. arrye Hanson, stated yes, up to Spruce and should be within two years:. Commissioner Emerick questioned how the sites compare to Harry C' regarding size. Cale Frisby, stated Harry C's is 2.25 'acres and these two sites are approximately 1.2 and 1,8 acres so they are not as large as harry C's. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy addressed the issue of the median stating he felt it would be put in soon because of the development to the north by Lewis for the Town Center and should be expedited as soon as possible. The driveway, he felt, without a circulation plan for sites 1 and 2, i t would not be very .smart of the Commission to allow a driveway on white Oak. After a circulation plan for the two parcels is presented to the City, that: a driveway might be considered in another location; The City policy of shared existing driveways with arr. C's and the one on Laurel is the best solution' without the circulation plan. Commissioner Eerick concurred with Commissioner Toltoy although he might consider at the time a driveway at the Red Oak a White Oak merge. Commissioner Emerick agreed with the applicant regarding too much traffic on Spruce Av anue fair ly clo se to Foothill :Boulevard. He agreed that there should be an articulated circulation plan and does not favor s driveway access on Red Oak. Planning Commission minutes -7- January 1 , 1988 Commissioner Chitied agree with Commissioner Tolstay regarding the median and does not support the driveway without a circulation plan at this time. Commissioner Chi ti ea supports the resolution as written. Commissioner Bl akesl ey state he supports the in-lieu fee instead of lien and agrees with excluding the driveway at this time. Chairman McNiel questioned if Alder Avenue will have a median cut. r. Frisby responded that Alder Avenue will have a median cut as well as Spruce and; access from both can go west on Foothill Boulevard, Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the resolution as written for Parcel Map 11236. Commissioner Tol toy seconded the motion. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. r. Frisby questioned if the payment of the in-lieu fee subject to the fact that the median will be developed in the near future. Sometimes in dealing with governmental agencies such as Calfrans, the timing is sometimes delayed and the funds could perhaps' be used better now, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the in-lieu fees is tied to the map as started in the conditions of approval . This is simply matter of security. garrye Hanson, ;Senior Civil Engineer, stated that if the median could not be constructed the applicant's` funds would be imbursed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt the Commission feels the fee should be now to get the median in on Foothill . Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. The motion for approval of Parcel flap 11236 carried as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TCLSTOY, REAKES EY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE' ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE' * * *' * carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13621 - NC CIC resa en a su avas non an esi n view o sang a amly lots on S acres` of land in the Very Low' Residential District Mess than 2 dwelling units per acre) , located at the Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 13, 1988 northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road- APN: 201- 101-04. Associated with the tract is Tree Removal Permit 87-93 requesting the removal of four (4) mature Eucalyptus trees. Related File: Variance 87-17. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87-17 - NORDIC - A request to mducethe repoired rhe-ary-ariU—setback from___30---f-e-e-t to 9 feet for one lot of a seven lot subdivision on 5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), locat-,,,; at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road APN: ZUI-101-U4. Related File: Tentative Tract 13621. Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what the City Planner's thoughts regarding the Schowalter House if it is preserved and if it remains where it is now. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated if the building would stay in its present form the only thing restricted would be the use. It would exist as a exist� onconforming structure. It could not be occupied as a single fa,- ,In e. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Hank Stanger, representing Nordic Development, addressed the issue along Hermosa Avenue stating they would either put in a trail or sidewalk, whatever the Commission wanted. Mr. Stanger asked the Commission to reevaluate the undergrounding of utilities along Hermosa Avenue and discussion was heard regarding the reasons requested for exemption. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt that Hermosa Avenue will be undergrounded at some time in the future. Mr. Richard Feurstein, Stephens-Daniels Commercial Brokerage, questioned if the tract along Heritage Lane undergrounded. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated no, but on the other side of the street. Mr. Feurstein stated that it was decided that when the parcels north of the drainage ditch at Vista Grove Street, the parcel on the west side and the north side, that this was probably one of the last priority places in the City to be undergrounded. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea addressed the sidewalk/trail issue. There is a trail running north-south down to Hillside along the east side of Hermosa at the Woods Tract® Across the street there are single family Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 13, 1988 homes, and no trail running north. 1f a trail is not provided on Hermosa with this tract, she would be concerned that we are putting equestrians coming east-crest from Hillside and down Hermosa out into Hermosa. From a safety and aesthetic standpoint, she recommended the developemtn of a trail . 1n this rather rural area, a sidewalk would not be that significant. A trail would provide both equestrian/pedestrian use and match what is above 'i t and connect directly to the Community Trail' on Hil l si'de. Commissioner Blakesey stated the problem with Commissioner hltiea's plan is any equestrian traffic heading up north on Hermosa hits a roadblock of the parcel that has no existing dwelling on it. He would rather see the equestrians cross at the intersection and then go up in the vacant lot. Equestrians 'cannot ride between this development and Tract 13644. Commissioner Tolsto,y stated if there is to be a sidewalk on Hermosa Avenue on the east side, why should the City go back and retrofit a trail with a sidewalk with appropriate landscaping, whys not have it put in in the beginning. if people wish to ride from Hillside north, the' is plenty of vacant property they can ride on rather than in the street. He also discussed whether the City needs a sidewalk on Hermosa anyway„ he felt that sidewalks may not be appropriate in that area; the people seem not to want them. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the west .side of Hermosa would be developed soon. Commissioner Blakesley stated the City ;could put' the trail in now and later choose whether to put the sidewalk in. Commissioner Tolstoyr questioned if in the tract north of this project whether there are sidewalks.. Scott Murphy stated that within the interior of the tract In The Woods there are sidewalks but not along Hermosa. Commissioner Chitiea stated regarding the undergrounding of utilities she supports the requirement, Commissioner Bl akesl;ey questioned if the tract '13644, north of this project, has an undergrounding requirement. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes, there is an undergrounding requirement. Commissioner Emerickstated he supports the horse trail on the east side of Hermosa west side of the tract` versus the sidewalk and he supports the undergrounding of utilities. Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Tentative Tract 13621 as modified regarding if the Schowalter House is found to be historically significant and is designated a local Historical Landmark, it shall be preserved or relocated to a suitable site. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -1 January 3, 1988 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES:- COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE --carried Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve the resolution for Variance 87-1 , Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion, Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CNITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-42 - GENERAL "`7"S e _development o an a ec rica substation o , quare'_ eet on 2.27 acres of land in the General Industrial 0istrict (Subarea 10) , located at the southeast corner of Bth Street (vacated) and Cleveland Avenue - APN. 209- 72-0 2. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 87- - An a n men o e cress ircu a ion Plan Tor the us rya rea > Specific Plan (Subarea 10) to eliminate Cleveland Avenue, north of 7th Street - APN: 209- 727-02. Greg Cage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r. Mike Marr, Project Manager for General Dynamics, requested clarification of the Design Review requirement' that the substation structures core back for review. Chairman McNiel stated if the facility requires 'certain conditions be ` et, this is what the Design Review process is about. r. Marr requested the Commission reconsider the landscaping around the facility be postponed until the master plan or the corridor itself is developed along the railroad. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chi tied stated the reason Design ; Review required the landscaping, screening and design of the wall , to be put in now is that it has an opportunity to start growing.' This is an opportunity to make Planning Commission Minutes -11- January; 13, 1988 this particular structure look more softened and more attractive since it is another window to the City. Commissioner Emerick stated that though the benefits of putting the landscaping in now may seem small , the landscaping does have a chance to start to grow. Commissioner gl akesl ey stated he did not see any benefit from delaying the landscaping now. Chairman McNiel concurred with iCommissioner Rlakes ey. Commissioner Chi ti ea moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion.one Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERIC , MCNIEL, TOLSTCY NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE --carried Commissioner Tolsto + moved to recommend approval to the City Council on Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 8 -04, Commissioner Rl akesl y seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:' COMMISSIONERS, TCLSTOY, RLA E LEY, CNITIEA, E ERIC , MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE f --carried Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND DEVELOPMENT CODE Ll AMENDMENT S- ' OF- n amen men o Sec ion e anc b ucamonga Development Code pertaining to parking lot and sidewalk sales. ` Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Staff would add` the wording "on private property" on Section of the Ordinance. Chairman MtNiel opened the public hearing. Commissioner gl kesl;ey stated 'that 'the Commission had earlier discussion regarding if there were :going to be sidewalk sales that more than one merchant participate and to limit there frequency. He suggested that advanced notification for the 'other* participants would be advised. Planning Commission Minutes -1 _ January 13, 198 Commissioner Tolstay stated there should be a time specific for a business to notify the other businesses in the center at lest 30 days in advance of the sale. Commissioner Emerick stated he agreed that 30 days prior to the actual date of the sale. Chairman McNiel stated that application: of the temporary use permit be made 30 day; °prior to the actual date of the sale.' Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested the verbage of at lest 30 days prior to the proposed sale on the resolution. Commissioner Blakesley moved to approve as amended, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion* Motion carried by the following vote.- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERI K, MCNIEL' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: ��` " SIDNERS: NONE --carried NEW tlSl ESS R. MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT e propose a ion o a ee craneway o an a is ing s ru ure in the Heavy Industrial Land Use District (Subarea 15) located at 1 459 Arrow Highway - APN: 9-131- 3. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chi ti ea questioned the location of the slag pile and the height of the slag pile. Cindy Norris responded that the slag pile is located outside the easement about one-third of the Way down* The slag pile is approximately 15- 0 feet in height. Chairman McNiel questioned how close to the property line is the slag pile and ghat the relationship is to the water easement. Cindy Norris responded that it is an access area of approximately ten feet between the chain link fence and the toe of the slag pile. The water easement is adjacent to the western property line and abutts the toe of the slag pile* Commissioner Chitiea questioned if there can be anything planted on the slag pile. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January' 13, 1988 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated this is not the best conditions for plants. Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing, . gill Nelson, Manager for Tamco, commented that Tamco has talked with the county regarding the types of planting that could be done around the slag pile. Directly on the slag pile, there is nothing they feel would grow there; adjacent to the slag pile, the earth studies found that they would support life. Removal of the materials are taken from the top of the slag pile. The residual is sold to truck yards for parking lots. Chairman McNiel questioned if they could widen the access strip to increase an adequate growth area. r. Nelson stated yes they could widen the strip but the materials would go to the top of the pile which increases the height of the pile by a minimum o -1 feet. They must maintain a certain slope area. The size of the slag pile is approximately 100 feet wide and 400- OC feet long. Chairman McNiel suggested levying upon Tamco the concept of working from that side, how long would it take to run the length of that under normal conditions:. Mr. Nelson stated they would have to discuss this with mother contractor in charge of the pile. Commissioner Emerick questioned if slag leeches into the ground and the PH of the slag. Mr. Nelson stated it was 7.6 ph factor, almost neutral , and the ground is relatively unaffected by the slag. Chairman McNiel closed the public. hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the freeway right-of-way is landscaped that the Commission pay particular attention to the screening of the right-of-way II ay :since it is feasible to move the slag pile but it would take a number of years to do so. Commissioner Chtiea questioned what are the opportunities of the City stating their concerns about screening the freeway. Brad Buller, City planner, stated there have been discussions with Cal Trans and they have requested the Ci y's input regarding conceptual plans for the freeway right-of-way for water conservation, the choice of plant 'materials 'and design concept. r. Nelson stated there had been discussion that in trying to enhance the freeway, which is the ideal place to screen the facility from, Tamco Planning Commission Minutes - 4- January 13, 1988 would be willing to take the monies it would cost them to put the screening along the west boundary line to put this money in a trust fund or whatever the City establishes to help screen the freeway area which helps screen all the facilities in the area. This would help the City enhance its beauty along the freeway corridor. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City should concentrate on the freeway landscaping and accept the offer from Tamco for the beautification fund. Commissioner Emerick moved to delete the perimeter landscaping requirement of the conditions of approval and encourage the applicant to contribute the money to a City beautification fund in an effort to landscape the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * * --carried Si APPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR CUCAMONGA Mt� CENTER-_____ NAL USE PERMIT- -85-��Dr e f�6_446 appe_a_T_sFa_Tfr_s ecnsion n enynngthe-proposed amendment to the previously sign program for Cucamonga Village Shopping Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a pictorial presentation of signs throughout the center. She addressed size of the letter and the extraneous information on the wall sign. She also discussed the approved monument sign and the applicant's proposed monument sign. Chairman cNiel opened the public hearing. Ms. Gemma Marshall , Berk Sign Company representative, presented to the Commission a site plan and presented a slide presentation on signs throughout the City. She gave background regarding the Wherehouse sign and the actual signage of other businesses in the center. Mr. Richard Oda, owner of Tiffany's Ice Cream Emporium, requested the Commission consider the Wherehouse proposal . Ms. Connie Johnson, owner of Merle Norman Cosmetics, stated she supports the addition of Wherehouse as an anchor tenant in the center and requests the Commission consider their application favorably, Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 13, 1988 Patricia Schrody, owner of the beauty salon, stressed the importance of having the Wherehouse in the center and requested the Commission's consideration. Chairman `cNiel stated the issue is not whether to allow the Wherehouse into the center but what would be the appropriate signage. Mr. Mike Altadumi , owner of the Donut Shop, requested the Commission's consider a compromise of the sign proposal . Lori Mullen, owner of T & L Flowers, supports the proposed Wherehouse sign and requests the Commission's consideration. r. Gary Kanter, Gary Kanter and Associates, owner of the shopping center, stated his reasoning for the proposal of the Wherehouse sign proposal . Ms. Betty Albala, representing Wherehouse Entertainment, gave background on Wherehouse stores and their proposal for coming into Rancho Cucamonga. She addressed the issues of sign regarding the size< of the letters, verbage, the color of the sign, and the bolt. Chairman McNiei questioned Ms. Albala regarding the Upland Wherehouse store regarding their sign; it does not have the extraneous information nor the bolt. Ms. Al bal a responded this share was an older store and is undergoing remodeling. r. gale Frisby, representing the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber of Commerce has been working with staff on several issues regarding sign ordinance. We suggested' that if them is a situation of compromise regarding this proposal, perhaps a decision could be delayed until the next meeting when the Chamber recommendations regarding sign ordinance are reviewed by the Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there are two stages to the proposed recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce. Planning Commission would review and consider input on whether they would entertain a possible amendment to the ordinance or setting a public hearing. The City Council would do the same. He stated the time frame for this procedure would be approximately 2 1/ months. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy+ stated the original monument sign; designed for the center looks balanced, but the one proposed is not and is aesthetically out of scale. They are trying to do too much for what the sign allows. Regarding the building signs, it wound be inappropriate to have any fetters larger than 24 inches, Color should be uniform and neon is not acceptable as it does not fit in the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes - o- January 13, 1988 9 Chairman McNiel stated that the sign ordinance is designed to identify as opposed to advertise. Commissioner Rlakesley stated he would not support increasing the letter size, he supports uniform color, does not support neon as it ;i s not appropriate according to the ordinance and does not want to vary from it. Regarding the monument, he would like a compromise in between the proposed and approved monument signs. Commissioner Chitiea Mated she supports the ordinance as written and finds nothing in this proposal compelling to make this special . Signs should not hide the architecture. The Foothill Specific plan is trying to stay away from the overabundance of signs that have spored Foothill in other cities. She felt that letter dolor should be uniform. Regarding the proposed monument sign, she felt it was too large. Commissioner Tol stoy stated he would be willing to consider a compromise on the monument sign only if it meets the requirements 'of the ordinance with no exception to the standards. ` Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. r. Gary Kanter stated the possibility of the Wherehouse and another tenant in the center is contingent ;on their signage. He felt there was very little flexibility on the Commission's part on the Wherehouse submittal and proposal. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that most merchants and retailers have a problem with the sign program proposed by the developer not the Ci ty's si gn "program. The :sign program in this particular center could have been thought out in a way that within the existing ordinance, prominence could havebeen given to a major tenant. The City should not change the sign ordinancesto correct the sign program that was presented by the developer. Commissioner Tolstony moved to deny appeal to the uniform sign program but indicated his willingness to look at other options for the monument sign, Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE --carried 10:28 P.M. ` - Commission Recessed 10,35 P.M. - Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 13, 1988 COMMISSION BUSINESS Discussion was heard on Design Review Committee rotation for January 1988, to July 1988. The following Commissioners will be on the Residential team: Chitiea and Emerick. Commissioners McNiel and Tail stay will be on the Commercial team with Commissioner Blakesley as Alternate. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carried, to adjourn to January 27, 1988, 7:00 p.m. 11:05 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submit Brad Buller City Planner Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 13, 1988