HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jan-Jun 1986 CITY OF CHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION I ITS
Regul ar Meeti ng
June 25, 198
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at .Cd p.m. The meeting was
held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161, Base Ling Road, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of
allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Dennis Stout, David Barker, Suzanne
Chiti a, Larry McNiel , Herman Rompol
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior
Planner-, Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner; Nancy Fong,
Associate Planner, Alan Warran, Associate Planner,
Nino Putri no, Assistant Planner; Howard Fields,
Assistant Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil
Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; di
Benedetti , Assistant Park Planners Ralph Manson,
Deputy City Attorney
CONSENT CALENDAR
At RESOLUTION OF DENTAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
o a res� en r a so 1 vi sr on an esi n
'Fe—view o singe family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low
Medium esidential District, located at the south side of Lemon
Avenue, 500 foot east of Archibald Avenue 01- S -21, 22.
Continued ;from May 28, 1986 meeting).
B. BERYL PARK - WEST EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL ASTER PLAN - Continued from..
Uu-n—elIT-1986—m—ee-ting.
Chairman Stout removed Item B for dscussion.
-
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to
approve the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 12991 - Shelbourne.
B. BERYL PARK - EST EXTENSION CONCEPTUALMASTER PLAN
Jim Benedetti , Assistant Park planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Harker reiterated his concerns regarding difficulty getting
into and but of the park with the present traffic configuration. He
pointed out that the way the parking lot is laid out, vehicles could
enter, turn and park with any smooth access or egress«
Commissioner Rempel stated he thought the lands should be one-way rather
than doubl e-way.
Barker agreed,- and expressed his concerns with left hand turns made by
vehicles leaving the park onto Carnelian Street
Commissioner Chi ti ea pointed out than the problem is magnified due of
the fact that it is going to be an active park with the soccer field
activity.
Commissioner Rempel stated that perhaps the answer to the problem was to
utilize the space occupied by one of the houses north of the park.,
Commissioner Stout stated with the freeway offs at that location, it
was going to have to be a signalized intersection at the ramp. He
believed it would have to be a' double signalized Intersection.
Commissioner Rempel felt that the stacking of vehicles trying to enter
and exit was the problem, even with traffic signals installed.
Commissioner Stout stated that this item was on the agenda for
recommendation to the City ounci l e felt the recommendation should
be that the traffic configuration was unacceptable as presented.
Commissioner Barker concurred that the traffic configuration as
presented still had some major safety problems. He suggested looking
into other alternatives to the entry lanes, and particularly to the left
turn exit lane onto Carnelian.
Commissioner Rempel moved to deny, or not make any recommendation to the
City Council . it was his opinion; that a revised traffic configuration
be brought back.
Commissioner Stout suggested simply making a statement that the present
configuration was unacceptable because ;of likely traffic conflicts and
problems.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to
forward Beryl parkWest Extension Conceptual Master'plan to the City
Council with a recommendation that the present configuration was
unacceptable due to likely traffic conflicts.
Planning Commission Minutes dune 25, 1986
Brad Buller summarized , that staff would forward the Commission's
concerns to Council, who would take the recommendation of the Parks
Commission and the Planning Commission into consideration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANDTENTATIVE TRACT 12911 - LEC
eve en cu o o f v ion on acres o Tar
in the Very Low Residential District, located on the east side of
Hermosa, north of Wilson venue APN 201-111-11.
Howard Fields presented the staff report-®
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or
anyone else cared to address the Commission on this issue. There was no
response and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea expressed concern :over the letter included as an
attachment to the staff report from the orborist who thought most of the
trees should be removed and the staff report indicated the windrows
would be preserved.
Commissioner Barker asked what was the definition of "most" .
Howard Fields reported that out of an identifiable 49 trees, 29 were
slated for removal and the remainder would be preserved.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to
issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving
Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12911. Motion carried by
the following vote:
YES: COMMISSIONERS; C ITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: C E
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C -carried
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -09 - LDS CHURCH - The request to amend the
opprove do one l em a o ng the installation of four 35
foot high and two 50 foot high light fixtures for the northerly
softball and soccer fields located at 6829 Eti; ran a Avenue, north of
Victoria Street APN 227-6-65 and 23.
Staff report given by ncy Fong, Associate Planner.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 25, 1986
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
David Long, 13021 Vista, ti wvanda, representing the applicant, stated
that; they had made a great effort to minimize the impact on the
l
neighbors by contacting everyone within the zone of influence to inform
them of their proposal . He felt that the residents seemed to be more
concerned with the noise level than with the lighting, and stated that
they would not be using public address systems. r. Long wanted to
clarify that the times they proposed to use the field was Thursday and
Saturday nights, not Thursday and Friday nights
Commissioner Barker; asked if there were instruments available such as
parabolic reflectors, lisoidls, or shutters to cut light off in order
to control the spill
r. Schl othower stated such instruments were not available for this type
of fighting. The beam spread for the lights they were using had; a
device to l i i t the amount of spillover.
o issionr Barker asked if there was any way to shutter that off.
r. Schl otho er replied that to his knowledge there was none presently
available
Commissioner arker inquired as to the effect of vertical impact.
r, Schlothower replied. that from a distance you would see the glow of
light and it would light up in that area... He furthers stated that the
primary concern from a design criteria was the ground level so that the
players could see. The windrows would provide some shielding for the
residents of adjoining property.
Jim rost, Etiwanda resident, submitted a petition of those neighbors
who had serious concerns about the project. He stated his opposition to
the project and said there was no assessment made regarding the
additional and'cumulative impacts of noise, traffic, and visual impacts
of lights.
Bobby Pederson, 6771 Etiwanda Avenue, stated that her concern was not
the lighting, but the noise factor after dark. She further commented
that the removal of the two rows of Eucalyptus windbreak that surrounded
the church property ould increase the noise factor from the activities
conducted at the church.
Linda Harris, 13044 Victoria, Etiwanda, stated her concerns about the
project which included not only the noise, but light pollution.
David Long emphasized the need for the proposed recreation facility and
reiterated that they had received great support from the neighbors.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 dune 25, 1986
There being no further comments, Chairman Stout closed the public
hearing.
Chairman Barker stated his concern with the spillover, and wanted
assurance that the lamps would be shielded to minimize the spillover.
e felt that without the P.A. system and with the size of grouping
proposed, the noise may not be a major impact.
Commissioner Rempel stated he was concerned with the noise and ,yelling
generated by the spectators.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated the would like additional information on
what kind of noise is generated by this type:of activity and the number
of spectators
Commissioner McNiel stated that reasonable lighting is needed to play
the game safely. With respect to the lights, he stated that the higher
the light the less problem t becomes. Co i ssi oner McNiel supported
the project and its benefit to the community.
Chairman Stout stated that the City had brae a philosophical decision to
live with churches and schools in residential areas He stated that the
issue was how much activity should be allowed, and felt that not
allowing a P.A, system was a reasonable restriction and should be
included in the Resolution
Chairman Stout stated that changing Daylight Savings time back to the
beginning of April may reduce the problem in regard to light
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with night activities associated with
a church, stating that 'people living adjacent to schools expect the
athletic field to be used at night, but not residents living next to
churches.
Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested limiting the hours of night games in
which case the lights out not do their that much good.
Commissioner Barker agreed it would not do them any good.
i e d Commissionerc 1 state that limiting the hours would not allow them
to play baseball .
Brad Buller stated that if the Commission would like to obtain
additional information on the noise, a noise study could be generated to
determine the impact it would have on the residential units surrounding
the property. With respect to the lighting, Mr. Buller suggested an
evaluation of the height of the poles and the amount of light being
spread, and whether the number of poles could be reduced wi t the use of
higher poles, e added, however,
that increased height .could have a
Planning Commission Minutes - m dune 25, 1986
greater visual ;impact on some of the residents, He added that direction
was needed from the Commission as to days and hours of use so it could
be included in the Resolution.
Commissioner Stout suggested noise and light generated by other projects
should be looked into in order to reduce the cumulative impact.
Brad Buller reiterated that a noise study could help the Commission to
make a better decision on what conditions might be imposed on the
project. He also wanted to clarify forte Commission and the audience
that tree , vegetation or shrubs do not mitigate noise.
Chairman Stout asked staff if this item could be reviewed again in a
couple of weeks.
Brad Buller replied that if a noise and light study were required, staff
believed more than a. couple weeks would be required.
Commissioner Barker asked if it needed to be continued to a date
specifics
City 'Attorne, Hanson stated that since it was a public hearing item, it
would have to be continued to a date specific, and further stated he
assumed with that motion that the Commission was also directing staff to
bring back a Resolution of poal with Conditions at that time.
Brad Buller recommended that the item be continued to the duly 2rd
meeting.
Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing and for the purpose of
continuance. He further er;suggested with regard to gathering"information
with respect to other offending users in the area, that staff contact
school boards to inform them of the problem and solicit possible
solutions from them.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to
continue Conditional Use Permit 84-09 to the July 2 , 1986 greeting.
:CPlanning Commission Recessed
8:25 p.m. _ Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes - - June 2 , 1986
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13275 - CLAYTON
CUSSTRG-TUAV en o
acres of-ra-nU-1-n--IFe-Re-di-u-m---ffl-g-H-ResidentiaI District (14-24 du/ac)
into a three lot residential subdivision for the development of a
290 unit multi-family condominium complex, Phase II of the Master
Plan of Development for 9UO+ condominium units, located on the north
side of Highland Avenue, 1200 feet east of Haven, Avenue - APN 202-
271-02, 03.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He added
that if the Commission concurred with statements that were generated by
the Design Review Committee with respect to provision for open space in
Phase 111, staff suggested a possible condition to Phase 11, such as an
amendment to the Master Plan that would call for a major open space
area, a minimum of 7,000 sq. ft. , immediately into Phase III, and that
amendment could be filed prior to the issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Barker clarified the issue of density and land use had
already been dealt with and resolved by the City Council , and the job of
the Planning Commission now was to make sure that we could get the best
product possible and address the issues of transitions of density,
product types, variety of unit design, etc. He congratulated the
developer for being a competent and professional group who had worked
well within those parameters.
Chairman 1tout echoed Commissioner Barker's comments that the job of the
Commission was to review the project within the density parameters that
were given to the Commission by the City Council . He then opened the
public hearing.
Mary Murdock, Director of Development at Lanson Development South, 881
Dover Drive, Newport each, California, gave an overview of Phase II of
the Lynn haven Master Plan described as Clayton Crossing.
Commissioner Barker asked Ms. Murdock if staff had mentioned the
possibility of a condition of an amendment to the Master Plan to
guarantee open space in Phase 111.
Ms. Murdock replied they had, and asked how that would work.
Brad'Buller, City Planner, stated that prior to issuance of any building
permits or any building on this property, that the Master Plan could be
revised by amendment and brought before the Commission for their review
and approval . This project then would be conditioned on the condition
that the Master Plan be amended to reflect the addition of open space,
the square footage to be determined by staff working with the applicant
and brought back to the Commission with a recommendation for adequate
outdoor area.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 25, 1986
Commissioner Chi ti ea questioned Condition No. 7, which requires outdoor
storage for all units be provided such as carport lockers or storage
closets adjacent to patios, and stated that the Commission had not been
very pleased with carport lockers.
s. Murdock replied that C all storage units provided would be in
above-storage units in garages, and only C of the storage would be
provided by the carports
Chairman Stout stated that there was a comment at the Design Review
stage that enough attention had not been plated on the actual design of
the carports, and the suggestion was made that this issue; be referred
back to e Design Review
required in the architecture Committee,
with respect to a b
to the carporsd that slight hars
s. Murdock said she understood this.
There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Stout closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Barker suggested` that the Commission address the issue of
garages and carports as a separate item, and the impact -that it would
have on this project could be handled inDesign Review.
Commissioner Chi ti ea expressed concern over the carport locker situation
and felt it should be addressed
Commissioner McNiel explained the open space tradeoff occurred as a
result of a large open space being traded off for an elaborate water
feature, and that there was opera space on one side, and the balance of
open space was going to be picked up on the other side.'
Commissioner Chiflea asked if the language:; on the amendment to the
Master Plan should be dealt with in the Resolution.
Chairman Stout said it would be included in the Resolution.
Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson stated that there were two Resolutions
and recommended two separate motions. He further stated the Resolution
for Design Review would d be the appropriate place to add Condition 17
requiring an amendment` to the Master Plan specifying a major open spade
area:
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution
approving Desi gn Review for Tentative Tract 13275 with the addition of
Condition 17, "An amendment to the Lynnhaven Master Plan specifying a
major open space area alone the gr'eenway spine within the western
portion of Phase III shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for Clayton
Crossing. The open spade area should primarily be devoted to an open
lawn area". Motion carried by the following vote
Planning Commission Minutes -8- dune 25, 1986
YES: COMMISSIONERS: PEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, GHITIEA, STOUT
ES COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Moved by Re pel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and
adopt the - Resolution vesting Tentative Tract 13275. ti oh carried b
the following vote
AYES: BARKER, RE PEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E -tarried
E. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 964 m GOLDEN A division of
acres an rn o ce i e Low Residential
District located at the northeast corner of Hillside Read and
Moonstone Avenue - APN I 1-251 elated Sale. Variance -01
G. VARIANCE 86-01 GOLDEN request ;to reduce the minimum lot depth
ro ee d eet on a proposed 20,195 square foot parcel in
the Very Lower Residential District (up to 2 dd ac located at the
northeast corner of Hillside and Moonstone - APN 10 1- S-G .
Related File: Parcel Map 9646.
Chairman Stout announced that Items E and G woulde heard concurrently,
but indicated that Item G would be determined first because the Variance
would have an effect on the conditions, if any, of, the Parcel Map.
Howard Fields presented the staff report on the Variance.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Irwin Golden, applicant, presented two concerns to the Commission. He
objected to the equestrian trail requirement imposed on his property,
and also was also concerned with the need to do any lot grading in the
absence of any plan to build and rove dirt. He felt the need for
grading wouldbe determined by the building plans of the new owner an
should be considered for approval at that time.
Mrs. Golden, wife of the applicant, expressed her concern about the
environment being disturbed by the equestrian trail requirement and the
premature grading of the land.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 25, 1986
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked Mrs. Golden if she was aware that the trail
that was being proposed was a community trail and would be maintained
the City;
Mrs. Golden replied that all of the trails are littered and not being
properly maintained
Commissioner Stout explained that there were different types of trails
in the City, most of which were` not owned by the 'City; but by the
homeowners. e assured her that the trail that was being proposed was
mandated by the General Plan and would be maintained by the City just as
if it were a street. He also pointed out that d proposal for funding
was 'before the City Council for d trails implementation plan to deal
with the maintenance of trails.
Andrew of tavary, Civil Engineer for the applicant, 1000 Quail Street,
Newport Beach, California, requested clarification of the Master Plan
horse trail being proposed
Chairman Stout closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barker asked if removal of trees was required.
arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer,, stated no and indicated that
Condition '#2 in the Parcel Map Resolution imposed by the Building and
Safety Department refers to grading some s ales along the south property
line of Parcel 1 to divert drainage from Parcel 1 off the other two
parcels, and may require removal of some trees.
Commissioner Barker requested that it be made record that there was no
intention of removing trees
Barre Hanson felt that perhaps the sal es could be graded to minimize
the removal of trees, and that the condition could be modified.
Brad Buller suggested adding a statement to the condition that might
reflect that a' detailed site survey showing exact tree locations be
provided with the plans of the drainage sale so that we ; could avoid
removal of trees unnecessarily.
Commissioner Barker again emphasized the avoidance of removal of those
trees.
Motion: Moved by Barker,; seconded by Chit ea unanimously carried, that
the Variance be granted and that Findings be generated.
Ralph Hanson asked if that would be a direction to Staff to bring; back a
Resolution with Findings on the Variance
Chairman Stout said yes
Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 25, 198
Ralph anson pointed out based on the case of Topaan a Canyon that when
there is a Variance there rust not, only be the ultimate conclusions of
fact, which is set forth in numbers I through S of the Resolution, but
there must be a logical tie in with facts generated by the hearing that
support these ultimate conclusions.
Brad Buller stated that staff would work on the Resolution.
Ralph Hanson stated that approval of the Variance subject to bringing
back a Resolution would allow the Commission to proceed on the Parcel
Map Resolution.
Motion: Moved b, , Re pel , seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9649 with the
deletion of Condition 2 relative to grading. Motion carded by the
fol I owi ng vote:
AYES : COMMISSIONERS: PELF MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: E
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman Stout suggested that Items I and J would be relatively short
compared with H, and asked if anyone objected to taking I and J out of
order. Hearing no objections, Chairman Stout proceeded with Item I on
the Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
I. ENVIRONMENTAL SSES T AND DEVELOPMENTREVIEW -07 - ARIL L - The
eve rip en o o ce u� nos o a r n square eet on
4.24 acres' of ,l and in the Industrial Park District Subarea
located at the northeast corner of Raven Avenue and 6th Street - APN
- IIS.
ino' Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Stout asked if there were conditions that required that the
architecture must be compatible with Phase I.
Mr. Puti no indicated that the Resolution conditioned that the
architecture for Phase 11 must go through the Design Review process and
that it should be compatible with the design and materials of Phase I.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes I cane 25, 1986
it
Charles McLaughlin, owner of Arical Properties, wanted to clarify the
language of Planning Condition #4 of the Resolution with respect to
landscaping, pedestrian facilities and signage. His ;concern was that
the conceptual landscaping plan they had submitted was consistent with
the requirements for the Haven Avenue Overlay District as referred to in
the Condition.
Chairman Stout stated that it was.
r. McLaughlin asked for clarification of the language with respect
Engineering Condition #2 of the `Resolution regarding the reciprocal
driveway agreement. He introduced the revised language that was worked
out between Joe Stofa of the Engineering ear ant, and the Engineer
for the project and stated that he would like this' language incorporate
into the Resolution. He was also concerned that the language referring
to the undergrounding of utilities along 6th Street did not make
provision for reimbursement of one-half` the cost 'by the property owner
to the south
Barr ye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that language o' l d be
added to that Condition to clarify that point.
There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to
adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 0 , with modifications to Engineering Condition #2 to include
revised language relative ' o the reciprocal driveway easement, and the
addition of language clarifying the reimbursement agreement for the
undergrounding of utilities along 6th Street. Motion carried by the
fol 1 owi ng vote
YES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIE , MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed
-10:0 .. - Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission inut s -1 June 25, 1986
J ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-09 - LEASON
PDMM"SMUATM----Mi--&e—v-elo—pm—en-t—of-a Ya— -s-te—r-PTa—n-To-r—a--35--acre
T—ndu-st-r-i-aT—Fak`-—a-rnd the first phase consisting of two light
industrial buildings totaling 63,474 square feet on 4.7 acres of
land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) located between
Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Avenue and between 6th Street and 4th
Street - APN 229-261-58, 59. Related Project: Parcel Map 9896 -
Continued from June 11, 1986 meeting.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that this item had been continued from
the last meeting at which time the Commission indicated that staff was
to work with the applicant on the architectural detailing of the
building itself and the architectural elements that abut and surround
the building. He reported that some changes had been made to the
elevations of the building, and that the developer was introducing a
sandblasted finish around the entire building on all four sides as
opposed to the smooth finish originally proposed. Metal roof screening
had been accented and made part of the building massing, and was
architecturally integrated into the building at the entry'. The f ree-
standing walls will be a minimum of 14 inches in depth which addressed
the issue of massing.
Chairman Stout stated that he had agreed to meet with the applicant to
discuss the architectural issues, and that meeting did in fact take
place.
Brad Buller additionally commented that there was, a condition that a set
of design guidelines for the entire park, and elements being looked at
tonight, if found favorable, would be included into those design
guidelines. The applicant has indicated that they intend to get them
back to staff within two weeks, so that should be back to the Commission
at the July 23rd meeting.
Judy Mc Castle, Construction Manager for the Bixby Ranch Company
introduced Richard Clark, Director of Design for Leason Pomeroy, who
gave a slide presentation which depicted the design thought that went
into this product, and also showed some buildings that were built along
the same lines.
Commissioner Chitiea asked how texture and pattern of walkways was going
to be addressed.
Richard Clark stated that colored concrete and a rough finish as opposed
to a smooth finish would be used, and that the pedestrian plazas were
part of the transition into the building and therefore integrated into
the architecture.
Commissioner Chi tiea stated that the project was significantly improved
over what was seen initially.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- dune ;25, 1986
Chairman Stout commented that he was more comfortable with ",the project
and felt it was going to be an interesting and innovative addition to
the City and one which would set the tone for others types of;projects of
this nature.
Motion: Moved by Rerrrpel seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment
and Development Review C-Cg. Motion carried by the following vote;
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: RF P L, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: RCN
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: C -carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED
H. REVISIONS TO THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, reviewed some of the significant changes
to the Industrial Specific Plan.
a
Brad Buller, City Planner, added 'that a meeting was held with the City
Attorney, additional staff members, and an attorney representing, one of
the property owners- regarding the Development Agreement and expects to
have that back the second meeting in dull.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Tim Beedle, A.H. Reiter Development, 9650 Business Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, complimented the staff the excellent job they did on the
revisions, and stated that he felt it represented the thoughts of both.
the Commission and the City Council in terms of implementing the
development practice. Mr. Beedle requested that the Commission consider
the area south of Foothill Boulevard between I-IS and Ftiwanda Avenue
for future oo eroibl designation; it is currently shown as Industrial
Park Mr. Beedle felt the median designation along Eti wa nda_ Avenue
between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route was unnecessary for buffering
purposes and in conflict with the intent to delete the median aloe
Etiwnda, ;and suggested that it be dropped. Mr. Beedle suggested that
the Fourth Street Median be deleted from Table 11-4 to make it
consistent with Figure It per the street classification. Mr. Beedle
commented that on page 11-46 a proposed fire station is shown on a
building site, and suggested the Commission deferring the matter to the
Fire District as it is no longer relevant at that site, Mr. Beedle
suggestedthat the definition of Office Research & Design be modified as
it tended to lend' a character of manufacturing use as it presently
read. Mr. Reedle commented that under Subarea 7, Special Conditions,
there was;a mote referring to a detention facility being located next to
Planning Comission Minutes -14- dune 25, 1986
the County courts, He pointed out that there was no such allowed use
under Subarea 7, although it was called out as an appropriate use under
Subareas 1, S, 9, 10 and 11. Mr. Beedle showed slides of some of the
holdings his firm had in the Industrial; Specific Flan area ;to indicate
by it was important that they have a chance to review the revisions and
express their concerns.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, agreed with Tim Beedle's comment regarding the
detention facility and suggested amending the Plan to allow the
detention facility in Subarea 7. As Economic Director of the Chamber of
Commerce, Mr. Barton stated that the Chamber had worked together with
staff and the City specifically with the latest changes and were very
happy with the revisions to the Industrial Specific plan. Mr. Barton
stated that the Economic Development Committee made copies of the
reports available to all the landowners, and that concerned members of
the community as well as the brokerage industry had sat i n with the
Committee. He added that the Committee had spent time with Schlosser
Forge and that situation was being solved by the Development
Agreement. He felt that everyone was going to be extremely happy with
the outcome of the Industrial Specific plan, and that it was rare that a
Planning Commission could make such a major change that received such
support out of the community.
Larry Nelson, 3151 Airwayvenue, Costa Mesa, granted to endorse the
recommendation to change the land use along 1-15. He also wanted to
clarify that paragraph I on page "-3 of the staff report should read
Subareas 8 and '14 rather than Subareas g and 14.
Dave Net laff, Vice President of Operations of the Tanner Company,
expressed concern that their business was 'going to be zoned out of
existence. He was also concerned about screening from the Freeway being
required as it ;represented screening 42 acres.
Brad Buller stated that the Tanner Company would be grandfather°ed in
with the use as it exists now.
Alan Warren stated in regard to Mr. needle's comment on 4th Street, the,
had been in contact with Ontario and there had been no decision as of
this date' as to howl to approach the subject of median islands. It was
staff's recominendation, therefore, to 'keep the median islands on 4th
Street until such time as they heard from Ontario.
Chairman Stout expressed his concern regarding the detention facility
which he stated was originally intended to serve a multi-use courthouse,
which does not exist. Since it appears there will be no Municipal
Court, the majority of the prisoners in that detention facility would
need to be transported. He stated that in his opinion, a detention
facility was not needed unless there was going to be s Municipal
Court. He further stated that the County could pet the detention
facilitywherever they pl eased, regardless of the Ci t 's Zoning
Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes 15 dune 25, 1986
Brad Buller stated that since that was the case, he felt it would be
appropriate to delete all reference to the detention facility.
Chairman Stout commented with respect to the issue of the 1-15 Corridor,
that he felt strongly that there should be some reference to the fact
that an Overlay District be done in the future, and he agreed with the
expansion of the Subareas. Chairman Stout further stated that staff had
done an excellent job on the Industrial Specific Plan and it was a great
document. With respect to Tim Beedle's concerns as stated in his letter
to the Commission, Chairman Stout felt that the issue of a possible
Commercial designation in Subarea 7 should be referred to the Foothill
Boulevard Corridor Study Cominittee to determine whether a Commercial
designation would be appropriate. Chairman Stout stated the the median
on Etiwanda was basically his idea and upon further consideration, felt
it should be deleted. With respect to the ambiguity on the 4'th Street
median, he felt a decision should be made upon receiving the courtesy of
a response from the City of Ontario. Chairman Stout felt the fire
station issue should be referred to the Foothill Fire District.
Chairman Stout stated the Research and Development issue was on the City
Council agenda for July 2nd for clarification.
Tim needle asked what the timing would be on that particular to
Brad Buller responded that it would depend on what transpired at the
City Council before that question could be answered.
Chairman Stout suggested that under Subarea 7, Special Considerations, a
statement be added a detention facility may be appropriate if municial
court facilities are provided at the Law and Justice Center.
Brab Buller asked if there were modifications that needed to come back
to the Commission.
Chairman Stout replied no, and made the motion.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, that
the Industrial Specific Plan be forwarded to the City Council with the
revisions as discussed by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Otto Kroutil wanted to express his thanks to Allen Warren for the
excellent job he did on the revisions to the Industrial Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 25, 1986
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K. TRAILS
Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the report and requested Commission
discussion and comment on the outline presented.. He also requested the
name of someone from the Planning Commission to serve on that Committee.
Commissioner Barker stated the logical choice would be Commissioner
Chitiea.
Chairman Stow expressed a :concern that the scope of work include
standards for maintenance of those trails for individual home owners by
Ordinance and that these standards be enforceable.
Brad Buller assured the Commission that the whole area would be looked
at including the local feeders, and what could be done with them i
anything, and all the pros and cons would be laid out before bringing it
to the Planning Commission and the Council .
Chairman Stout stated he especially wanted enforcement.
Commissioner Mc Niel commented on the fact that a lot of the people who
border on the trails don't use the trails, and those that do use the
trails pit the litter behind somebody else's house.
Commissioner Barker agreed that some major problems did exist.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that. since Chairman Stout had some strong
feelings on the subject, perhaps he would like to serve on the
Committee.
Chairman Stout replied that the assignment would be made after' it was
approved '
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Chairman Stout' announced that it was time to make changes in the Design
Review Co i tee and recommended that Commissioner Barker be the
alternate, with Commissioner McNiel and Commissioner Rempel being
assigned to Residential/Institutional and Commissioner Chitiea and
himself being assigned% to Commercial/Industrial . There being no
opposition to this reco endation, the assignments were made
accordingly.
Planning Commission: Minutes -1 June 25, 1986
ADJOURNMENT
motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to ANIL
adjourn.
11. U p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned.
;Dnepnuty
ese Bally submitted,
rad 8u er
Secretary
Planning ;Commission Minutes -18- dune 25, 198
CITY OF RANCHO; CUC ONCA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 11, 1986
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :OO p.m. The meeting was held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base ',Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman tout then e i n C led . the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Herman
R ` pel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT; Larry MoNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bull er, City Planner; Can Coleman, Senior Planner;
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate
Planner; Bl ane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer; Barr ye
Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; 'Janice Reynolds,
ds,
Planning Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENT
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that at their dune 18th meeting, the City
Council would be hearing the appeal of the Uniform Sign Program for the
Virginia Bare Winery project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - STERPA - A total development of
con mums an ng a am y we n-ngs on 65 acres of land
generally located on the south side of Wilson, east of Haven Avenue, in
the Lour Medium District - APN 201-19 -0 .
Commissioner Barker requested the removal of Item A for discussion. He was
concerned with compatibility with the surrounding area and questioned whether
the mitigation measures were adequate. He was additionally concerned that the
tract does not meet the energy conservation section of the Development Code.
Chairman Stout advised that a letter was received from Patricia Barona, an
adjacent property owner, which indicated that she could not attend this
evening's meeting; however, expressed similar concerns as those of
Commissioner Barker. Chairman Stout was concerned with the circulation and
pointed out that there may be problems due to the extension of Banyan and
Wilson Avenues across the City as a result of both the Etiwanda and Foothills
pl ans.
Commissioner Rempel was concerned that the applicant was not in attendance to
present his statement.
Motion: Moved by Barker,: seconded by Chitiea to deny the time extension for
Tentative Tract 11550.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CNITIEA, ;STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
Commissioner Rempel stated he voted No because he felt the developer should
have to opportunity to present his case.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - AJA The
dgVMpRR 6f ffiree esearc an`d_ Development/Office ui ngs taling
DC,000 square feet on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 11) located at the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue
and 6th Street - AP 96178.
Clancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented ;the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
David goon, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He
objected to the driveway restrictions, and proposed that the entrance be
restricted to cars only and require all trucks to enter on Buffalo and exit on
the southwest at firth Street
There were no further comments, therefore the public head g was closed*
Commissioner Rempel stated that as long left turns- could not be made, he felt
comfortable with allowing the additional exit on 6th Street as requested b
the applicant.
Commissioner Chi ti ea felt that as long as the truck traffic remained behind
the buildings and away from the cars as suggested by the applicant, it would
e a better solution and would be safer than potential conflicts with auto
traffic in the parking lot.
Planning Commission Minutes - - dune 11, 18
Doti on: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to i ssue a Negati ve Decl arati on
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use permit 86-06, with Engineering Condition 2 relative to driveways being
deleted. Motion carried by the following; vote:
AYES.; COMMISSIONERS REMPELBARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 86-0 - CITY OF
propose o amen ec ion per an ng o
Temporary uses of the Development Code of the Cite of Rancho Cucamonga,
Ordinance No. 211.
Bruce Cook, Associate planner, presented the staff report.
hai man Stout opened the public hearing
Jerry Linton, representing Citation Homes, asked that off-street parking for
model home complexes be determined by staff review and not prohibited
altogether. He felt the condition needed clarification. He additionally
suggested that the condition regarding on-site lighting should pertain only if
on-site lighting was proposed. He pointed out that many projects do not have
exterior lighting. He addressed condition h-2 and suggested that the finding
indicate if the location of the model home is in proximity to, rather than
adjacent to, a primary circulation route.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker asked the intent of the condition relative to on-site
lighting.
Brad Buller City Planner, advised that the intent was that if lighting was
i t would e
met the condition;
t therefore, staff would accept r
proposed, � � cept M .
Linton's suggested amendment to condition B-f to reflect if the lighting was
proposed.
Chairman Stout asked staff to comment on Mr. Linton's suggested amendment to
condition h-2 relative to circulation.
Mr. Buller concurred with the suggestion to include "in proximity to" with
regard to a primary circulation route.
Chairman Stout suggested that the Resolution language reflect that the
location of a model home office is such that it has sufficient access to a
primary circulation route, which could be a collector, secondary, or
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 11, 18
arterial . This would insure that any additional traffic generated as a result
of the model complex would not have a significant impact.
Commissioner Barker was concerned with the original language hi dh was
stricken from Condition 0 He felt than the eliminated language removed the
emphasis on the use of the structure and placed the emphasis on the location.
Dan Coleman, Senior Manner, concurred and suggested that the language remain
as originally written.
Chairman Stout wanted some type of language to restrict this temporary use to
situations where a considerable investment has been made in landscaping. e
felt that the models should be completely landscaped and some interior
amenities added.
r. Buller stated that rather that add language which might later prove to be
inappropriate, he would suggest continuing this item until later in the agenda
to allow staff to develop appropriate language.
By consensus of the Commission, Item C was continued until later in the
agenda
Da ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL; USE PERMIT 86-08 - ALHAMBRA
. - The es a s men of a upr n company n an
existing ui ng w th a lease, 'space of 2,184 square feet on 0.960 acres
of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ),
located at 8755 Flower Road - APN 09'-013-04 .
Debra Meier, Assistant planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Darker asked how the condition relative to objectionable odor
Raoul ; be measured and enforced;
Can Coleman, Senior Planner, replied that if the City received a complaint,
staff would contact the Air Quality;Management District, which has the proper
equipment and expertise to measure that type of situation. If there proved to
be a problem, the Conditional Use Permit would be brought back before the
Commission for modification to the Conditions or revocation.
Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing.
Jack Sol 1 , representing the applicant, adi red that there ,are "seven other
shops owned by Alhambra Reprograhi cs and to date no complaints relative to
unpleasant odors had been received. He concurred with the Resolution and
Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if there were any by-product -or waste material that
would have to be removed from the site.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 11, 1986
Mr. Soll replied that there would not and further stated that the ammonia
would be brought to the site in cylinder drums.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel did not feel there would be a problem with this use.
Commissioner Barker stated that he could support the project since this is
ConditionalUse Permit which could be brought back before the Commission if
there are problems or complaints.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that her concern was that chemicals would; be put
into the air causing air pollution. However, ; since this would not be the case
with this project, and since it is a Conditional Use Permit, she could support
the request.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 86-08. Motion carried by the following 'vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIE carried
E. MODIFICATIONS OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CITY OF RANCHO
proposil t6 amefia thi Divelopment C-od6--t-o---4-Vge4-dii—,a-p-ar-5-e-nT
eve"Eo�' t standards and to require enclosed garages for all multi-family
construction. Other similar modifications may also be considered.
Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, ,supported the staff' s recommendations
that the parking standards be made the same for condominiums and apartments by
raising the parking' requirements for apartments. He addressed the issue of
carports versus garages and stated that garages are not some sort of instant
design solution. They offer possibilities as well as drawbacks. He felt the
present system of controls which rewires that the use of carports be subject
to Design Review should be expanded and that the submittal requirements should
be increased so that the Design Review Committee would have the necessary
materials to fully evaluate the impact of whatever parking solution is
proposed,
Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 11, 1986
Karen Angona, Westland Venture, was concerned that the cost of apartment
dwellings would be increased if garages become mandatory; which would take away
the affordability of those units.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that in walking some of the recently approved
projects, she found that there is a problem with the carports which were
designed to be attractive from the street. She saw a problem primarily in
designing the location of either carports or garages. She agreed that the
standards for apartments and condominiums should be the same.
Commissioner em el stated that carports could be an effective use under the
proper conditions. He stated that simply putting doors on garages would not
prevent cares from parking in a development.
Commissioner Barker stated that there is no simple solution which provides all
the answers. He felt that requiring only garages would have a tremendous
impact on design and a more constricted feeling might be, created. He
concurred that there should be no difference in the standards for apartments
and condominiums and would like to see garages and that sort of a storage
facility urged. He was concerned that under the Optional Standards we reward
a closed compacted feeling by giving more density. He wanted to find a way to
encourage garages and to have the flexibility to use some common sense and
take a look at a total overall design rather than dictate in all cases garages
are required.
Chairman Stout was not concerned with placing garages on every unit and stated
that it makes an aesthetic appearing site plan for the public's benefit, and
destroys it for the people who live in the complex.- He was concerned that the
design standards placed on carports is inadequate. He felt that there has
been no attempt by the developers to make carports architecturally match the
apartment buildings. ' He stated that the carports need' to be architecturally
the same quality as the structure itself. He felt that the standards for both
apartments and condominiums should be the same; however, felt that the type of
unit should be examined to determine the number of spaces required. He agreed
with Commissioner Barker's comments relative to the Optional Standards and
stated that simply because someone is building at a higher density at the
Optional Standard range it should not automatically trigger the garage
requirement, since it compounds the 'higher density and makes the whole project
look worse
r. Kroutil advised that the Commission has the option in the current
provisions to give carports as much of a design emphasis as the rest ,of the
project. He suggested that staff development amended language to the
Development Code to clarify this intent. He asked for the Commission's
direction with regard to number of spaces. He stated that the current
standards vary based on the size and type of unit; however, the number of
covered spaces remain constant. He suggested that the number` of visitor
spaces should also be studied.. :and advised this this is really a question of
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 11, 1986
what kind of amenities the City wants to provide for the people that live is a
project.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff conduct further study with
regard to the current standards for 'both resident and visitor parking.
Chairman Stout requested that when this is brought back for Commission
consideration, the issue; be discussed with regard to the actual building
construction between attached units as he had heard a number of complaints
from residents with regard to noise attenuation. He suggested that Jerry
Grant, the Cit ' s Building Official , explain to the Commission what the
standards are ;now and what types of alternatives are available. He
additionally requested that Mr. Grant's report relative to sprinkler systems
be brought back at the same time.
8: G p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed
8:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be
heard concurrently.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ;MAP 9896 - BIXBY DEVELOPMENT/LEAS N
'I
divisiOn-b-f--35--s-c-re—s-o—f-Ta—nd into 13 parses OUR
e Industrial PaFk Development District, Subarea 12, located between 4th
and 6th Streets and between' Milliken and Pittsburgh Avenues - APR 9- 61-
5N and 59. Related project: DR 86-09.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-09 - LEASCN POMEROY
ASSOCIATES :: e eve oiinen o a as er an' or a acre` n us rya
Park amd--the first phase consisting of two light industrial buildings
totaling 63,474 square feet on 4.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 1 located between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh
Avenue and between 6th Street and 4th Street - APR' 9- 61- , 59.
Related Project:: Parcel Map 9896.
Nancy Fong, Associte Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing
Phil Cruzy, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He
asked for clarification of street improvement conditions. He advised that
discussions had taken place with City staff and it was agreed that Bixby
Development would provide street lights on the first phase parcels only and
that as the other parcels were developed, the street lights could be installed
at that time; conduit would be provided' to those sites now and develop the
streetscape in front of the Phase I buildings,
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 11, 1986
arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this was the intent of the
condition as written:
Mr. Cruzy asked that the language be clarified relative to the monument
sign. He felt that the condition was ambiguous.
Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that the language as now written
sounds like four monument signs that are exactly alike on all four corners are
required. The intent was that there was to be a gateway on 4th and Milliken
and the lesser monument signs were to have a similar type of design to them,
but not to have the same intent or purpose.
r. Cru y asked for the criteria to be used for the acoustical report and what
type of compliance would be required.
Ms. Fong advised that staff would supply the applicant with the submittal
requirements which detail how the report is to be addressed. She further
advised that the General Plan and Industrial Specific plan contain noise
standards which 'must be achieved in the development of a project.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the use of the name
"Bixby/Rancho Cucamonga Business Park" and advised that it would lead to
confusion since the name is "Rancho Cucamonga. Business Park" already exists.
Judy McCaslin, representing the applicant, advised that the center would be
called "Bixby Business Park - Rancho Cucamonga".
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the site plan works but she was
unconfortabl e with the architecture; and design of the project. She felt the
building needed more design work and could not approve it as currently
presented.
Commissioner Barker was concerned with the landscape plan as presented. He
agreed that the building needed more work. He suggested that a consistent
theme be used throughout.
Commissioner Rempel was not concerned with the architecture. He felt that the
landscaping surrounding the complex was well done and would add to the overall
project
Chairman Stout stated that he was not concerned with the master plan or site
plan and felt it would work since its in an Industrial Park zone. He was
concerned with the architecture. He felt that the project needed fine tuning
and was particularly concerned along the area of 4th Street. He suggested
that the project go back to the Design Review Committee for modifications,
i
;I
Planning Commission Minutes - - June 11, 1986
it
p
Commissioner Rempel suggested that "broom finished concrete" be deleted from
the conditions. He advised that almost all sidewalk and pedestrian crossings
are broom finished; therefore, this would, not be a special treatment.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chiiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution: approving Parcel Map 9896, with an amendment to
delete "broom finished concrete" from the conditions, and clarification of the
language with regard to the monument sighs. Motion carried by the following
vote.
AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER,; CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT
OE : COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to
continue Environmental Assessment and. Development Review 86-09 to the Planning
Commission meeting of dune 25, 1.986. The project is to be placed on the next
available Design Review calendar for further modifications.
Chairman Stout advised that the Commission would reopen the public hearing for
the following item.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 86-0 - CITY OF
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the following amendments to the condition
H: "All model home lots shall be fully landscaped including but not limited to
permanent underground irrigation system, specimen size trees, and the use of
shrubbery, ground cover and lawn in a combination to provide a pleasing and
aesthetic environment compatible with the surrounding established
nei ghborhood. The following to be added to the end of condition 4: "At a
minimum, the Planning Commission shall determine that the proposed site is
developed consistent with the landscaping requirements per the section above
modified."
Barker advised that 'i n addition to this modification, the language should be
as originally written for ;Condition 0.
Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , to adopt, the Resolution
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code
Amendment 86-02 to the City Council with above recommended amendments. Motion
carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes - 9June 11, 1986
AYES. COMMISSIONERS BANKER, PEMP'EL, EHITIEA, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL_ carried
NEW BUSINESS
H. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86 - HAYES - A consistency determinations between the
66 1 ors or Tht&iffi P611c1es and a proposal to expand the Cub Tavern
located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - "APN 07- 71-7 '
Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Don Hayes, applicant, gave an overview of the request.
Chairman Stout explained to the applicant the intent of the Foothill Interim
Policies
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the driveway and felt it would need to
e improved and stated that the items the applicant wished to install would
not comply with the Interim Policies. He could not support the request.
Commissioner Ehitiea stated that she appreciated when anyone in the Gity wants
to improve their property. If the applicant constructs a fence in order to
serve alcoholic beverages outside, she felt it should be considered an
expansion of the use. She felt that this request could not be considered
consistent with the Foothill Interim Policies
Motion: Moved by _Ehitiea, ;seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to
determine Preliminary Review 86-33 inconsistent with the Foothill Interim
Policies.
I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 8 -8 - EIEH - A consistency determination between the
too 1 o r1 or Interim "T-oTicies and a proposed 10-Bay Auto Service
Center totaling 6,400 square feet, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard, across from San Bernardino Road - APN 01-101-17.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report..
Chairman Stout invited public comment. I
r 1 n r California,.der y, E c,., 1�17 Redwood, Ontario, a1 o d, gave an of the
request.
Planning Commission Minutes _10 June 11, 1986
'I
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that this was too intensive a use adjacent to
single family residences. ` She was concerned with the noise generated by the
project and stated that she could net support the request, as one which is
consistent with the Foothill Interim Policies.
Commissioner Barker stated that he had serious concerns with compatibility and
would agree that the request is not consistent with the ; Foothill Interim
Policies.
Commissioner Rempel agreed and was also concerned with the impacts outdoor
storage would have on adjacent properties.
Chairman Stout stated that this type of use really belongs in a light
industrial pare and, suggested that the applicant look into that type of
location. He felt the intensity of the use was too great in this location.
Motion: Moved by ;.Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to
determine Pr l i`ni ary Review 85-8 inconsistent with the Foothill Interim
orri dor Pol i ci es:
NEW BUSINESS
J. BERYL PARK - WEST EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
Jim Benedetti , Assistant Park Planner, presented the staff report, ;
Commissioner Ramer was concerned that only one entrance was proposed for this
park. He stated that there is a major traffic problem at Beryl Park East
during the soccer programs,
r. Benedetti stated that there are constraints with the site since there is a
proposed freeway on ramp to the south. Staff had discussed the situation with
the Engineering Division and had agreed on one entrance to the north which
would align with Hamilton Street.
i
Commissioner Barker :asked if the parking for this park was equal to that
provided for Beryl Park East,
r enedi tti replied that there are 80 existing parking spaces at Beryl Park
East and 97 proposed for this park.
Commissioner Barker was concerned that Beryl Park East was difficult to get in
and out of with BD spaces, he questioned how this would work at this park. He
was additionally concerned with the traffic impact on Carnelian Street. He
recommended that something be done to mitigate the amount of traffic. He saw
some major traffic problems with this particular parking lot and felt that a
ecel aration lane should be considered. He stated that he was uncomfortable
with this proposal and additional consideration should be given to this
design.
Planning Commission Minutes - - June °11, 1986
i
Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there is no room to have
second driveway due to the closeness of the freeway on ramp; however, the
suggestion of a deceleration lane might have some merit. He further stated
that another factor is that there is no room on Beryl for overflow parking on
the street:
Commissioner Rempel agreed that the driveway design needed further work. He
stated that when the freeway goes in this design will - really become a
hazard. He was additionally concerned with the left turns coming out of the
park:
Mr. Rougeau advised that there would be a lot of delay in the: parking lot when
people are attempting to exit. He stated that one advantage to this design is
that it does have a long driveway before you get to any parking or internal
ei rcul ati on.
Commissioner Banker asked if there were any way to split the driveway with
some sort of a greenbelt as a divider.
Mr. Rougeau stated that Metropolitan Water District has a 100 foot easement in
the driveway location, but felt that an agreement could be reached to widen
out the drive enough to get two exit lanes for right and left turns.
Commissioner Re pel stated that the same safety standards should be required
of this project as any other project in the City. He reiterated his concern
with the left turn lane.
Commissioner Chi ti ea was concerned with the location of the play equipment.
She asked if this area was shaded.
Mr. Benedetti replied that it was shaded.
Brad Buller, City planner, rei tered that taff's direction was to go back and
look at some analysis with the driveway regarding stacking and amount of cars
that could go in and out of the driveway` safely; the possibility of a
decel arati on lane; and, the inclusion of at least two exit lanes, possibly one
right turn only.
Chairman Stout stated that the issue was the site was given to the City for
free because it can't be used for anything else. The Commission' s concern is
making the driveway as safe a ; it can possibly be designed.
I
K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
lane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman Stout requested that staff check the figures listed for items Bfi and
B , Base Line and Archibald avenue beautification, respectively.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - dune 11, 1986
r
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to
recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Program to the City Council .
C OMM I SIGN BUSINESS
Commissioner Barker requested that Design Review Committee rotations be placed
n the dune 25, I986 Planning Commission agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion. Moved by Rmpl , seconded by Chiia, unanimously carried, t
adjourn
10: C p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Deputy Secretary
i
i
h
i
Planning Commission i nut+ s -13- June II, 1986
_ I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 28, 1986
Vice-Chairman David Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held a
Lens Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. He then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT. David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel,
Herman Rempel
ABSENT., Dennis Stout
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner;
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil
Engineer- Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney; Barbara
Kral1 , _Assistant Civil Engineer- Debra Meier, Assistant
Planner,; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds,
Secretary; Lisa Ni'ninger, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the first meeting of the Foothill
Boulevard Ad Hoc Committee would be held on Tuesday, June 3rd. He advised
that this Committee would begin setting the ground work for the Process to
ever approximately eleven months to 'completion of the plan.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion* Moved by Remel , seconded by McNiel , carried, to approve the Minutes
of April 23, 1986 as submitted. Vice-Chairman Barker did not attend that
meeting, therefore abstained from vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. DESIGN REVIEW( FOR TENTATIVE';TRACT 11626 - ALTA LO A ESTATES - A review of
Bail of 8 Mg e- i y de a-cffe-d-bomes within a
custom lot residential subdivision of 82 lots on 86.53 acres in the Very
Low Residential District, located on the north side of Almond at Beryl
Strut. - APN 1061-411- 3, 1061-451-0, 1061-171-01.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A residential
div6l opmen sing ami y o s on 147. 16 acres off land in the Very
Low (VL) District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of
Hillside Flood Channel and north of Hillside Road - APN 201- 1-16.
C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - GLENFED -' The Design Review of
eTevation§_iihdPlot pan for a rcor e rae o lots on 16. 8 acres in
the Low Residential District ( -4 dd ac), located south of 19th Street
between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek Flood Channel - APN 20 -211-21.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR; AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED - Design review o
new elevations rdp acing previous approve eva -ions ' for , 172 single
family lots on 34 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-
B dwelling units per acre) located at the end of lgth Street, south o
Highland.
0. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 AND 12237-2 - RANGEVIEW - The
egn eve of- building e evUon arr P o Pans for 12 lots throughout
the two recorded tracts (12237 & 12237-2) in the Very Low Density
Residential District, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of
Hillside.
E. TIME EXTENSION TIME FOR PARCEL MAP 5786 - C/L, INC. - A request for
ex ens7ono fime or Parcel , oca e a e south side of Base
Line Road, east side of Carnelian Avenue - APN 07-031-28.
Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ;REVIEW 6- - SAMPSON - The
development- d wnnous rya inns o a Ong square feet on
1.01 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located
at the northwest corner of Cottage and Acacia Streets - APN 2 g-192-19
20.
G. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-05 - CALIFORNIA
FINISHED METALS - A- reques o aiTow a 5,460 square oo ffiitil canopy
a l o o an existing manufacturing building located' at 9133 Center
Street
H. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE; TRACT
L resi en i s ac su v on o acres n
o , oa e on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, south of
Highland Avenue - APN 02-2 1-13� 38.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 28, 1986
1 RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT` 12991
E N - A o a res ential subdivision an gn eve ew o
singlefamiTy lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential
District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 5CC feet east of
Archibald - APN 201- 52-21, 22. (Continued from May 14, 1986 meeting. )
Vice-Chairman Barker reproved items C and I for discussion.
Commissioner Chitiea requested item H be removed for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel unanimously carried, to adopt
the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.
C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - GLENFED
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff recommended two additional
conditions to the Resolution of approval for this tract.- One condition would
require a soils study prior to issuance of building permits and the other
would require submittal of accurate plans showing existing, and proposed fences
and walls along the western property boundary.
J.C. Cstic, ` representing the applicant, concurred with those additions.
Motion: Moved by Mac i el , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tentative Tract 12952, with the
additional conditions requiring a soils study prior to issuance of building
permits and submittal of plans showing existing and proposed fences and walls
along the western property boundary:
N. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
Commissioner Chitiea asked for clarification that the Resolution included
ramps with the sidewalk connections from the street level to the greenbelt
areas.
Brad Boller, City Planner, advised that this was a condition of approval .
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded ,by Mc Niel , unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13058.
1 RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
Vice-Chairman Barker advised that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a
letter for the applicant of this project requesting that the item be continued
to the Planning Commission ion meeting of June 25, 1986, in order to resolve
concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 28, 1986
Motion:onMoved by Chi ti oa, seconded by Mc i el , unanimously carried, to
Conti nue eonsi derati on of the Resolution of Denial for Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract 1991 to the dune 25, 1986 Planning Commission
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0 A - BAR A IAA - A
re ues o amen an ap o enera an ro ow Medium
Density Residential ( -8 d /a ) to Neighborhood Commercial for acres of
land located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda - AP 7
111-1C, 24, 259 and 26.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EII AN A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 86-01
BARMAKIAN iwan a Specific Plan Land Use Map
from r5w (Community Service) and "LMr (Lour Medium Density Residential ) to
NC; (Neighborhood Commercial ) for 9.4 ages of land located at the
northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda - APN 227-111-10, 24, 25,' 6.
Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report
Vice Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.:
Andrew Barmaian, applicant, gave an overview of the project. He additionally
stated that he would work with staff to resolve issues and mitigate concerns
and felt this project would be one of which the City would be proud.
Laurence Williams, 1796 Base Line Road,; Etiwanda, opposed the project. He
felt there was no reason to change the designation for that area.
Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, stated that he was a member of the Committee who
worked on the Etiwanda Specific Plan and gave an overview of the review
process relative to commercial; uses at this corner. He advised that all of
the residents of Etiwanda would not grant to in ;any way jeopardize the Etiwanda
Specific plan. If this proposal jeopardizes the plan, they would oppose it.
Mr. Banks Mated that the five Etiwanda residents who serve on the Citizens
Advisory Commission had met with Mr. Barma iao to review the shopping center
puns and had presented hire with a list of concerns. He explained that these
residents were not serving in the capacity of Commissioners, merely Etiwanda
residents. , One concern was that possibly` the 5 acre commercial site could not
be developed into as nice and economically 'secure center ,as the one Mr.
Barmaian proposed on 10 acres.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he saw no relationship between the number of
acres in a site and the quality of its development. He stated that the
Etiwanda residents fought hard and dil igenty with respect to the Etiwanda
Specific Plan. He stated that this project flies in the fate of everything
those residents stood for at that time. Further, this project transed
compromise and is a typical commercial development with slightly different
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 28, 1986
architecture. He saw nothing different that would do anything for the
Etiwanda Community
t other than creat
e another er shopping pp g center like every other
shopping center.
Mr. Banks stated that one thing that crosssed the minds of the residents was
that Mr. Barmakian is obviously trying hard to make this rural and all the
other things required by the Etiwanda Plan,.' He did not have a definite
viewpoint he was trying to get across, merely offer background on the 'issue.
Further, that one concern is that while Mr. Harmakian was trying to make this
center fit Etiwanda, there is a likelihood that another center could go in not
far from this proposed one which might not fit that criteria.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hewing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated that one concern during the Etiwanda Specific Plan
process was traffic which would be generated by a full commercial center. He
felt the size of this center would definitely increase traffic in the area.
He explained that the community service area was considered to be "mom and
pop" type stores; and shops that would service the locality of the low density
in Etiwanda. He thought that this plan before the Commission is intended to
service a greater area. He further stated that the Planning Commission would
not approve a center which wouldn't be in keeping with the Etiwanda Specific
Plan and which would not provide a lot more amenities than this proposal now
before the Commission.
Commissioner McNi l didn't see any advantage in the approval of this project
in light of the fact that the City worked long and Bard on the Etiwanda
Specific Plan an in his view, this is a complete reversal of what was
established at that time. In the long run, if this project is approved, he
felt similar projects would be coming before the Commission.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that a great deal of time had been spent on
developing a plan for the Etiwanda area which took concerns voiced by the
residents of Etiwanda into consideration. She strongly opposed the project.
Vice-Chairman Harker stated that a tremendous number of hours had been spent
on public hearings for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and that something was
established. To amend these plans would require that the project would have
to be an improvement of the status quo, which this plan is not. He Mated
that the issue here is land use and General Plan Amendments` cannot be
conditioned on design commitments. He was concerned with traffic impacts and
was adamantly opposed to the project.
Motion, Moved by McHiel , seconded by Chitiea, to recommend denial of General
Plan Amendment 6-02A to the City Council . Motion carried by the following
vote;
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 28, 1986
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
Motion: Moved by Repel , seconded by McNi el , to recommend denial of Eti wanda
Specific Plan Amendment 6®01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, DARKER
NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT': COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 191 - LEWIS HOMES _ The
o a eve opmen o a rest enti su i vi ion acres f n e Medium
Residential District ( -1 du/ac) within the Terra. Vista Planned Community
into 80 lots, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista parkway and
Church Street - APN 1077-091- 5.',
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
John Melcher,, representing Lewis Horses, concurred with the Resolution and
Conditions of Approval .
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion Moved by McNi e1 , seconded by Chi ti ea, to issue a Negative 'Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 13191. Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL
j
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
La ENVIRONMENTAL, .ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9916 - FIND - A division of .33
acres into 2 parcels in the o _ u a eve opment District, located
on the west side of Dakota Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue APN 201-771-35.
Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes - - May 28, 1986
Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments,
therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
9916. Motion carried by the following vote,
AYES: - COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARER, CHITIEA
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
M. ENVIRONiENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 - 1 - MAST - The
eve op en o a as er an or a acre 16dustrial—PPR nd the
first phase of construction consisting of a 58,00 square foot mini-
storage facility 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 - APN 9-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27,
and 28.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended
an amendment to Phase I condition 3 to reflect that the Rochester entrance
driveway is to be a minimum 55 feet in width
Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson proposed an amendment to Engineering
condition 4 to reflect that approval is conditioned on approval of Parcel Map
9998.,
Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing
Bill Snell , representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and
conditions of approval .
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea commended the applicant on the progress made on the site
plan and commented that it had cone a long ways
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi iea, 'to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 5- 1 with
amendments to reflect the driveway ;entrance on Rochester Avenue is to be a
minimum of 55 feet, and approval of the Conditional Use Permit to b
conditioned on the approval of Parcel Map 9998. Motion - carried by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 28, 1986
M
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP ggg _ MASI - A division of 31. 15
acres into parses or condominium purposes wi hin Subarea 7 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN P g- 11-1 19, 21, 26, 27, 28.
Brrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Vice-Chai man Barker opened the public hearing.
Bill Snell , representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and
conditions of approval .
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,.
MotionMoved by Chi i ea, seconded by Mc `i el , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment- and Parcel Map
9998. Motion carried; by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
OLD BUSINESS
O,, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11549-1 - BLAIR _ Design Review of
oatpri n s and-- e eva f ons dr an approve -tract for residential
subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low District (less than
dwel l i n units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the
east side of Eti wanda, south of Summit - APN 5-1 1-20.
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chi ti ea recalled that during Design Review Committee, the
addition of a bay window to elevation 2332-C was discussed.
Mr. Meer replied that he recalled this discussion and suggested that the
condition be added to the Resolution}
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 28, 1986
1
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comments. There were no comments from the
public.
i
Motion- Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to adopt the Resolution
ppproing the Design Review for Tentative Tract 11549-1 with an added
condition requiring a bay window on the front of Elevation ' -C. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHI'TIEA, REMP L, BARKER, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
P. REVISIONS TO AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA MEADOWS SOUTH A revision
o e '. approve rea Devel open an -to reduce thi number of single
family lots and increase the acreage of the greenbelt trail system for the
Victoria Vineyards South Village, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victoria
Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between
Milliken and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad - AP 7-
OB1-S.
Vice-Chairman Barker advised that the Commission was in receipt of a letter
from the applicant of this item requesting its removal from the agenda.
Motion. Moved by Repel , seconded by McNi el ,` unanimously carried, to remove
Revision to Area Development Plan for Victoria Meadows South from the agenda, '
NEW BUSINESS
Q. DESIGN REVIEW 8 -10 - MILLER - The development of one office building of
20469 square e an tree industrial buildigns totaling 71,732 square
feet within an approved Industrial Center on 18.42 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea S), located at the northwest corner
of 9th Street.
Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report:.
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Steve Muller, representing the applicant, presented color samples to the
Commission. He referred to Condition two of the Resolution relative to the
silos used by Inspiron. He advised that the applicant hoped to be under
construction by August of this year, prior to the vacation of the site by the
Ispiron Corporation and did not know how this condition could be
accomplished. He additionally referred to Condition three and thought that
the interior or exterior revisions had already been looked at..
Planning Commission Minutes - - .May 28, 196
F
Commissioner Chitiea advised that this last item was discussed at Design
Review due to concerns of roof equipment screening and the internal redesign
of the facility.
Vice-Chairman Barker asked staff to: respond to the applicant's concern with j
condition two.
M . Meier stated that the concern with the silos is that I nspi ron's lease i
up in June and at this time it is unclear as to whether they will be vacating
the premises or extending their lease. If Inspiron stays, it was staff' s
recommendation that the silos be completely screened. If Inspircn vacates the
site, staff recommended the silos be`removed.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant would be required t
post bonds and execute an agreement for the removal of the silos.
Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Reel , to adopt the Resolution
approving Development Review d - . Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA REMPEL., BARKER, MCNIELe
ROES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
R. DESIGN REVIEW FOR 5009 BRAMBLE -:Proposal to construct a 7,600 ;square foot
sing a amf rein enoe on a one-half acre lot in the Very Low District
located at the southeast corner of Ringstem Drive and Bramble Court - AP
O1-4B4-O .
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Howard Jones, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project.
Where were no further public comments.
Commissioner McNi el explained that the Design Review Committee had referred
this project to the full' Planning Commission due to its size and unique
architecture. He advised that the project had been reviewed by the
Homeowner's' Association of the area in which it is located and had been
granted approval .
Commissioner Chi`tiea thought the architecture appeared somewhat institutional
but felt the home would not create an impact on the community as a whole since
it was located within a gated community.
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for clarification of staf' s direction.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 28, 1986
I
Mr. Meyer explained that the house would still have to meet Code requirements
by reducing the peak height 3 1/2 feet. If the Commission determined the
architecture acceptable, the applicant should be directed to apply for a Minor
Exception.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to approve the architecture with
a 3 1/2 foot reduction in peak height and direction to the applicant to
proceed with a Minor Exception, Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
S. APPEAL VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM SIGN
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report..
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comments.
Glen Gel 1 atl , Bissell Architects, gave an overview of the: project'project's sign
Program, He presented slides of sign programs of various centers, ;`
Commissioner Chi ti ea disagreed that si gnage consistency throughout the project
would be bland and felt that cast aluminium would be elegant. She indicated
that Bank of America would not be asked to remove their logo and would still
have identification, as would any other major tenant. She felt the
consistency could tie the project together and make a statement if done
elegantly. Her preference was to use logos for the element of color and
difference.
Commissioner McNiel commented that the one thing the slides did was to show
what signage can do to a nice project as opposed to what it can do for a
project. He felt the original sign program should be used.
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for direction regarding the food court area.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the maximum area of 65 be used
the signs for the trellis in the food court area.
Motion: Moved by Chiiea, seconded by McNiel , to to approve the use of Optima
letter style regardless of the established trademark letter style of the
tenant except for corporate logos, aluminum with external illumination,umi nati on
, an
the signs for the trellis and food court areas to be a maximum GS of the
store front/arcade opening. Notion carried by the following vote:
i
Planning Commission Minutes -lt May 28, 1986
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT carried
T. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 - APPEAL - GOLDEN WEST - An appeal of a Condition
o p5F6VaT re40 H n un ergr6un i ng of- e i sting overhead utilities
fronting the project, located at the northeast; corner of 7th Street and
Hellman Avenue - APN 09-171- 0, 36, 449, 50, 51, & 52.
Brrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Mr. Hanson
read the following condition into the record as an amendment to condition 2 o
the conditions of approval : "The existing overhead utilities along Hellman
Avenue shall oe placed underground from the first existing pole south of 7th
Street to the first existing pole north of the project limits prior to the
issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The developer shall be eligible for
reimbursement for one-half of the cost of undergroundi ng from future
developments as they occur on the opposite side of the street.
Vice-Chairman Barber invited public comment.
Bruce MacDonald representing the applicant, gave an overview of the
project. He stated that the utility undergrounding placed a financial burden
on this applicant and felt that undergrounding in this case had no merit® He
proposed the relocation of four power pole lines in conjunction with Hellman
Avenue= Street improvements. He felt that the undergrounds ng policy was too
harsh financially and appeared to have no "history of consistency at the
Planning Commission design approval level
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner McNi el stated that in his four years on this Commission he had
seen it cone a long gray with respect to policy and consistency. He further
stated that what is being asked of this applicant is without question no
greater than what has been required of any other applicant.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that the Commission has been consistent
in the' undergrounding policy*
Motion Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNi el to deny Development Review 85-
, Golden West. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA MCNIL, BARKER, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 28, 1986
10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed:
0: 10 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened
D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT A request I
or review of site p ah and-Wilding-arc ure o o s , 37, & 38 in
an approved residential subdivision of 15.7 acres in the Low Residential
District ( -4 du/ac), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club
Drive, ;south of Calle ; eran APN 07- 1-1 thru 23 and 0/- 41-1 thru
1 ,
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Pete Val beda, 199 South Monte Vista, San Dimas, representing the applicant,
gave an overview of the architecture.
George Townsend, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the grading
issue and presented a model of the lots for the Commission' s review.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he was familiar with this piece of property
and understood its difficult situation„ This did not appear :to be radical at
all compared to some of the homes that exist in that area now. This looks
like it could be developed into something quite nice. He suggested the
possibility of decks. He concurred with the applicant's use of cross-lot
drainage.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this is a difficult site and felt the
applicant had cone a long dray. He felt the excavations could be moderated to
a' degree.
Commissioner Chi ti a stated that this is what the Commission was looking for
in the culmination of the two policies. She felt this would be an attractive
project as well as one which was not detrimental to the topography.
Brad Buller City Planner, asked for clarification of usable rear ,yard or side
yard space as to whether the Commission desired to keep it at a minimum.
Commissioner McNiel did not believe there would be a problem since they would
generate enough ground and probably as amenities would put in decks.
Vice-Chairman Barker stated he would rather see the deck than the retaining
wall as far as lot 37 goes.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 28, 1986
Commissioner Re pel stated that until the house is built, the Commission could
not determine what the owner would want to do and felt this should cone in at
a later date,
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there was no retaining wall on lot 37 and the
hill should slip in the future, would the City have any liability.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he didn' t think there would be a problem with
the hill slipping.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that he would be very hesitant to recommend
individual radi ng of lots and cautioned the applicant that future submittals
should be in groups.
Motion. moved by McNi e , seconded by Rempel , to adopt_ the Resolution
approving the Design Review for Tentative Tract 1005. Motion carried by the
following vote;
AYES. COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, ;R , CITIEA, BARER
DUES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried
DIRECTOR' S REPORT
V. THE GATEWAY MASTER PLAN (BR 85- 1) - A request from the developer to
p g resew e conce ua design-for n or ase II development.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment.
_
Tim Beedle, 965 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the
applicant, gave an overview of the request.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if a percentage o
shared parking was going to be acceptable by policy to the City, the Chamber
of Commerce Economic Committee would like to provide input for that
decision. As a developer, he commended the applicant for looking into the
future. He cautioned the staff to check their statistics on shared parking
and check areas that have tried shared parking,
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the City has been cautious in the past.
which is why so few parking agreements exist. He asked Mr. Barton if his
intent was that the Economic 'Development Committee should be notified when
proposal is submitted to the City.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May ' B, 1986
Mr. Barton replied that if there was anything the Chamber Committee could do
to help the City, he would like to be notified. '
`here were no further public comments.
Vice-Chairman Barker admitted to being paranoid on the issue of shared
parking. He stated that Mr. Barton's suggestion was a very good one, and
would like staff to provide the Commission with a report on the success and
failure of shared parking in other communities.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood what the applicant was trying to
accomplish, out it is a very difficult situation. He stated that he had been
in both situations where shared parking worked and where it didn't, and felt
it was simply a roll of the dice.
r. Beedl e advised that the applicant has entered into 'a 65 year lease with
the Morman Church, which prohibits bars from being leased space within the
complex. He offered to provide the Commission with a copy of that lease. He
further stated that the 20 percent figure was one which the applicant felt
would work in this situation. He advised that it is to the benefit of the
property owner to make sure the parking works, since he will lose tenants i
parking becomes a problem. He offered to work on the numbers with staff and
come bock to the= Commission with a report.
Commissioner cN`iel stated that some research needs to be done in order for
the Commission to see exactly what they are dealing with and how it will work
Commissioner Chiia appreciated what the applicant is trying to do and stated
it could work, but if it doesn't there could be a very big problem and
retrofitting parking is never easy. She was concerned that the parking
intensity would overlap with office uses during certain tines of the day and
concurred that further research needed to be done.
Vice-Chairman Barker° was concerned that the entrance to the atrium and
courtyard De designed to prevent a windtunnel; effect and still use glass to
allow visual impact.. He asked if there were any other comments.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that it should be wide enough to get the view
corridor without' looking like a 'hallway.
I
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for comments regarding the concept of intensifying
the office use and providing a parking structure.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he appreciated what the applicant was doing
and felt they had both possibilities 'covered and thought it was a good idea.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the City ;needs to keeps its options open and
not make the same mistakes as Orange County,
Planning Co mission Minutes -15- May 28, 18
Co issioner Chitiea stated that if the parking study indicates that there is
a problem, it might be possible to modify the parking structure to still meet
the intent.
Brad Buller, City Planner, Mated he understood the Commission to have
concern with shared parking, but some willingness to consider whatever facts
or studies either the applicant or staff can generate.
Vice-Chairman Barker stated that basically, the Commission is not willing to
make a decision on this matter without further information.
Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
past adjournment time for consideration of the 'following item
W. POLICY FOR UNDERGROUND NG OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Bruce MacDonald, representing Golden West, asked if this was the first written
formal policy adopted by the City.
Mr. Hanson replied that utility and rgroundi n was a long-standing policy of
the Planning Commission and that this Resolution would -state that policy in
written form.
Maylan Sampson,: Rancho Cucamonga property owner,; was concerned with this
policy. He asked what happens to the money which is collected as in-lied
foes. He asked for discussion regarding what happens in the case of alleys.
He suggested that a Letter of Intent right be ,used similar to landscape
medians. Mr. Sampson additionally asked for clarification of hardship with
regard to this policy.
Richard Eeurestein, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 100, was concerned with
adoption of this policy and felt it was an unfair hardship in certain
cases. He suggested a' benefit assessment district so that the entire
community bears the cost of undergrounding.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, addressed Mr. Sampson's question
regarding in-lieu fees and advised that an agreement would be used in long
tear situations. In other cases if there is indication- that the
undergroundsng will be near term in that other development will occur nearby,
the actual fee payment would be more appropriate. He advised that the fees
collected would be placed in an interest bearing account.
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for discussion regardingalleys.
Planning Commission Minutes -16-; ay 28, 1986
Commissioner Chitiea advised that this topic was discussed at the previous
meeting and a consensus was reached that alleys would be included in the
undergrounding policy. She further stated that she would like to see
undergrounding in every part of the City and realized that it would not happen
soon. Further, that an assessment district would have to be established by
the City Council . She pointed out that the Planning Commission was setting
policy; and the City Council would have to determine hew to implement it.
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for a discussion regarding the alternatives
provided,
i
Commissioner Chi ti ea selected Alternative 1, fee to the center of the street.
Commissioner Rempel selected Alternative 4, maximum fee length of 20 percent.
1
Commissioner M Ni el stated that Alternative 1 would probably cause the least
grief in error of calculation. He agreed ;with Alternative 1.
Consensus of the Commission to select Alternative 1 the ioriginal proposal .
Mr. Hanson asked for direction regarding the 66 KV undergrounding
al ternati ves.
The consensus of the Commission was to select alternative 2, to underground
all lines. I
i
The consensus of the Commission was to include alleys, railroad rights-of-way,
etc. in the undergrounding policy.
Staff was directed to include the above direction in the policy for
undergrounding.
Motion Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
past adjournment for di scus i n of the following item:
X. HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS
Laura Psomas, Landscape Architect, presented the staff report.,
Scott Shannon of Randolph Hublic and Associates gave an overview of the design
features.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that at Design Review it was discussed that a
flowering deciduous tree right be used which would be different and give
very distinct appearance and be a trademark of this particular area. She
further stated that the silk floss was tree was suggested.
s. Psomas stated that staff would be willing to consider the use of the silk
Boss tree.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 28, 1986
Brad Buller, City planner, stated that staff would support to the City Council
either the use of the Silk tree or Liquid Amber tree. He suggested that staff
further study the two varieties and talk to experts in the area.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the Liquid Amber was a beautiful tree
however, she associated it more with Rase' Line`Avenue and the city of Upland.
r. Shannon advised that staff was not particularly looking for tree species
at this point, but groped to gain the Commission's approval of the overall
concept design.
Commissioner Barker was concerned that the hardscape be designed so that it
would not be a collector of debris.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the 50/50 use of
hardscape and landscape. He did ;not feel that the Commission should be
worried with saving dollars on' the maintenance costs since the developers in
the area would be paying for it through assessments. He felt the median
landscaping should at least be equal to what the City requires developers to
install in their projects. He advised that the Chamber Economic Development
Committee responded to the design concept in a memorandum and that the report
did not address the Committee's concern regarding lighting. He suggested that
the trees be smaller and easy to see through at the intersections. Further,
the deciduous and evergreen trees should be mixed to avoid bare spots in the
1 andseapi ng. He also suggested that some lawn area should; be used in the
medians.
John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, supported the design concept at
presented. He felt the use of alternating tree patterns with the long runs o
deciduous trees between intersections and the evergreen trees at the
intersections was appropriate and advocated the use of Liquid Amber trees. He
was additionally concerned with the width of the maintenance walkway around
the median:
Brad Buller, City planner, advised that the City Engineer requested 2 1 feet
of accessabl a ,area for maintenance.
'Tim Beedle, representing Reiter Development, was also concerned with the ratio
of hardscape to landscape.
Richard Fuerstein, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked that attention be given to
the angle of the berm from the curb. He pointed out that if it were too
severe, carts would have a tendency to roll over if forced onto the median.
There were no further public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 28, 1986
4
Commissioner pempel supported the use of some lawn area as opposed to using
strictly ground cover. He felt that ground cover and low shrubs would require
more maintenance than the use of turf in the median. He liked the Silk Floss
tree. He was also concerned with the 2 and foot maintenance pathway and
felt it would increase the hardscape area..
Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed that some turf should be provided in the median
landscaping and that that wide walkway proposed was excessive. She supported
the use of rockseape as opposed to stamped concrete. She preferred the use of
parkway lighting with up-lighting particularly at the accent trees. She liked
the Silk Floss trees and supported the use of evergreens at the
intersections.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he would prefer a gradual transition in the
median from Ontario to Rancho Cucamonga and did not feel it should be a
drastic change. He thought Ontario had done a nice job on their median
design.
Commissioner peel stated that the lights in the center of the street could
have a pleasing visual effect.
Laura Psomas stated that while that lighting would be attractive at night, she
asked that the Commission consider its appearance during the doer. She pointed
out that there would be a predominant visual impact of the poles and any tree
placed in the median would be reduced in visual impact with the use of the
lighting standards
Vice-Chairman Barker asked for discussion regarding the placement of trees.
The Commission favored interspersing the trees.
Brad huller, City Planner, stated that the variety of spacing and clumping of
trees would have some constraints due to the width of the parkway.
Staff was directed to incorporate th e items �n the Haven avenue Median Design
g,
Concept for review at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
past adjournment for consideration of the following item
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Y. TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report..:
Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1986
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that she was also interested in having the City
Attorney explore some method "or enforcing access to trails and asked that
this be included in the Plan,
Mr. Coleman advised that enforcement was addressed in the Plan.
The Commission directed staff to forward a trails implementation plan to the j
City Council for consideration as part of the 1986-87 budget process.
ADJOUNRMENT
Motion: Moved by Pempel, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adjourn.
1 . Planning Commission Adjourned.
Re idly sub . d,
/B�r ul lrer
Cuter Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes May 28,, 1986
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 1 , 198
Chairman Dennis Stout 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 Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL. CALL
COMMISSIONERS; PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitie , Herman
Rempel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner;
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate
Planner, Barrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph
Hanson, Deputy City Engineer; Dino' Putrino, Assistant
Planner, Janice Reynolds, Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Stout announced that Barbara Kral l of the Engineering Division had
been selected as the May City Employee of the Month..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Remp 1 , seconded by Chit ea, carried, to approve the Minutes
of March 26, 198 ' as presented,
Consent Calendar
A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10 - ASSAD A custom lot
su v s on acres o an n t o s oca e n the Verb Low;
Deni ty Resi dnnti al Di strict l es than del l i g uni is per acre) a the
sou
ccarner of Maven and Ili l side _ APt 01 113 S ,
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS - located on the north side of
asp n oa , re o as venae - 7-131- 9.
C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11997 - 'NORD IC - Design Review of footprints and
eva i dns for an approveid Tentative Tract of a 19 residential lot
subdivision on 9.75 acres of land in the Very Low District located at the
southeast corner of Hillside and Beryl; - APH 101-61-01.
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84- - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY -
e eve oilmen roe ware Dose s r� on ui I di ngs o a f n 10
square feet on 22.09 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
Zone (Subarea 9) located at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and
8th Street -_ AP 9-11:1-08, 09.
E. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 171 - STEPHENSON - A custom let
su vt t on o s d s on acres of an r e' Very Lew QVL
District, located at the northwest corner of Klusman Avenue and Whila ay
.Street APN 511-0 -07
F. PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE IN TERRA VISTA
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 991 - SHELBOURNE - A 'total
residential-subdivision an ;design review d i ng e family Tots on B.
acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south
side of Lemon Avenue, SO feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 01- - 1
. (Continued from April 23, 1986 meeting, )
H. APPROVAL OF BASE LINE ROAD AND 19TH STREET BEAUTIFICATION CONCEPTS
Commissioner Barker requested that Items C and E be removed for discussion.
Chairman Stout requested that Item O be removed for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Rem el , :seconded by Chi'tiea, unanimously carried, to adopt
all other items on the Consent Calendar.
C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11997 - NORDIC
Commissioner Barker stated that the streetscape treatment for this tract was
discussed at great length by the Design Review Committee, but he did not see a
condition addressing the concern in the Resolution.
Gary Mitchell , 950 Business Center Drive, representing the applicant, stated
that the return walls or fences had been discussed at the Design Review
meeting and it was agreed that this item would be brought back to the
Committee for review. He concurred with all conditions of the Resolution.
Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Design Review for Tract 11997 with an added condition
requiring the return walls/fences to be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Committee prior to issuance of the Design Review Committee.
Planning Commission Minutes: - - May 1 , 1986
i
E. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1171 - STEPHENSON
Commissioner Barker was concerned with the equestrian trail easements for this
tract and requested that staff prepare a letter informing the applicant that
the tract is located within the Equestrian Overlay District which requires the
keeping of horses, and that CCR's shall not prohibit the keeping of animals.
Motion- Motion; Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to
adopt the Resolution approving the final time extension for Tentative Tract.
12171, with the taff' s direction as stated above.
O. ENVIRONMENTAL: ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 991 - SHELBOURNE
Chairman Stout advised that the Commission was in receipt of a' letter from the
property owner stating that the above applicant no longer had the authority to
process this tract. He asked for counsel ' s direction.
Ralph Hansom, Deputy City Attorney, advised that it would be necessary for the
Planning Commission to continue consideration of this item until such time a
the City Attorne, ' s office clarified the issue.
Motion.` Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to continue
Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract` 1991 to the dune 11, 1986
Planning Commission meeting.
I
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11 - SCHL _ A 21 custom
o suo 1v1s1on on . acres o an In ne ow esi enti District ( -4
du/ac ) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del Pr do -
API O$- 1- , 04. (Continued from April 9, 1986 nesting. )
Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker commented that Jerry Nilson, the project' s engineer, was
most cooperative and pleasant to work with.,
Motion: Moved b Barker, seconded b '.
y y C ea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 13114. Motion carried by the following vote.
Planning Co
mmission issi n o Minutes
to s
May 14 198
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, RE PEL STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
J. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-14 - VFW - A meeting hall serving
050h5lic a erages n an exis Ong ading with a lease space of 500
square feet on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea )
Category, located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 20i9-031-74. (Continued
from April 23, 1985 meeting'
Dino Putrind, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing,
Chief Lloyd Almond, Foothill Fire District, stated that it was the Fire
District's position that it was not in the hest interest in the life and
safety of citizens to allow'-, the VFW to continue its use of the building due to
noncompliance of conditions.
Susan Wolfe, Foothill Fire District, advised that the Fire District has not
received a ;fire alarm plan and the; system has not been installed, despite
assurances by the VFW that they intend to comply with the condition as
required
Chairman Stout stated that at the last hearing the; applicant indicated that
they had been supplied with insufficient information relative to the type of
plan required by the Fire District.
Ms. Wolfe replied that the Fire District mailed a -certified_ letter to Matt
Hogue, Commander of VFW Post 8680, on September 5, 1985. A copy of the letter
was provided to the Commission for their review. Ms. Wolfe pointed out that
this letter contained the fire alarm requirement found in the fire code.
Gene Barnes, representing the VFW, .stated that they received the letter from
the Fire District, but were not sure what needed to be included in the plan.
Further, that the VFW was willing to comply with conditions of approval but
needed further information regarding the alarm plan. He indicated that one of
the members was an electrician and he had purchased the alarm equipment.
Commissioner Rempel stated that any alarm company would be able to draw up the
required plans and suggested that the applicant should contact one of them,
not simply use an electrician who is unfamiliar with fire code ;requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 14, 1986
Chief Almond, Foothill Fire District, stated that the Fire District had been
in contact several times with the VFW and had informed them what the plans
must contain in order to meet the conditions of approval . Each time, the VFW
had assured the Fire District that they fully intended to provide the plan as
required. He further stated that Commissioner Rempel was correct in that any
fire alarm company would be able to draw the plans specified, which had been
suggested to the applicant. However, the Fire District could not endorse any
one company and the Fire District was not in the business of drawing up fire
rd
system plans.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker did not think the use should be allowed to continue until
it meets the Fire District' s conditions of approval . He suggested that a new
condition be added to cease operations with a fixed date for compliance of
conditions.
Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with granting a continuance because of the
safety factor for people using the building. She could not support a
continuance to allow operations and stated that the applicant had been given
an opportunity since the last meeting to comply, but they did; not elect to do
so. She felt it was necessary for the building to be brought up to Fire
District standards before any further use would be allowed; therefore, was in
favor of revoking the Conditional Use Permit,
Commissioner Rempel asked if the applicant brought the building by to 'code,
could they reapply for a Conditional Use Permit.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the applicant could reapply
for a Conditional Use Permit once all conditions have been met,
Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to revoke Conditional Use
Permit D -
4 L4 VFW Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITICA, RFMPEL, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMBISSIOENRS MCNIEL carried
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 36-0 - AJA The
eve opmdn o one 1-story c 7co 1; Ing o a Ong , square feet,
two I-story Research & Development/Office buildings totaling D,!94O square
feet and two I-story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 28,228
square feet on 7.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea
6) and Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of;
Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401-01 (Related File: DR D -
4S)
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 14, 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-45 - AJA - The
eve opmen otwo ode buildings totaling square ee and two 1-
story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 38,228 'square feet on
.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea h), and the
Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the northeast corner of ";Haven
Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401- 1. (Previously Submitted as
Conditional Use Permit -O )
Nancy Fong,; Associate Planner, advised that Item K, Environmental -Assessment
and Conditional Use Permit -0 , Aja, was being removed for consideration b
the applicant. She then gave :the staff ,report for Environmental Assessment
and Development Review 5-4 ,
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Tom Utman, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He
asked that the angles of the southeast corners of buildings C & O be squared
off because 'it imposed a hardship with regards to a tenant who warts a',small
office. He pointed out that the doors in the rear would have to be changed t
facilitate a small industrial or small office tenant.
Commissioner Rempel stated that squaring off the angles on the southeast
corner of building U did not affect anything. The ones in the middle do
affect traffic visibility. He was concerned that cars -would be but in the
middle of the "T" intersection before' they could cross.
Commissioner Chatiea asked if landscape planters had been added: to the
interior service area of building B.
Gilbert Aja, applicant, responded that landscape had been added. He responded
to Commissioner empel"s concerti regarding the corners between building C & C
relative to traffic hazards. He indicated that typically these buildings are
done with 90 degree angle corners and with 26 feet of drive with 7 feet of
landscaping there would be sufficient space to avoid problems. He did not
fuel it would be a problem from a safety point of view.
There were no further comments, therefore the public ';hearing was closed*
Commissioner Chi ti ea appreciated the applicant's willingness to come to the
recently held workshop and bringing revised plans. She felt the project had
core a long way from its original design. She thought that the applicant' s
proposal to square off the angle of the southeast corner of building D made
sense* however, felt Commission Repel had a valid point regarding the
interior buildings from a safety standpoint.
_
Commissioner Rempel stated there are several traffic hazards .associated with
squaring the building ;angles, especially the hazard of a person stepping out
the marl door into traffic.: He suggested that di agbnal i ng the buildings off
gives a second alternative to bring the man door out on the angle. He
proposed that those two corners be angled cuff.
Planning Commission Minutes - - May 14, 1986
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 85-45, with the elimination of Planning Division Condition 7 requiring
the flairing out of landscaping of building D and the requirement for diagonal
cutoffs on the two buildings at the driveway. Motion carried iby the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
8:00 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:10 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be
heard concurrently by the Commission:
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13059 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
tract subdivision of -15:9- a-cres with
Planned Community (Low Medium Residential - 4-8 dwelling units per acre)
into 137 lots located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad and east of
Deer Creek Channel - AN 202-211-13, 38.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13057 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
- A reSidential ---tract --su-5-M-0-s-Ton of_2Z_"55___acr,es withi"n , the Victwria
Planned Community (Low-Medium Residential - 4-8 dwelling units per acre)
into 147 lots, located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and the
Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-211-13, 38.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13058 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
- K-- rds—id(intial---trict-s--u-WiVii1on o acres Othin--th-e Victoria
Planned Community (Medium Residential - 4-14 dwelling units per acre) into
201 lots, located on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, south of
Highland Avenue - APN 202-211-13, 38.
0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13060 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
N-
r-e-"iential tra-ct sun djM
Planned Community (low Residential , 2-4 dwelling units per acre) into 86
lots, located at the northwest corner of Mil lilken and the Southern
Pacific Railroad - APN 202-211-13, 38.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner reviewed the staff reports.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 14, 1986
Chairman Stout road a memorandum from City Council member Richard Dahl to the
Commission, in which he expressed a concern with minimum lot sizes and the
amenities provided for this project. He ten opened the public hearing.
Jim Bailey, William Lyon Company, responded in part to Counci1member Dahl ' s
memorandum by stating that the requirement for a Homeowners' Association and
the related dues would eliminate a lot of people who could otherwise afford to
buy a new home. Mr. Bailey outlined the changes to the proposed site plans.
He expressed concerned with the condition' of approval requiring an agreement
with Southern pacific Railroad for slope planting and maintenance within their
easement prier to recordation of the reap. He stated that the agreement 'might
take some time in obtaining, and requested that it be obtained on behalf of
the City and that the applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of
the slope planting and irrigation system until the agreement was obtained.
Mr. Bailey also requested a modification to Planning Division Condition 1 on
all tracts to require the greenbelt trail areas as well ' as Groves park
improvements to be completed prior to the occupancy of the first unit within
the tract, as opposed to the recordation as required in Resolution.
Dan Coleman Senior planner, advised that it was staff's understanding that
the William Lyon Company intends to sell these four tracts once grading has
been accomplished and the street improvements installed. He asked how the
City would require the William Lyon Company to install the; greenbelt
improvements as a condition of these maps when the maps may be acquired by
another developer.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the condition would follow
the map and would be the requirement of whoever owns the snap.
Mr. Dailey assured that the improvements would be done. He further indicated
that he would be posting bonds for these improvements and if they were not
done, the bonds could be called.
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the homes would be single or two story.
Mr. Bailey stated that.. the homes would be both one and two story.
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there would be a wall .
M . Bailey responded that it would be an open wrought iron wall .
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Bailey if he would consent .to a continuance of these
items until Councilman Dahl brings his request before the City Council .
Mr. Bailey did not consent to the continuance.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 14, 198
Commissioner Barker stated that if access can still be allowed 'to passeos and
greenbelts, favorable consi derati on should be given to that design
modification. He questioned the arguement that streets coming down into cul-
de-sacs opens that as a neighborhood view or to the view of the total
project. He felt that the back-on lots should be given some consideration if
it opens up the view to the community as a whole.
Commissioner Rempel agreed and further stated that the only 'view a cul-de-sac
opens up is for cars driving through the project. He considered the
modification to back houses on the lot gave a lot more people the benefit of
looking into the park and thought it was a good idea. He liked the concept
and the fact that paths lead down to passeo and through park and school area.
Chairman Stout explained that side on cul-de-sacs were not necessarily for
views from the interior, but designed to open up neighborhoods to relieve them
of large walls. In this instance the concept as presented would be for the
neighborhood to look out and this is not what was envisioned at the time the
policy was created. He would have been more in favor of the side-on cul-de-
sac situation if the passeo was at grade since it would be more inviting to go
into, but at 20 feet below grade it couldn't be seen anyway. For that reason
he thought there was some advantage to perserving the view on those lots and
as long as there is access to the passeos, he concurred with this change. He
added he would not like to see this made into a general rule because of this
special situation. He felt to tie phasing of the project to occupancy seemed
appropriate. He recalled that there are some grading problems with respect to
Highland which were discussed during Design Review and indicated that
condition 11, which referred to a grade differential of no greater than 12
feet, should not apply to the slope from Highland down to the first tier of
lots adjacent to Highland. He asked if the Commission was in favor of waiting
until after Council makes a decision as to Councilman Dahl 's request, or
proceed with these tracts. He advised that in order to not approve these
tracts after these problems have been worked out, the Commission would have to
find that they are not in conformance with Victoria Specific Plan and did not
think they could make those findings, because they basically are in
conformance.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the grading on Highland. Regarding side-ons
and passeos, she stated the entrances as shown could be very interesting and
inviting to pedestrians, provided wrought iron open type fencing is put in and
would be willing to approve this modification. She was concerned that ramps
be provided so that strollers and wheel chairs would have access.
Commissioner Barker asked the width of the proposed access,
Mr. Bailey indicated that the width would be a minimum 30 feet.
Mr. Barker asked how much of that would be open view.
Mr. Bailey replied that it would clear that the greenbelt is there.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 14, 1986
Commissioner Rempel suggested that the trees Grp near street snould be held
back and that the possibility of some type<of monument should be explored.
Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested the use of texturi zed or possi bi bl y colored
textured concrete to draw attention*
Mr. Bailey stated that he: had ' no problem with textured concrete, however,
color begins to fade and look bad after a while and'would not like 'to have to
use colored concrete
Commissioner Chi i ea suggested that the applicant come up with something
appropriate to the satisfaction of the City Planner. She also agreed with
Chairman Stout' s remarks with respect to continuance" of this item to the next
Planning Commission meeting. She fe'l t that i t now meets the i ntent of the
Victoria Plan and did not feel it appropriate to hold up processing of these
tracts
Motion,- Moved by Rempel , seconded by.Chi tiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 1059 with an amendment to require the greebelt trail areas and Groves
Park improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within
the tract, slope improvements; prior to occupancy of the first unit,
maintenance of slope planting and irrigation systems by the applicant until a
signed license/agreement is obtained from Southern Pacific Railroad on behalf
of the City. Motion carried by the following vote
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
ROES. COMMISSIONERS. NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL -carried
Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Rempel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 13057 with an amendment to require the greebel t trail areas and Groves
Park improvements- to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within
the tract, and a modification to Planning Division condition 11 to exclude the
slope from Highland down to the first tier of lots adjacent to Highland.
Motion carried by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CBITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, STOUT
COMMISSIONERS:TOESOE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: tIEL -carried
Planning Co ission MinuteslO� May , 1986
Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to
continue the hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 135 to
the June 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. A Resolution is to be prepared
consistent with ;the above modification, with the inclusion of a; condition
relative to wrought iron fencing.
Motion: Moved b artier, seconded b h3 _ Rem el to i
�' � y p � seas a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessme
nt and Tentative
Tract 13060 with an amendment to require the greebel t trail areas and Groves'
Park improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit within
the tract, ; slope improvements prior to occupancy of the first unit,
maintenance of slope planting and irrigation systems by the applicant until a
signed license/agreement is obtained from-Southern Pacific Railroad on behalf
of the City. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, PEMPEL, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
Commissioner barker commented that he had a rather strong personal feelings
about the sizes of lots. The Planning Commission is given specific guidelines
within which it works and the action taken by the Commission tonight were
taken because they do meet the criteria established by the rules, regulations
and laws of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 (REVISED) - LEWIS HOMES
I'lle o a eve opmen o a resi en i s subdivision of 16.6 acres-in-the
Low Medium Residential District -D dwelling units per acre) within the
Terra Vista Planned Community into 103 lots, located on the south side of
Mountain View Drive, east. of Spruce Avenue - APN 1077-091-03.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the elevations had been modified to
differentiate them from the other tract. ".
Mr. Cook replied that the elevations were the same and had not been modified.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
John M lcher, Lewis Homes, concurred with the conditions of approval and gave:
an overview ;of the revision. He addressed Commissioner Chi ti ea's question b '
stating that a Chemed architecture would be used in Tract 12802 and there
would be two or three variations to each floor plan but they would all be
Tudor. He explained that some architectural changes would be made ' from
project to project.
Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986
Chairman Stout asked: if the applicant would agree to a continuance per
Councilman Dahl `s request.
Mr. Mel cher-replied that he would not.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving the revision to Tentative Tract. 12802.
Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, RE PEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCN EL -carried;
Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12835 (REVISED ) - OVERSEAS
- amp y resi en a eve omen cor-prising
condominium uni s bn 9.52 acres of land in the Medium 'Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre) located east of Vineyard, 600 feet north
of Arrows Highway APN 208-251-05. In addition, applicant has requested a
Tree Removal permit to remove the northerly windrow.
Beard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the City has a pot i y regarding garage
requirements on condominium; projects.
Brad Buller replied that the City Council had directed staff to look at the
issue of whether ;there should be requirements for garages as opposed to open
carports. He advised that staff would be bringing a proposed ordinance before
the Commission in the hear future
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing,
Paul Nstberg, repesenting the applicant, concurred with the conditions of
approval . He asked for clarification of the wall requirement along Vineyard
Avenue.
Oar Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that Condition 6 of the Resolution stated
that bermi ng, noise attenuation walls, and dense landscaping could be used
which would be subject to the City Planner's review and approval .
Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if there would be any variation in the grim or any
other aspect of the project with regard to the color palette.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 14, 1986
Mr. We tberg replied that there would not be any color variation.
Chairman Stout stated that in some of the larger projects the Commission had
not required different color palettes but some subtle shade changes so that
all of the buildings did not have the appearance of being the same color. He
asked if this would be acceptable.
Mr. Westberg replied that he would be agreeable to this color variation.
Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would be agreeable to increase the
carport wooden fascia from 8 inches to 12.
Mr. Westberg replied that he would agree,
Ed Peterson, representing the applicant, addresssed the issue o
undergrounding utilities. He pointed out that this is the last project along
this area of Vineyard Avenue to be developed and that all other projects had
been developed prior to this policy and. had not been conditioned to ;place
utilities underground. e requested .the cond�t gion b e deleted
to be;consistent
with the developments along that
p g streetm if under grounding was to be required
b h
g g
y the Commission, he requested that at only the telecommunication cables be
placed underground since they are the main source of visual pollution. He
additionally requested deletion of the decel arati ors lane requirement on the
east side of Vineyard Avenue.
John Holt, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that a residential area at this
oil location might be subject to noise from the airport and suggested the
Commission take this into consideration.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she had re re ed the last time the Commission
made a decision ` to al l owr only the unergroundi ng of 12 kv lines. She
preferred to see everything under 66 kv be placed underground. She asked for
staff¢s input relative to the decel arti on lane.
Paul hdugeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that it appeared from the Edison
Company that the only way to accommodate the lines on the;pole which currently'
is within the area for the pocket lane, would be to add another pole along
Vineyard. With this under consideration, he felt that it might be best to
eliminate the deoleration lane; however, this should be subject to further
study by a traffic engineer and be to the approval City Engineer.
Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed with increase on the carport fascia and the color
variation.
Commissioner Rempel suggested that all tel ecommunication lines be
undergrounded, all 12 kv lines could remain until there is a :reasonable
section to underground but that all conduit and requirements of Southern
California Edison Company shall be installed to receive the 12 kv lines. He
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 14, 1986
advised that this puts the undergrounding there, but the lines wouldn't
actually be dropped until such time as a reasonable amount of section could be
done.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff would not know what
size conduit to require and that the Edison Company had advised staff that
they did not want to provide information relative to undergroundi rig until it
was ready to take pl ace. He felt there might be some problem obtaining the
size of the conduit."
Commissioner Rempel suggested that a Southern California Edison representative
speak to this issue before the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adapt the Resolution approving the revision to Environmental Assessment
and Tentative Tract 15, with the right turn pocket in Vineyard Avenue to be
referred to the City Engineer. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIE , BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS': NONE
ABSENT:' COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried
9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed
10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened
R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 791 - HAHN TENANT INTERIORS, INC.
o acres bf_land into 3' 5PEOS foroond-offiniumpurposes
within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the north side
of ' th Street, nest of Vineyard Avenue - APN 07- 71-5 , 54 and 55.
Barbara Kral l , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by; Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
7912. Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL, ENITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS; MCNEL carried
Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 14, 1986
1
OLD BUSINESS
S. TERRA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #1 - Review of revised elevations
Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
John Mel Cher, representing Lewis Homes, gave an overview of the project.
It was the consensus of the Commission to forward comments to the School
District that, while 'they 'realized this was merely a courtesy review, they
found the design unacceptable and not to the design standards of Terra Vista.
Commissioner Barker stated :that since this is an issue that will come before'
the Commission again, he would lie more information on the State" s design
criteria and standards; for temporary classroom structures.
NEW BUSINESS;
T. APPEAL CE A CONDITION CE APPROVAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-05
request o a ow , square-foot me a
canopy ion E6 an existing 'manufacturing building located at 91
Center Street
I
Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Larry Boyd, representing the applicant, requested deletion of staff" s
condition requiring a 4-foot high screen wall along the 7th Street frontage.;
He advised that oleanders, chain link fencing and irrigation had been
installed approximately nine months ago and felt this type of screening would
be more appropriate since graffiti is a problem in that area. He pointed out
that the Industrial Specific: Plan allows oleanders for screening purposes`.
There were no further comments.
Commi ssi over Rmpel felt this request was reasonable given the uses
surrounding the site.
Motion: ,Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel , =unanimously carried,; to direct
staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the May 28th Planning Commission
Consent Calendar.;
Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 14, 196
i
U. PRELIMINARY REVIEW - - A consistency determination
between a _FCothill Cor-r-1-dar InEirim Policies and` a commercial office
building located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Turner
Avenue APN 08- -30.
Dino Pdtrinp, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Sonny Cascarenas ;gave an overview of the project.
Commissioner Barker felt that the project was consistent with the the Foothill
Corridor Interim Policies and should' continue processing. He felt that some
changes might occur through the Design Review process; however, they were of a
minor nature.
Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that with a little massaging at the
Design Review level , the project would be an asset to the area.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the project was consistent with
the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and should continue processing.
# ak ak
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
V. POLICY FOR UNDEROROUNDI C OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES
Darrye Hanson, Senior Civil' Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman Shut asked that staff clarify the issue of reimbursement for
developed versus undeveloped property when this item comes back before the;
Commission.
Staff presented three alternates regarding the underrounding of lines of less
that 66 kv and asked for the Commission's choice.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Alternate 2 was the most
appropriate which required all lines to be undergrounded or in-lieu fees paid'
except for 66 kv or larger electrical lines.
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the requirement for undergrounding of
corner properties, particularly in majors intersections such as Carnelian,
Haven, Base Line and Foothill . He felt that this would be to the benefit of
the entire City and would be inappropriate to require a developer to bear the
cost alone.
Mr. Hanson stated that the Commission would have the latitude to consider
special cases such as this.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 14, 1986
Chairman Stout suggested that some of the Public Utilities fund may have to be
set aside for these special instances. He suggested that staff include
language to allow an applicant to apply for something similar to a variance
whereby they could demonstrate hardship.
Staff asked for the Commission on the appropriateness of requiring
undergrounding in areas other than street frontages, such as alleys, railroad
rights-of-way, etc.
It was the consensus of the Commission that these areas be included in the
undergrounding requirement.
Chairman Stout asked staff to research what control the City has and what
authority the Utility Companies have to put up poles and wires anywhere they
want to.
With this direction given, staff was to prepare further amendments to the
utility undergrounding policy.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue
discussion of the Policy for Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities to
the May 28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adjourn.
11: 15 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned.
Res ally sub d,
Bra 11 r
D IDutv � ecr,.tary
)eputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 14, 1986
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 23, 198
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :UC p.m. The meeting ;was held at
Liens Park. Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel , Herman
Rerpel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT: David Barker
STAFF PRESENT. Brad BBl1er City Planner; Oars Coleman, Senior Planner;
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate
Planner; Ralph Hansen, Assistant City Engineer; Barre
Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Cave Leonard, Park Projects
Coordinator; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; John. Meyer,
Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice
Reynolds, Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced tentative schedule had been established
for the May 1 th field tour. He advised that this schedule would be available
soon to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Rempel requested a modification to paragraph O, page 13, of the
February 12, 1986 Minutes to reflect that there are various drainage methods
which could be used.
Motion: Moved by Rempl , seconded by Mc Niel , carried, to approve the
February 1 , 1986 Minutes as amended.
I
I
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 9649 - LANDCO A custom lot residential
su iv1sion on 22.4 acres o h va ote on the southwest corner of
Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Lbw (VL) District) - APN 01-17 -
14, 17
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW; 84- - DAVIS (DALE) The
eve opmen of a square- foot medical- ui ing on 1.07 acres of land
in the Industrial Park category (Subarea E), located on the northwest
corner of Raven Avenue and Trademark Strut - APN 01- B1-01.
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to adept the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL C IT EA, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1114 SCHULT - A custom
lot subdivision on 5.5 acres o an in the Low Resi dentis istri t ( -4
du7ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del P'rado -
AFN 08-91-0 , 04. (Continued from April g, 198 meeting. )
Chairman Stout asked if the representative for this item was present. The
representative was net in the audience at this time- therefore, the item was
delayed until later in the agenda.
C. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT %84-14 - VFW - A meeting hall serving
al co o fc overages in an elstng a Ong w h a lease space of 5000
square feet. on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea S
Category, iodated at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 09-01- 4.
Dino Pbtrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Gene Barnes, representing VFW, stated they have tried many; times to comply
with the regulations ,based on verbal information. Mr. Barnes indicated that
he had not received written information regarding regulations from the Fire
District. He presented plans 'which were submitted to the Fire District two
Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986
years ago and =stated that smoke and fire alarms and ' exit lights had been
installed, as well as crash bars on the doors. He stated that he had been
unable to 'make 'contact with the Fire District to determine what is required
and advised that the VFW would be willing, to do whatever is necessary once the
requirements are determined.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if staff had received written notice from the Fire
District as to what is required.
Mr. Potri no replied that a copy of the letter from the Fire District to the
applicant was received by staff. One of the requirements is to present a
plan. He indicated that Mr. Barnes' plan may not have been an electrical plan
showing the wiring system for the fire alarm which is actually what was
requested by the Fire District. He advised that this letter was dated
approximately a month agog
Chairman Stout suggested that the Fire District be invited to present
testimony with respect to their contacts'with the VFW since there seers to be
some factual disputes between the two which geed to be settled. He further
suggested that the item be continued two weeks and asked. the Fire District to
provide a case file including all correspondence...
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea unanimously carried, t
continue the public hearing for the Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 84-
to the May 14, 1986 meeting
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12902 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A
po^opose re en a u v�lion o o s an one rema n erg parse ' on
39.7 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than
du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond
Avenue - APN 201-071-5, 6, 25, 26, 35, and 36. In addition, applicant has
requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove select portions of trees.
Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
hi man Stout opened the public hearing
Richard Scott, Woodland Pacific, gave an overview of the project. He asked
for clarification of Standard Condition d- a) regarding surety and the
posting and execution of an agreement guaranteeing completion of all do-site
drainage facilites to the satisfaction of the Building ;Official prior to the
issuance of grading and building permits; He suggested this be done prior to
issuance of grading permits for each individual lot rather than prior to
recordation of the Wrap and be included in the CC ,'s or some type of
delineation on the final maps
Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986
garr,ye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that; these were conditions of
the Building Official in the Building and Safety Division, therefore, he would
not have the authority to agree to an amendment to the condition.
r. Scott asked, if this tract were approved by the Commission tonight, would
it be agreeable to add a notation to alloy this to be worked out with staff.
r. Hanson replied that the condition was made to the satisfication of the
Building Official , which would grant some latitude.
r. Scott asked for clarification of building setback line relative to the
offer of dedication for drainage purposes.
r. Manson-replied that this would be a 50 foot setback line from the edge of
the 100 year water surface. He further explained that it would be an offer of
dedication for the total 50 feet on either side of the rater surface area.
Mr. Scott asked if this would be to the edge of the creek?
9r. Hanson indicated that this was correct.
j Frank Williams, Associated Engineer, suggested that it might be better to word
that dedication be within limits of the 100 year flow rather than saying
building setback lines since there may not be any building setback lines on
this side of the creek. He indicated that the problem with the condition as
stated is that it may be in conflict on a couple of lots where the 50 foot
setback cannot be obtained and alternate methods may have to be used.
r. Hanson replied that he would like to establish one on the west side as
well as the east side since staff doesn't know if structures could possibly be
constructed there. He indicated that staff would like to make sure that those
structures are not within 50 feet of the setback line.
r. Scott addressed the Grading Committee's recommendation that grading of any
additional equestrian trail required by the Commission be reviewed by the
Committee prior to action on the map. His understanding was that this
recommendation would be attached as a condition of approval on the tract that
would be resubmitted while doing balance of processing.
Mr. Hanson stated that he understood the recommendation to require the review
of the type of grading dune on that trail which would be taken care of prior
to recordation*
r. Scott was concerned that the staff report stated that if an addition trail
was required he would have to go back to the Grading Committee and submit
plans prior to tentative map approval . He indicated that this was not his
understanding when talking to Grading staff and his understanding was that
review could be done following approval of the tentative map' and while doing
everything else.
Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986
Brad Buller, City planner,, advised that if the trail is to be moved, staff
would recommend that the Commission not take action on this tentative map
until staff has a chance to look at the final plans including grading and make
a recommendation.
r. Scott brought up the issue that trails would, be a liability to the City if
trails bi-sected lots. He protested the undergrounding of utilities on the
oast side of Hermosa.
Pars Henry, representing the Trails Advisory Committee, addressed the trail
issue. Ms. Henry advised that the Committee had tried to give this developer
s much consideration as possible and determined that it was reasonable to
delete the trail along Hermosa as a community trail and leave the trail along
the channel': and the creek: She` advis.ed that this is a unique trail in that it
is one of the few aesthetic trails in the community. She explained that the
reason the trail was placed in this location is because of geographic
problems. The committee addressed the grading issue and suggested that the
trail be loft as close to natural Mate as possible following the creek and
recommended as 'few trees as possible be removed to permit safe passage and
that grading be kept to a minimum if not eliminated all together to keep the
natural terrain in tact. ' She emphasized the importance of the trail as a
connection to the Almond -trail' to the north and the continuation on down to
the Alta toga. Channel to the Alta Loma Basin.
Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, advised the the applicant would like to
keep the trail in as natural state as possible and not do extensive grading
and drainage controls; however, the City has adopted community trails
standards which require stringent design, He stated that if this
recommendation was adopted, the applicant would need relief from that
requirement.
`here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
ommissioner Chitiea stated that the Eucalyptus grove in this location is ;a
very unique and special feature of the City which should be available to the
entire Community. She advised that should the trail be moved to Hermosa, it
will be lost to the residents of this City as a whole and she could 'see no
reason to do that. She further stated that the alignment of the trail on the
east side was discussed a year ago and it was agreed that this would not be
the community trail . She advised that the trail mentioned further to the west
is unaccessible and is a jog on the Almond trail which goes north/south
because of the terrain. She did not want to see this tract developed in any
other way than wi th the trail along the 'creek' bed. She stated the utilities
should be underrounded.
Commissioner McNiel agreed that the ;utilities should be underrounded. Be was
not particularly concerned with the trails, but supported. Commissioner
Chitiea s recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 23, 1986
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the maintenance of trails and stated
that there may be some real problems eventually for the City. He advised that
a considerable amount of muter care down that channel in lgog and the trail is
going to be very costly to maintain. He stated that the utilities should be
underrounded.
Chairman Stout stated that the trail is essential along the creek bed and the
standards _should be modified 'in this case. He agreed that the utilities
should be underrounded.
Commissioner Chi ti a advised that the Trails Committee did not meant the trail
constructed under community trails standards, this mould be a special
situation and treated as such.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that if the Commission's direction is to
recommend approval of the community tram along the creek bed but not to the
current standards, he felt they could be worked out with the Trails Committee.
Commissioner Chtiea' agreed that this should go back to the Trails Committee.
Chairman Stout asked if staff was satisfied with the engineering for the
channel as far as flood control .
Mr. Hanson replied that staff will look at it closer in final the design
phase, but was fairly satisfied at this point..
Commissioner Re pel asked if staff knew the location of the minimum SC foot
setback from the 100 year flood plan.
r. Hanson replied that it was a best scientific guess.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he really didn't like guesses and was net
comfortable with SC feet back from a guess line.
Motion: Gloved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , to adopt the Resolution
approving Tentative Tract 12902, with the requirement to underground the
existing overhead electric lines less than 66 kv' and the telecommunication
lines on Hermosa, and language added to Planning Division condition S to
require design of the community trial along the creek bed to be such that it
preserves natural terrain as much as possible, subject to approval by the
Equestrian Advisory Committee prior to recordation and inclusion of Building
Division conditions requiring drainage easements to be shown on the final map,
and the requirement of either removal or bonding of the removal of the
reservoir. Motion carried by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITICA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. BARKER -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 23, 1986
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - CHURCH OF THE NACARENE - Construction of
use or ur t aaene consa s a ng sanctuary, bible
study, office, and vicar apartment on 2.04 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District -14 du/ac) located on the north side of Arrow, OO
west of Fir Drive - APN 08-8 1-01 .
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman .Stout stated that there was some discussion regarding' a block wall a
the time of the review of the first phase..
r. Fields replied that the applicant originally proposed installation of a
block wall on the west property line but per s taf f's request the block wall
was waived because it was deemed obstructive to any future reciprocal
access. He advised that taff's intent was to have a snared driveway on the
southwest corner of site with adjacent property.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Howard Baumgarten, 332 Stanford Drive, Claremont, representing the applicant,
responded to questions by the Commisison.
Chairman Stout asked if the church had changed its position on the block wall .
Mr. Baumgarten replied that for financial reasons, the church would prefer
that it remain in its present condition. He stated that the parcel originally
was considered for an office professional use, therefore, Engineering staff
had suggested a shared driveway approach.
Chairman Stout asked if the church would be opposed to the shared access at
some time in the future.
r. Baumgarten replied that future treatment of the boundary would depend on
the development to the west and what is developed there, and that the church
was not in opposition to the shared access concept.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit' 85-8 . Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT
i
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
i
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried..
Planning Commission Minutes -7 April 23, 1986
i
8:05 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessesd
G 20 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT -01 - CITY OF
-RANCH -CUMORGA - Proposal -to a—mi—nd Section - a pertaining to
gra ing o custom lot subdivisions, Section 17.08.040- pertaining to
usable ;Yard area, and Section 17.02.140 pertaining to definitions of the
Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance No. 211.
Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Buller advised that
the language in the Ordinance pertaining to usable ;Yard area should b
replaced with that which was specified in the staff report.
Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested the following amendment to
Section 17.02. 10:
Subdivision', Tract: A subdivision which creates five or more parcels to be
deveTo-ped as a whole or in part by an owner or builder. A tract subdivision
for the development of four or more residential dwelling units shall b
required to apply for development/design review as a total development. Such
application hl be required as a condition of tentative tract approval .
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , to adopt the Resolution
recommending approval to the City Council of Development Code Amendment 85-01
as amended. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CTIEA MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS-. NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried
NEW BUSINESS
H. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT I15 g-1 - BLAIR - Design Review of
ootpri n s and 6uilding___eTeivatVoRs for -a--re-c-orde—d--tract of a 'residential
subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low Residential District
(Less than 2 du/ac) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east
side of Etiwanda; south of Summit - APN 225-181-20.
Punning Commission Minutes -8- April 2 , 1986
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout stated that there were several suggestions about the site plan
at the Design Review Committee level and asked if there were any modifications
as a result of that meeting.
Mr. Meyer replied that the applicant has met all the recommendations as far as
the site plan. The only remaining issues are the architectural concerns.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Steve Falk, representing Blair Homes, referred to a letter written to Lewis
Homes which stated that their submittal had been approved and designed in
accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. One of the concerns at the Design
Review Committee meeting was that no other project had been approved before
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which he felt were not valid based upon this
letter. Another concern was that elevations should be carried around to all
four corners of the houses, yet the approval of Lewis Homes in 1984 did that
very thing except on corner lots. He advised that the floor plans had been
upgraded from the Lewis submittal by increasing the square footage and this
proposal was a higher end product with a variety of architectural treatments
which comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He referred to the detached
garages suggested in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and stated that he had spoken
to a representative of the Sheriff's Department who indicated that there was a
concern about the safety factor of detached garages.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan calls for
Victorian, California Bungelow and California Ranch types of architecture and
asked the architect to characterize his submittals.
Mr. Falk advised that both Victorian and California Ranch styles of
architecture were used in this project.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, clarified that the Lewis project referred to by
the applicant was processed concurrently with the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
This is the first time that the Commission would be approving an architectural
product for single family homes within Etiwanda. He advised that the letter
was written at the request of Lewis Homes and that Lewis specifically wanted
to know if they were consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
Chairman Stout recalled that prior approved tracts were not reviewed for their
complete compliance with the Plan, but if they were in substantial compliance
to the point where it would be unfair to deny them since they had been
submitted earlier.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this project originally was a custom lot
subdivision, not a development; the development of units came much later.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 23, 1986
Chairman Stout advised that he was on the Design Review Committee when this
project was reviewed and the reason it was being presented to the +entire
Commission is that this type of architecture will set the standard for
everything that happens in Ctiwanda '
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the reasons for bringing the project
before the Commission was two-fold: to look at this project specifically and
to look at the architectural language within the Ctiwanda Specific Plan, He
advised that staff is looking for guidance from the Commission in regard to
the Commission's interpretation of the architectural poli i s and guidelines
specified in the Ctiwanda Specific Plan.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that these designs were not that unattractive but
they did not meet the special %needs of Etiwanda. She felt the designs were
too comtem orary and did not seem innovative or traditional . She suggested
that they needed more work, possibly at a workshop level .
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that they were nice houses but with respect to
tiwanda, the time and style of design should be established now while the
opportunity exists.
Commissioner P,erpel wondered what we are looking for in ' tiwanda. He advised
that if the intent was to build a 1900 era street, we are going to fail
because it can't be built and sold at a reasonable price to fit the
community. he pointed out that three of the elevations presented are more
Victorian than h of the houses in Etiwanda right now; the other two may need
little work. He stated that there would be a lot of problems with copying
strictly Victorian look. He felt the Commission should look at what is
feasible as well as what we perceive for the picture of Ctiwanda.
Chairman Stout Mated that there are stylistic ways of building a Victorian
style house which would be more in keeping with what the City had in mind for
ti wanda. He agreed that there are no good examples that exist i n Ctiwanda
now, but the issue was not emulating but creating a certain type of atmosphere
which would eventually be the style of the community. He further stated that
the question with respect to this project is if there is sufficient detailing
to set it apart to say this is the Etiwanda area; it is a matter of detailing,
riot 'conceptual change.
Commissioner McNiel agreed that the designs could be altered to give them the
character the City is looking for.
Planning Commission Minutes _10 April 23, 1986
Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to discuss what constitutes
California bung low and what the City is looking for in teens of Victorian.
She stated there is nothing wrong with some the elevations presented except
they lack a strong statement. She wanted to determine the concept of how
ti wanda is going to develop in terms of; design and style, and felt it should
he addressed now in a workshop.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he couldn't see designing all the houses i
E iwanda in a workshop; each tract should be looked at as it is submitted.
Further, he did not think 'a standard could be set with PC houses.
Commissioner McNiel agreed with the need for a workshop to cone to a general
consensus of opinion
r. Buller;advised that a workshop has been scheduled for May 8, at which time
staff could put together some ;`additional information that might help clarify
these categories.
Chairman Stout suggested that the Commission be provided with illustrations of
examples.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , carried, to resubmit the
protect back to the Design Review Committee for action and recommendation back
to the furl Planning Commission.
Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium due to possible conflict of
interest. ,,
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-05 - BARTON - The
eve opment of a 1K,000- square foot restaurant on 12.68 acres o and in
the Industrial Park District (Subarea ), located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN 0 - 55.
Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff' report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, gave an overview of the project.
Chairman Stout asked if the applicant was able to raise the pad when the
grading plan was conceptually finalized.
Mr. Barton replied that the restaurant 'pad had been raised one and one-half
feet, and would be bermed 'too shield cars from Foothill Boulevard.
Chairman Stout asked how much of the building height would be seen fron
Foothill Boulevard.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986
Steve Crowe, architect, replied that the building would extend approximately
0 feet above the berming.;
There were no furthers comments.
Commissioner Chi ti ea Mated it would be nice to have a restaurant at this
location
Chairman Stout agreed and staged it was a good idea to move the restaurant
back a little from the intersection due to the considerable amount o
landscaping on Spruce and Foothill . He liked the change and thought it
appropriate.
Motion: d 1 seconded b a Negative Declaration
Move b cN�e sewn e Ch�t�ea to issue Ne a 1
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 85-05. Motion carried by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHIT EA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL -carried
Commissioner Repel returned to the podium.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 5 ANDERSON - The
development of 3 i ndustria u ing-s-- total ing 61, s4vare et on 4.47
acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 5)
located on the north side of 6th Street, 300 feet west of Turner Avenue'-
AP 0g- 11-40.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. She recommended a
minor change to the Engineering Division conditions of approval to require the
undergroundi ng of 12 kv lines in addition to the existing 'telecommunication
lines on the north side of 6th Street
Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was a condition relative to meandering
sidewalks.
Ms. Fong replied that meandering sidewalks were required in the Standard
Conditions
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986
Richard Avent, representing the applicant, gave an overview of project. He
addressed the issue of the banding and questioned if this was essential given
that the building is concealed to the west by existing property and
potentially concealed to the east by proposed development. He was concerned
with the expense and questioned the aesthetic value of undergroundi ng two of
the lines on the existing poles since the poles and 66 kv lines would
remain. He was also concerned with disturbing the existing landscaping and
irrigation and advised that the project contained an underground vaulted fire
system. He additionally objected to the requirement of meandering sidewalks
and advised that it would necessitate the removal of existing landscaping and
would not connect to any existing or proposed structures. He asked for
clarification of the requirement of the reciprocal agreement for the driveway
and asked how far and to ghat extent.
r. Hanson replied that it would be to the normal building setback line; one
drive aisle.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Rempel suggested an in-lieu fee for the utility undergoundin .
e felt the meandering sidewalk should be constructed as conditioned.
Regarding the texture banding, he stated it is not essential to 'carrying it
around to the back of each of the buildings, but there should be some color
band on all the buildings.
Chairman Stout stated that since those back buildings are essentially hidden
from the street, he would agree and that some color banding would be
acceptable. He advised that the existing landscaping needs to be replaced
where reproved to construct improvements.
Commissioner lcNi el concurred with an i n-1 i eu fee for d t i l i ter
undergrounding. He stated that texture banding is not essential on the back
sides of the buildings,.
Commissioner Chitiea considered the in-lieu fee appropriate. She suggested
that when the sidewalk goes in, the applicant could possibly do some
additional berming to the front of the building. She was in favor of
Continuing texture around building, but would not hold up the project for
that.
Motion: Laved by McNiel , -seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 85-53 with an amendment to Engineering Division Condition l requiring
the undergrou ndi ng of 1.2 kv lines in addition to telecommunication lines on
th Street, and amendment to pl a rani ng Division condition 3 changing the
required texturized banding to a color band. lotion carried by the following
vote:
Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, PF PFL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.* BARKER -carried
K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 6-26 - CARLTON BROWNE COMPANY - A consistency
e ermina ion e ween e, oo i orr oor n erlm Policies and
commercial center concept located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Lion Street - APN 28-62- .
Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Chuck Frye, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project.
There were no farther comments.
Commissioner Chi ti ea steed there were some problems with the site plan;
however, the use was consistent and would be appropriate. She also stated
there were some problems with the driveway at Pep Boys, and would be willing
to give consideration to the applicant's proposal .
Commissioner tic i el stated that it is not to this applicant's benefit to be
dependent of the Pep goys driveway, which was unfortunate. He was concerned
that the driveway might be too close to Lion street and there were too many
drive cuts along Foothill . Regarding the site plan, he thought the applicant
did a good job, but it still needed some work.:
Commissioner Pempel stated that if the original conditions of approval for Pep
Boys stated that the drive was; to be on the property line, it should be moved
back to where it belongs, He was concerned that the proposed design works to
the detriment of this piece of property... He stated that it was very linear
and that something needs to be done to improve the parking. He thought these
problems could be taken care of through Design Review and advised that the
project should move forward.
Chairman Stout thought the project was basically in conformance with the
Interim Guidelines and with the proper amount of work and some adjustments it
would be appropriate and consistent with the Foothill Corridor. He also had
problems with the Pep goys driveway and thought the project was underparked.
e was concerned with the traffic stacking situation on Foothill Boulevard if
this driveway serviced both projects. He agreed that staff should look at the
Pep Boys drive to see ifit was improperly constructed, but thought that some
other point of access will be necessary to this parcel . He agreed that the
project should move forward.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 23, 1986
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Preliminary Review - 6,
Carlton Browne Company, was consistent with the Interim Foothill Boulevard
Policies and the project could continue through processing.
is aF `:�c fie'
9: 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed
9:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman Stout announced that item C would now be considered.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULTZ
Commissioner Rempel advised that he had made telephone contact with the
applicant who consented to a two week continuance.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 111 ,
Schultz, to the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
E. REVISION TO SECTION 1 .04.O7O(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CODE - MODEL HOMES SALES
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Jerry Linton, Citation guilders, gave an overview of his request for the
Commission's consideration of this ; amendment. He advised that he would be
willing to work with staff to come up with something which works.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the amount of traffic could be
increased substantially through the existing neighborhood.
Commissioner McNiel agreed there might be some increased traffic but it would
not be that substantial , He thought the Conditional Use Permit method was
appropriate, and wanted to insure that -trailers will not be permitted as a
part of this request.
Commissioner Repel agreed and stated the Conditional Use Permit could take
care of the traffic problem. He pointed out that model units are normally at
the main entry of a development; therefore, traffic into the rest of
development would be minimal .
Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 23, 1986
,j
Chairman Stout agreed with the Conditional Use Permit concept. He suggested
that the Code language should be tightly drafted as to specifically where a
Conditional Use - Permit is appropriate and where it is; not, address traffic
impacts, and limitations.
Commissioner Rempel stated that if the model homes are located on a collector
street there would not be much of a problem, but on a small residential street
where traffic would have to go a distance into a development, there could be a
problem.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that time limitations be established.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would try to expedite this
amendment; however, felt the criteria the Commission is looking for would take
some study and consideration. He suggested that staff bring proposed language
before the residential Design Review Committee before it comes to the full
Planning Commission.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff move forward with
the amendment to the Development Code.
M. VICTORIA GROVES PARK CONCEPT
Bill Holley, Community Services Director, gave an introduction to the pare
concept. He explained that development of this park would necessitate the
removal of trees on the site; therefore, the staff had prepared an extensive
presentati on.
Dave Leonard, Park Project Coordinator, gave an overview of the Conceptual
Design Plan and presented slides of the site.
Commissioner McNiel was concerned with parking. He stated that Windrows Park
seems underparkod and recent ballgames there have created congestion with the
adjacent model homes.
r. Holley explained that this -situation is due to the fact that the Community
Parks are now under construction, which has displaced some programs. He
stated that rather than cancel these programs;, City staff had looked to some
Neighborhood Parks. He advised that the Neighborhood Parks are not designed
or intended for Community Park purposes and will return to their intended uses
after duly of this year.
Commissioner McNiel asked how many parking spaces are being provided'
Mr. Leonard advised that there are 26 parking spaces on the site, plus the use
of additional parking on the school site
Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 23, 1986
Commissioner Rempel asked if there was a way to use the school property for
temporary parking until the school is developed.
Mr. Holley advised that staff would look into this suggestion.
Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, advised that in areas where parks are
located an additional 45 spaces of off-street parallel parking have been
provided.
Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to approve
the Victoria Park conceptual design
LB BUSINESS
N. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- - EB ARDS CINEMA A request to modify the
approved buildinge ovations or a 6-plex movie theater of 25,188 ;square
feet, within an approved master plan (Virginia Dare Center) located on the
northwest corner of Foothill and Haven, in the General Commercial (BC)
District - APN 1077 104-C1. and 03.
Howard Fields, ,assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Glen Gellatly, Bissell Architects, advised that when the final plans were in
the Building Department for plan check, it was noted that a detail pertaining
to the side and rear elevations showing a layered furring effect on the
elevations had been omitted. He advised that the detailing was never part of
any documents which had gone before the Design Review Committee, Planning
Commission or City Council . e adivsed that 'what was shown was acolor band
treatment using three colors with some layering of the stucco on the front
fascade and returning it around the corners on the two sides. Mr. Gel 1 atly
presented a model of the building.
Chairman Stout asked if the actual construction drawings with the detail o
them had been submitted to the City and done in error.
r. ,ellatly replied that was correct,
Chairman Stout stated that he had gotten confused that Mr. Cellatly was
talking about the front elevations and what he was actually saying was the
furred out detail is to regain on the front elevation, with a; step: down effect
s it returns on the two sides. Therefore, the only part of the construction
drawing detail which was being requested for deletion is the side and rear
elevations which the applicant intends to put some type of scared treatment in
there,
Mr. Bellatly concurred and stated that the itent was a long, clean reveal
allowing for a clean color break line
Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 23, 1986
Chairman Stout stated that the confusion came because he understood the
applicant wanted to remove the furred out detail from all elevations of the
building. He recalled discussion regarding the detail on the front elevation,
but did not recall if there was discussion relative to the sides and did not
believe it had been grade a condition of approval . He stated he had no
objection to this request because there are two buildings on either side of it
and there is some detail in the color band which is consistent with what has
been requi red. Further, that from a distance the furred out detail would not
be seen on the back anyway.
Commissioner gempel Mated a concern that there was never an understanding at
Design Review that there: was going to be a change in the texture of the
building. He advised that he had gone to the site and the texture looks like
n amateur had laid out the block rather than trying to accomplish the
appearance of adobe.. He stated that nowhere on the submittals does it show
that the building texture will not be similar to what exists. Further, that
it has been changed from rest of buildings and is not acceptable. He felt the
texture should be dash, which was the approved texture for the center.
r. Gel l atly pointed out that this is 13 acre site with a number of buildings
to be built and did not see a problem with _going to different
nt types of
texture as long as the color is consistent and compatible. He stated that the
use of the same texture could be monotonious on 13 acres; He advised that he
was trying to get a texture variation with this type of finish, and it may not
look like much now but once its painted the finish gives a rustic
appearance. He explained ,that "sack wipe" is a thin coat of`plaster which is
wiped onto the block to cover the joints. = He ; advised that the colors
proportions and break up would satisfy all concerns. He pointed out that
mission style architecture has all types of textures and that nothing was
consistent in the old wineries,
Commissioner 6hitiea stated that the community trail runs behind this
project. She pointed out that the project to the north was required to do
considerable upgrading to the backsides and there are other places in the City
which back up to the community trail that have been required to bring
detailing around the Mack. She wanted to see this project give that sane
consideration to the trail.
Mr. Gellatly stated that stucco texture was never discussed at any of the
meetings. Further, that during Design Review on all of the projects everyone
knew the finish was going to be stucco, but it could have been blown on, hand
trowelled or some other type of stucco treatment. Therefore, the applicant
could have gone to a cheap finish, but was providing a method which is unique,
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Mciel concurred with the continuance of the color band. He was
concerned with the texture change and agreed that it should be consistent with
the existing buildings.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - April 23, 1986
i
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to delete the furred out
detailing from the sides and rear elevations The building texture is to
match the finish on the existing completed buildings.
Bon Christeson, applicant, stated that the Commission was challenging the
professionalism of Mr. Cellatly by stating than they know more about the
design and what the finish is going, to look like than he does. Be suggested
that the Commission allow the work to continue until enough of the wall has
been completed to judge it fairly. He pointed out that the; wall is nowhere
near completed and is being judged too early. : He felt that by the time it is
all finished and painted the Commission would be happy with i , since it would
look like a slurry wall with a: lot of character. He stated that there are a
number of buildings 'across the street in the Barton complex which are net
consistent, and requested that he be given that flexibility.
Chairman Stout asked if there was a motion for reconsideration. There was
none, therefore the original motion carried by the following vote:'
AYES: COMMISSIONERS REPEL, MCNIEL, CITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried
COMMISSION BUSINESS'
O. TRAILS - Oral Report
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave an overview of the current status and review
procedures for trails.
Chairman Stout advised he had this item placed on the agenda because the
system doesn't seem to be working. He asked that staff prepare a report on
the status of trails with some analysis on staff time and budgetary needs. He
believed there may be the need for the expenditure of funds for a consultant
to put together not only; a plan which indicates an inventory of trails and
their current condition along with a list of current problems associated with
completing the system, but an implementation plan of how it will work. He
suggested that the report include some type of scheduled time plan.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wholeheartedly supported this direction.
Mr. Buller stated that if it is determined that trails are a priority for next
year's work program, this proposal might require a budget expenditure which
would have to be approved by the City Council ,
Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 23, 1986
Chairman Stout stated that this kind of thin ; that would have been addressed
if a Specific Plan had, been done for Alta Loma. He stated that he was looking
for more than a trail plan and suggested the scope address rural atmosphere
and include those concepts and design elements to preserve the atmosphere and
ambiance of the Alta Loma area.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: raved by McNiel , seconded by Ehitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn
to a workshop following this meeting for the purpose of discussing Industrial
Specific plan revisions.
10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned.
Rdsp -fully subm" te ,
/B4raul 1 er
Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes - - April 23, 1986
M
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April g, 198
Chairman Dennis Stout 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. Char man ,Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Citiea, Larry HcNiel ,
Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant
Planner, Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hansen,
Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Assistant City
Attorney; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds,
Planning Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the workshop scheduled to follow
this meeting had been rescheduled to April 23, 1986, following the Design
Review`Committee meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center.
Chairman Stout presented a Commendation Resolution to Curt Johnston for his
service to the City as an Associate Planner.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Art RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991
o a re enti a su i vi si o an es,gn review o
singTY—fa—m'iTy lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential
District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet east of
Archibald Avenue _ APN 01- 6 - 1, 22. (Continued from March 26, 198
meeting.
i
Chairman Stout announced that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a
letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the May 14, 1986
Planning Commission meeting in order to resolve issues.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract
12991, Shelbourne, the the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting'.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULTZ - A custom
of su v�s on on . acres o an n ow esi en a istrict (2-
du/ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Coal l e Del Prado
APN 208-921- 3 and 04. (Continued from March 26, 1986 meeting.')
Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, and suggested the
Commission's consideration of continuing the hearing for this item to April
2 .
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jerry Wilson, 387 North Second Sheet, Upland, stated that he was seeking
direction from the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Nilson
advised that he had discussed four alternative grading methods= with City
staff; however, due to time constraints was unable to prepare specific plans
for this meeting
There were no further public comments.
Commission Barker advised that the - Commission was" trying to do as much as
possible to eliminate unnecessary grading of hillsides. He recognized that
this was not a difficult ,applicant to work with, but a difficult piece of
property.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114,
Schultz, to the April 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting to allow the
applicant to address grading issues.
C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12833 - (THE MEADOWS) - THE WILLIAM LVQN COMPANY - An
amen ent to mo i y t e con i t ions e approva' o pe odcupancy of
homes prior to construction of a permanent or temporary RV parking lot
within Victoria.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that staff had received a letter from
Debra grown, on behalf of the Victoria Homeowner's Active Group, stating that
completion of the permanent facility on Base Line Road should be set at a date
to occur prior to the occupancy of a future project, which would be consistent
with staf fareco en �o Additionally,onal l "
t ,�, � letter was � � from Barry
and Cindy Winter strongly opposing the proposed amendment.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Steven Ford, representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the findings
of the Staff Report.
Chairman Stout asked Mr. Ford the time free for this project.
Mr. Ford replied that plans were anticipated for submittal to the City in mid-
May for plan check with construction anticipated in August.
Jerrie Kearny, 6594 Dogwood, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on
behalf of Victoria Active Board and thanked the Commission for taking their
letter into consideration.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that he would ;support giving consideration to the
applicant in this request if it can be established in a reasonable period of
time and it does not cause unsightliness of lV' s being parked all over the
streets.
Chairman Stout stated that the applicant had demonstrated a good faith effort
and he had no problem with the request to tie completion of the RV parking
facility to occupancy to the northern portion of the Meadows project.
Commissioner McNiel agreed
Co mission 'Chitiea agreed and further stated that she also felt that the
permanent RV storage would be one which the Victoria Homeowners' would be
pleased to have in their community.
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution
modifying the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 12833. Motion
carried by the following vote,
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 LENEEu -
re i en s a su i vi si on an esi gn review or i ng ami y ots on
.7 acres of land i n the Low Medium Residential District located at the
end of 19th Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 0 - 11-3 .
Nancy Eong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
haiman Stout opened the public hearing.
Larr
y Bliss, representing the applicant, was co
ncerned with the N to 10 feet
block wall required for sound attenuation along the northern portion of 19th
Street. He suggested that the wall be 6 feet and the sound attenuation issue
be addressed through estabishment of an in-lieu fee which would be placed in
an account until such time as the freeway';issue is resolved.
Chairman Stout suggessted that some of the wall height could be taken up with
berming. He explained that Ealtrans requires Eity's to provide sound
attenuation for residential units adjacent to freeways.
Mr. Bliss suggested that the Resolution be approved as presented, and the
applicant do further study and come back with a final wall design at a later
date.
d. 0. Austi c, representing the applicant, asked clarification regarding the
addition of a floor plan 'added at a later time. He asked if this would be
after completion of 50 percent of the project.
Ms. Fong clarified that the additional floor plan would be required prior to
development of Phase I I.
There were no further, comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chi i ea referred to the architectural elevations and advised that
the Design Review Committee had addressed the issue of upgrading the rear
elevations of all units along 19th Street and requested a modification to the
conditions of approval .
Motion: Moved by McNi el , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 12952 with an amendment to Planning Condition 10 requiring the entire
rear elevations for all lots backing up to 19th Street to be upgraded with
additional architectural treatments. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MENIEL, BARKER, EHITIEA, REMPEL, STUB"
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried:
t was the consensus of the `,Commission that they would consider further
discussion of the wall at a later date*
H 00 - Planning Commission Recessed
810 - Planning Commission Reconvened
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 36-03 - AJA The
eve opment of one -story o i oe ui f n tote i5g , square feet,
two o 1-story;. Research and Development/Office buildings totaling 33,940
square feet and two 1-story multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling
8, 3 square feet on 7.09 acres of band in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea C) and the Haven Overlay District located at the northeast corner
of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN 09-401- 1. (Previously submitted
as Development Review 5-45.)
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chaff man Stout opened the public hearing.
Tom Utran, 2311 Traverse Avenue, Commerce, gave an overview of the project.
Mark MacErlane, representing Grubb and Ellis, presented a letter to the
Planning Commission outlining their concerns with the project.
Dan Richards, 6604 Sapphire, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the quality
of the; project in relationship with the Haven Avenue Overlay District.
Dill Kirkland, 8978 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the
design of the project and stated that it looked like an industrial building.
Tim 3eedla 965 Business Center Drive, representing the Reiter Development
Company, stated that the design of the office building was compatable with the
surrounding area.;,
Larry Bliss, 6634 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the design of this
project was not compatible with the Haven Avenue Overlay District.
Gilbert Aja, applicant, gave an overview of the project design.
Don Da; akian, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the project.
There were no further comments.
After considerable discussion by the Planning Commission, a consensus was
reached that it would be necessary for the applicant to address the
Commission's concerns relative to the site plan and elevations. The
Commission determined that the design, as presented, did not project the high
quality style required by the Haven Avenue Overlay District.
The applicant consented to a continuance to the May 14, lg Planning
Commission meeting in order for a special workshop to be held to address 'these
concerns.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti ea, unanimously carried, to
continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 86-03 to the May 14,
1986 Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Stout stepped don from the podium and was not present for the
following item:
F. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11793 - PENFI LD - Design Review
o priis o sing e; ami y homes etas e on acres of land i
the Low Residential District ( -4 duac), located at the northeast corner
of Highland Avenue and Amethyst Street - APN lO - C1-O4 and 106 mS 1-01.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Vice-Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Jim Oolpos, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the
staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval .
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that trees should be removed with replacements
where appropriate.
Commissioner McNiel concurred and supported the project since the grading
issues had been resolved.
Commissioner Rempel Mated concurrence with the tree removal request and
design review. He felt that staff and the applicant had worked out a
satisfactory solution to the grading concerns.
Motion Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution
approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 1179 and also to recommend
approval of a Tree Removal Permit with replacement trees where appropriate to
the satisfaction;of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CNITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT -carried;
Chairman Stout returned to the podium.
O. OR 85- b MODIFICATION BONES - A request to modify a condition of
approva requlirin t e elimination of a driveway access on 4th Street for
an approved industrial project located at the northeast corner of 4th
Street and Santa Anita Avenue - APN 9- 8 -4I, 42.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chaff man Stout invited public comment.
Rusty Turner, Turner Development, gave an overview of the applicant's
modification request;.
Commissioner Barker stated that the problem is in designing an exit which does
not allow left turn.
Paul Ruugeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that the concern of the City has always
been the safety and efficiency of the street once it becomes very busy and
very congested, which will be the case with 4th Street. The concern with this
driveway,
y, bather it is right turn only or not, is that cars and big, slow
trues would be pulling out onto a very busy street which would interfere with
the street"s efficiency and would be dangerous to the safety of other
motorists
Commissioner Rempel stated; that` the real problem is with left turns, which he
felt could be mitigated through proper driveway design.
Chairman Stout stated that his opinion had not changed. He felt that anything
which would jeopardize the safety of the traffic on 4th Street, or any other
street in the City, far outweighed the inconvenience of getting into that
building.
Commissioner McNiel stated that 4th 'Street would be a major thoroughfare and
did not feel the inconvenience was that significant; therefore,; could not
support the request.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed and added that even though it would be convenient
for the tenant to have the drive, she saw a problem with conflicts between car
and true traffic.
Commissioner Barker stated that he was not convinced that a properly designed
right turn only lane with an acceleration lane would be unsafe or unpractical
and would approve of such an action
Commissioner Rempel agreed that it is practical to put a right turn lane.
Motion: Moved by Chi tie , seconded by McN el , to deny the request for
modification to the conditions of approval requiring the elimination of
driveway access on 4th Street. Motion carried by the following vote;
AYES. COMMISSIONERS- CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
TES: COMMISSIONERS; BARKER, REMPEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioners Barker and Rempel felt concerns could be mitigated through
proper driveway design.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
H. REVISION TO SECTION 1 .D4.D D(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CODE - MODEL HOMES SALES
OFFICE-----
Chairman Stout announced that a request for continuance had been received for
this item.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to continue
consideration of the proposed revision to the April 23, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motions Moved by Darker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn
to the April 17, 1985 workshop following the Design Review Committee meeting,
approximately :30 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791
Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga.
9 55 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Deputy Secretary
CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
Regular Meeting
March 26, 1986
Chairman Dennis Stout 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 Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: 'David Barker;, Suzanne Chi ti ea, Larry McNiel ,
Herman Bempel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planners Dan Coleman, Senior Planner,
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate
Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; James
Markman, City Attorney; Dino Putrine, Assistant Planner;
Janice Reynolds, Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENT
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked for a consensus from the Commission relative
to the date for the Planning Commission field tour of the City. Mr. Buller
suggested May 17, 1986. This date was accepted by the Commission.
Mr. Buller additionally announced that the City Council approved the contract
selecting Forma-Planning Network as the consultant for the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
APPROVAL OF MINUTE
Motion: Moved by Re pel , seconded by Chitiea, carried, to approve the
February 26, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Commissioner
McNiel abstained from vote since he was absent during that meeting'.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-36 - MIMES-PETERS
R - ae eve opment square
ware ouse stri ion aci ity for hobby model products on IJ acres of
land in the General Indusrial/Rail Served district (Subaru -10), located
at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229-21-
71
Commissioner Chitiea requested the item be removed for discussion. She was
concerned that the corner post was too dark in color and suggested that it be
a lighter shade of blue, more in keeping with the rendering.
Motion; Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt
the consent calendar with direction to staff relative to the corner post
color.
PUBLIC NEARING
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1991 SELBRNE - A total
resi enti a su 1 vi s-r en and-desigW-r-e—vi evr or singe emi y ots on 8.9
ages of land in the Lour Medium Residential District, located at the south
side of Lemon Avenue, aOOt feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 52-2 ,
22. (Continued from December 11, 1986 meeting. )
Chairman Stout asked if a representative of this project was present. No
representative was present.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing...
Where were no comments.
Commissioner Barker "asked for direction relative to a continuance for this
project.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated that since staff had made telephone
contact with the applicant who agreed to a continuance, the Commissin could
dither continue the project or, deny the: project tonight and direct staff to
prepare a resolution of denial without prejudice for Commission consideration
at their next meeting. He recommended denial of the project at this time
since the time line for a decision by the Commission had expired under the
Subdivision Map Act.'
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to deny Environmental Assessment
and Tentative Tract 12991 A Resolution of Denial without Prejudice is to be
placed on the April 9, 1936 Planning Commission agenda consent calendar.
Motion carried by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CNITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 26, 1986
w
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1 114 - SCHULT - A 21` custom
of su ivision on , acres of 155ain t e Low Resi en Ta District ( 4
dd,/ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Calle Del Prado`
APN D -9 1 D and 04. (Continued from February 1 ,' 19DC meeting. )
Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and gave a slide
presentation of the project site.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, requested the following modifications to
the Standard Conditions: Page S, Condition L-2 modified to require 25 total
feet of right-of-way dedication on Calle Del Prado; Page S, Condition M-2 to
e checked; Page 6, Condition M-7 to be checked relative to Calle Del Prado.
Commissioner Chltiea requested that Planning Condition 1 of the Resolution
require review and approval by the Planning Commission or Design Review
Committee.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing
W.M. Schultz, applicant, stated that the Commission's concerns have been
addressed where possible to do so without creating engineering problems or
obstruction of views.
Walter Gustafson, 9000 Calle Del Prado, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with
the loss of his view to the south and requested that a restriction be put on
the project that multi-level homes could not be built on the top four lots.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Darker stated that the Development Code Amendment should have
been discussed before consideration of this project. He was concerned that
the latitude which the amendment was intended to afford these types o
developments may not have been adequately addressed at this time.
Commissioner Re pel stated that this was an ideal site to build true custom
homes because it offers some aesthetic value as far as building split level
houses on a piece of property ;rather than to pad each house out. He pointed
out that Mr. Gustafson"s property is 19 feet higher than the pad below him;
therefore, a two story hone probably would not affect his view.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that overall padding should be looked carefully
into and not done on an individual basis due to the complexity of the slopes
adjoining one another. Further, that maximum creativity; should be allowed in
cases:such as this. She additionally stated that if the grading comes back in
groups.. of 4 or more, not only each lot should be looked at individually, but
the grading of the entire project should be reviewed to retain the natural
character of the land along with consideration of the neighbors both above and
below the project. She was not satisfied with the grading of the project as
presented at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 26, 1986
Commissioner Mc Niel agreed that alternative methods should be explored to
provide usable area, but also realized the difficulty of moving water off the
property to protect people surrounding it.
Commissioner Barker pointed out that if it saves an attractive piece of
property and makes it compatible with the surrounding property, the City is
not obligated to make sure that there are the maximum number of 1 ots on any
piece of property.
Jerry Grant, Building Official , advised that it is extremely difficult to
treat lots individually on a subdivision of this size; they have to be treated
as a whole from a grading standpoint.
Commissioner Rempel stated that there are other ways to insure that there is
proper drainage for the project such as a drainage easement on the south and
east side of the property. Further, that this is a valuable and beautiful
piece of property and the houses should be designed to fit it.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, addressed the usable yard area and advised that
this issue had been looked at by the Grading Committee. The grading plan as
proposed on exhibit C, which depicted looking at each lot on an individual
bases, would achieve this.
Commissioner Barker stated that this design relies primarily on cut which is
what should be limited as much as possible. He pointed out that deck usage as
an alternative is not addressed in this particular design.
Chairman Stout stated that some type of compromise should be reached somewhere
between a total grading concept and the concept that some type of special
treatment would have to be done on the design of houses to make them more
closely fit that type of terrain. He felt the project needed more work and
could not make a decision on it at this time.
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked for a consensus of direction from the
Commission.
Chairman Stout stated that this is a fine piece of engineering given the
constraints of looking for paded lots with certain buildable areas and certain
usable spaces in addition to that. However, the question is that a couple of
policy concerns were apparently not sufficiently addressed in the project or
proposed Code Amendment. He wanted to see how these policy concerns could be
addressed by this project and what affect they would have on the engineering
aspects.
Mr. Schultz was concerned that the Commission was going away from a great deal
of engineering study and compromise on both sides towards something that does
not relate to the physical nature of the site. He stated that this site is
not one which could be developed into large custom homes sites, given the
constraints of surrounding development and conditions.
Chairman Stout replied that the Commission was not implying that a certain
size house or design should be used, but suggested that an innovative design
could be used that is not so outrageously expensive that it can't take
advantage of that location.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 26, 1986
...........
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the grading plan needs refinement while still
dealing with those issues.
Chairman Stout agreed that refinement was necessary and wanted to see some
conditions relative to the type of construction with respect to some
suggestions about methods of making it fit the topography better than a flat
slab. Further, that decking could be used for usable space so that the lot
would not have to be padded out to the point where all building space and
usable space is on one flat plane, 'and that pad sizes should be reduced and
the grading softened a bit.
Chairman Stout 'asked for the applicant's consent to -a continuance oftwo
weeks.
r. Schultz consented to a two reek continuance.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would not be able to core back
with a detailed grading plan in two weeks,
Chairman Stout replied that he was not concerned about the detailed aspect but
wanted to know if these problems can be solved by these types of conditions.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 11814 to
the April g, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would he
heard concurrently by the Commission:
Q. VARIANCE 8 - 1 - A request to reduce minimum l ot depth from lg
feet to 135-Ve-6tom a 1.3 acre parcel in the Very Low Residential District
(up to 2 du/ac) located on the south side of Strang Lane, east o
Carnelian Avenue - APN 18 _271- .
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349 - SMITH - A division of 1.
ages 5T ah into parce s in 't e ery Low Residential District (up to 2
du/ac) located on the south side of Strang Lane, east of Carnelian Avenue
APN 1 1- 71m . (Continued from February 26, 1986 greeting. )
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report relative to the
Variance.
arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report relative to
the Parcel Map. :
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Judy Smith, 881 .Strang Lane, applicant, requested approval' of the Variance
and Parcel Map.
There were no further; comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes - - March 26, 18
----
Commissioner Chi ti ea didn't think that making the street wider at that point
would make a difference at all . She advised that she didn't want to set a
precedent, but in this case making the street wider would not help.
Commissioner Barker agreed and further stated that to widen the street would
Create a monster rather than solve a problem. He was ;i n favor of approving
the Variance and Parcel Map.
Commissioner McNiel stated that widening the street would create a more
negative affect than a positive one.
Chairman Stout stated that this issue was weighing a policy created to protect
residents of the City from poor circulation and the problems of taking over
substandard streets after periods of time against fundamental fairness and
hardship. In this case widening the street in this area would create a
hardship and basically people who live on that street would have to forfeit
major or portions of landscaping to help out the person who lives at the <end of
the street. Since the area is already built up, the street widening is not
going to have a major visual affect. ' He felt the City"s interest in
straightening out the street at this time is far outweighed by the hardship
which 'would be created. He agreed that the policy should exist but should not
be enforced in a rigid mariner such that in it defies logic.
Commissioner Rerpel felt that those people who had similar applications prior
to this one should be contacted and advised that they could now develop
without widening the street.
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution
approving Variance -02. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENTA; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion. Moved by Chi`tiea seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative 'Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9537. Motion carried by the
following vote;
AYES. ' COMMISSIONERS: CBITIEA; NIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL ;MAP 953 LONER, CORPORT TIN - A
Z
v�s�on o acres n o parce s t n e nera n ns ri al
signationSubrea 2 located east of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow
Route and gth Street -' APN 209-0 2-10
Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 26, 1986
M
Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Stofa
presented a revision to the City Engineer's Report Condition G-2 relative to
the drive approach on 'gth Street..
Commissioner Chitiea questioned the adoption of a policy regarding
undergrounding of utilities as stated in the staff report.
Chairman Stet replied that this was done through minute action.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
John Ascheris, 1'6192 'Von Karmen Avenue, Newport Beach, requested an amendment
to condition - ( to require in-lieu fee to be paid prior to building
permits for° any parcel of the project.
Chairman Stout asked if parcel one or two would develop first.
Mr. Acheris replied that it was not known at this time which parcel would
develop first.
Chairman Strout stated that parcel one is extremely critical since that street
is an entry to the city. He advised the applicant to take a close look at it
for aesthetic and landscaping treatment.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested that the in-lieu fee be
required prior to building permits for parcel 2.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9537, with amendments to the
City Engineer's Report Condition G-2 to allow flexibility of the reciprocal
drive approach on gth Street, and Condition G ( ) to require in- lieu fee for
utility undergrounding to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for
Parcel 2. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, C ITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
G. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION DE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VFW - A
request to operate a meeting haTT—and--to servo a co 0 7 everage in an
existing building with a lease space of 5,000 square: feet on 3.47 acres of
land in the General Industrial (Subarea category located at 8751
Industrial Lane - APN 209-01-84,
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mciel , unanimously carried, to set the
public hearing for consideration of revocation of Conditional Use Permit 84-14
on April 2 , 1986.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 26, 18
8: 6 p.m, - Planning Commisssion Recessed
8:56 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present
H. CONDITIONAL US PERMIT 86-01 - DIVERSIFIED - The development of a 22,000
square oot retail di Ong a,- ss wit outdoor sales nursery within an
approved integrated shopping center on 11.41 acres of land in the
Neighborhood Commercial District located at the southeast corner of Raven
Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN 201-271-53.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout advised that a letter had been received from Mr. O'Meara which
proposed a language modification for condition 2. He asked if Ms. Fong had
reviewed the letter.
Ms. Fong replied that she had received the letter.
Chairman .Stout was concerned that the applicant proposed to store items
outside other than what was approved at Design Review,
Commissioner Chitiea requested that natural rock, be specified for use on the
wilding exterior rather than use of synthetic rock.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Barbara Sisson, representing the applicant, presented photographs' of outdoor
areas of other projects which are currently used by the applicant. `
Chairman Stout asked ;if the applicant intended to take all items in and out of
the store every right.
s. Sisson replied that this was normal practice.
Chairman Stout stated that synthetic veneer was used on the Lucky's store and
similar material on the Save-On project. He had no problem with veneer and
had seen some which appear very natural , but some are obviously synthetic. He
questioned how this could be conditioned that it be called out to have review'.
Darr Col emen, Senior Planner, suggested that the 'condition be modified to
require staff review and approval of a sample.
Chairman Stout stated that if it doesn't look like natural river rock, it's
defeating the purpose.
Commissioner Chitiea requested that the sample submitted be large enough to
get the full impact of hoer it will look on the building.
Chairman Stout stated that the project should be conditioned that plant
material shall not be visible from the street.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 26, 186
F
Commissioner Rempel referred to the applicant's letter of request,; and stated
that the items listed from January to November should not be displayed in the
garden area.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti ea, to adopt the Resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 86-01 with an added condition requiring the
rock veneer to be consistent with veneer used on the Conditional Use Permit
84-3I and subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Committee.
Motion carried by the following vote';
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 'CODE AMENDMENT B -OI CITY OF
pr~oposa to amen ecti on :5 a per ai ni ng
to-gradingof custom lot subdivisions, and I7.0 . I40 pertaining to
definitions of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
Ordinance 211.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Barker asked if the language of the proposed amendment would
negate the authority of commission to make changes without recommendation of
grading committee?
Mr. Cook replied that the primary decision would be made by the Planning
Commission.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised `that the intent was that the Grading
Committee would report to the Planning Commission. To clarify the intent, he
suggested striking that language and modify the condition to read:
"additional grading may be allowed subject to the Planning Commission where
the site constraints
Commissioner Barker asked what wound allow the flexibility for alternatives
such as the use of deck area, as previously discussed.
r. Cook replied that the intent is- that structures are to be designed to fit
the natural topography and allows flexibiity for alternative grading schemes
at the discretion of the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Barker stated that elsewhere in the Code is a regulation which
says there shall be 15 feet ofusable yard space, he didn't see where that is
addressed. He was concerned that this requirement in the Development Code
might be in conflict with `the proposed amendments to the sections.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 26, 1985
i
Chairman Stout agreed it might be wise to add a statement to that section for
clarification and reference for those types of situations were people who, do
not read entire code
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
The consensus of the Commission was that further refinement to the amendment
was necessary to reflect the use of decking material or some type of
substitute to the solution of flat 'grading. Additionally, a statement is to
be added to Section 17.08.04G®d pertaining to usable yard area, for
clarification. The 'item was therefore removed from the agenda to allow for
proper advertisement and notification for the April 23, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting,
Old Business
J. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12830 - CITATION BUILDERS A residential
su -i vi si on of 21.41 acres —in the Low Medium esi enti al District (4-�8
du/ac) into 103 lots located on the west side of Beryl Street north of
Base Line Road - APN G -7S1-4C. (Continued from February 26, 1986
meeting.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Jerry Grant, Building official , provided a cress section of the grading plan
at scale and reviewed the site's grading.
Chairman .Stout asked for an explanation of how the Grading Committee examined
the project and what changes, if any;, were made from original proposal .
r. Grant 'replied that this proposal is actually four feet less than the
original proposal . He advised that alternatives had been explored such as
dropping parts df ,the street or grading to the rear of the property, all of
which created other problems. He advised from the Committee's standpoint, the
grading plan presented contained the best of all features of grading practices
and the Committee felt it was one of the best jobs that could be done under
the conditions
Commissioner Pempel asked the grade of the slope from the back swwale.
Mr. Grunt replied that it was a slope from the high to the-low point at the
l ow corner of the 1 ot.
Chairman Stout invited public comment
Jerry Linton, applicant, advised that he had met with the homeowners to the
south to review existing grading conditions which he explained were the same
if not better than the grading plans of the previous developer. He pointed
out that the previous design review contained closer rear setbacks and had two
more -stony horses. ; He felt his project had come a long way in considering
the adjacent homeowners' concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes - C- March 26, 1986
"
Geraldine Putnam, 9066 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the loss
of view due to the height of lots to the rear of her lot. Ms. Putnam stated
that she had not been given an indication of how the Commissioners felt about
this issue.
Martin Balding, 9016 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga stated that the developer did
explain his position and he appreciated his concern and cooperation. He was
concerned with the grading height of the homes to the rear of the existing
tract. He suggested th
at at the previous developer
s eoer
g9 should have been required ` o
p t
work with the homeowners before the tract was reviewed by the Commission so
that the concerns and issues could have been mitigated.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Barker asked what authority the Planning Commission has in
responding to the concerns voiced.
James Markman, City Attorney, advised that the tract map, which included
street grade levels, was approved under the Subdivision Map, Act and if this
project conforms with that approval , the Commission is bound by that approval .
Commissioner Harker stated that he felt frustrated and was not happy with the
situation; however, the Commission was apparently powerless to do what they
wished they could do.
Commissioner Chitiea was sympathetic with the concerns raised by the
homeowners; however, based on the City Attorney's direction, the Commission
could not correct the grading situation at this point.
Chairman Stout advised that the Commission sits as administrative ,fudges and
everything is done in public. He explained that the reason the homeowners had
not received input from the Commissioners is that they do net comment on how
they feel about a project prior to the public hearing. He advised that the
Commission does 'not prejudge items before a meeting in which they take,public
testimony. Further, that the new developer has unproved the design over what
was done before in that the site plan is better and there are less two story
models. He advised that the Commission had done as much as it could to
improve the project based on the authority they had towork with tonight.
Commissioner Barker stated that a considerable amount of time was spent on
this issue at the previous meeting and he saw some of the changes reflected in
condition 2 dealing with lots 9 -97. He asked if it were safe to assume that
each issue discussed for modification was included in new conditions.
r. Cook replied that the Resolution was amended per comments made at the
previous meeting.
Can Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that there was considerable discussion at
the last meeting regarding treatment of lot " " which was addressed in report
but not made a condition other than ghat is shown on the plans.
Commissioner Barker asked if the conditions reflect the area to be walled off
to allow access to south.-
Planning Commission Minutes - 1- March 26, 1986
Chairman Stout replied that this was not a condition since staff advised that
the County Flood Control District will not allow this condition.
Motion: Moved Rempel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution approving
the Design Review for Tract 12830, Citation Builders. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: R MPEL, BARKER, C ITI A, MC IEL, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
NEW BUSINESS
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-45 - AJA - The
ve o ent Of &o ui In s to a n , square eet an tree multi-
tenant industrial buildings totaling 77,076 square feet on 7 .09 acres of
land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay
District located at the northeast corner of Maven Avenue and Acacia Street
-' PN 09-40I-0I
Chairman Stout announced that an application for a Conditional Use Permit,
which is required in conjunction with this project, had not been received as
of this meeting. Staff recommended a continuance to April g, 1986 in order
for the Commission to review both items at one time.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mciel , ;unanimously carried, to continue
discussion of Environmental Assessment and Development Review 0 -45 to the
April g, 1.906 Planning Commission meeting.
L. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 06 66 - WOOD - A consistency determination between the
do ii orrl or nterim o roies and a commercial/office Master, Plan
concept located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner
Avenue.
Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment
Donald Wood, 10040 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, gave overview of his
request and asked for direction from the planning Commission.
Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission had recently reviewed another
request by Equi`'s Restaurant which is located adjacent to this site. He
reiterated the Commission's previous decision that 'this 'location is a problem
and a feasible master plan is necessary for that area. He advised Mr. Woad
that it would be necessary for him to gain cooperation and agreement on a
master plan from the property owners adjacent to this piece of property.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March 26, 1986
Chairman Stout stated that the City Council recently appointed a consultant to
prepare a plan for the development of Foothill Boulevard. He advised Mr. Wood
that the completion of the plan would take approximately 18 months; therefore,
Interim Policies were developed for those applicants who did not feel they
could wait until the completion of the plan to develop. Additionally, the
preliminary review process was established to insure that applicants did not
put a lot of time and money into a project which may not be consistent with
what the City envisioned for 'Foothill Boulevard. He agreed with Commissioner
Barker that the raster plan proposed by the applicant does not meet the intent
of the Foothill Boulevard Interim Polilcies and that a master plan would have
o be developed which would be agreed to by the adjacent property owners.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Bhitiea, unanimously carried, to
determine Preliminary Review 8 -6 , Wood, inconsistent with the Foothill
Boulevard Interim Policies,
PUBIC COMMENTS
Dan Richards, Stephen Daniels Associates, suggested that staff should explain
to people the i ty's position toward development on Foothill Boulevard until
completion of the study.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adjourn.
: I1 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Rasp tfully 'tied,
a ,
rod Buller
Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March 26, 1986
� ,r �i o a � ,� � n � e.... � � a a s:.
�, � - ,. .. � „ �.: �. .i.
t
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regul ar Meeting
February 26, 1986
Chairman Bennis Stout 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 Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Herman
Rdmpel ,; Dennis Shut
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Bruce Cock, Associate Planner;
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant
Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Bar ye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner;
Barham Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil ,
Senior Planner; Dave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator;
James Markman, City Attorney, John Meyer, Assistant
Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary
,ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff has begun working on the plans
for the Planning Commission tour and asked if the Commission would hike to
conclude with a tour of Foothill Fire District.
It was the concurrence of the Commission to and this item to the tour.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Chitiea requested an amendment to the January 22, 1986 Minutes,
page 9, 6th paragraph by adding "might be" acceptable, could "possibly" be
compatible, and was "deeply" concerned.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to approve
the January 22, 1986 Minutes, as amended.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE- TRACT I46 - JENSEN - A custom lot
rdsi t al sua vision o on acres and in the VC (Very
Low Residential ) District, located on the south side of Summit t Avenue,
east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN S-IB -O & 03.
Commissioner Chi ti ea requested discussion of Item A. She was concerned with
the replanting of the Eucalyptus windrow and requested clarification that the
replanting would be done outside of the trail .
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, confirmed that the replanting would be outside of
the equestrian trail
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , carried, to adopt the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES. COMMISSIONERS. CHITIEA, RE EL, BARKER, STOUT
NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9I80 - LANDCO FINANCIAL
CORPORATION - A div-i-slono-Fat res ff-1 la6d int-Y-3 parses n e
n ra n dstrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ), looted south of 9th
Street and west of Hellman Avenue _ APN O -OI3 4. (Continued from
January 22, I986 meeting).
Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Ray Ferguson, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the
staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval .
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9I80 as presented. Motion
carried by ;the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12420 - RANCHO PARK VILLAS
'e eve opment o single familyattached units on acres o and
in the Low Medium Residential District 4-8 du,lac), located at the
northwest corner of 6th Street and Hellman Avenue APN 209-'161-04, DS`,
and 06.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Paul Delalise, 3471 Valle Aliedo, Newport Beach, representing the applicant,
concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and conditions of
approval .
Mark Cysalino, 1354 Del Rio Warr, Ontario was concerned with flood control on
Hellman Avenue. He asked the price range of the units.
Mr. Delalise replied that the price range is speculative at this point, but
thought the units would be in the high $80,000 range.
Iarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, addressed the issue of flooding on
Hellman. He explained that the project had been designed with high curbs and
a low block wall along the Hellman property line.
Chairman Stout pointed out that Hellman is one of the streets slated for
Improvement under the Cit 's Storm Drain Master Plan which would eventually
Provide a storm drain in Hellman. He stated that the drainage study for 'this
project supported that this ;project would not adversely affect existing
drainage on Hellman.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel commended the applicant for their cooperativeness during
the Design Review process. He felt that this development will improve the
existing flooding condition on Hellman Avenue.
Chairman Stout agreed and further commended the applicant for taking the
Design Review Committee's 'recommendations into consideration.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 12420, as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: ;
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: R MPEL, CHI IEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. MCNIEL -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 26, 1986
. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13203 - R BERT ON HOMES
L res entia eve consisting o con bmfniu
units n acres of land in the Medium High Residential'; District 1 - '4
du ac) located on the north side of Arrow Route, adjacent to the east side
of Deer Creek Channel - APN 08-341-13.
Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report®
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Tardy Stroier,. representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project.
Mr. Strozier referred to condition 6 of the Resolution requiring a 3-foot low
profile wall along Arrow Route. He suggested that flexibility be given to
allow the use of bering and softscaping.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested if the Commission concurred with the
applicant on this request, staff be directed to work with the applicant since
the wall might be necessary in some areas.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hewing was closed.
Commissioner Barker stated that some time ago he requested a report from staff
which would outline the rules, regulations and limitations of fire sprinklers
and alarms on 3-story buildings in the City. _
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the City Building Official was
preparing this report for the Commission.
Chairman Stout asked if the Foothill Fire District was satisfied by not
requiring sprinklers.
Mr. S ro ier replied that the Fire District had required sprinklers on all
buildings which do not "meet the 350-foot requirement; therefore, those
buildings had been provided with sprinklers.
Commissioner Barker stated that a lot of wore by staff and the applicant had
gone into this project in an effort to open up the site plan.
Chairman Stout requested that density averages for projects be included in
future staff report
Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed that the project had come a long way-i n redesign
to open up the open space.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Repel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt ; the Resolution' approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Tract 1303 with a modification to Planning Condition C allowing flexibility
in the use of a 3-Moot low profile along Arrow Route to the satisfaction of
the City Planner, and the requirement for fire alarms on all 3-story units.
Motion carried by the following' vote.
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, ,REMPEL, C ITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349 - SMITH - A division of 1.3
acres of landinto 2 parcels in the er ow es ential District (1
du/ac) located on the south side of ,Strang Lane, west of Carnelian Avenue
- APN 101- 71-07,
Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Repel was very concerned that the Commission policy requiring
public struts was not being followed if the parcel'iation was approved
without street dedication;
After discussion, the Commission determined that additional information
relative to exact lot dimension and detailed map of the surrounding parcels
would be necessary prior to considering this request. Chairman Stout asked if
the applicant would consent to a continuation::
Brian Smith, applicant, replied that he would agree to a continuance.
Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, carried, to continue the public
hearing for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9349 the the March 26,
1986 Planning Commission meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-44 - EALK - A proposal
to develop a 93,120 square-foot acres of land
along the southeast corner of bth Street and Lucas Ranch Road in Subarea 5
(General Industrial/Rail Served) - APN 1 -3 -0 .
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Gerald Edwards, 370 Edwards, Claremont, applicant, was concerned with the
recommended relocation of the employee plaza area which placed the plaza area
O feet closer to 6th Street. He pointed out that this location near the
sidewalk and street would not create a relaxing atmosphere for employees. He
was also concerned that the 400 square feet required for the plaza area was
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 26, 18
too large. Regarding trash enclosures, he requested that they be moved to
more central location in the project Mr. Edwards asked for clarification of
Standard Condition -4 requiring the filing of a Notice of Intention to join
and/or fora landscape and lighting districts with the City Council .
Parrye }Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this condition was actually
a' requirement for a Notice of Intention to join and/or form the median island
landscape district, which is required of all development within the; Industrial
Specific Plan area.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,
Commissioner Barker understood the applicant's concern relative to the
placement of the employee plaza area near the sidewalk; ho+ ever, could not
support his concern with the 400 square foot requirement.
Chairman Stout suggested that ,landscaping he provided in the current trash
enclosure area and that the trash enclosures be relocated to a central
location. He was concerned with the corner section of the lot at 6th 'Street
and Lucas Ranch ;Road and suggested that special landscaping be provided.
Commissioner Chitiea supported the placement of the plaza area as proposed in
the original site plan with the condition that the size remain 400 square
feet, and the relocation of the trash enclosures to a central location. She
was concerned with the gray color of the accent band and suggested something
more col orful l -which should be submitted on the Design Review Committee
consent calendar for approval .
Motion. Moved by Chi i ea,- seconded by Barker,-to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and 'Development
Review 85-44 with added conditions that the trash enclosures be moved to a
central location, a 400 square foot employee plaza area to be located as on
the original site plan, special landscape treatment on the exposed corner
section of Lucas Ranch Road and 6th Street, and the color band to he submitted
on the Design Review consent calendar for approval . Motion carded by the
following vote.
AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES. CO MISSIOENRS. NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
G. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12830 - CITATION - Design Review for 'tract 12830,
a resi-dential subdivisionof 2L e acres in the Low Medium 'Residential
District ( B du/ c) into IO 1 ots located on the west side of Beryl
Street, north of Base dine Road.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, ;reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited pubic comment.
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986
Jerry Linton, representing the applicant, addressed condition 2 of the
Resolution requiring single story floor plans on Lots BB through 97. He
stated that Lots BB,. 69 and 91 do not have existing homes behind them and
requested that. ;-story floor plans be allowed.. He objected to fencing off the
flood control area with a solid fence or wall and was concerned that this
would create an area to hide vandals,
r. Cook advised that this topic was discussed at the neighborhood meeting and
the suggestion was that wrought iron be used which would create a view area.
Mr. Linton pointed out that the condition stated "wall " and was concerned that
wrought iron would not afford privacy for the residents of the lots adjacent
to the flood control area
Scott Allen, project architect, objected to condition 3 of the Resolution
requiring architectural details on front elevations to be carried to some
extent to the other three elevations. He stated that in most cases the side
elevations will be hidden by fencing and landscaping, and could not see the
necessity for the condition. He asked for clarification of "public view"
relative to retaining walls. Mr. Allen objected to landscaping requirements
listed in conditions 16 and 14, and stated that the homeowners would probably
prefer to do their own landscaping.
The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the
project based on grading concerns and loss of view and privacy.
Martin Balding, 9016 'Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga
James Chiln, 906 Lavine, Rancho Cucamona
Geraldine Putnam, 9036 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga
Norm Hiller, 7057 Garnet, Rancho Cucamonga
Alex Sanchez, 9046 Lavine, Rancho Cucamonga
There were no further comments, therefore the public heaving was closed.
After discussion, the Commission determined that further information was
needed to address the following areas:
The Commission was very concerned that building pads had not been graded
according to the approved grading plan for this tract. Staff was directed to
check the grading to insure the approved grading plan was constructed with the
conceptual plan and whether the existing grading was per the approved plans.
n exhibit was requested which would depict the streetscpe with -story units
on Lots BB, 69, and 91 as requested by the applicant.
Direction was given to the staff and City Attorney to review the terms of the
Right-of-Way agreement with the Flood Control district, relative to fencing.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , carried, to continue discussion
of Design Review for Tentative Tract 12830, Citation Builders, to the March
6, 1986 planning Commission meeting;.
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 26, 1986
H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5- 6 - WILLIAM LYON - Consideration of the
per�reter wa tr°ea ent a recreat�ona ve cle storage/mini-warehouse
facility; appeal of the decision of Design Review Committee.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report..
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Jim Bailey, representing the William Lyon Company, requested reconsideration
of the Design Committee's ;recommendation of tree pockets at 100 foot intervals
and off sets in the east and west boundary walls surrounding, the recreational
vehicle sterage/mini-warehouse facility. Mr. Bailey was concerned that this
condition would decrease the usable storage and parking space and would'create
security hazards and maintenance difficulties. Mr. Bailey assured the
Commission that if they were not pleased with the final product, he would see
to it that modifications would be made.
Motion: Moved; by Rempel seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the wall
design for the perimeter wall treatment for Conditional Use Permit 5-26 as
proposed by the applicant, with the use of vines on alternate wall sections.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
. HUNTER'S RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF FONTANA - Planning; Commission
riveew o an use a terna i . for the un er s Ridge Specific Plan on
567.6 acres' of land within the City of Fontana., located on the north side
of Summit Avenue, east of San Sevaine Creek, west of Nevore Freeway.
Curt Johnston, Associate planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout stated that all three alternatives presented were
unacceptable. He advised that staff had done an excellent job of outlining
the Commission's concern in the staff report and suggested that these comments
e forwarded to` Fontana. He could not support any of the alternatives until
those issues have been addressed..
Mr. Johnston advised that staff and the -Commission would have an opportunity
to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Report to make sure that
mitigation measures are implemented to address the concerns listed in the
staff report.
t was the consensus of the Commission that noire of the alternatives presented
were acceptable and directed staff to forward the concerns' outlined in the
staff report and the following comments to the City of Fontana:
1. The overall density is high given site constraints and the rural character
of the area.>
i The intensity of multi-family units along 1-15 and commercial development
will establish an undesirable precedent for future development on
surrounding property and along I-15.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 26, 196
. Natural features of the site will be significantly altered by the plan.
4. Equestrian trails should be located adjacent to San Sevaine wash.
S. Improvement costs directly related to the project, but within Rancho
Cucamonga, must be provided by the developer and,/or the City of Fontana.
. Alternatives One or Three, with larger lots along the southern boundary of
the project and no commercial facilities, are least objectionable.
(Added Item)
J. STATICS REPORT - TERRA VISTA PARK DESIGN
Dave Leonard, Parks Protect Coordinator, presented renderings of Terra Vista
Park.
Motion: Moved by Repel , seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to forward
the perk design to the City Council .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion. Moved by Repel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
:45 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes - -- February 26, 1986
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 1 , 1986
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m The meeting was held at
;ions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance,
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitia, Larry McNiel ,
Merman Rempel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner;
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Barrye Manson, Senior Civil
Engineer; Curt Johnston, Associate Planner; Otte Kroutil ,
Senior Planner; James Markman, City Attorney; John 'Meyer,
Assistant Planner; Dino Pu rino Assistant Planner-, Janice
Reynolds, Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Stout announced that' Janice Reynolds, Secretary, had been selected as
the City"s Employee of the Month for February.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion; Moved by Barker, seconded by M 'Niel , unanimously carried, to approve
the January O, 1986 minutes as presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 - CARLI - The
opment n ustr� multi-tenant ui crags totaling
147,160 square feet on 8.9 acres of land in the General Industrial
(Subarea 8) , istrict located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and
Hellman Avenue - APN 209-171- , 20, 36, 49 - 56.
Commissioner Chi ti ea requested; that Item A be removed for discussion of the
plaza area. She was concerned with seating areas in the pedestrian plazas,
Bruce McDonald, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the plaza
areas, and indicated that he would continue to work, with staff on the
development of acceptable plans for the plaza and seating areas,
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that in final ;plan approval , staff will
make sure that the plans 'address concerns raised by the Planning Commission
regarding the plazas and seating within the plazas.
Motion raved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to adopt the Consent Calendar,
Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS`
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-08 - VERNACI - A proposal to locate a single
tray er or a care-,- er s ace-TT y in a wholesale nursery located in the
Edison right-of-way on the north side of Base Line, east of Rochester -
APN 227-091- 1.
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Meyer
recommended that, should the Planning Commission recommend revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit, the applicant be given until Monday, May 12, 1986, to
remove plant stock and restore the site to its original state.
Chairman .Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Stout requested that the photographs provided by staff be made a part
of the record for this project.
Planning Commission Minutes -2® _February 12, 1986
Motion, Moved by darker, seconded by Rempol , to approve the Resolution
revoking Conditional Use Permit BS-DB. The applicant was given ninety days
(May 12, 198 ) to remove plant stock and restore the site o its original
state. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BS- g - TRANS MEDICAL ® To establish an ambulance
service facility- witW a mu 1-tenant oo ercial building on 2.4 acres of
land in the General Commerical Distract located at 8270, Suite "M",
Foothill Boulevard (Bear Gulch Village) ® APN O -1OI-1 .
Dino Autrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Don Reid, 9650 Apricot, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, advised
that Trans Medical would be relocating to another site in approximately 60
days. He was concerned with the recommended ambulance parking location at the
south side , of the project site and requested that it be moved closer to the
unit.
There were no hr f uterco ntherefore e is the public r
p hearing was closed...
Commissioner Rempel suggested . that when this site changed to being office
uses, a bond was posted to correct the parking and suggested that staff look
into the situation, He recommended that it might be more appropriate to
restri pe two spaces in the area where the ambulance is currently parking s
that it is parked straight in the space.
Motion: Moved by Rempol , seconded be Chi iea, to adopt the Resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit BS- g, with a modification to reflect the
restriping of the parking space parallel to the unit for ambulance parking.
Motion carried by the following' vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE PEL, CHIT EA, BARKER, MC IEL, STOAT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1986
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - LABANO - A custom lot
resi-dential su i va sa on ots do appro ima y acres ofl and i
the VL District, located on the east side of Haven` Avenue, north of the
Hillside Drainage Channel - APN 01-11-24.
John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report..
Chairman Stout was concerned that the landscaping along Haven Avenue adjacent
to this tract has begun to deteriorate and suggested that the developer or
Home Owner's Association replace the dead or dying trees and shrubs. He then
opened the public hearing
Phil Douglas, 316 "'E" Street, Ontario, representing the applicant, stated
concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and recommended conditions of
approval . Mr. Douglas was unsure where the responsibilities lie for replacing
the existing landscaping.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Brad Duller, City Planner, advised that staff would look into the landscaping
concern and take appropriate action,
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Decl ration
and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12332. Motion carried b
the following vote:
AYES. COMMISSIONERS., C ITIEA MCNIEL, BARKER, REiPEL, STOUT
NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
i
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1311.4 - SCHULTZ - A 21 custom
Tot su ivis;_ron on . acres o an n t e Low Residential District 2-4
du;/ac 'located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Cal l e Del Prado
APN 20 -921-03 and 04
Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item had requested a
continuance to the March 2 , 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened
the public hearing,
Charles Rich, 8930 Balsa, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that drainage be
adequately
y addressed.
Chairman .Stout advised that drainage was the main reason the applicant had
requested the item be continued. He suggested that if possible Mr. Rich
attend the March' 26th meeting to see if his concerns were mitigated.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 12, 1986
i
V
There were no further comments:
Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by MNel , unanimously carried, to continue
the public -hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114 to
the March 26, 196 Planning Commission meeting
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9431 - HARRISON - A division of
acres i nto parcels in_ -the-Very Low a ac evel opment District
located on the east side of Beryl , south of Hillside Road - APN la `1- 11-
a .
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Michael Harrison, applicant, Mated that it would be cost prohibitive to
parcel into four lots with the cut-de-sae and requested consideration of his
original proposal of S lots.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he didn't have a problem with flag a lots. He
suggested a possible solution of putting the pole of the flag down on south
side. He further stated that the drive area should be totally lanscaped.
Commissioner Barker stated that he did not particularly like flag lots and was
concerned with adding 4 more driveways onto Beryl. He stated that he was
satisfied that the trail connections had been taken care of and that since the
applicant indicated that four lots was not financially viable, did not believe
it should be a consideration
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated she felt all along that drives should not empty
onto Beryl ; however, with this configuration and especially with number of
hots the applicant can afford to develop, it really doesn't become viable;.
Further, the Trails Committee recommendation of switching the flag is
appropriate to make the trail connections and she suggested that if this
particular configuration was selected the driveways be combined so that there
would be fewer drive cuts onto Beryl .
Barrye; Hansom, Senior Civil Engineer, was concerned with shared driveways due
to possible homeowner disputes. He pointed out that the amount' of traffic
would be the same.
Commissioner Mciel stated that the problems seem to have been resolved. He
agreed with the layout of the trails.
Chairman Stout stated he was totally against hammerhead driveways and adding
any more driveways on Beryl , therefore, could not support this project.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 12, 1986
Motion, Moved by Rempel , 'seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
0431 with modification of moving the flag to the south end thus making ;a
through connection of the equestrian trail . The trail is to be developed as
proposed on Exhibit "F-9" The drive shall be a maximum of 15 feet in width
with the remaining areas adjacent to the driveway to be landscaped to the
w
satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion d a
t o carried the following n vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIL, BARKER, CHITIEA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
Chairman Stout ,announced that the following related items would be heard
concurrently by the Commission-
G. AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY
- e a ve to
properties located beUw_e6n___tKe_ ex ensfi— of Banyarl venue and Highland
Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and
Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN -141-08, 1 -19 5-151-01
through 03, 0 , 0 , 10-1 .
H. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 154 - CARYN - A residential subdivision of
ots o acres 1 and; w is —Ts—part of a larger master-planned
community, located between the extension of Banyan Avenue and Highland
Avenue on the north and south, and between the extension of Rochester and
Milliken Avenues on the east and west - APN 5 I 1-CH, 1 -19, 21-28.
I. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12643 - HALL & FOREMAN - The development of
463 sink a amp + o s on acres o, ' in an e aryn Planned Community
(Phase II), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south side of
Banyan Avenue, west side of Rochester Avenue, east ' of Milliken Avenue -
APN 5-141-0 , 1 -15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 5-151- , 7, 11, 13.
Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
James Markman, City attorney, suggested additional language to the conditions
of approval , He advised that the intent was to accomplish an adjustment
without the necessity of bringing it back before the Commission. His
suggested language specified two numbered lots which would be deleted from one
tract and roved to the other so that substantially equivalent lots: would be
added to the other tract.
Planning Commission Minutes - - February 1 , 19
i
Commissioner Chi:tiea asked if the school play areas would be open during times
when school was not in session:
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Joe Ci Iori o, Caryn Development, advised that Carlton Lightfoot of the Eiji wanda
School District had committed to keeping the school play areas open :during
weekends. Mr. Cilorio thanked City staff and Mike <Romeo of Marlborough
Development in working to resolve difficult and sensitive issues.
Mike Romeo, Marlborough Development, thanked staff" in working to resolve
problems. With regard to the City Attorney"s proposed amendment he advised
that he would have no problem with identifying the two lots to be relocated.
Dan Coleman advised that the lots would be 75-C and 75-D of Tract 12643.
Mr. Romeo stated that he would not have a problem with identifying those two
lots and eliminating the word "approximately"` but the key issue is that it
would be deemed in substantial conformance.
Mr. Markman agreed that "deemed in substantial, conformance" could be added to
the condition.
Mr. Romeo advised that Condition 8 of the original conditions still retains
language relative to the park and suggested it should be eliminated.
Otto krout l , Senior Planner, advised that the elimination of this language
would not be a problem.
Mr. Romeo advised that the original Resolution also makes reference to the
County Transporation Department and stated it should read City Engineering
Department.
Chairman Stout asked who would be responsible for making revisions to the
aryn Planned Community Text?
Mr. Kr,outil advised that ' a condition of; approval last year on the original
agreement deemed text revisions necessary. He stated that it would be helpful
now due to the number of changes since the text will be used as the zoning
ordinance for this project,
Chairman Stout stated that since the text is to be used as a substitute for
the General Plan, it is time to bring the text up to date. He asked Mr. Romeo
if 90 'days would be a sufficient amount of time to revise and submit the text
o the City.
Mr. Romeo replied that it would and that he would submit an up-to-date text
within 90 days.
There were no further comments; therefore, the public hearing was closed.
PlanningCommission
� uto s
-
February 1 , 1986
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the change is appropriate.
Chairman Stout stated that the City is in a fortunate situation since this is
a perfect "location for a school and the City is getting money for the park
fund while 'still getting the same benefit of open space for the community.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Repel , to adopt; the Resolution
approving the Amendment to the Annexation and Development Agreements,
Revisions to Tentative Tract 12642, and Revisions to Tentative Tract 12643.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
Chairman Stout announced that Item Q was related to the above projects,
therefore would `be heard out of agenda order:
Q. TENTATIVE TRACT 12642 - K&B - Proposed modifications affecting floor plan
mii 5 RX por ion of Tentative Tract 1 64 C ryn Planned Community.
Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Barker pointed out that this modification increases square
footage of one yodel from 11,42 to 1235 and eliminates one model and replacing
it with a larger one.
Chairman Stout stated that the City is getting a better product, therefore,
would have not problems with the modifications presented.
Commissioners Chitiea and Mci el indicated they were very pleased.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this modification was within the
parameters of the original approval
NEW BUSINESS
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-5 - AJA - The
development of i-55,000 square oat warehouse manufacturing industrial
building on 3M48 acres of land in the Industiral Park District (Subarea
1 ) located at the southeast corner of 5th .Street and Pittsburgh Avenue -
ARN 9- 51.- 0.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 1 , 1986 l
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report,
Chairman Stout invited public comment. There were no comments.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the lunch area go back to, Design Reviews on
consent calendar.
Chairman Stout stated that this building is on the corner of approximately 100
acres of which ;the owner is in process of discussing a master plan concept
with the City. He indicated that he highly supported the master plan concept
and if done correctly it will make it a lot easier for the Commission to
reviews the individual projects when submitted.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and 'Development
Review BS- 0, with an amendment to the Resolution requiring submittal of the
lunch area to the Design Review Committee on the consent calendar. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: C ITI A MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
8: 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed
: 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-50 - EXECUTIVE CAPITAL
e eve dpmen o a , squa-me-foot office building on acres o
land in the 'Industrial Park Category (Subarea B) located at the southeast
corner of 7th Street and Haven Avenue PN 09- 11-01.
Dino Rutri no, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
John Willard, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the
staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval .
Commissioner Rempel thanked the applicant for his cooperation during the
review of this project which shows that a project can have a mix and still
have good design.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 1 , 198
I
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the applicant had done an admirable job of
translating a traditional style of architecture into urban design which the
City is looking for in the Haven corridor. She indicated that the design was
very creative and shows there can be harmony and diversity in the area.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adept the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review SS- I}, as presented. Motion carried by the _following,vote:
AYES: = COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNI L, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
L. PRELIMINARY REVIEW -O.I - dAUN EMIS -- The consistency determination
e W Foothill C-6-i�eFd-d-r--I--n-t-&-r—i4i--Policies and the 'proposal to occupy
an existing abandoned service station temporarily for the operation of a
retail/'wholesale glass business in the General Commercial District and
within the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies, located at 9670 Foothill
Boulevard - APN 08-1 -05
Nancy `Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Ed Jaunzemis, 7`747 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, came forward to respond to
Commission questions.
Chairman Stout asked for clarification of a wholesale glass business.
r. daun emi s replied that he 'would stock sheet glass which would be cut and
delivered to accounts.
Chairman Stout asked what the retail business would entail .
r, daun emir replied that retail would include window and screen repair.
Commissioner McNiel asked if Mr. daun emir plans to relocate in 12 months.
Mr. daun emi s replied he intended to stays approximately 13 months, depending
on what improvements would be necessary.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he would not object to a temporary use, given
that the location would not be a permanent home and the area would more than
likely be targeted for redevelopment before long.
Planning Commission Minutes =10- February 12, 1986
i
Commissioner Chiti ea stated that in terms of consistency, she would disagree
since other projects that were determined nonconforming and needed a great
deal of improvement have been given direction by the Commission to not proceed
with further processing at this time. She indicated that if this were allowed
to stay at this location, the improvements would be costly and she could not
see it as a permanent place. Further, she would prefer to see 'him move to
another location initially than to have to make determination in 9 or 10
months: that he has to move, which might be more expensive to him then.
Commissioner Barker stated that at the conclusion of the Foothill study, this
location more than likely will not fit in with what the City has in mind for
Foothill Boulevard. He did not believe this proposal fits the interim
policies. He was concerned with talking about 13 months and then re-
evaluating at the end of that time. He agreed that the applicant should look
into finding another place to do business since a tremendous amount of time
and money would have to be placed into this location,
Commissioner empel stated that he could not support a consistency
determination at this time since there are some serious problems with this
location.
Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to determine Preliminary Review
6-01 inconsistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. Motion
carried by the following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA BARKER, PEMPEL, STOUT
DICES, COMMISSIONERS: MC IEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
M. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- - CHRISTESON COMPANY - The development of a two-
story o ice retai building o a ng , OO 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 - APN 107 - 1-6. (Continued from January 8,
1986 meeting.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes -11 February 1 , 198E
µ
Larry Tieman, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project.
Mr. Ti eman addressed the Design Review Committee recommendation that a l
texturied pedestrian connection be provided to the Del Taco Restaurant across
the circulation aisle. He indicated that he did not feel this requi remen
necessary since there was really no place to put this strip of sidewalk. He
asked that the condition be removed from the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Barker stated that some time ago when the fast food restaurant
was proposed by the developer, it was presented to the Commission that the
movie theater people wanted and needed the fast food there. He asked now the
people would get there. He was concerned with the developer's inconsistency
in now saying the access is not needed when it was once a major part o
developer's argument of allowing the fast food to go in that location to begin
with. ; Further, that the original case presented by the developer was that the
fast food was needed, should not have external access, and was to provide
service in particular to the movie theater.
Commissioner Chi ti ea advised.. that initially the fast food was to be an
integral part of the project;. She questioned the developer's logic in now
requesting to isolate that use when everything else in the development is to
be interconnected.
There were no further public comments.
Chairman Stout asked if a condition should be placed on this building with
respect to building permits upon completion of parking agreement.
Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised that it would not be necessary due ;to the
condition which is now in effect to control parking.
Chairman Stout asked if the theater was a party of the agreement.
r. Markman replied that Edwards Theater would be a party of that agreement.
Motion: Moved by 'Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to -adopt the Resolution
approving Development Review 5- , as presented. Motion carried by the
following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, RE PEL, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -1 -- February 12, 1986
I
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
N. GRADING CE CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report..
Commissioner Chitiea referred to the flexibility clause and asked of whom it
would be at the discressi on.
r. Cook replied that staff would propose that it would be at the discressicn
of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Barker referred to the property on northwest corner of Foothill
and Vineyard where it takes a tremendous'- drop and stated that there needs to
be some sort of direction on the part of Commission to provide some
alternative for the 15-foot usable rear yard space, such as use of decking.
He suggested that some sort of alternatives need to be provided to taking
large ;amounts of earth away from sates.
Chairman Stout stated that the idea behind flat usable space was to insure
that people would not have banks up against their house; it was never really
indicated that the land had to be perfectly flat, but had to be something
usable without having a steep incline or slope.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that flexibility was needed so that solutions
could be created for specific locations, and recommended that staff move
forward with an amendment
Commissioner dcNi el stated that we shouldn't deviate too farfrom the code.
Commissioner Barker stated that he didn't like the idea of gigantic amounts of
earth moving and his, direction would be to investigate alternative means of
aachi ei' i ng the objective to provide some sort of usable space.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the objective has always been to have as
little grading as possible thus creating unique types of settings for hone
designs. He suggested that there are various methods of providing adequate
drainage which should be looked at.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the intent of the language should be clear.
Chairman Stout agreed and advised that conflicting policies should be
stated.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes -13-- February 12, 1986
Wally Schultz, 8513 Red Hill County Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that
he was developing a: tract in the City and was "hooking for input to give
direction how to include mass grading on Tract 13114 and projects like it
where` it will end up to the best interest of all eventual homeowners to have
all grading clone at one time.
There were no further comments.
Staff was given direction to proceed with a Development Code amendment.
D. REPORT ON PERSONAL SERVICE USE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC
Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Lloyd Wedblad, Plaza, Travel , urged the Commission to retain the Conditional
Use Permit requirement in the Haven Avenue area and to consider its
implementation in other areas of the City-
Tim Beedle, 9520 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the
concept of Conditional Use Permits as a requirement of the Personal Services
rises.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, also supported the
requirement for Conditional Use Permits.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Rempel advised Mr. Wedblad that because a CUP was required in his
case, it doesn't mean that another CUP cannot be allowed for another 'travel
agency next door to him; in other words, because he obtained a CUP, it did not
mean that someone else cannot obtain one. He advised that the Commission
cannot prohibit trade. His intent was that the Development Code and
Industrial Specific Plan are contradictory in that the Code states that
personal service (i .e. , travel agency) is allowed in the administrative
professional area, which is what the City is making out of Haven Avenue
Overlay District. Further, that to require a CUP of a travel agency but not
of a florist is ridiculous because a travel agency is associated with
office/professional
Chairman Stout stated that he didn't see where this process discourages travel
agencies in any way. Further, that the Conditional Use Permit system is
basically to assure that the Haven ' Avenue office/professional is protected;
therefore, would like to see the process retained.
Planning Commission Minutes -1 - ; February ,1 , 1986
M
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that she would not like to see the process
eliminated since the City has a good balance planned for' Haven Avenue and she
would like to see that balance maintained; Further, Personal Services covers
a broad spectrum of which 'travel agencies are only a small part. She saw the
Conditional Use Process as one which is not meant to discourage uses, but
provides are opportunity for the City rake sure the use is appropriate and that
circulation is adequate.
Commissioner McNi el agreed that the Conditional Use Permit process provides
control and is no restraint of trade.
Commissioner Barker agreed that the CUP process should be retained but pointed
out that Commissioner Rempel has a valid point in that the objective of a
Conditional Use Permit is not to provide protection of one business over
another. Further, that the City should not be in business of regulating
trade, and this should be understood by applicants,
It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Conditional Use Permit
regulations for Personal Service Uses within the Industrial Specific Plan and
Haven Avenue Overlay Distract,
P. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT x DRAFT
SCOPr OF WORK
Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan and scope of work,.
Commissioner Barker expressed appreciation for the amount of work to date put
into this project by staff and particularly to the thoroughness of Gar.
Johnston,
Commissioner Chi'ti ea commented that the draft scope of work prepared by Forma
was concise and well organized. She stated that the firm selected should have
tremendously creative ability and be able to look at diversity` and find a
creative solution.
Chairman Stout stated that information should be provided as to which
individuals within the organization would be completing each task.
6r. Johnston advised that ;a matrix would be provided by the consultants which
would designate tasks and the persons responsible for the completion of those
tasks.
There were no further comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 12, 198
R. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS - Planning Commission review of
genera revisions an ate to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part IV AOL
(Subarea Development Standards).
Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
The Planning Commission expressed support for the revision to the Subarea
Development Standards, with the following exception and/or comments:
r Reprove Automotive Sales as an allowable use in Subarea 1 .
. Subarea 16 regulations need to be reviewed at a following meeting to
determine if an appropriate transition will be provided to the 'single
family area north of Sth Street.
3. A ;letter in support of the 4th Street median island shall be sent to the
Ontario Planning Commission or City Council requesting their review of the
issue. Said letter shall be signed by Chairman Stout. The o ission
agreed that the median should not be eliminated with input from Ontario
City staff only.
4. The Commission expressed serious concern: with the Minimum Impact/Heavy
Industrial designation for Subarea g, and directed staff to prepare
options for addressing concerns related to aesthetics and land use
transition. In addition, the City is committed to existing businesses in
Subarea g and ways to guarantee their continuation, such as Development
Agreements, must be considered.
. Consider changing the land use designation on the south side of le i ttram
Avenue, east of Etiwanda From Heavy`; Industrial (Subarea 15) to General
Industrial (Subarea ). Staff should prepare analysis for the following
meeting.
6. The Haven Avenue Overlay District and possible 1-15 Overlay should be
located in front of Subarea I in the document.
. The word "loggias" with the definition in parenthesis must be replaced in
Section B-2, page I1I35.
8. Further review of major topics should occur at a special workshop in
April .
Planning Commission Minutes -16- February-1 , 1986
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Mewed by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adjourn.
11:10 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned
spec fully submitted,
t
Brad Buller
Deputy Secretary
Planning o i ss en Minutes -1 - February '1 , 1986
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
January 22, 1986
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :O;O p.m. The meeting was held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel ,
Herman, Rempol , Dennis Stout
ABSENT:: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman,an, Senior Planner;
Nancy Fong; Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil
Engineer; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Barbara Kr all ,
Assistant Civil Engineer, James Markman, City Attorney;
Janice Reyn ld , ;Secretary Alan Warren, Assistant Planner;
Chris Westman, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from the
applicant for Item I, Conditional Use Permit 85- ,' Jensen Valley Plant
Growers, withdrawing their request for consideration at this time.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, announced that the applicant for Item M,
Environmental Assessment and Parcel; Map 9180, Lan co, had submitted a letter
requesting; continuance for one month.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and
Parcel Map 9180, Landco. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved. by Barker, ;seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried,` to continue
the public hearing for Parcel Map 9180 to February 26, 1986.
,l
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chiea, unanimously carried, to approve
the November 13, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes with minor� word changes to
pages 14 and 19 as requested by Commissioner Chitie .
CONSENT CALENDAR
Am DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10076 - LIGHTNER DEVELOPMENT - Design
evi ew compr i si n si ngl a family omes on acres approved 19 lot
subdivision TT 10076) in the Low Residential ( -4 du/ac) District located
at the northeast corner of London and Liberty - APN 01-2 1-D50.
(Continued from January B, 1986 meeting)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5-47 - FORECAST - A
proposa to d5055 a w -s cry office a ng to a rrg , square
feet on .66 acres located on the east side' of Utica, north of Civic Center
Drive, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan (Industrial Park
District) .APN 208- 5 -08.
C. DESIGN ;REVIEW FOR TRACT 10046 - LEWIS HOMES - Design Review of building
e evatiores an oo prin s er a esi en a subdivision of 18. acres into
27 lots located on the north side of Hillside, west of Hermosa - APN 201-
52-1 through 27
D. DESIGN REVIEW OF LOT 20- 6, 8-61 OF TRACT 12650-1 - THE DEER` CREEK
COMPARY e ''first phase—of development for-766tt-affive Tract , a
resi anti l subdivision of 14 .16 acres in the Very Low Residential
District 0-2 du/ao) into 225 lots located on the east side of Haven
Avenue, south of the Hillside Floon Channel , north of Hillside Road - APN
2C1-12 -24.
E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 -;C.T. ., INC. - Design review of
0o prfn s Rd 601ding e evat ens er an approve entative Tract of a
residential subdivision of 2.55 acres into 10 lots in the Low Residential
District (2-4 a/ac) located on the north side of Finch Avenue, crest of
Haven Avenue - AN 20 - 1-15.
Commissioner Chi ti ea requested the removal of Item A from the Consent
Calendar.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Commission had received an
addendum to the Resolution for Tentative Tract 1192 regarding the sound
attenuation wall'.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 22, 1986
Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to adopt the
remaining Consent Calendar items, with the inclusion of the addendum to the
Resolution for Tentative Tract 119 .
Item A - Design Review For Tentative Tract 10O 6 - Lightner
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, gave an overviews of the continuation of Banyan
Street issue which was before the Commission. Mr. Hubbs advised that the
continuation of Banyan through an S-curve to the east seemed to be a viable
solution and suggested that the Commission might direct staff to look into
this alternate as a future capital improvement project.
Chairman Stout stated that the Tentative Tract calls for a temporary cul-de-
sac at the end of Banyan and suggested that it be removed and substituted with
barrier so that it matches the other side of the street until such time as
the street continues through. He suggested that the design Review be approved
with the understanding that staff would be directed to make every effort to
place the street continuation in the capital improvements program as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with not opening the street up so that a
vehicle could turn around.
Chairman Stout stated that he didn't see the need for the expense of patting
in acul-de-sac since the street is' 44 feet curb-to-curb, which is wider than
most streets.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Rempel and stated that there are
other streets in the City designed this way which requires vehicles to pull
into resident's driveways to turn around.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that the expense is net such that the cul-de-sac
should not be provided and did not see this is as a major issue. He stated
that his concern was that the bridge be constructed to provide for the
continuation.
Motion* Moved by Rempel seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 10076 with the
understanding that the continuation of Banyan will be placed on the City's
Capital Improvements Program as soon as possible..
PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-38 - VICTORY CHAPEL
on-construction on Bona se arm to es a �s a c urc �n an
existing building in a multi-tenant industrial park within Subarea 4
(General Industrial ) of the Industrial "Specific Plan,_ located on the
northwest, corner of Archibald and 7th (9618 7th Street) - APN 09-171-
4 . (Continued from January 8, 1986 meeting. )
Planning Commission Minutes - - January 22, 1986
Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Alex Wilson, applicant, was concerned with condition 7 of the Resolution which
limited the use of the building for assembly or group meetings to the weekend
and after 6:00 p.m. on weeknights. Reverend Wilson explained that a women's
Bible study attended by approximately 25-30 people will be conducted on
Tuesday mornings. He additionally advised that a Bible seminar would be held
for eight days in May and in November from 8:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. which would be
attended by approximately 225 people.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested with regard to the bi-annual Bible
seminars, rather than amend the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use
Permit the applicant could apply for a Temporary Use Permit in order to gain
approval for the Bible seminar. He advised that though there may not be a
problem with the women's Bible study, the seminars might be of a magnitude to
adversely impact surrounding busineses.
Can Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested a modification to the Resolution which
addressed the issue.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the applicant would have all Uniform Building
Code and Fire Marshall conditions complied with prior to occupancy.
Mr. Wilson replied that he would have all conditions met.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel , to adopt the Resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 85-38 with an amendment to condition 7 to
allow religious assembly and group meetings which exceeds the allocated
parking spaces for this unit only during the weekend and after 6:00 p.m. on
weeknights. The Bible seminar is to be handled under the Temporary Use Permit
process. Motion carried by the following: vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COKMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9530 - WALKER - A division of 7.7
strict (Subarea 13)
located on the north side of 6th Street, east and west of New Rochester
Avenue - APN 229-261-38. (Continued from January 8, 1986 meeting. )
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 22, 1986
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Bud Roberts,, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the
Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of approval . Mr. Roberts referred to
Exhibit B of the report and pointed out that the parcel size was actually .55
of an acre, not one-half of an acre.:
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with all recommendations by staff, and
additionally stated that option 2 to require an offer, of dedication should be
required at this time,
Motion: Moved by Chitiea,; seconded to McNie1 , of issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt ;the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
9530 with the requirement for an offer of dedication for the interchange to be
constructed from the Route 15 Freeway to 5th Street. Motion carried by the
following vote
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA MCN EL, BARKER, RE PEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-03 - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LABOR ASSOCIATION - A
request o retain square oo ray er for-temporary office
space on a 155 acre site in the "M"° District, located on the north side
of Arrow Highway, west. of Cucamonga Creek Channel , 8706 Arrow Highway -
APN 07- 11-01
Alan barren, Assistant planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if another trailer existed on the site.
r. Warren replied that ;the temporary office trailer was the only trailer
which existed on this site; however, the property immediately adjacent to this
parcel also contained a trailer.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Repel , to adopt the Resolution
approving Conditional Use 'Permit 8 - 3. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES. COMMISSIONER'S: BARKER, REM EL, C ITIE , MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Planning Commission Minutes 5`- January 22, 1986
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _ 3 _ J NSEN ;VALLEY
PLANT GROWERS - A request tb lnsta a tray er s a temporary office an
s ora e s for a wholesale nursery business on 1.17 acre land s o l d
within the Southern California Edison Corridor located at 1.2050` Arrow
Highway, east of Rochester'- APN 27-0 1-47, 53 SO.
Chairman an Shut advised that this item had been withdrawn at the request of the
applicants
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- P COLE S HAEFER
A request `to opera b a 24 hour' emergency am a anee MMF�wlth quarters
in a tenant space of an existing building at the Rancho Cucamonga Business
Park, 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 206, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial
Specific Plan ,. APN 0 ® 5 - 1.
Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium and abstained from vote due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout questioned the licensing procedure for San Bernardino County.
Chairman Stout bp P D
'opened the public hearing.
Pat MAlmond, representing the applicant, responded to Chairman Stout's
question by advising that there are no legal findings at this point as to what
can be done with respect to the licensing procedure. Mr. McAlmond concurred
with the findings of the Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 85-4 . Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL -carrie
d
Planning Commission Minutes -6 January 22, 1986 ,
. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-40 - SLOAN -
request to operate a two-station eaut sa 'on inc a ng manicure service
within an existing health center (Star's Aerobics Fitness/Tanning Center)
in the General Industrial District (Subarea located in the Cucamonga
Business Park at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Archibald
Avenue - APN Og-OI- g (Portion).
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report-
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing,
Eva Sloan, Applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report,
Resolution and Conditions of Approval .
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNi el , to adopt the Resolution
approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-40. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL,' MCNIEL, BARKER, CNITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 96I - BARTON - A division of
13.22 acres of landinto parse s in the nos rTal Park District
(Subarea ), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, oast of
Maven Avenue - APN 0 -351-48, 49, & SO.
Commissioner R mppel stepped down from the podium and abstained from vote due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Citiea asked if parking had been addressed at this point.
Ms. Kral 1 replied that any building on the vacant parcel would have to come
before Planning Commission prior to construction and parking would be
addressed at that time.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, applicant, stated that the reason for the change in
the map was to put permanent financing; on the building and to open up the
parcel in the center to enable construction of the two structures and the
parking structure.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 22, 1986
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mci el , to issue a Negative 'Declaration
and adopt the Resolution ; approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
9612. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNI L, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -carried
M. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9180 - LANUCO; FINANCIAL
vision o gross acres into parce s in the enera
rr us r7 a all Served District, Subarea , located on the south side of
9th Street and west of Hellman Avenue - APN 209-013- 4.
Chairman Stout announced that this item had been granted a continuance under
the Announcments section of this agenda.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0IA - HAWKINS - A
rogues o amen a an seMap of the enera an corn- ow Dinsity
Residential ( -4 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential L 4- du/ac for
13.55 acres of land located on the south side of Feron Boulevard, east of
Archibald APN 209-055-02, 03, 14e
Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Barker asked ifthe project was a market rate project, could the
developer done in with a request for a bonus thereby increasing the density?
Mr. Buller replied that a 25 density bonus- could be possible which would
increase the number of units from 8 to 10. He additionally advised that this
would requirei additional review b both the Planning n Commission ssi on and the City
y 9 _ y
Council , if requested by the applicant.
Chairman Stout ope
ned the_Pu_b1 � hearing.n
g Tracy Tibballs,; 10522 Wilson, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on
behalf of the applicant. Mr. Tibballs acknowledged that the 25 density bonus
issue for affordable' housing if requested would be addressed, by the Planning
Commission and City Council at a later date. He requested approval of the
General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Low Medium Density.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 22, 1986
Nacho Cracia, 104 Humboldt, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the amendment and
stated that he was happy to finally see the density reduced to an ;appropriate
level .
Commissioner Barker asked if Mr. Gracia understood that the density could come
in at 10 with a density bonus for affordable housing*
Mr. Craci a replied that he would like to see what that would mean on a site
plan, since he was not sure how that would 'affect the number of dwellings
constructed®
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that this was the density which was established as
the one most suited for this parcel and was glad to see it finally reduced t
that level
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that 4-8 might be acceptable and could possibly e
compatible; however, was deeply concerned with compatibility should the
density increase to 10 under a density bonus.
Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the development of condominiums or
apartments in this area of the City. He stated that this type of product is
inherently incompatible with the area due to surrounding uses such as the
school on one side and the railroad on the other; therefore, could not support
the amendment. He suggested that the project:be developed under the terms of
a Development Agreement.
Commissioner Barker agreed that 4-8 units per acre is an appropriate density
for this parcel , however, was concerned with development at 10 units per acre
under a density bonus.
Chairman Stout stated that he had not changed his opinion that 4-8 units per
acre is an appropriate density for the parcel He indicated to the developer
that when the Commission expresses strong concerns regarding compatibility a
higher than 8 units per acre this issue will core up in the design phases,
therefore strongly urged the ;applicant to consider this concern in their
building program.
Commissioner Chi'ti ea asked if there was a way to tie a development agreement
to the land use amendment.
Mr. Markman replied that a development agreement replaces zoning not the
General Plan designation, therefore, could not be applied to the land use
amendment. Mr. Markman indicated that before this project goes before the
City Council documentation would be necessary to indicate that the people
signing the application are authorized to control the land use on the
property. He advised that if this documentation is not received, it would be
necessary for the City Council to continue consideration of this item until it
is received.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 22, 198
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Stout, tarried to recommend issuance of
Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Environmental
Assessment and General plan Amendment 86-01A, Hawkins, to the City Council .
Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: 0 ISSIONERS: MENIEL, STOUT, BARKER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ONITIEA, REMPEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman Stout announced that Item R was related to the following item and
would be heard concurrently.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9687 - TURNER-TONES - A division
o ages nto parcels in the -General In us riaArea (Subarea 1 )
located at the northeast corner of Santa Anita and 4th Street - APN 229-
28 -41 & 42 . (Related File: DR 05-46)
R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-46 - BONES The
pve opment of a , s waare oot ware Ouse is ution ui ing and
two light industrial buildings totaling 41,100 square feet on 9.23 acres
of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) located at the
northeast corner "'of 4th Street and Santa Anita - APN 29-2841 and 42.
(Related File: PM 96 7
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested that condition 2 of the project
Resolution be added to the Parcel Map Resolution so that there would be no
confusion that there is a requirement for reciprocal use of the plaza area to
be recorded in the 00 R's for the parcel map.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Rusty Turner, Turner Development Corporation, addressed the access issue on
4th Street and explained that the access was necessary to accommodate truck
traffic. He indicated that the site would be marketed for a large
distribution building and felt that it would be of benefit to have access off
of 4th Street. Mr. Turner also addressed the issue of undergrounding
utilities on 4th Street. He pointed out that the poles will remain in place
since the 66 Ev lines cannot be undergrounded. He requested that it not be
required to underground 12 BV lines where 66 Kv lines exist*
Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that special consideration
of additional access be given to larger parcels. He stated that D driveways
in total is not a major amount when dealing g with large parcels such as this.
_
Planning Commission Minutes _10® January 22, 1986
Greg Lansing, 985 Alpine i ve, Beverly Hills, supported the parcel asap and
stated that one drive on 4th Street is an undue hardship on the developer.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker asked for discussion regarding the utility underg rounding.
Chairman Stout stated that it really doesn't 'make much sense in this case to
underground the 1.2 kv and leave the 66 kv lines on the poles.
Commissioner Rempel suggested a l i erg agreement to provide for the removal of
the 12 kv lines at such time that something is done with the 66 kv's.
James ',Markman, City Attorney, advised that a lien agreement would not be the
answer since the then-owner of the property would hear the cost of
under rounding when the time comes. Further, that this would more than likely
e accomplished through a <utility unergroundig district.
Commissioner Barker was concerned - with telecommunication lines on utility
poles.'
Chairman Stout agreed that the pollution of telecommunication lines is a
problem; however, in this instance only 66 kv and 12 kv lines exist on these
poles and felt that they could remain until such time as the 66 kv lines are
removed.
Commission Chitiea agreed. She stated that the direction to underground
utilities in the industrial area is done for aesthetic reasons and should be
done wherever possible.
Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the driveway issue.
Commissioner Rempel supported the concept of the drive onto 4th street and
felt it was essential to this piece of property.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he could not support the applicant's
indication that a traffic study revealed that 4th Street is not going to be
heavily traveled. He was concerned with a truck pulling out of a driveway
onto a major street and suggested that the driveway be eliminated.`
Chairman Stout advised that secondary streets in the industrial area were
intended for use by truck traffic. Further, this one driveway may not cause
an impact, but the cumulative impact of every other applicant who wants one
starts to add up. Therefore, he could not support the driveway access on 4th
Street
Planning Commission Minutes -li_ January 22, 1986
Commissioner Barker stated that he could understand the applicant's desire for
driveway; however, was concerned with trucks crossing traffic. He could
support the concept if the driveway could be arranged so that left turns in or
out of the driveway were prohibited and if a deceleration lane could be
provided; however, in this instance it could not be accomplished and he
opposed the driveway on 4th Street.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that making left turns onto 4th Street could be
hazardous, and did not support the driveway onto that street.
Motion: Moved by Chitie , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9687with amendments to .special
Conditions G-2 to strike reference to underground overhead utilities on 4h
Street, additional condition to reflect that reciprocal use of the plaza area
is to be provided and recorded in the CCR"s prior to the issuance of building
permits. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT
-
NUES., COMMISSIONERS: REMREL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
Commissioner Rempel advised that the driveway onto 4th Street should have been
allowed,
Motion. Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 5.4 , with the removal
of reference to underrounding utilities on 4th Street in Engineering
condition 1, and reference to the drive approach on 4th Street in Standard
Conditions 1-5 and - . Motion carried by the following vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MC'NIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEt, STOUT
NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NINE -carried
. 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed.
.SU p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present
Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be
heard concurrently by the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 22, 1986
I
I
R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAR 9670 - - R.C. ASSOCIATES II division of 32.6acres of landinto; parce s in -the General-
category (Subarea 1) located on the north side of 6th Street, west side
of Buffalo APN 229-261-78. Related File: OR 85-49.
Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-49 - SANTA ANITA
P p ase eve opment o a ware Ouse is rioution
building tote ing 40,1575 square feet with 255,950 square feet for Phase I
on 18.83 acares of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11)
located on the west side of Buffalo, north of 6th Street - APN 229-261-
78. (Related File: Parcel Map 9670. )
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Joe Hyde, representing the applicant, addressed Special Condition 5 of the
Parcel Map Resolution and asked for clarification that the condition referred
to a slope easement and not reciprocal access easement .between the two
parcels. He also addressed the condition for street improvement plans to be
prepared and asked for clarification that the addition of driveway cuts,
street lights and trees would be made to existing plans on file.
Jim Watson, 363 San Miguel , Newport Beach, thanked staff for cooperating in
expeditious handling of project.
There were no further'comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer, advised that staff concurred with the
applicant's request regarding Standard Condition 5 of the parcel map
Resolution. Regarding Condition - , he concurred that street improvement
plans have been completed and it would be a matter of adding items to existing
plans.
Mr. Markman suggested modifications to condition 5 by replacing the first
sentence of the condition with "reciprocal access easements for landscape
maintenance", and striking "common roads, drives or parking areas" .
arre Ranson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that in order to insure access to
maintain the slope, the condition should be required of parcel two. 8e
suggested that staff be directed to revise the condition.
Motion: moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue Negative Declarations
and adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
9670 with staff direction to modify conditions regarding the slope easement.
Environmental Assessment and Development Review 85-49 approved as presented.
Motion carried by the following vote,
AYES; COMMISSIONERS. BARKER, MCNI L, CBITIEA, REIPEL,, STOUT
NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 22, 1986
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by cNiel unanimously carried, to adjourn.
The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on February 3, 1986 to discuss
general revisions and update of the Subarea Regulations within the Industrial
Specific Plan* The meeting will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood
Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Room 4, beginning at .QU p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Duller
Depute Secretary
I
Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 22, 1986
i
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
January B, 198
Chairman Dennis Stout 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, glbl Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chiti a, Larry McNiel,,
Berman Rempel , Dennis Stout
ABSENT. None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner,
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate
Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Jane's
Markman, City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary- Alan
Marren, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Pl-anner, announced that the City Council had directed the
selection of a Civic Center Subcommittee to be comprised of two members of the
Planning Commission. Dennis Stout volunteered to serve on the Committee and
Herman Rempel won the luck of the draw for the other position. Commissioner
9cNiel will serve as alternate.
r. Buller additionally announced Desi gn Review Committee rotations.
Commissioners Chiti a and. Rempel will serve on the Commercial/Industrial
Committee and Commissioners Barker and McNiel will serve on the
Residential/Institutional Committee. Chairman Stout will act as alternate for
both Committees.
r. Buller asked the Commissioners if February B, I986 would be an available
date for a workshop to discuss Industrial Specific Plan amendments. The
Commission agreed that this would be an acceptable date, with the exception o
Commissioner Chi ti ea who stated that she would be out of town.
APPROVAL DP MINUTE
Commissioner Rempel amended page 11 of the November 27, 1985 Minutes. He
advised that the intent in the first paragraph was that only D- of the
building was being used, therefore he suggested that the remaining percentage
e excavated for use.
Commissioner Chitiea requested that the tense be corrected on the Chairman
Stout's comment following adoption of the consent calendar.
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chiti a, unanimously carried, to approve
the November 27, 1985 Minutes as amended.
Motion. Moved by Chitieaa seconded by McNiel unanimously carried to approve
the December 11, 1985 Minutes as presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10076 - LIG TNER DEVELOPMENT - Design
eve ew compr*i s nj 19 -single- famp Tomes on acres approved 19 lot
subdivision TT 10076) in the Low Residential ( - du/ac) District located
at the northeast corner of London and Liberty - APN 01- 1-05 .
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1 577 - PILGRIMS A custom lot
res entia suvisfon o o s on acres o land in the Low
District ( -4 d ac) 'located on the south side of 19th Street, west of
Hellman Avenue - APN 0 -0 :1-0 and 6 .
Chairman Stout requested that Item °"A" be removed for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Darker, seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adopt
Item "B" of the consent calendar.
Design Review for Tentative Tract 10076 - Lightner Development
Chairman .Stout stated that Banyan was proposed to continue across the City to
Summit and was concerned with the "T" intersection which was now depicted in
the current plans.
Commissioner Rempel disagreed reed and stated that Banyan would b designed to o
p g �° _ g g
through if the City constructs a bridge.
Commissioner Ranker Mated that if there was a question of how this tract was
originally approved, staff should be given direction to research' that issue
and continue the item for two weeks
Planning Commission Minutes - - January 8, 186
Moti on;: Moved by MONi el , seconded by Barker, to Continue Design Review for
Tentative Tract 100 6, Lightner Development, to the January 22, 1986
meeting. Chairman an Stout requested that the Minutes be included in the staff
report, including those which were taken at the time the project was granted a
time extension. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOAT
NOES: COMMI-SSIONERS: REMPEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 6-01
THE LL A - request to amen the anne o unity to
or the Victoria anned Community to allow commercial RV storage and
mini-warehouse in the Medium High ( 1H) Residential District.
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff ; report. Mr. Cook advised
that a letter had been received from Ms. Elena, an adjacent property owner,
opposing project- due to incompatibility with her property.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, stated concurrence with the findings of the
staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval
Chairman .Stout asked if the applicant anticipated the need for more of these
types of facilities.
Mr. Ford replied that the Community Plan provides for an annual review to
evaluate the need. He advised that the William Lyon Company anticipates
participating in that type of review to monitor the need;
`here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Barker stated that he was not opposed to the use.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he was not opposed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he was not opposed to the use, but that there
should be a provision that in such case that a private business fails, the
responsibility falls on the homeowners association to maintain the property.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the use was appropriate and that interior
storage is necessary for the community.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 8, 1986
Chairman Stout concurred and asked the City Attorney if there would be a way
to mitigate Commissioner McNiel 's concern.
James Markman, City Attorney, advised that the applicant is probably going to
transfer title to another entity. He stated that them may be a problem in
what constitutes failure. Additionally, if this were the last property to be
developed, he would consider it more of a problem but there are other
properties to be developed, which would give the City some control .
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the property maintenance issue would
be controlled through the City's code enforcement process.. He additionally
advised that staff developed some development cri ti ea or standards for mini-
warehouses which were included in the resolution for this project. He asked
the Commission if these conditions would be acceptable as the standard
criteria for mini-warehouses.
It was the consensus of the Commission that those standards were acceptable.
Motion: Moved: by Barker, seconded.. by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution
recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration and <approval of Victoria
Planned Community Amendment 85-01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHIT E , REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: 'COMMISSIONERS: ,, NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5- 5 - THE MILLI °
LYON CO NY - development o a o eF6a storage of wit mini-
ware ou ors 4.4 acres of 'land within the Victoria Planned Community
(Medium High Residential , 14- 4 du/ac), located on the north side of Base
Line Road, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor - APN 09I-
4 '
Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, ;reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
.Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, stated concurrence with findings of the
staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval . He asked that it be
clarified that roofing material on the caretaker's quarters would be tile;
however, the roofing of the actual storage area would be metal for fire
protection,
Planning Commission Minutes 4- January 8, 1986
Commissioner Chii ti ea ;asked if the applicant had time to make modifications to
the circulation system after Design Review. She was concerned that the
present spaces show only 17 spaces where someone could easily back a boat,
trailer, or camper unit to be dropped.
Mr. Ford replied that the architect had worked on the circulation pattern with
respect to the way in which parking spaces orient to driveways, however, those
modifications had not been included In this packet and were not rewired to be
resubmitted prior to this meeting.
Commissioner Barker agreed that some changes were suggested at Design Review
and was concerned that the packet did not include revisions and that colored
renderings were not provided.
Commissioner Chitiea asked how the dump station and water fill-up areas had
been designed®
Stewart Calderon, project architect, advised specific designs had not been
developed. He stated that the attempt would be to have at least three wash
rucks and two spaces for -dumping so that 5 RV' during peak hours could be
accommodated. Mr. Calderon outlined the area on the overhead exhibit.
Chairman Stout stated that the Design Review Committee expressed concern about
the exterior wall and recommended that some type of landscaping treatment,
recessing of the wall in certain areas to accommodate landscaping, and the use
of a combination of materials. He asked if those recommendations had been
included in the final plans.
Mr. Calderon stated that, pilasters would be used to break up the expanse of
the gall and that vines would also be used. Further, a brick cap was proposed
for the top of the wall .
Chairman Stout questioned the landscaping maintenance along the perimeter
walls
r. Calderon advised that irrigation would be through the use of drip lines.
Chairman Stout stated concern with not seeing final renderings.
Brad Buller, City planner, suggested that the Commission consider one of two
actions, to continue the item in order for the protect to return to the Design
Review Committee for fine-tuning, or if they felt comfortable enough to act on
the project at this meeting, certain items of the resolution could be
conditioned to return to the Design Review Committee for final approval .
Commissioner Barker replied that he would rather condition the Resolution that
Design Review Committee give final approval rather than hold up the project.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed,
Planning Commission Minutes -5- January B, 1986
---------
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the use is appropriate, however, the design
criteria would have to go back to the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Barker agreed.
Chairman Stout stated that placing d few vines on the wall would not solve the
problem of the expanse of the wall . Regarding changing material', he stated
that since the building is long and linear, his concern would be more with the
material change being vertically rather than merely a cap change and that his
thought would be to block: it off with different sections.
o i si over Rempel referred to the letter from the adjacent property owner,
and stated that since that property is medium high density it would mean the
property would have a fairy dense project and might benefit from this
project.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution with modifications to conditions 7, 10, 11 regarding
design issues are to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and a
modification to condition 9' stating that all roofing material on the
caretaker's quarters is to be tile. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ak ak �r 3k �r
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86- 1 - WEDBLAD - A
reques to operate a trave agency i n a tenant space wiMin an industrial
office park in the Industrial Park District and Haven Avenue Overlay
District, located at 9140 Haven Avenue, south of 6th Street - APN 9- 6 -
17.
Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if staff saw a need for limiting hours on Saturdays
o : D p.m.
Mr. Warren replied that the applicant stated that this 'would be his hours of
operation. Further,, the fact that the conditional use permit runs with the
site and that another travel agency could relocate to this building, staff
felt that it would be appropriate to place this condition on the permit.
Commissioner Mciel questioned the available parking spaces in comparison to
leasable space within the complex.
Planning Co mission Minutes -6- January 8, 1986
i
r. Warren replied that a break down of h r
F
ea the area had not been r d
p_ are...
however, in a previous approval the owner of the u p
p pp property has guaranteed
additional parking on a parcel to the south upon expansion of the development,
Commissioner empel Mated this type of use is what was envisioned in this
Subarea and questioned why the applicant was required to submit a conditional
use permit for review.
Chairman Stout stated that the conditional use permit process is an overlay
district requirement. He then opened the public hearing.
Lloyd Wedblad, applicant, gave an overview of the project. Cyr. Wedblad
supported the conditional use permit process in that he felt notification of
surrounding businesses and review by staff and the Commission was beneficial
to surrounding businesses. Mr. Wedblau questioned the condition regarding
hours of operation and requested that he not be restricted.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed..
Chairman Stout stated that if the hours of operation were conditioned due to
parking conflicts, he could see the necessity; however, this operation would
use such low intensity, he could not see the need to limit his hours of
operation.
Commissioner Barker suggestedcondition that n c too one be removed in tot
al and
further stated that he did not have a concern with the proposal,.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he had no problem with this use since it was
intended in this Subarea and felt that a Conditional Use Permit should not be
required.
Commissioner Chitiea supported the project and stated that it would have
minimum impact and be an appropriate use.
Chairman .Stout stated that this is an acceptable type of use, and didn't see a
problem with the process
Commissioner cNiel supported the travel agency and suggested staff determine
if a conditional use 'permit should be required.
Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Haven Avenue Overlay District
requires a, conditional use permit for this type of use; however, if the
Commission did not believe a conditional use permit should be required, staff
could research the language and possibly bring modifications back` before the
Commission.
Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the question: was not whether or not the use
was appropriate, but how Much is appropriate in a complex before the nature of
the office professional support is changed to the primary commercial use.
Further, that it was not intended to exclude uses, but to control them.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 8, 19,86
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 85-41 with the
elimination of condition one. Section 3 was modified to read that the
conditional use permit is hereby approved. Motion carried by the following
vote: ;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA NIEL, BARKER, REPPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Repel stated that the; requirement for a Conditional Use >Permit
for travel agencies is not in the best interest of the community and requested
that the issue be brought back before the Commission.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-38 - VICTORY 'CHAPEL
on-construction Conditional Use- ermit to establish a c urc 5 an
existing building in a multi-tenant industrial park within Subarea 4
General Industrial ) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the
northwest corner of Archibald and 7th (8618 7th Street) APN 09-11-
47.
Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item requested a
continuance to the January 22, 19 meeting.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to Conti nue the public hearing
for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit: 85-38 to the January
, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNI L, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9530 WALKER - A division of 7.7
acres into 2 pair e s i a Teneral -Indust_ °strict (Subaru 13
located on the north side of 6th Street, east and vest of New Rochester
Avenue APN g- 61-38.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 8, 186
I
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the applicant for this item
had requested a continuance to the January 22, 1986 Planning; Commission
meeting,
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, to continue the public hearing
for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9350 to the January 22, 1986
Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES. COMMISSIONERS. REMPEL, BARKER, CNITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
* * -
8: 0 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed
8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 5-0 - CITY OF
RANCHO _ - en am ment c ect on of the Development
o e pr3r a1 h7 ng to Non-Conforming Use.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Barker suggested that the new text be modified to read that the
Planning Commission could approve or consider a request.
James Markman, City Attorney, suggested further modification to road "approve
or conditionally approve"
Motion: Moved by Pempel, seconded by Barker, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and: adoption of the Ordinance approving Environmental
Assessment and ;Developmen Code Amendment 85-06 to the ;City Council with the
modification to the new text- to read "approve or conditionally approve".
Motion carried by the following' vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL,' STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes - - January B, 1986
NEW BUSINESS
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- D - AJA The
devel opment 6 mU I tl-tenant 1n ustria u ings totaTi_n_9__6TM square
feet on 4.92 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4)
located at the southeast corner of 7th Street and Archibald - APN 09- 11-
1, 36, 37.
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms, Fong suggested
word changes to condition 6 of the Resolution.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Franz Nale ny, Aja & Associates, concurred with the findings of the staff
report, Resolution and Conditions of approval .
There were no c further o r e eats ; therefore th
e t e public hearin
g g was closed.
Commissioner
hi ti ea stated at th the applicant made
significant design
improvements to this project which will better serve the users of the complex,
and enhance Archibald.
Chairman Stout agreed and further stated that Archibald is getting to be a
problem with the strip commercial look and that this project is an excellent
example of how that can be broken up.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel , to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the Resolution approving: Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 85-38, with a modification to condition 6 to read "an that the
existing well site drive approach along 7th Street be removed". Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
J. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-4 - CHRISTESON COMPANY The development of a two-
tory o e retai uffdfng total ng O 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 - APN 1077-661- ¢
Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report*
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 6, 1986
Glen Cellatly, Dissel Architects, stated concern with the condition requiring
a pedestrian connection to the gel Taco Restaurant.
Ms. Fogg stated that :previous conditions state that the developers of Virginia
Dare and Brunswick work together to find a workable solution for the
connection:
There were no further'comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
James Markman, City Attorney, provided an update on the parking situation and
advised that a Development Agreement is being worked on with the developer.
e further advised that an appeal has been made by the applicant on the
perking issue and scheduled for public ;hearing before the 'City Council on
February 5, 1986. He stated that staff does not know which parking condition
will apply and hew it will affect the office building now before the
Commission; therefore, Staff°s position was to continue review of this item
until the first meeting in February to have this issue resolved.
Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing.
Glen Cellatly stated his understanding that the concern was with all three
properties and it was agreed to that the building at the southwest was the
questionable building regarding; parking and the building to the northeast was
small enough that parking was not an issue. Wherefore, ' felt that this
building should be exempt.
Mr. Markman stated that the building was not specified the only thing that was
specified was that a single office= building could be developed if it only
required HS parking spaces or less and the cinema parking would be assured.
Further, that this approval would have validated this project; however, the
appeal by the developer invalidated the Planning Commission's decision.
David Micheal , representing the applicant, stated that from all indications
there would not be any problems with the development agreement. Further,
0,000 to 80,000 square feet of buildable space remain to be built out in the
complex and felt that this would provided plenty of cushion for the
Development Agreement to be exercised.
There were no further comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to continue the public hearing
for Development Review H -4B to the February 12, 1986 Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, RE9PEL, STOUT
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Co is ion Minutes =11- January H, 1986
K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW -84 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - A consistency
e erminat!on betwelt,I F ooT orr, or rater m Policies and
proposed expansion of an existing bank building located at 9590 Foothill
Boulevard, formerly occupied by Wilmington Savings and Loan.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Steven Sensenbach, applicant, gave an overview of the project.
Commissioner Barker asked if the architect could., discuss how the proposed
design could with link the Wendy' plaza to the west.,
Tom Harris, architect, stated that in the short time available that problem
had not been addressed and that the only issue addressed was what to do with
the Wilmington Savings & Loan building to torn it into a viable project.
Commissioner Barker advised that one of the concepts behind the Foothill Study
is to master plan developments along the corridor.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the upgrade of this site is exactly what the
City wants out of the Foothill Corridor Study. However, this was not to say
that the rough plan ,presented is exactly the plan which will be approved. He
agreed that this is a feasible project for Vineyard Bank to pursue.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that at the preliminary stage, the consistency
determination could be made.
Commissioner McNiel concurred.
Chairman Stout stated that when this procedure was established the intent was
not to shut down all development on Foothill until completion of the study; it
was realized that there were certain situations and sites that would lend
themselves ;to immediate development. He found the proposal consistent with
the Interim Policies, but noted that the architecture and site plan may need
adjustments and possibly reassessment of the `drive h. -. t_rou h s.
g He felt those
were minor technical aspects which could be worked out later in the process.
Mr. Sensenbach stated that relocating the drive throughs is not a minor
accomplishment and would cost upward of .$75,400 to relocate. He advised that
here are currently three drive through spaces and Vineyard Bank plans to
expand to four. Further, that in working on this site it was important to
come to an understanding :that it would be allowable to expand the existing
drive through facilities and not relocate them since this issue would be of
major d consideration in
continuing this
s project. He advised that the drive
throughs would continue to exit out onto Foothill and stark to the rear of the
building.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 - January B, 18
Garrye Hanson, ;Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the access policy is not to
allow access onto major streets when an alternative side street could be
used. He was concerned that this project has not gone through the technical
review process.
Brad 'Buller, City Planner, stated that the conceptual plan in the packet and
the preliminary plans presented by the applicant this evening must be reviewed
further. It would be difficult to rake any kind of judgment on the technical
issues such as driveways, circulation patterns, and architectural concepts
until more precise plans can go through the technical review process.
Chairman Stout reiterated that at the Planning Commission level this proposal
was seen as an improvement and the Commission conceptually agrees with the
proposal .
L. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85- 8 - HAVEN AVENUE FOOD COIN - The development of a
one-story retail restaurant square oo uil ding located within
the Virginia Dare Center at the northwest corner of Foothill and Haven on
about 13 acres in the General Commercial ( C) District - APN 1077-401-0 7.
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Chitiea questioned the centered reveals required by the Design
Review Committee.
Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that Exhibit D-2 depicted the applicant's
revisions. He advised that his recollection from that meeting was that the
Committee discussed the centering on the section of the wall which is parallel
o the parking, not between the existing building and the end of the building
as proposed. He also raised a concern with the balance of landscaping along
the south elevation
Chairman Stout invited public comment.
Glen Gellatly, project architect, explained why the reveals had been centered
as shown on Exhibit C- . He further noted that the trees along the south
building elevation are centered between parking stalls and that a fire hydrant
location determined the size of the landscaped areas adjacent to the grape
crusher building
r. Culler advised that staff; would work with the applicant on the south
elevation, if the Commission desired.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that landscaping be expanded into the fourth
space which would eliminate that space and give more landscaping, She asked
i f thi s wool d be a probl em
Planning Commission Minutes -1 A January 8, 1986
r. Gel l atl,y replied that it would be a problem and could not speak for the
developer by indicating it would be alright to eliminate a parking space® He
advised that this elevation would be the service side, since the main entrance
would be off of iHaven.
There were no further comments.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the parking space should be eliminated and
the landscaping increased.
Commissioner McNiel was satisfied with the design and did not see this as a
major issue.
Commissioner Barker considered it a major issue and suggested that staff be
directed to work on a solution with the applicant.
Commissioner Rempel Mated that many projects have gone through undue limits
trying to shield loading 'zones and trash areas from view. He was concerned
that this project places it out in open view and there is no place on the site
for loading and cleaning.: He felt that the opening to the south should be
totally screened,
Chairman Stout stated that the problem is that the City designated the gusher
building as historical and wanted it visible; however, the applicant didn't
need the space therefore decided to integrate it into their restaurant by
making it a service entry.
Commissioner Rempel stated that trucks should net be parking out in the
driveway and there should be an area to the wrest to use as a dock area which
might necessitate the loss of six parking spades. He suggested that staff be
directed to work with the applicant on a driveway loading area which is fully
screened.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution
approving Development Review B - B with direction to staff to work with the
applicant on the development of a driveway loading area which is fully
screened. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BARKER, CAE IEt, REM1PEL, STOUP
HUES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS, NONE -carried
ADJOURNMENT
Motions Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 8, 1986
The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop following the Design Review
Committee meeting on January 16, 1986. The workshop will be held at the
Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Room 4, Rancho
Cucamonga, California beginning at 7: Q p.m. The topic of discussion will be
the proposed shopping center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line
(Conditional Use Permit 8 - 8)
9:40 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 5- January 8, 1986