Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Jul-Dec 1986 CITY OF RANCHO N N PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 1 , 18 Chairman Ua i d Barker called the Regular Meeting of the i tyr of Rancho Cu camonga a Planning n Commission on to at The meetin g eras held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line toad, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chai man Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. GILL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: aid Barker, Suzanne Chi ti ba, Larry McNiel , Peter Tolsto ABSENT. None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bail l er, City Planner Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, Janice Reynolds, Planning Commi ssi on Secretary; doe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Alan ;barren, Associate Planner; ri s Westman, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS M Chairman Barker presented a Resolution of Commendation to Dennis Stout for his service to the City and the Planning Commission. APPROVAL F MINUTES commissioner Tol stoyr asked that page 3, paragraph B of the October 8, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes he cnecked since the sentence was incomplete. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel , seoondeo by Ch,itiea,, unanimously carried to approve .he Minutes of October 8, 1986 as ar enoed. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT VIEW -1 - CARRIC -The rive o ere dif e6hodso on acres o an in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial district Subarea 9) located on east side of Utica Avenue and north of the AT & SF Railroad right-of-way APN 09- 143-05. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86_30 - LANCE The eve opmen o a square oo wos ory o ic 11 e building on . 9 acres of land in the Industrial Specific Plan District Subarea 7, lot 2 of the Office 'Tennis Executive Center located south of Aspen and west of Rod Oak C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 80-3 - LOT S- PARTNERSHIP e eve en o a gads orb+ office a i h o , square feee on .59 acres of land in the Industrial peci is Plan District Subarea 7, lot 5 of the Office Tennis Executive Center, located at the northwest corner of Civic Lerner & Red Oak - APR 208-062-01 u, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-33 :- OL VERA - The eve o en o a wos cry o oe u n o , square -feet-_ on .66 ages of land in the Industrial Specific Plan District Subarea 7) lot #8 of the Office Tennis 'Executive ;Centers located north of Civic Center and east of Utica - APN 08=0 04. , E. DESIGN REVIEW FUR TENTATIVE TRACTS 10827 & 10 7-3 - RELCU INDUSTRIES ov1 ew o si e pan ado 0' n arc i ec ure 75F Tintative rac 7 and 108 7-3' consisting of 98 lots within approved Tentative Tract 10827 located between Haven and Hermosa Avenues, south of Wilson - ,APN Pt 1-1R1- OP, 12, 13,_- 14, 63, OS;, 69 79 F. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW No s - PATTO The Design Review of mo - -i a i ons to the existing _s;­noppi n can er by replacing the approved awnings with green fabric awnings; the upgrading of existing landscaping with additional accent trees, stone veneer entry walls and planters with seating for a shopping center located at the northeast corner of 1th and Archibald. O. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - PARCEL NEAP 8901 - KELBERT PARTNERSHIP oca # on a nor ` e o` oo ea en e* RRe 146e« Motions Moved by Chitiea seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented Planning Commission Minutes - December 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1 e a i_S men o mo or ome us assembly liu-siness-7wi-i'thin an Existing 168,000 square foot industrial building and the 83,000 square foot expansion of the existing building on 11.8 acres of land in the General noustrial/Rail Served District (Subarea ), located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue - APN 09-1 - 15. (Continued from November 12, 1986). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-13 - MODIFICATION - MESSENGER - The request to and m y the prev ous ,y approved RMF PISH y re the site area of Phase III from 4.4 acres to 2.9 acres in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea , located at the northeast corner of 9tn Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN 09412-16. (Continued from November 12,; 1986). Chairman Barker announced that the Commission was in receipt of a request by the applicant to continue the public hearing for this item to February 18, 1987. He then opened the puollc hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by ; Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-15 and Development Review -13 to February 18, 1987. 1. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT -D - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A reques o Wi6d thi Terri Vs a anno o uni y oy establishing a Business Park Overlay Zone for areas designated as Office Park, Commercial and Mixed Use, within the Planned Community boundary - APN 1077-421-0 , 1077-091-17. (Continued from October4 8, 1986). w Chairman Barker announced that the Commission was in receipt of a request by the applicant to continue the public hearing for this item to January 14, 1987. He then opened the public hearing. There were no_public comments. Motion: Moved by Chi iea, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Terra Vista planned. Community Amendment 8543 to January 14, 1987. J. E`NVIRON ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6- 4 - PLANNING GROUP e develbothie6t o a square oo convenience gilii ifia servile center on 1.18 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea Z) located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN 201-013-1 . Related to the proposed development is Tree Removal Permit 86-51 A request to 'remove an existing windrow along the northern property boundary - Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 10, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86_0�6 - PLANNING GROUP - The request re required average Zb Tootdo scap ng on trees ranging from 15 feet to 22 feet, to eliminate the required five foot interior side yard setback for a 12,ODU sq. ft. convenience sales and service center on 1. 18 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN 2 1-C1 - 1 . Nancy Fong, Associate planner,, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Tom Matlock, 502 W. Holt, Pomona, representing the applicant,; gave an overview of the project. Commissioner Chitiea asked what type of landscape treatment would oe used around the monument sign ; r. Matlock replied that the area around the sign would be landscaped with mounding and flowers. Ms. Fong advised that staff had provided a condition within the Resolution to require detailed plans to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, pointed out that the Resolution contained a condition requiring the undergrounding of utilities within the railroad right-of- way. He advised that staff had contacted the railroad company and at this point staff does not know if the utilities can be undergrounded; therefore, recommended that the condition be removed. He further indicated that this is one of the first projects- in this type of situation. Commissioner McNi el stated that he would like staff to work with railroad on reaching a decision. In light of staff's comment, he concurred that the condition should be eliminated. Commissioner Chitiea was pleased with the project and stated it was of very high quality on a difficult piece of property. She stated the variance is warranted since it ; s an unusual` piece of property and would be almost impossible to develop. She recommend approving the project. She was <concerned with the utility undergrounding at the back of property since the City has established a policy to underground; however, in light of staff' coments, relative to the railroad right-of-way, she felt that it was unjust to ask the applicant to underground on three sides of his property. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and further stated that this is a difficult piece to develop thought the developer had done a nice job i Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 10, 1986 i Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Variance 8E- 0 . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON -carried Motion; Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chi`tiea,, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving; Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-24, with the deletion of Engineering Condition 3 c. requiring the undergrounding of utilities on the project side of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way. Motion carried by the following vote ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL," CHITIEA, BARKER, TOLSTDY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried K. PARCEL MAP 5786 - MODIFICATION - ;CROWELL BROTHERS - The request to e �m�na e a con i ion o approve requ r—ng the ns a lation of a six 6) foot high masonry wall and additional landscaping along the south boundary line for an approved office park subdivision located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street - APN 07-DI- 8. Clancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Marry Crowell , applicant, gave an overview of the request. Linda' Hirsch, 8792 Caluma Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that since the project has gone in she has had problems with people crossing her property. She felt the wall should be constructed as original«y conditioned to maintain their safety and privacy. Mitchell Hirsch 8792 Caluma Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that it is an unsafe situation at his home. He Mated that the property is not maintained by the developer and he has been maintaining it. He agreed tha the wal'I should be required as previously conditioned. He further' stated that the landscaping which has died or trees which have blown over in windstorms have never been replaced There were; no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 10, 1986 Commissioner Tol stay stated that he nad walked the site from the street to the western boundary of the site and agreed that Mr. Hirsch lot is an exception in that the rest of the lots are fairly well buffered. He noted that it appeared some of the shrubbery has either disappeared or was never planted and felt there are places that could stand some more planting along the entire site. He felt that something should be done to help the Hirsch'Hirsch's in their del ima Commissioner McN i el concurred that there is a problem with the Hi rsch'' s lot; however, was also concerned with -the chaff nl i nk fencing along the eastern boundary of the site. Commissioner Chitiea stated that this project has been conditioned in the past to address this problem. Further that this has been a continuing problem and nuisance factor and thought that the requirements should be met. She di not feel it unreasonable to ask the developer to comply with the original conditions of approval . Commissioner Barker questioned if the wall is to continue along this piece of property, where would it be logical to stop Commissioner Tol stay suggested that staff make an assessment of the site and rake that determination on the wall . He further suggested that staff should make an inspection of the landscaping to see if it needs replacement. Commissioner MtcNi el suggested that staff also assess the chai l i nk fence along the eastern boundary to see if it should be walled off as well . Ms. Fong advised that the adjacent senior housing project is going to have wrought iron fencing to the south end of their property Ralph: Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the Commission had not been provided a! Resolution for this item; therefore, recommended that the public hearing be reopened for continuance purposes to allow staff to tiring back recommendations on the wall and provide a, Resolution for consideration. , Chairman Harker reopened the public 'hearing. r. Crowll consented to a continuance to January 28, 1987. Motion; Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chtiea unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Modification to Parcel Map 5786 to the January S, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. Motion on carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, C ITIEA, 'BARKER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 1U, IgHb L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9897 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - su soon acres o an i parse �n ne errs ista Planned 'Community located in the southeast corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN 1077-4 1-Do, 107491-17. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Bill Humphrey, representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9897. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIaNERS CHITIEA, TD STOY, BARKER, M NIEL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP IU 38 - CUC ONGA COUNTY WATER su Avis o o * acres o an 1n o parse s 1n a o0 on ro designation located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue - APN 07-101-4 . Chairman Barker announced that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a request by the applicant to continue the public hearing for this item to the January 14, 1987 meeting. He then opened the public hearing. There were no comments. . n° b iel Moto `Move Mc seconded b' � to n r N To s _ unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 18 to the January 14, 087 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -7 December 10, 1986 Paul Rpugeau, City Traffic Engineer, agreed that combined access would be the best solution i h one en n e o Highland then immediately inside the properties the rveways coo sp Chairman Barker opened the public hearing Don Olu an, - representing the Clurman Company, gave an overview of his proposal to develop the site. He concurred with the recommendations for Low Medium -S dwelling units ;per acre) on Parcel a-1 and Office Professional on Parcel B. He requested Neighborhood Commercial for Parcel C and advised that he would be acceptable to not having access onto Haven Avenue, with access onto the future Highland alignment Craig Justice, 6330 Haven Avenue, concurred that parcels A-1 and A-2 be that the Garden Apartment ent Home owners ner would designated Low Medium.. stated t t p prefer to see Parcel 8 remain Low Medium; however, were not adamant on that point and could see that Office professional could be consistent with their' development. He supported staff's recommendation of Office Professional for Parcel C. George Godlin, 6344 Haven Avenue, opposed the Neighborhood Commercial designation and supported Mr. Justice's recommendations. He stated concerns with the amount of commercial property currently developing in the City, He suggested that the property to the south could possibly be purchased by the City for park purposes. Floyd Allen, 40 -A Haven, suggested that the plot plan for the Garden Apartments be provided for the Commission when they deliberate development on the adjacent land. Phyllis Allen, 640 -A Haven, expressed concern with the Neighborhood Commercial designation for Parcel C. She 'supported the recommendations of' Mr. Justice* Larry Bliss, 664 Carnelian, supported Neighborhood Commercial for Parcel C. He felt that mitigation measures could be taken to buffer commercial uses from the apartments. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner 14cNiel concurred with staff's recommendation that parcels a1 and a.2 be designated Low Medium, and also concur with Office Professional desigantions for the other two parcels. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that Office Professional on Parcel ` C would be less intensive and more compatible with the project across the street. She had traffic concerns and felt the impacts would be less intensive with that designation,' She additionally supported Office Professional on Parcel B as ll due to constraints on the existing residential, use. She felt that sufficient Neighborhood Commercial property was being provided for the' area 'with the commercial project across the street. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 10, 1986 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-04A - CITY OF GA n application to—amend ne land use omen General an as allows: a. (Parcels a.l and a.2) - Five acres of land, 250 feet to 6 U feet west and 280 feet to 585 feet north of the northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues, APN; 201- 62-2 , portion of 30, 201- 262-31, 41, 43, 201- 2- 1 through 25 from Medium Residential ( -14 dwelling units/acre) to Low MediumResidential (4 8 dwelling units per acre), and; b. (Parcel b) 1.55 acres of land on Haven Avenue 665 feet north of Highlana Avenue, APN 2 1-262-36, 37, from Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units/acre) to either Office or Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre), and; C. (Parcel C) .9Q acres of land at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue, south of the future realignment of Highland Avenue, APN portions of 201-26 -30, ; 31, and 40 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) to either Nei bb o Commercial or Office. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENOME14T 6-08 - CITY - AH S5p1 MU on o amend the erne opren i s ri c p as follows. a. (Parcel a.1 and a.2) Five acres of land, 260 feet to 660 feet west and 28 feet. to 585 feet north of the northwest corner of Haven and Highland Avenues, APN 2UI- d2-28, portion of 30, 201- 262-31, 41,; 43, ' 201- 62-D1 through 25 from (Medium, 8-14 d el°M i ng units/acre) to " '' (Low-Medi um, 4-8 dwel l i hg units/acre), and, (Parcel b) For 1.55 acres of land on Haven; Avenue 665 feet north of Highland Avenue, APN 2 1-262 36, 17, from (Medium, 14 dwelling units/acre) to either *OP' (Office/Professional ) or ' (Lour-Medium), and, C. (Parcel c) 6.2 acres of land at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue, south of the future realignment of Highland Avenue, :APN portions of 201-262-3U, 31 and 40 from ' (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units/acre) to either "NO (Neighborhood Commercial ) or ■lP' (Office/Professional). Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Planning Commission had been presented with letters from Boo Young - 6342 Haven Avenue, S. Craig Justice - 33D Haven Avenue, and George Codlin - 6344 Haven Avenue, expressing their opi noes on the item before the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with; access to this projects If parcels . 1 and a.2 were combined with access limited' limited to Highland Avenue, she asked' what staff' s recommendation would be. Planning Commission Minutes -8- Decemuer 1D, 1986 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Garden apartments are one of the unique parts of our community which need to be protected. He supported Low Medium Desigations -for Parcel A-1 and A- , and Office Professional for Parcels B and C Chairman Barker stated that on Parcel B it would be difficult to phut housing which was compatible with the existing development and felt that anything that is developed there has to be sensitive to what has become a special hideaway. He felt , Office would be the better alternative if handled, sensitively. He supported Low Medium for Parcel a>1 with the understanding there has to be a good deal of compatibility. He felt Office was the compromise position for Parcel C due to compatibility and traffic concerns. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the point of development Parcel B needs to be given a great deal of consideration so that its design shields itself from the Garden Apartments. He also felt that Parcel C has to have an exceptional design in order to be compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, he concurred that no accesses should be allowed on Haven* Motion: Moved by Chitiea seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 6-04A to the City Council with the recommendation that Parcels a.1 and a.2 be designated Low Medium, and Parcels B and C designated Office Professional . Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, TDLSTOY, BARKER, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT:.. C OMM ISSI4NERS: NONE carried Motion: Moored by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 86-08 to the City Council, with the recommendation that Parcels a.1 and a.2 be designated Low Medium, and Parcels B and G Office Professional . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: C OMM ISSIbNE S TDLSTOY, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL , NOES., COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT., COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed g DD p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes _17 December 10, 1986 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 1036 - KENCAID - A subdivision of 4.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 3) located on the south side of 9th Street, east of Helms Avenue - APN 09-0 1-03 , Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer,; presented the statt report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing, Gary Sanderson, representing the applicant, stated concerns with the cost of the utility under°grounding along the frontage of 9th Street. He advised that one of the parcels is in escrow and after escrow closes and the p, is recorded, the applicant would have the funds available; however, the condition posed a hardship in that it rewired payment prior to map recordation. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that it would be appropriate to place a lien agreement on Parcel 1 adjacent to 9th ;Street for future payment when the lines across the street are undergrounded. Mrs. Sanderson indicated that this would be acceptable. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 10366. Motion carried: by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13425 - GLENFBD DEVELOPMENT - X t6fail res en a eve opmn of 71 single family lati orr acres of land in the 'Low-Medium Density Residential' District` (4-8 dwelling emits per acre), located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and 19th Street - APN 02- 11-45. Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff' report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 10, 1986 Louise Lawson, representing the applicant, indicated that the applicant had met with staff and discussed the option of providing a pass book in lieu of a cash deposit for the installation of the perimeter wall at the north site boundary. With inclusion of "pass book" into Planning Division Condition 4, she would concur with the remaining conditions of approval . r. Murphy stated that staff had agreed to the option of a pass beck and would concur with this request. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution 'approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13425, with the inclusion of the option of providing a pats book in Planning Condition 4, Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Q. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-26 r CITATION - A request establish an off- si a mo e o sa es office comp ex on lots 1115 of Tract 12238 located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Whitney Court for the purpose of lot sales within Tract 12830, located on the west side of Beryl Street, north of LaVi'ne Street - APN' 208-073-11, 12, 13,14 and 15. Chairman Barker announced ,that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from the applicant for this item requesting a continuance of the public hearing to January 14, 1987. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Conditional Use Permit 86-26 to the January 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. R. VARIANCE 86-07 - A request to reduce the number of parking spaces required or a oo establishment in a developed shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - A N 22- 31-1 . Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report Chairman Barker opened the Public hearing' Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 10, 1986 Barbara Moberg, 3630 Barham Boulevard, Los Angeles,; gave an overview of the request. Commissioner Chitiea asked the proposed seating capacity for the yogurt shop, . Moberg advised that there would be two tables with four chairs each and two counters" with four chairs each. Jan Krause, representing Sycamore Investments the developer and owner of the property, advised that the 'lease for this center contains a clause that gives' the landlord the right to institute employee and tenant parking, which requires employees to park in designated areas. She felt this use would be at the lows end of the continum fitting into the restaurant classification. Rick Nelson, adjacent property owners, stated that the notification sign for this project contained no dates for this meeting. He did not feel this use would pose a parking problem for this center. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated than staff would have to check the notification sign, He pointed out that the item had been advertised in the newspaper and property owners within 30 feet of the project were notified by mail . He further stated that the posting of the public hearing sign is merely in addition to these required notices Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that it seems ;the City goes out of its way to provide every form of public notice -possible and as legally required* He advised that any one of the advertising means would be sufficient to satisfy legal requirements for conducting a hearing. { 'I There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel concurred that the yogurt shop at this point in time would' not present a problem; however, was concerned that there may be problems when the other five stores are leased. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had spoken with business owners in the center who indicated that they have not experienced many parking problems. He supported the variance request. Commissioner Chi ties didn't see a ,yogurt shop as a typical restaurant use and didn't believe that the strict restaurant standards should apply to this particular use. She pointed out that the project provides an extensive outside eating area which she felt would be utilized by the patrons of the yogurt shop Commissioners Barker was concerned that there was no technical means available to classify a yogurt shop as any thing but a restaurant. He stated that if the rest of the Commissioners are inclined to approve the variance, he would recommend certain conditions be placed which would include inhibition of selling any other typos of food and limiting the amount of seating available within the establishment. Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 10, 1986 r. Buller advised that a Resolution of Approval had not been provided for the Commission; therefore, should the Commission be leaning toward approval , staff would need to prepare a Resolution provide the facts to make the findings necessary for' approval. He suggested that, the item continued to allow staff to meet with the applicant. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. s. Moberg concurred with the continuance of the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel,; to continue Variance 86-07 to l the January 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. Staff was directed to meet with applicant in attempt to find solutions within the parameters given of designating parking spaces, providing alternatives for the limitations on the amount of seating or possible "elimination of seating, and prohibiting any other types of food being served other than yogurt. Chairman Barker announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission: S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL AP 1 - R. C. E. DEVELOPMENT . v s on o acres iW 10 parcels w h e n user a rk District (Subarea located between White Oak Avenue, yp Eucal tors Street and Elan Avenue - APN O - 51-P9. Related Project.- OR b_ It T T. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N - - A - The eve o n b an ce an Master ah w4 a central tennis facility on 18.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (subarea ) located between White Oak, Elm and Eucalyptus Avenues in the Rancho' Cucamonga Business Park - APN 0851-29 Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if the pedestrian orientations had been defined. s. Meier indicated that staff wri l l require additional defining of pedestrian walkway locations` and identification on particular parcels within the CCAR's6 Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested that the pedestrian orientation be reviewed b the Design Review Committee. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes -14 December 10, 1986 Jack Corrigan, applicant, stated that the pedestrian walkways are all designated on the map and each individual; buildings in the CC&R's we have stated that from the buildings to the tennis courts has to be pedestrian orientation to get to the tennis court. He felt that, all problems of Design Review had been addressed through the CC&R`s. He stated that the pedestrian orientation for each of the individual buildings should be addressed in their own design review and not the design review for the master plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was referring to conceptual design only to make sure that the individual owners were aware that they had to ;make the pedestrian connections. She was also concerned that the decorative paving be consistent throughout the project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff would work with the applicant to insure that the Commission's intent with regard to pedestrian orientation_was clearly addressed in the CCR' s. He felt that Condition 2 of the Resolution provided the language to adequately address the issue Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and parcel 'Map 10037. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, M NIELBARKER, TULSTCY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by PcNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Oeclaraton and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 86-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, BARER, CHITIA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS U. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86-65 A consistency determination between the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies and a proposed commercial office building located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard on the south side; of Foothill , west of Hellman - APN 208-241-0 . Chris Wes man, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 10, 1986 Chairman Barker invited public comment. Dan Richards, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant had attempted to bring the building pad farther back off of Foothill . Sonny Mascarenas, applicant, advised that' a series of different studies were conducted to determine where the building adjacent to Foothill would be located. Further, because of the tightness of the site there really are not many places the building can be located and that a commitmentwas made to keep the trees which dictated that the building would be located on the westerly side of the; property. He stated that the building style is to be closely compatible with the surrounding buildings however, is a little higher' than the required height on Foothill . The request for additional height was justified by the fact that the roof is sloped and additional elements compatible with the surrounding apartments and uses were added to the building architecture. r. Richards added that the architect had to make a choice between parking in the front or rear and that the two rows of parking with the proper width between them dictate the building location. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chiiea addressed the ; issue of architecture and stated that fitting in with the surrounding area and making it compatible with the adjacent apartment complex makes more sense than trying to create a new statement at this location particularly because of the size. She found the roof line attractive and didn't think the request for the increase in height to four feet was out of line. She appreciated the concern for existing ;trees and understood the site constraints. The landscaping along Foothill was of concern and she advised that the main consideration should be that it is compatible in terms of sidewalk and selection of plant material . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the problems Rancho Cucamonga has is out parcels of which there are many and each one presents a different set of problems and each one deserves a critical look. He supported the concept of parking in rear, the landscape concept and the; applicant's desire to preserve the trees. He felt the Design Review Committee should take a close look at the height and felt the most important 'thing is that the architecture be compatible with the surrounding area and not stand out and make a statement of its own; it really needs to fit in Commissioner McNiel stated that the project would go before Design Review as part of the normal process, the preliminary review is to make the determination of consistency with the Foothill ` Interim Policies. Since this parcel cannot be combined with any other, and the design is basically what the City is looking for on Foothill , he felt the project was consistent. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - December 10, 1986 Chairman Barker stated that the apartments to the east are in error and are at least 15 feet too close to the street to begin with... He asked that the Design Review Committee review the height and see if the height can blend together with the surrounding area. His basic intent was that ootparcels should flow and not each make a statement of their own Nor. Buller advised that staff will require site cross-sections, a streetscape plan showing this project and the adjacent projects, and photographs of the adjacent projects when the `Design Review Committee considers the project. He further stated the the plans submitted by the applicant indicate parking requirements on the net floor area. He pointed out that the parking requirements are based on the gross floor area; therefore, these plans are short 8 spaces which would require the building to be reduced or the parking increased. Mr. Richards stated that the parking is based on the net standard which is allowed' at Foothill and Haven. Although this is "a commercial strip, this piece was recently rezoned to prohibit commercial or apartments and would expect the same standards to apply at this location.. Mr. Buller stated that Foothill and Haven is within the Industrial Specific; Plan area and permits parking calculations on net floor area. Further, these parking provisions were allowed in the Industrial Area Specific Plan since there is a larger area and a greater chance for the parking to be absorbed by neighboring projects within larger planned developments. This is an isolated parcel that is going to have to make sure it meets all of its parking needs to prohibit pang from spilling out onto Foothill. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that it is important for this project to have adequate parking. She suggested that the upper story may need to be stepped which might take` off some of the excess square footage and at the same time address some of the placement and massing of the building. It was the consensus of the Commission that Preliminary Review 86 65 was consistent with the Foothill Corridor' Interim Policies. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to insure parking standards are met. V. VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH AREA DEVELOPMENT ;PLAN - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Consideration- ofan roe Deiel5pWiff PM f6F thi Victoria I age within the Victoria Planned Community, located south of Highland, west of Day` Creek, north of the railroad tracks and east of Milliken. Han Coleman, Senior Planner;, presented the staff report. Chairman Darker invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes - - December 10, 1986 Steven Ford, representing the applicant, asked for clarification of the type; of material considered for the special textured pavement at the trail crossing. Chairman Darker stated that in certain areas of the City" there are crossings intended for equestrian use and the intent would be that the material not be slippery under the steel shoes: Since the language in the Resolution stated to the satisfaction of; the City Planner and Trails Advisory Committee, he felt the material could be clarified at that time. Mr. Coleman agreed that the type of material should be referred back to the Trails Committee for discussion on what would be an appropriate surface. Chairman Darker stated that it is almost mandatory to give staff a reconfirmation on the issue of annexation so that we have some consistent control with this particular piece of property. Further, this out parcel has to be made part of the parcel and follow the same standards, design elements, etc. Commissioner Tol stoy agreed reed and further stated that we want to take them out of the 'category of being outparcel s. Commissioner Chitiea addressed the trails issue and suggested removing the word "textured pavement" so than the condition would read "special treatment" to give the applicant some flexibility. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there needs to be some kind of announcement that there is a trail which could be done in a lot of ways. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to approve the Resolution' approving the Victoria Vineyards North Area Development Plan with an amendment to condition b to remove "textured pavement". Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: C OMM ISSIONERS CNITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, TO TOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 10:45 p.m. - planning Commission Recessed 10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION STANDARD Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -lg- December 10, 1986 ommissioner Tol stay stated that one of the worst offenders of wasting water is that irrigation systems are poorly designed, never monitored and they are left on regardless of weather conditions, and net maintained. He could not imagine how an Ordinance could control these situations. Chairman Barker stated that some sort of direction and guidelines on irrigation systems and appropriate plant material would be invaluable to homeowners. Commissioner Chitiea suggested consideration of an additional staff person who would plan check irrigation systems. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that staff had discussed the concept of requiring a landscape architect not only to prepare the plans but also plan check the irrigation plans to insure that the system goes in as it is planned. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a pamphlet sponsored by the City which would address irrigation systems, maintenance, and selection of plant materials, he distributed to all new tracts in the City. He additionally suggested that the plant list include common naves and also characteristics of the plant be clearly stated. Chairman Barker agreed that something simple in the way of a handout with guidelines would be very appropriate. 6r. Coleman advised that Ventura County adopted a program which requires a certain number of models within a model home complex to be landscaped with drought tolerant plant materials and some type of efficient irrigation. Signs are posted` and literature provided within the model home explaining how a person can easily do the same for their own landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the literature might be passed out to major plant retailers so than in their buying that they might take these plants into consideration. Chairman Barker cautioned the use of too much hardscape which may have an adverse effect. Commissioner " olstoy stated that hardscape when dome well looks well and that combinations of turf backed up by ground' cover that don't require much water are excellent solutions. Commissioner Chitiea stated that sometimes large expanses of water have less evaporation and use less water than turf, which has been used effectively in some areas. She suggested that; this be looked into that as another alternative. Planning Commission Minutes 19- December 10, 198 Lloyd Michael, Cucamn Cunt t D° ted that from now on the water for new deve n s water imported to the community from other areas. He gave an overview of the Water District's projections for coming years. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to prepare detailed landscape guidelines incorporation the techniques discussed by the Commission. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc 'iel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment for the following it X. POLICY FOR UNDERCRDUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES - POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. He 'asked for discussion of item 8 which exempts residential subdivisions of four or fewer single family residential parcels in cases were the utility lines extend for at; least 600 feet offsite from both the project boundaries and the adjacent property is not likely to contribute to future undergroundi'ng. Commissioner Barker asked that if the City does not underground for ten ,years, how would the situation be handled. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the 'City would have to attach the property, not any one person through possibly a lien agreement. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in infill situations where there is development on both sides and the wires are up, a person should not be required to underground* Chairman Barker was concerned with the possibility of double taxation should an in fill project be required to pay for undergrounding, then a City assessment goes in to pay for the undergrounding since the remaining properties are developed. Barrye Hanson stated that the suggestion of a lien agreement was an option to exemption. was concerned with placing lien agreements on single family residences. It was the consensus to leave item 8 in the exemptions list. Commissioner McNiel advised that the City of Long Beach has done an incredible job with respect to utility undergroundi ng. He stated that he would like to research how they accomplished this and bring the item back to the Commission at some later date Planning Co mission Minutes - D- December ID, 1986 Martian: Moved b Niel , seconded y Chiti , uananimauy carried, to adapt the Exempt Project List presents by sta CURNMEN Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to adjourn. 11:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Re ully s ted, Bdl er, epty Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 1 December 10, 1986 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP THURSDAY DECEMBER 4,' 1986 7:30 P.M. (following Design Review Committee Meeting) Neighborhood Center 9791 Arrow Rancho Cucamonga SUBJECT: KINIMN LOT SIZE/KIN114UN UNIT SIZE DISCUSSION This workshop is scheduled to facilitate Commission review of minimum lot sizes, minimum unit sizes, and related development standards. Chairman E. David Barker called the workshop meeting to order at 45 .m ROLL CALL Commissioner Barker K Commissioner McNiel E Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy WORKSHOP Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose of the workshop as a "kickoff" discussion. Ban Coleman and Otto Kroutil , Senior Planners, presented the staff report Bob Salazar, representing the Baldy View Region Building Industry Association, stated that the BIA would not make' a formal presentation, but would refer to representatives of the William Lyon Company and Lewis Homes. Jim Bailey, representing the William Lyon Company, stated that the Planned Communities were, in themselves, innovative; therefore should be considered e differently than rest of City. He indicated that buyers prefer to be able to ' walk around their house rather than attached housing. Mr. Bailey stated that it ' cost $30,000 more to build The Meadows project and 45 days longer because of the attached construction. He also indicated that increasing minimum unit size from 900 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. will not improve quality and would cost 3,100 more to build the additional 100 sq.' ft. Mr. Bailey stated that Victoria's 3,000 sq. ft. lot project The Park, has been criticized unfairly because of its small lots and that they would like to build more. He indicated they are developing a 50 ft. pride, 3,000 sq. ft. single family lot concept. John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, stated general agreement with r. Bailey's comments. However, he indicated that Lewis Homes would like additional time to review the staff report options for minimum lot size and that another workshop be held on this issue. Mr* Melcher stated that development standards should be included in future discussion. He stated agreement with the proposed 1,000 sq f t# minimum unit size for single family dwellings. Mr. Mel Cher stated that Lewis Homes is opposed to the proposed unit size options for multi-family dwellings. He indicated general agreement with the proposed parkin ratios for multi-family protects Mr,' Buller indicated that development standards were an integral , part of the total solution to the problem; and would be included in future discussion on 1 of si ze. Chairman Barker began Commission discussion and indicated that innovation should be defined and includes the idea of variety and change. guilders must use a little imagination in designing innovative products. He requested graphics to explain the necessity of the proposed changes under the Low Medium Basic Development Standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the minimum unit size increase of 100 sq. ft. for single family is not an issue of quality, rather it is an issue of livable space. Michael Vairin, representing the Deer Creek Company, requested clarification regarding whether the proposed 10 foot sideyard under the Basic Development Standards must be flat. r, Buller responded that in certain instances it did not have to be flat. He also indicated that staff is concerned with providing adequate access to the rear yard Discussion followed regarding the proposed 10 foot sideyard. No consensus was reached by the Commission. r. Bailey stated that increasing the sideyard setback an additional feet would not provide streetscape variety. Otto Kroutil stated that we must focus on the total solution rather than individual standards. A combination of design techniques and development standards must be used to address this issue. r. Bailey indicated that it might be acceptable to require 10 foot si deyards on a percentage of lots within a tract. Commissioner isioner Chi tiea agreed. Discussion followed concerning minimum unit size. The consensus of the Commission was that 1,000 sq. ft. for single family dwellings was Also acceptable and no Further staff analysis was necessary. The Commission directed` staff to refers the multi-family minimum unit size back to the City Council for clarification of the problem. Discussion followed concerning multi-family parking. The consensus of the Commission was that two ( ) covered parking spaces should < be required for three and four bedroom units. There was also consensus that where more enclosed garages were used, additional open parking should e' required. i Mr. Meldher sated that in terms of design criteria for covered parking, shortening the allowable length of an uninterrupted gauge would be preferable to requiring double width doors. Meetingwas adjourned t 9:45 to the December 0 98b regular Planning _ � g g Commission meeting. �. � .... �u �.� � �.� � .�.._.��, } 0 t � v �U 1 ":. tt�: 4: A a � � V ... { �: � F �� --r�-........« � �-,av�n...e..,...,m...«...� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Regular Meeting November 1 , 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 Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: E. David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry Mcel , Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy, ABSENT: Nome STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Debra' Meier, Assistant Planner, Scott Murphy, urp y, Assistant Planner, Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Janice Reynolds, planning Commission Secretary,` Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, Alan Warren, Associate Planner ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion: Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Chitiea, unanimously carried, to appoint E. David Barker Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Barker, unanimously carried, to appoint Larry McNiel Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconders by Stout, unanimously carried, to approve' the Minutes of September 24, 1986 as presented. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of October 22, 1986 as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR, A TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 8486 _; TMI - A division of 34.2 acres of Tand into parse snthe us a ar District (Subarea 6) located on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route `- APN i 209-092-04. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84- - KELBERT PARTNERSHIP eve open o a squari f66f gasoline spens ng sta on and ancillary automotive facilities on 2.5 acres of land 'located at the northeast comer of Center Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the General Commercial (G ) District - APN 1077-401- 8. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 1069 - REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT Review of site plan i5a 50954 iRfiftecture for r c , an approved residential subdivision of 25.8 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low- Medium Residential , 4-8 dwelling; units per acre) into 137 lots, located north of the; Southern Pacific Railroad and east of the Deer Creek Channel APN 0 - 11-1 , 38. Brad Buller, City Planner, requested that Item C be removed for discussion. Motion: Mowed by McNiel , seconded by Chi ti ea, unanimously carried., to adopt items A and B of the consent calendar. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13059 - REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT Bruce Cool, Associate Planner, presented a revised Resolution for the Commission's, consideration. The amendment included an additional condition providing adequate access to the railroad slope maintenance area to the south of the, tract. Roger Wilson, representing the applicant, concurred with the amendment. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adopt item C`of the consent calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0 A - LA NG HOMES - neques o amenthe Land Use Element of e enera n fFbi ' cod Control to Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 40 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the extensions of Banyan and Milliken - APN 01- 71-55. (Continued from September 24, 1986) Planning Commission Minutes - - November 12, 1986 I Otto KroutilSenior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jess Harris, representing the applicant, proposed a plan to the Commission which would combine the subject parcel and the parcel to the south with a total number -of dwelling units not, o exceed 320 units which would be less than what is permitted under the current zoning with the separate parcels. He requested that the subject parcel be zoned LM with a condition that the entire parcel will: not exceed 320 units. He advised that the reason for the request of LM is because K&B would like to build a similar product that they have on the north side of the parkway on Caryn development and the LM zoning is need in this case to achieve that type of product and that type of density. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that any action taken by the Commission tonight could not be conditioned in such a way to restrict or control and other development on any other property. This land use decision before the Commission tonight cannot be conditioned therefore, intent of the applicant ul d have to occur as a package pl an of some type at a later date in order for the Commission to be assured that this proposal would actually happen. He pointed out that if the Commission takes action on the northern parcel , there is nothing to restrict the property'; on the south from coming into its full development potential of 8-14 units per acre. He suggested that the item be continued with direction to staff to work with the applicant in preparation o a project proposal that would include both sites,. r. Harris asked; for a preliminary reading from the Co ssion on the concept presented in terms of the site layout, and asked if it would be possible to submit a conceptual proposal . Chairman Barker indicated that there was precedence which would allow the submittal of a conceptual package. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the last time this item appeared before the Commission there was considerable discussion as to whether this particular piece °might go from low medium to low and the property below even be considered being lowered to low medium and felt this needed to be discussed. She was in favor of lowering the density on the property below as well as this site; but indicated that she would be willing to consider a master plan concept to the entire site. Commissioner McNiel agreed and indicated that there were also discussions a to the consideration of lowering the density `to the northwest as well . He advised that the previous discussions to lower the density in the entire area should be understood by the applicant. If they wish to continue with a master plan knowing full' well what our posture has been, he would not object to that. Planning Commission Minutes November 1 , 1986 Commissioner Stout state that the askin i htl less than units per acre. He would not arror the onng requ t as limitation on the number of units, however, would concur with the applicant's request to submit a conceptual package combining the two sites. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the master plan concept. He concurred with the continuance as proposed by the applicant with a total cap of 320 units over the total of both parcels. Chairman Barker stated that he would like to see ghat could be done with master plan, but; t the same time would prefer to see the density lowered. He asked if the applicant had the preliminary reading he needed Jess Harms:_ re rasen in the applicant, con curred with th e Commission's ion direction to come back with a preliminary concept after the first of the year and propose something in the neighborhood of 4.75 overall density on the site. He understood that Commissioners Chitiea and McNiel would prefer to lower the density in the area- however, felt he could come in at the Low and Low Medium range or very close to the upper range of those densities. Commissioner Tolstoy cautioned that the applicant may have grading problems to take into consideration on the site and suggested that the less grading the better. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 86-0 A to the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 1987. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE; PERMIT 86 16 e -e-st-551 1 ShmeR 6f a mo dr fiome75 -assemb 1y business withfn an existing 168,000 square foot industrial building and the 83,000 square foot ;expansion of the existing building on 11.8 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea , located at the southeast corner of grow Highway and Vineyard' Avenue - APN 209-12- 15. (Continued from October 8, 1986). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-1 MODIFICATION MESSENGER - The request to modify tne prev busy i55r5�ia master Pian y re au ng the site area of Phase III from 4.4 acres to 29 acres in the General Industrial/Rail' Sewed District (Subarea 2), located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN - - 6. (Continued from October 8, 1986). Chairman Barker advised that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance of the public hearing to December 10, 1986. then opened the public 'hearing. ' There were no comments. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 1 , 1986 Motion. Moved by Nie econded y nani usl arried, to continue the public hearing for dv ronmenta AssessStout n an on it onal Use Permit 86- 15 and Development Review 86-1 , Modification, to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1986. F. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 86-0 WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request -to---amend- the Terra Vista Planned Community y es a s ng a business park overlay zone for areas designated as Office Park Commercial and Mixed Use, within the Planned Community boundary - APN 1077-421-06, 1077-091-17. (Continued from October 8, 1986 . Chairman Barker announced that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance of the public hearing. He then opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, t continue the public hearing for Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 86-0 to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1986. O . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-17 GTE - A proposa o oca a square oo unmanne remo a sw c ng station north of Highland and east of Milliken within the Caryn Planned Community - PN 5-141-29. (Continued from October 22, 1986). Chris Wes an, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Paul Ragiano, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . He advised that the problem of the deed restriction had been resolved. Commissioner McNiel asked if evidence of the deed restriction had been submitted to the City. r. Ragiano advised that documents had been sent to Mr. ailorio approximately three weeks ago and to date he has not voiced an opposition to the project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the freeway offramp issue was resolved. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1986 Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that Caltrans was considering a different configuration for the offra due to the existing horsing. He further advised that the ultimate eleva ion of freeway right-of-gray would be approximately 0 feet higher than the existing ground. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned with how the switching station design would fit in with the church owned property since it has not yet been designed. Brad Buller, City planner, advised that staff added a condition to the Resolution to insure that the architecture and landscaping of the switching station would be re-evaluated" at the time a project is proposed on the property to the north and west of the switching station. Commissioner Chiiea was concerned that the church site plan and architecture would have to be designed around the switching station. . Buller pointed out that staff was attempting to accomplish the opposite in that the primary architecture of the larger site would take precedence and the architecture of the switching station might have to change. Motion: gyred by McNiel , seconded by Stout, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 86-17. motion carried by the following vote. AYES: CO ISSIONERS MCNIEL, STOUT`, BARKER, TOLSTOY DIES. COMMISSIONERS: CBITIEA ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE BE-OS WALTON CONSTRUCTION - A request o decrvasetfie minimum very B o size, a min mum lot width the minimum corner lot width, and minimum lot depth for a proposed 57 lot subdivision in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than two dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Sapphire Street, south of Jennet Street - APN 1043-1 1-01, 02, 0 ; 106 -011-0 ,0 , 106 - 161-01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10349 - WALTON CONSTRUCTION 'total- residential derne opmen BF 57 s ng a a y o s on acres i the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Sapphire Street, south of Jennet Street APN 1062-1 1-01I 1062-011-0 , 03, 1043-121-01,' 0 , 03. Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that attention be made as to how water is going to get from the property through the block wall to the drainage system provided. Planning Commission Minutes -6 November 12, 1986 Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff will make a special note 'to the plan checker for this project to make this concern is noted. Commissioner Stoat stated that he was on the Ad Hoc -C ittee for the approved plan and noted there was an additional north-south equestrian trail along the south - bank of houses that basically separated the two developments. He painted out that this trail appears to have been deleted and asked if them was any discussion of this issue. Mr. Murphy advised that there had been no discussion of this at the trails committee meeting. Commissioner Chitiea ' stat that she had been unable to attend the Trails Committee meeting when this tract was reviewed and questioned how the trail was deleted. Mr. Murphy replied that it may have been an oversight in that there was no intention to purposely delete the trail. He advised that in going through previous meeting minutes he could not find where the trail was actually required. Commissioner Chi ties stated that the slope of the guni to ditch could be of some concern and asked the Engineering Department to look at it 'closely to make sure it functions as it should to eliminate the possibility of a muddy trail and standing water. M . Murphy advised that the Resolution conditioned this project to go back to the Grading Committee to finalize all the details prior to ;the issuance o building permits. Commissioner Chitia suggested that the Trails Committee work with the Technical Review Committee to make sure the drainage and the;curbing is safe and appropriate. Commissioner Stoat asked if ere was discussion relative to the detailing of walls on Sapphire, and the suggestion of placing a portion of the fence along the top of the slope for the lot on the south side of Thoroughbred. Mr. Murphy advised that there was some discussion of this issue and that the applicant was opposed to that idea since he felt it would be more aesthetically pleasing to install additional landscaping as a buffer. Further, the Design Review Committee agreed that landscaping would be more appropriate. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing Guy Williams, 2011 E. Financial Way, Glendora, California, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He requested that, Planning] Division condition S requiring a 15 foot commuity trail along the northerly Planning Commission Minutes -7 November 12, 1986 tract perimeter be delet d. .advised that ea ements to the east and west are for utility an vehcu ar access on are are not dedicated for equestrian use and that these lots are not suited for equestrian use. Additionally, he requested; condition g a & b and condition 12 be deleted as internal feeder trails because these parcels are not ideally suited for equestrian use. He asked for the elimination of the easements along the east, west, and north sides of the development, and elimination of the feeder trails that exist on the westerly portion of the; property, the internal line and the far western line on the east ' side of the development. He requested that 0where applicable" be added to Planning Condition 13 requiring the tract to be graded to provide a minimum 15 foot level area on the lot adjacent to the local feeder trails. He addressed Engineering condition 1 b relative to undergrounding utilities along Sapphire street and requested that the one-half of in lieu fee contributed b the developer be 'returned, proportionately to the homeowners in the event the ity+ does not begin undergrounding of utilities at this location within a five year period. He requested 1 c to underground utilities within the equestrian trail north of lots - 5, 40-4 ' and '47 be deleted and stated that this condition places undue burden on the developer and ultimately the homeowner. He - requested that Engineering condition requiring sidewalks to be constructed be deleted. He requested condition 4 a requiring a 2 foot high block wall for drainage protection along the easterly edge of the driveway on lot. 13 and westerly edge of the driveway on lot 12 be deleted and advised that these lots have been elevated to be 2 feet above the curb height. He requested clarification or deletion that the internal feeder trail easements not be dedicated. Chairman Harker pointed out that this development is within the Equestrian Overlay District; therefore, the Code requires that every lot have equestrian access Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that this was correct. He stated that i the Commission does not feel comfortable with the trails issue, he would recommend that this matter and any modifications be referred back to the Trails Committtee. r. Willies stated that he was; trying to provide a better development'where there is a mixed use and to provide some areas for equestrian use and 'other areas which `do not conceivably fend themselves to equestrian related uses. He advised that another consideration is the proximity that some of these lots will have to the stables; the house and the location of the stables`would fall within the TO foot range of some of the neighbors dwellings. Commissioner Stout asked how the applicant would protect the lot on the south side of Thoroughbred from visual intrusion from Sapphire. Clyde Anderson, Landscape Architect, advised that on that particular lot would be heavily landscaped. Further, if the ultimate homeowner decides they need additional privacy they could submit a decorative wall design to the architectural committee for its approval . This committee would then recommend approval and forward the design to the City of its approval . He advised that Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 12, 1986 any archtectural n s w l d be. require ro h C ' be presented to the architectura a ee prior o su m to to e ty for approval . Commissioner Stout asked the participants of the architectural committee. Mr. Anderson advised :that the committee would be comprised of himself, the chief executive officer of the organization, and at a later time homeowners would be asked to participate. Commissioner Stout asked if the applicant would continue to participate in the committee until all lots are solo. r. Anderson advised that they would continue participation for a period of two years or longer until a committee of homeowners was developed to take over that responsibility. Sharon Romero, adjacent property owner, requested that adjacent homeowners be notified of date of grading for the equestrian trail . Her concern was that the trees and berm have been maintained there for a specific reason and suggested that when it is graded instead of smooth change the grade be kept abrupt on the northern part of property to retain a visual wall appearance. She agreed with the applicant that sideways are a negative factor. Jim Anderson, Thoroughbred resident, supported the applicant's request to delete sidewalks and the north-south equestrian trails He supported the project. Theo Bello, Sapphire Street resident, staged a concern with traffic impacts as a result of this development. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the only aspect that needs to be seen by the Trails Committee might be the actual drainage incorporated into trail . She believed the trail omission was an oversight because it was included in the original discussions. Further, that; it is the intention of the Committee to make a1-1 the circulation as complete as possible. Co issioner Mc Niel stated that the applicant's recommendations with respect to deletion of trails should also be reviewed by the Trails Committee. Commissioner Stout stated that in order to approve the applicant's request to delete the trail easements, the Commission would have to adopt findings for a Variance, which he could not see the ''grounds for approval . Further, a number of tracts similar to this throughout the City have had such conditions placed on them and whether people chose to have horses or not is not the issue; the Ordinance requires trail access. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that the Engineering ;Department should take a look at the drainage with respect to what it does to the surface. He didn't see the necessity to widen the Sapphire' trail to community standards, when all the other trails along there are not. of Planning Commission Minutes- -9- November 12, 1986 that standard. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that all lots should have trail access whether the homeowner has horses or not. He concurred that the oversight trail should go back to the Trails Committee, but didn't think the omission of trails was an open issue. Commissioner Chi'tiea suggested that the issue of width of the trail along Sapphire also be referred to the Trails Committee. She was totally opposed to the deletion of trails and felt it was important to maintain the rural atmosphere of the Citya Jim Anderson again addressed the Commission and advised that the original north-south trail was proposed dine to the incompatibility between the previously proposed tract and the existing Gary Miller homes. He Mated that he would not like to see that trail required of this tract. Commissioner Barker stated that it seems to be the consensus that the north- south trail should be referred back to the Trails< Committee, along with an inquiry concerning the logic behind the extra width on the Sapphire portion of the trail . He asked for discussion of undergrounding of lines '`within the equestrian trail . Commissioner McNiel Mated that he was of the opinion that the City has established a policy to underground whenever possible; however, concurred with the deletion within the equestrian trail under circumstances explained by staff. - garrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked for discussion regarding the applicant's request with request to the in-lieu fee for undergrounding along Sapphire in` which he requested a time limit of S ,years and if fees not spent within that time money world be refunded. He advised that this would be contrary to current policy in that time limits have not been set in the past. He felt it would be optimistic , to think that the lines would be undergrounded within 5 years Commissioner Stoat stated that he could see no reason to place a time limit on this tract when it has not been done for any of the others. He concurred with the applicant's request to delete the condition requiring sidewalks. Commissioner Toi stay concurred. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would concur with the sidewalk deletion; however, under different circumstances believed that sidewalks along one side of the street would be appropriate. Commissioner McNi;el stated that he believes sidewalks should be required. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 12, 1986 Chairman Barker asked for discussion relative to the applicant's ;request to delete the requirement for a two foot height block wall for drainage protection. Barrye Hanson advised than he would be reluctant to delete the condition at this point in time since the condition says as +otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Fie- stated that staff would take a close look at the drainage and i staff determined that the applicant's proposed solution is reasonable, they would approve the proposal Chairman Barker" stated that he would like the City Attorney's office to make sure that the formation of the architectural review committee is contained within the project's CC&R' . Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that there was no provisions for the City to enforce trail maintenance. Mr. Buller advised that the Commission could require the CC&Rs to indicate that there is a maintenance level for the trails. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that private- drainage systems in tracts should also be included in the C &Rs and should state in some fashion that on-site private drain systems;are required to be kept open and are not places to dump debris and to let grass grow. Ralph Hanson suggested that these conditions could be added to Standard Condition B-14 to reflect a check mark and delete the Articles of Incorporation of a Homeowners' Association and adding the maintenance 'level for trails and private drainage systems, and the architectural review committee. Commissioner Stout stated that he didn't have a lot of faith in architectural committees. With respect to frontage on Sapphire, he felt Lots 1 and 57 should have CC&Rs that provide that if there are any changes or modifications in the walls that front on Sapphire, that the City has the right to review them. Mr. Anderson advised that a copy of the tract's proposed CC&Rs have been submitted to the City for their review and that the city is made a part of the review process for changes on all lots. Barrye Hanson addressed the applicant's request for clarification of Standard Condition L-1 requiring dedication of feeder trail easements. He advised that the City does not accept feeder trails as City dedicated, but they should be dedicated as private easements to the people in the tract. Motions Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Stout, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13049 with amendments to include deletion of Engineering Conditions 1c and 2 relative to utility undergrounding within the equestrian trail and Planning Commission Minutes -11 November 12, 198 sidewalks, respectively, Los 1 d_� 7 all not alte all on Sapphire without City approval, nort -scut local rail require a dng the western property line of Lots 14 and 15, CC R's to include a maintenance level for trails and private drainage easements, as well as reference to the formation of an architectural review committee, and the trail width along Sapphire to be referred to the Trails Committee. It was the consensus that the oversight trail would be required, and the applicant would work with City staff iflot line adjustments were necessary. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHI IEA,; STOUT, BARKER,,,MCNIEL, TOLSTO`f NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.- COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion; Moved by Tolto , seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Variance 86- 05. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: C OMM ISSIONERS T'OLSTOY, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: C OMM ISS 'ONERS. NONE ABSENT., COMMISSIONERS-. NONE -carried 9:05 p.m. - Planning Commission 'Recessed 9-15 p.m. - 'Planning Commission Reconvened I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13318GORDON - A custom lot iusaimia af 15 parcels on acres and TF-7ffe Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Manzanita 'Drive AP"N 201-181-28. Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Kim Gordon, applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adapt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13318. Motion carried by the following vote.- Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 12, 1986 AYES® C OMM ISSIONERS STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6-12 WESTERN SERVICES COMPANY - The establishment of an automobili eas ng Mice in an ex t n uil'ding, with a lease space of 3750 squire feet on 1.66 acres of land in the General Industrial District; (Subarea 4) located at 937E Archibald - AP 1U-O717. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the Planning Commission did not have the consent of the property owner for this request- to continue; therefore, the Commission's actions should be to deny the Conditional Use Permit without prejudice. Motion Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chi iea, to deny Conditional Use Permit 86-1 without prejudice. motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES* COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. TIME EXTENSION FOR AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-3 - P op I osal to remodel e ore front faca'a'e'- additional--ra--nds—caning in the parking area, reconstruction of drive approaches, a minor building addition, and a conceptual building pad for a proposed drive-through fast food restaurant in an existing Neighborhood Commercial shopping center on approximately 7.8 acres in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian and Base Line - APN 2-3 - 4, 26, 28, 33, and 36. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Garth Sherrif, representing the 'applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 12, 1986 Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Stout, to approve the Time Extension and Modification to Conditional Use 'Permit 844. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, STOUT, BARKER, CNITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 10185 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A subdivisio5 o acres of landn parcels n e c or a anned Community located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue PN 02- 11-1 . Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. He advised that Condition E-2 of the Standard Conditions had been checked in error and requested that it be removed, Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Steven Ford, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moored by Chi ti ea, seconded McNi el , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution 'approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 10185 with the removal of Condition E-2 of the Standard Conditions. Motion carried by the following vote AYES. C OMM ISSIONERS CNITIEA NIEL, BARKER, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 1023 - BARTON - A subdivision of acres 617 an n o paroe s n enera ndustrial` District, Subarea B, located between Arrow 'Route and Jersey Boulevard, between Utica Avenue and Vincent Avenue - APN 09-142-15, 14, 34. oe 'Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report® Chairman Barker opened the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 12, 1986 Dale Frisby, representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval;. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, ;to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 10237. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES. _ COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Mc Niel pointed out to the applicant that the conditions of approval for• the Master Plan for this project includes undergreundi rig of utilities on Arrow Route. He :stated that since the applicant had filed an appeal of this condition on a recently approved adjacent parcel map to the City Council , the applicant might consider combining the appeals into one package N. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO-O - BROWN - The development of a , -squaref'oo-tretail` shopping cen er on acres of land in the General Commercial District located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street - APN 208-632-48. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval'. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving the Modification' to Conditional Use Permit O-O . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS STOUT, MCNIEL, CIIEA, BARKER, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minute -is- November 12, 1986 0. ENVIRONMENTAL SESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-0 - reques o amen a eve opmen roc ap from o0 ontrbl ) to "GO (General Commercial ) for 1.06 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Di ego Avenue (A portion of APN 207-101-43). Alan Warren,- Associate Planner,; presented the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked if the realignment of San Diego Avenue was considered at this point in the process. r, Warren advised that the realignment had not been considered with this application; however, was an issue being considered as part of the Foothill Specific Plana Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Jim Cline, representing Cucamonga County Water District, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of approval . "There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved: by Chi ida, seconded by McNiel , to recommend issuance of Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council . Motion -carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried It was the ;consensus of the Planning Commission that the Foothill Boulevard A Hoc Committee consider the realignment of San Diego Avenue as part of the study, P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 102 - ARICAL PROPERTIES, INC. - av s on o4:24 ac s n t� parc s wi to theIndustrialark District, Subarea6, located at the northeast cornier of 6thStreet and Haven Avenue ARN 09_411-15. Barbara gall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 16- November 12, 198 Jeff Meyer, represent' a p is nt, re steel that the language within Engineering Conditions an a clar ed and was concerned that the specified length included both parcels, He additionally asked for clarification with regard to the Reimbursement Agreement for existing overhead utilities There were no-further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested that the word "fee" within condition 2 A. could be changed to "fees"� and the reference to the specific number of feet could be eliminated to address Mr. Meyer's concerns. With regard to the Reimbursement Agreement, Mr. Hanson advised he would meet with the applicant to address any concerns, Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution with an amendment to Engineering Condition 2 A. to change "fee" to "fees" and the reference to the specific number of feet stricken Motion carried by the following vote. AYES; C OMM ISSIONERS STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried * * * , NEW BUSINESS Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - - KAPLAN - The eve opmn o a 38;BM square foot indusfFial" building on acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 18) located on the east side of 6th Street north of Buffalo Avenue - AP 9-261-13. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Lindy Kaplan, applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 86-22. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, CHITIEA, B KE , MCNIEL, TOLSTOY 4 NOES: COMMISSIONERS- NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -17� November 12, 1986 R. APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 8 -46 - BANK OF AMERICA - Appeal of staff denial of gn FiFffiii to aa it signs to the existing building located at 9719 Foothill Boulevard;. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Chris Gales,, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated that this sign would be advertising and them was sufficient indication that the ; structure is a bank and the ' Verseteller is clearly seen from Foothill ; therefore, would not support the request. Commissioner Toistoy stated that;he would not be in favor of additional signs. Commissioner cNiel stated that this was the first time he could recall an appeal coming before < the Commission on the number of signs allowed and questioned haw the number of signs was determined. He further stated that he could not support this requetM Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the number of signs is at the discretion of staff. He stated that staff and applicants normally reach an agreement; however, this particular applicant felt that his request should be allowed. N . Buller pointed out that the signs requested do not meet the criteria for directional signs in the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Stout stated this City has determined that signs will identify projects so that it is easy to find them and are not meant to advertise products. He felt this project has adequate s gpage and it would not be imposing a hardship to deny the addition of two signs. He did not support the request. Chairman Barker stated that the two proposed signs are totally out of compliance with the Signs Ordinance. Motion Moved by Chitiea,; seconded by Stout, to deny the appeal . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, STOUT, BARKER, MCNIEL, TQLSTCY NOES: COMMISSIONERS.- NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Co mission Minutes -18- November 1 , 1986 S. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Bb- O - LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TELEPHONE Eocafe-a at the southeast corner of-RhStreet""and u a aneT appeal of a condition of approval requiring undergounding of existing overhead utilities. Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Don Morey, representing the applicant, advised that the appeal was based on an objection to the in-lieu fee for future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. He advised that this facility only takes up b% of the site and felt that the condition was an undue hardship. There were no further public comments. Motion. Moved by Stet., seconded by Chitiea, to approve; the appeal to delete the conditions requiring in-lieu fee for future urdergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Motion carried by the following vote. AIDES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT:: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS T. UNDERCROUNDINU UTILITIES REPORT Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. The Commission considered the list of possible exceptions and determined that Items I, 2, 30 4, 5, 6, and 11 should be retained, with the inclusion of the o% and 5,000 square foot option for item 2. The Commission concurred that Design Review for previously approved single family residential subdivision, residential subdivisions of four or fewer single family; residential parcels where utility lines extend at least 600 feet offsite from the project boundary and adjacent property, and parcels of a subdivision which are developed and all adjacent public street improvements are existing' to City Standards, Items , g, and 10, respectively, should be deleted from the exemption list.' The Commission felt that the intent of Item 8 was not clear and should be reworded. Additionally, a committee comprised of Commissioner M Niel, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Buller was appointed to Further study the undergrounding policy and to return to the Commission with further recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes - g- November 12, 1986 U. STATUS OF MINIMUM UNIT SIZE/MINIMUM LOT SIZE STUDY Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Coleman advised that the Commission would adjourn this meeting to a workshop to be held on December* 4, 1986 for further discussion of this item. The report was received and filed. COMMISSION BUSINESS The following Committee appointments were made; Residential/Institutional Design Review Committee.- Commissioners 'Barker and Telstoy. Office/Commercial 0esign ReviewCommittee: Commissioners IMoNiel and Chitiea. Trails Advisory Committee: Commissioner, Chitiea; Commissioner Tolstoy, Alternate. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by MoNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop to discuss Minimum Lot/Unit Sizes. The workshop is to be held on December 4, 1986 at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, following the Design Review Committee meeting,. Resp fullysubm® ed, 1 ui 1 Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 0- November 12, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 22, 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel , Dennis Stout, Peter Tol stoy' ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Dul 1 er, City Planner; Dare Coleman, Senior Planner, Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, Debra: Bier, Assistant Planner-, Janice Reynolds, . Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Stof , Associate Civil Engineer; Chris Wes an, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a memorandum had been received from Chief Almand of the Foothill Fire District requesting y a 4S-day extension o the Residential Sprinkler Report® CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86- 4 - A,/ CHEU - The eve o en o wo mu -, enan 1n' us r a1 bulldin§g o a ng 44,OSq square feet on 3.44 acres of land in the Industrial Park ;District- - Subarea' 6, located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Enterprise Sheet - APN 210- 1-1 , 13 14, 19, 20, 21. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT g4-09 - ISHII Submittal of a Resolution of pprova or e ob o on ion o Approval requiring modified cul- de-sacs. otion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by darker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS- C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT gb 17 - GTE - A propose oca e A squarefoot u m nfie`dremote swi c ing ation north of Highland and east' of Milliken within the Caryn Planned Community APN 225-141-29 (Continued from October 8, 1986 meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting a continuance; of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1986. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue consideration of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-17 to the November 12, 1986'meeting. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 - e development of a -24Y475 square toot c urn ace y an a reques to operate a preschool on 4.29 ages of land in the Low Residential District 2-4 du/ac), located on the south side of Arrow Highway between 'Cal averas and Sierra Madre Avenues - APN 207- 2 12. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that the extension date listed on the Resolution should be amended to expire on September 12 1987. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Kenneth Brady, 821-3 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on behalf of the surrounding residents. Mr. Grady presented a petition to the Commission and outlined the residents' concerns stated in the petition. He stated that the residents were not opposed to the church and felt the, church and preschool would contribute to the community in positive ways; however, the residents were concerned with traffic safety issues which currently exist. The residents requested that no parking be al 1 owed on either the north or south sides of Arrow Route between Calaveras and Sierra Madre Avenues; the establishment of a 25 MPH speed limit on Arrow Highway` from Grove to Sierra Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 2 , 1986 Madre; a 3-way stop sign at the intersection of Arrow Route and alaveras; 4-way stop at the intersection of Arrow Route and Sierra Madre; a traffic light at the entrance of the church; crosswalks at the intersection of Arrow Route and Calaveras Avenue, Arrow Route and Sierra Madre, and the Arrow Route entrance to the church; sidewalks between Grove and Sierra Madre ;Avenue; and Arrow Route to remain a -lane road rather than the 4-lanes as proposed. The residents were concerned with the number of accidents which have occurred recently and with the high volume of traffic which Arrow currently;carries. Co fission r McNeel asked Mr. Brady if there is no street parking allowed on either the north or south sides of the street, would there still be a need for crosswalks. r. Brady replied that the crosswalks would be necessary to; get the children across the street. He felt the plans for the church show ample parking and that the parking situation which currently exists on the street has contributed to several accidents involving children trying to navigate around these parked cars. Commissioner McNi el asked Paul Rougeau, City `traffic Engineer, to explain the City's current plans for Arrow. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, explained that the only plan the City currently has for Arrow is resurfacing and reconstruction from Grave to Vineyard and that there are no plans at this time to widen Arrow to four lanes or the addition of sidewalks. Mr. Rougeau indicated that since these concerns had been expressed by the residents, they could be presented to the City Council for consideration when City staff prepares the Capital Improvement Projects during the budget process for '1987. He advised that this process begins in January and is ultimately approved and adopted by the City Council . He also indicated that a 'traffic study had been completed on Arrow Route within the last six months, and -although he realized the resident's concerns, the study did= not indicate a high ratio of traffic accidents compared to the amount of traffic the street carries. He advised that he would respond in writing to the residents and address their list of items. He indicated that there may be legal problems with some of the items the residents had requested and many of those items would take careful study and consideration. Commissioner McNeil asked Mr. Rougeau to 'comment on the flashing ,yellow light requested by the residents. Mr. Rougeau advised that the City has experienced safety problems :with signal installation at ;driveways which are too close to the intersection of a public street. He further advised that there are established guidelines which the City uses as criteria for the installation of flashing yel 1 ow lights at crosswalks and if the City is not in conformance with these guidelines serious safety problems could be created on the street which, could cause liability problems for the City. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 22, 1986 Mr. Brady agreed that nine accidents in six months were not statistically a high volume, but he was concerned with the increase in traffic. He suggested that a study be done to compare which is more important the accidents or the volume of traffic and the rate of increase. if there are guidelines and rules and regulation of a traffic light or stop signs, he could understand why the City would have to comply with those criteria: Commissioner Barker stated that it seems there is an attempt to; tie a recognized major problem to an extension of a Conditional Use Permit which will allows the; church to be there to begin with. He was not sure who the residents were advocating to pay the cost of the installation of the traffic light, but felt it was probably impossible for the church to pay the costs of the sidewalks, traffic lights, etc. at this time. He stated that the Commission is aware of the concern for the traffic problems on Arrow Highway and that it is rapidly becoming a major problem in the City. He suggested that the traffic matter be addressed separately and asked that staff be given time and direction to gather information and present it to the Commission. He felt the church itself was not the creator of the problem and would not contribute but a fraction of the problems he expected to grow and develop on Arrow Highway. As a general information item, he advised that preschool children cannot be dropped off in front of the school and that a circulation pattern gust be established and maintained by the church. His recommendation would be to give staff direction and ask for a comprehensive report on the potential problems and possible solutions and long ;range plans. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau when the last traffic survey was completed on Arrow Route Mr. Rougeau replied that the survey had been completed within the last six months and was done in order to comply with state lawn to keep the 45 MPH spud limit in force. He advised that this speed limit was determined appropriate under the guidelines within the Vehicle Code. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the item actually before the Commission is an extension of the Conditional Use Permit, which he had no problem with. He felt the solution to the ;delima would be to have staff study some mitigating aeasures. Commissioner Chi ti a agreed that these are two separate issues although one certainly ;has hearing on the other. She was in favor of extending the Conditional Use Permit with the same direction as proposed by Commissioner Harker. Commissioner McNiel supported the extension, He pointed out that the problem with ,grow is that it is now carrying traffic that is excessive. The widening process is going to be difficult because there is going to be spotty development and stated that it would have to be done by the City as opposed to tying it to development. He suggested that the speed limit be reviewed, Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 22, 1986 r Commissioner Barker; suggested that each of the issues and each of the residents' recommendations be addressed by staff with possible solutions and mitigation measures Mr* Rougeau advised that he would investigate the issues raised by the residents and respond to them Chairman Stout stated that ultimately a Capital Improvement Project would have o fix Arrow and bring it up to standards. He did not think the City could wait for development to complete improvements. Commissioner Barker clarified that his recommendation would not limit the study; to this small area, but should include the overall picture and solutions. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the study encompass Arrow from Grove to Vineyard. Chairman Stout pointed out that this project is putting in its own improvements along its own frontage so they are being burdened with putting in their fair share of what is required consistently with other projects i n the City, He advised that the problem does not end on the border's of the church it goes from Grove to Vineyard. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution granting a time extension for Conditional Use Permit 8 -20 to September 12, 1987. Staff was directed to complete a comprehensive study of Arrow from Grove to Vineyard and return to the Commission with the potential problems, possible solutions and long range plans. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 997 - MESSENGER INVESTMENT u iv s on o . sores o an i o parcels 1n e enera"l Industrial Designation (Subarea ) located approximately 563 feet east of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and gth 'Street - AP 09-01 1G. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 22, 1986 John Ascheris, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . There were no farther 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 9972. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CRITIEA, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. SITE APPROVAL -6 MODIFICATION PAT TON The request to modify an e s ng sopping cen er adding iFillig along the front elevation, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 19th .Street. Chairman .Stout announced that he had received a letter from the applicant requesting that this item be withdrawn from the agenda NEW BUSINESS G. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86-6 - PITASSI OALMAU ARCHITECTS consistency aMFiHhW69 HtWeM5 TR F55thill camaaF n er m Policies and the proposed expansion of the existing Music plus store at 9172 Foothill Boulevard - APN 0$-6 -48= Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Pete Pitassi , applicant, gave an overview of the project.. Motion: Moved' by Chit ea, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to determine Preliminary Review 86-61 consistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. - DIRECTOR'S 'REPORTS H. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT 86- O - STEERSTEIN Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 22, 1986 Commissioner Barker suggested that along with consideration of this appeal , the Commission consider providing staff with direction regarding utility under grounding in conjunction with Mlinior Development Reviews'. He asked staff to define what constitutes a Minor Development Review. Dan Coleman, Senior planner, advised that a Minor Development Review is any application where the addition would not exceed 0 of the size of the existing building or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. Joseph Ferrante, representing the applicant, Mated that the: issue is whether a $17000 assessment to the applicant for` undergrounding was Justified given a $1 ,000 remodel . He Stated that the under#grounding would not directly benefit just this applicant, but the entire City and the entire City should share in the cost. Further, the particular utilities to be undergrounded do not serve this establishment, their utilities are located behind the structure. He could not accept the rationale that the applicant ;be required to pay $17,000 in fees to remove sawdust from their floor and enclose an existing patio area of the restaurant to keep patrons out of the weather. Jim Deason, adjacent property owner, voiced his concern and agreed that the utilities should be undergrouhded, but the cost should be assessed city- wide. He pointed out that the way this assessment is derived by lineal footage on Archibald which is inequitable and suggested that an equitable means be arrived at to the benefit of all Commissioner Barker stated that this method makes it seem the City is punishing people for improving their property. The i nequ tabi l i ty of the procedure has been discussed in the past, and in :this particular instance he felt it was illogical;. Commissioner McNi el stated that the burden of uhderg oundi ng utilities is applied every developer that comes into the City. Typically, its on a new project; therefore, the cost is spread over a broader base. This fee was not applied when this facility was built, but would have been if the policy would p y have been i n force. He pointed out that the $1 ,000 is not the cost of the entire project and is not the entire picture. - He felt that the Commission has assumed a posture of undergrounding utilities by means of either actually doing the under grounding or the req uirement e u ant of in-lieu fees or a lien agreement and that posture should be maintained. Commissioner Barker asked if there was something that could be dome as far as future direction to the staff or would the Commission prefer to handle each on a one-to-one basis. Commissioner MlcHiel stated that the Commission made a policy decision and if applicants did not agree with that policy decision, they have the legal right to appeal . Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 22, 1986 Chairman Stout stated that there is a very wide range of what could be considered a Minor Development Review and it could go from one extreme to another. He pointed out that this particular case is a relatively insignificant addition to the building, with no architectural differences and no use difference. He agreed with Commissioner Barker's statement that the Commission does not want to discourage people from doing the small things because of the meat cleaver approach of this assessment process. He suggested that the process should be modified to take into consideration insignificant types of improvements. Commissioner Mali el felt than if the process was to be redesigned, staff should be directed to come up with alternatives for the Commission' s consideration. He was concerned with making a decision to modify the process at this time. Commissioner Barker stated that his intent was to establish a policy creating an automatic screening devise for insignificant improvements of this nature. ` Commissioner Mali el did not object to that concept, he just did not grant to sacrifice the opportunity in the process. Commissioner Chitiea pointed out that you cannot amortize the cost backwards over the gears even ;.though developers may need to pay their fair,share. She asked how they would get the money to finance the undergroudi ng to amortize the fee over the future when we are talking about' these kinds of sums. She pointed out this where the delima arises. Commissioner Mci el stated that the reality is against most projects that we deal with this is a small amount of money we are talking about the $12,000 and the $17,000 most of the time the cost is significantly greater. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Commission' s intent is to waive undergrounding requirements for those applications that are more of cosmetic, aesthetic "level of minor development review, that would give the City ;Planner the necessary criteria to waive the fees. Further, if the application would increase the square footage or would change the use, the utility undergrounding requirement would apply. He suggested that if the Commission feels comfortable with this particular application this evening, they could take action on it and direct staff to develop alternatives for the Commission's consideration at a future meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see this request approved tonight. He did not see why it would be necessary to hold then back until staff completes its report. He agreed that the policy needed modification so that insignificant applications would not be required to underground thereby necessitating an appeal to the Planning Commission. He further suggested that staff consider the cost of the improvement relative to the cost of the entire project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 22 , 1986 i Commissioner McNil was not comfortable that this was the criteria on which to take action Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve the applicant's appeal of the condition of approval to underground utilities. Staff was directed to examine the utility undergrodndi ng policy and to develop guidelines and al ternati ves for Minor Development Review applications. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES, COMMISSIONERS STOUT, TOL TOY, BARKER, CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT. IIONR : NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Ramer asked for a poll of the Commission to see if there would be a quorum available for 'the November 27, lg o meeting. Commissioners Barker, McNiel and Stout indicated that they would not be available for that meeting. Due to a lack of quorum, the November 27, 1986 Planning Commission will be cancelled. Commissioner Barker raised a concern relative to the lack of innovative designs being submitted on small lot subdivisions and was particularly concerned that they are being designed so that all you see is garages from the street. He suggested tnat staff look into the possibility of saying 40 foot wide lots would not be allowed, they have to be 50 foot wide lots so that side on entrances could be provided, or some direction be given that there is to be a variable streetscape. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the use of the California Bungelow;style which has the garages on an alley and the =streetscape looking at the houses. Commissioner cNiel- stated that the developers object to this style because they loose a lot of land and there are a number of problems that occur with respect to trash cans, animals security, and `maintenance of the alley. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not see these problems where this concept has been used in other communities. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 22, 1986 .............. Chairman Stout stated that the wider lots are a good idea, but could not see why the garages could not be placed in the rear of the lot and detached. There are California Bungelows, all over the, City of Ontario that have the ribbon driveways, garages to the rear detached, with the bungelow to the side and it works fine. However, you have to have enough side yard to put in a driveway. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if you put the driveway next to the house, it takes at least 12 feet of a 40 foot lot which leaves little room for the house. Commissioner Barker suggested that a tentative product type must be submitted with any all lot subdivision. Chairman Stout pointed out that one of the things that makes California angel ow neighborhoods charming is the fact they have a porch on the front. He pointed out that if you have a garage to the rear with the driveway down the side the house could closer to the front setback. Commissioner McNiel commented that it alters the backyard percentages that are now required and this would have to be taken into consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Code states that small lot subdivisions must be innovative and it allows a variety of variations with innovation. He indicated that staff will be indicating the Commission's policy of not accepting small lot subdivisions without a product type with the application. Commissioner Mc Niel suggested that the exposed face of the house must be equal to the size of the garage might solve some of these concerns. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8-35 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, Rrad Sul r Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 22, 1986 ............. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING Cal M IION INUIE Regular Meeting October 8, 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel , Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy ASSENT. None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Stiller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil , ,senior Planner, Jack Lam, Community Development Director; [zebra Meier, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning CommissionSecretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Chris Wes an,, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, had been selected as the City's Employee of the Tooth for October. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of August 13, 1986 as submitted. Commissiuner Tolstoy abstained from vote as he was not on the Commission on this date. Chairman Stout requested an amendment to page 4 of the August 27, 1986 Minutes and requested that "outdoor activities" be stricken from paragraph 3, line 2. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel , seconded by Chitiea, to approve the Minutes of August 27, 1986 as amended. Commissioner Tolstoy was not on the Commission on this date, therefore, abstained from vote. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel ," unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of September 10, 1986 as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1 - The es a 7s men o Moto F fibifi-e7bUi isgiffibTy- SUMM wI n an a isting 168,000 square foot industrial building and the 83,000 square foot expansion of the existing building on 11.8 acres of land in the General industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 2), located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue APN 209-12 15. (Continued from September 24, 1986 meeting. ) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-1 - MODIFICATION ; - MESSENGER - The request to modi ty the prey our SP55Via MBUF Plan by re ucf ng the site area of Phase III from 4.4 acres to 2.9 acres in the General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 2), located at the northeast corner of gth Street and Vineyard Avenue - APN 209-012-16. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ernest McMahon, Crown Coach, Mated objections with the conditions regarding meandering sidewalks and closing the access on Vineyard Avenue. Dana Sanders, representing Messenger Investment, advised that the objections were to all items except for ;the conditions requiring the widening of Arrow Highway and the additional entrance on 9th Street. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker asked if Crown Coach was involved in the review f this project. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that during the planning process including Design Review,- staff had primarily dealt with Mr. Sanders and the Messenger Company and not directly with gown Coach. Commissioner Barker asked if staff was mare of the objections relative to the conditions. Mr. Buller indicated that staff was only made aware of Crown Coach"s objections the week prior to this meeting. Commissioner Barker was concerned that the applicant has taken a rigid stance on what they consider acceptable with a- "take it or leave it" position. He stated that this would be placing this project at the beginning of the Design Review stage and did not feel this was the appropriate forum for that type of discussion Planning Commission Minutes -2- October H, 1986 Commissioner McNiel concurred and stated that from the applicant's position, he could not see that these issues could be resolved at this time and agreed that this was not the forum in which to redesign a project. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that there seems to be a communication problem since she did not see a requirement for meandering sidewalks. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that because of the project across the street, he felt staff' s condition relative to access onto Vineyard was appropriate and would not be in favor of the applicant's request. Chairman Stout advised that the three options available to the Commission would be denial of the Conditional Use Permit, approval of the Conditional Permit with the conditions as presented by staff, or to continue the item and send it back to the Design Review Committee. He asked Mr. McMahon which option he would prefer. Mr. McMahon indicated that he would prefer a continuance to work out solutions. Commissioner Chi tiea stated that the continuance should be with the understanding of the Commission's position relative to the driveway and if that condition is not acceptable, there would be no point in continuing the project. Commissioner McNiel stated that the conditions required differ little from what is required of any other project and did not feel they were open to negotiation. Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing for purposes of continuance. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-15 and Development Review 86-13, to the Planning Commission of November 12, 1986. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - SCHLOSSER FORGE - AMENDMENT NO. 1 - An amendment extenaling e erm from twen ty--f-56--Yea-fs- -to forty-years-for a development agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Philip D. Schlosser, Elaine M. Schlosser, Albert Holquin, Jr., Roberta J. Holquin, Jeffrey P. Schlosser, Jacquelin L. Schlosser, David M. Richardson and Gene M. Richardson, regarding the future development and current operations of the industrial facility on 27.7 acres at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN 229-111-05, 17 and 18. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tracy L. Tibbals, Rancho Cucamonga resident, supported the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1986 Jeff Schlosser, applicant, stated agreement with the amendment and urged approval There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner MONi el stated that Schlosser Forge :i s a good company in the community and supported the amendment. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the request was appropriate and would support the amendment. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City should support Schlosser Forge as it is one of its pioneer corporations; however, he was concerned with the length of term from a planner' s standpoint. He felt twenty-five gears was appropriate, but was concerned with the extension to forty years. He could not support the forty ,year term and felt that the decision should be made b the City Council'-. Chairman Stout supported the extension. Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Barker, to recommend approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Schlosser Forge Development Agreement to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS*. TOLSTO SEND: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EEC GENERAL proposa o locate a square oof Rifian6ea remo e sw c ing station at 9090 19th Street - APN 201-221-08. Chris West"an, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tol stoy asked what type of architecture would be used on the switching station, r. Westman advised that the design was patterned after that of the Community Baptist Church, which is a Spanish style architecture. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gerald Cole, 4195 Chestnut Street, Riverside, California, concurred with the Conditions of Approval . Planning Commission Minutes - - October H, 1986 Commissioner Tol stoy asked if future expansion would be compatible with the buiI ding. r. Cole replied that the expansion would be compatible with the existing uiI ding. Commissioner Ohitiea questioned if the roof line would be in the same line. Mr. Cute replied that it would be an extension of the same roof line. "here were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the,expansion be referred to either the Design Review Committee or staff for review. Motion: Moved by Toistoy, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit -07. Future expansion is to be reviewed for consistency with the existing structure. Motion carried by the f of l owri ng vote: 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, BARKER, EHITIEA, MENIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NINE -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6-17 GENERAL TELEPHONE -- -A proposa o oca e a square That afiffi-in-h6d— NifEW§ station north of Highland and east of Milliken APN 225-141-29. Chairman .Stout announced that the Commission had received a request from the applicant to continue the ;public hearing for this item to the October 22, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86- 7 to the October 22, 1986 meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Hb- 1 - RAVINDRA RAO Tli-e—es-t-Wishment--of—aa quick. pr n ors ih an exi ing ui I laing ease space of 1,000 square feet in the General Industrial/Rail Served (Subarea Si category of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10088 6th .Street, Suite M - APN 20 - 11- 9. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October E, 1986 Chris Westman, Assistant planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ravindra Rao, applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tot stay asked if the applicant was aware of the ;City"s Sign Ordinance ' r, Rao advised that he was aware of the sign restrictions and would net be allowed a sign in the front of the center unless the owner of the center provides a sign board which lists all of the businesses. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney,; recommended that Condition 2 stating that the approval shall run with the applicant be stricken from the Resolution. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chiiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86- 1, with the deletion of Condition 2. Motion carried by the following vote:` AYES. Cq ISSIO E S BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried * r E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-1 v NALBANDIAN GROUP TfFe_d_ev_eT­oFmiht a 114 apartment un s o h thi e i um sity Residoftif a District (8-14 dwel 1 i h units per acre) located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of Madrone Avenue - APN 4 - 6 -07, 25, 26. .Scott; Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission has been suggesting the building exterior colors be varied in complementary shades within the sae color group. He asked if the applicant had considered this concept. John Ricall , representing the applicant, stated that the variation in the faces, of the building was adequate as currently designed, and felt this would be an unnecessary condition since this was a beautiful project as presented. Planning Commission Minutes -6 October 8, 1986 1 I i Term Danes, 8771 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with drainage and traffic on Arrows Highway. He felt that the developer should be required ;to widen Arrow. 8arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the developer is required to extend' n existing storm drain and prior to building permits would required to have the design completed. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised Arrow would be able to handle the traffic generated from this project for some time. 8y the time other* properties around this project begin to develop, staff expected the bridge to be widened and the road expanded to four lanes. He further advised that this project has two means of access and it was expected that traffic would disperse both to the east and the west There were no further comments, therefore the publichearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel advised that the developer is being required to widen Arrow along his property frontage and -take care of the drainage situation which has existed in that area for years. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that this is a very large project and felt that the color needed some subtle variation throughout the project. She requested that 'a color sample board be provided for the Design Review Committee. Mr. Ricall pointed out that these are extremely small buildings for an apartment complex and felt that shadowing by the windows and the turning of the buildings would be adequate and did not think that a color variation would add to the project. Commissioner Harker questioned the Commission on requiring something that may end up being too "busy" as far' as color. Chairman Stout was concerned about the traffic on Arrows and felt that eventually; a City project would have to widen Arrow and felt it should be looked at as a high priority in the Capital Improvement budget. He concurred with Commissioner Chitiea's suggestion relative to the subtle color variation and pointed out that it has been used effectively in other apartment complexes. Commissioner Tol stay stated that he didn't see how the traffic situation could be taken care of until the bridge is widened and other development occurs. Regarding the color variation, he questioned if it would be fair to impose this condition after the project has gone through [Design Review. Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not feel the color change was a major probl em. He advised that a color board was presented to the Design Review Committee and stated that the grey color was a subtle soft color and he felt comfortable with it. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October' , 1986 Chairman Stout suggested that the applicant provide the Design Review Committee with an example of the buildings with the shade changes and let the Committee make a determination on the color variation. Motion: Moved by Chitiea seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution adopting Environmental Assessment and Development Review 86-12 with direction to staff to work;with the applicant on the color variation and to provide the Design Review Committee with examples. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:' COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES:: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. TERRA VISTA PLANNED CO LAITY AMENDMENT -0 WESTERN PROPERTIES - A rdques o amen a errs Vista Pla-n—ne"d-Community 15 igfislis Ong a business park overlay zone for areas designated as Office Park, Commercial and Mixed Use, within the Planned Community Boundary - APN 1077-41-06, 1 7 7-091-17 Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item had requested that the public' hearing he continued to November ' 1 , 1986. He then opened the public hearing. : There were no comments. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 86 02 to the November 12, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.` H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT a TENTATIVE TRACT 1319 - LEWIS-HOMES - total nve o en o a rest en i s s i vi s ono acres i n the Low- Medium -8 dwelling units per acre) land use designation within the Terra Vista Planned Community into 6 ' lots, located on the north side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Spruce - APN 1077-091 3, 24.' Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Melcher, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 8, 1986 Commissioner Tol stoy asked if ,'additional` attached units and the use of side driveways to obtain, more open space was discussed by the Design Review Committee and asked if it wouldn't be better if there were more variation in the units. Co issioner McNiel advised that additional attached units had been incorporated at the suggestion of the Design Review Committee. He felt that the variation had also been been incorporated into the design. He indicated that the Comittee had considered the use of side-on entries; however, determined that for the most part side-on entries could not be used for safety reasons. Co issioner Tolstoy was concerned with the monotony of the project and suggested that future projects depict innovation. i Mr. Mel Cher advised ` that Lewis Homes was aware of this concern and future projects would depict variation in streetscapd and garage door treatment. Motions Moved, by McNiel , < econded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt' the Resolution approving Environmental' Assessment and Tentative Tract 13192. Motion carried by the following Grote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-09 - ISHII - A request to modify a con Mon o approve FijiFaifij comp a ion o os Cedros Avenue and Larrera Street with modified cul'-de-sac improvements - APN -061- 3 and 65. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staffreport. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing; Dave Long, representing the applicant, advised that the surrounding neighbors were requesting the developer to delete the modified cul-de-sac improvements. The fol 1 owi ng residents addresssed the Co i ss on in opposition to the modified cul-de-sac improvements based on traffic, safety, and increased crime concerns: Cary MacDonald - Etiwanda Resident Beth Davidson - I30I Larera - Etiwanda- Wayne Wendell - 13005 Larr�era -' Eti anda Planning Commission Minutes - October 8, 18 Additionally, a petition was presented to the Commission which contained the signatures of the property owners on both sides of the street affected by the cul-de-sac requirement. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he could support the resident's ;position but would at least like to see curb and gutter, landscaping, reflectors and other safety items in place. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since the turning radius for a fire truck is not a problem and the people who live there feel they would not like this improvement, he could support their request as long as the safety features are installed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that City streets are not designed to be inconvenient. If traffic was not drawn into this tract now, she questioned how making a turning radius more convenient would attract additional traffic. From a planning standpoint, she pointed out that this may be the only opportunity the City would have to get the street improved;, therefore, agreed with staff' s recommendation to deny the request. Commissioner McNiel stated that one thing the cul-de-sac improvements would do is to enhance the value of the surrounding properties. His felt the street should be improved, however, :if the residents were opposed to it, he would support their request with the addition of the .safety elements. Chairman Stout stated that the street should have some type of finish and suggested that the planters and reflectors be placed at the end of the cul-de- ac Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution conditioning the Modification to Conditional Use Permit 84-09 to install curb and gutter, reflectors and signing at the end of the cul-de-sacs on Los Cedros Avenue and Larrera Street. The Resolution is to be presented at the October 22, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, STOUT, MCNIEL, TOLTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Chitiea stated the cul-de-sacs should be improved as a matter of good planning. Planning Commission Minutes 10- October H, 19861 . MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-0 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - mo ca on a a prey dus y approve on i iona Use d a dwt the use of two temporary trailers as classrooms during the construction ease of a 5,400 square foot expansion of an existing church facility in the Medium Density Residential District ( -14 dwel l i ng ;units per acre), located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 01- 1-08; Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the: staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Lee Carey, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions of approval . Commissioner Barker asked if the Church felt that the expansion would e completed within 24 months. Ms. Carey ;replied that she felt that completion would be accomplished within that time There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that there was nothing about this applicant; however, expressed a general concern with the use of temporary buildings on church properties. He suggested that the Conditional Use Permit be quired to come back before the Commission if the temporary buildings were not removed within the 24 months: Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the project provide dense landscaping. Commissioner McNiel . advised that landscaping was discussed at great length during Design Review and he felt the applicant had an understanding of what needs to be done. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chi'tiea, to adopt the Resolution approving the modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-02. The Conditional Use Permit is to be brought back before the Commission in 4-months unless the trailers have been removed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT, TOCSTOY NOES.: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes _1 1- October 8, 1986 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86- 6 A-BARTON - The eve o en o a . acre 1n us rya as er pl any ase--1--de-VeT o pment consisting of 7 light manufacturing buildings totaling 86,592 square feet on 4.29 acres ofland; and Phase 11 development consisting of 9 light manufacturing buildings totaling 131,000 square feet on 7.49 acres of land, in the General Industrial District (Subarea B), located between Arrow Highway and Jersey Avenue, between Utica Avenue and Vincent Street - N 09-142 15, 14, 34, 10, 12. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, presented slides of the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Chi ti ea asked the size and location of the seating benches within the plaza areas r. Barton indicated that there would be one bench of approximately 6 feet in size placed in each entry'; courtyard. He advised that they would be placed in such a way that people who use them can have greater illusion of privacy. Commisszioner Tblstoy stated that he liked the plazas; however, they seem to be more of entryway plazas. He was concerned that one six foot bench in each plaza area would be inadequate. r. Barton advised that he had spent many thousands of dollars on the construction of the plaza areas within the office buildings on Utica Avenue, which are ;not being used. His personal opinion on the requirement for plazas within freestanding buildings is that they are totally useless. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that as the landscaping grows and the benches become more shaded more people will use th r, Barton pointed out that there are a lot of shaded areas in the existing projects, but the plazas are still not being used. He indicated that most of the tenants in this type of product are providing space within their shops for employees to spend their break and lunch times. Commissioner Stout stated his understanding was that the applicant was not asking for approval' of the Master Plan portion along the Arrow frontage because certain traffic issues had not been worked out. r. Barton stated that he was willing to remove Phases 6 and 7 from this approval process provided that the Engineering staff gives the direction that there is the potential for three driveways on the westerly portion and one driveway on the easterly portion of the parcel . He indicated that he had discussed this issue with the City Engineering staff, and felt that an Planning Commission Minutes -1 - October 8, 1986 agreement had been reached. Mr. Barton referred to the condition relative to overhead utilities and agreed to pay the cane-half fee for future undergrounding on the south side of Jersey Boulevard. However, he di d not agree to the rewired undergrounding along Arrow Route, Condition I.a. because the property on the north side of Arrows is fully developed and there is no ability for the City to collect fees to reimburse him because the City did not require undergrounding as a condition of approval for those properties. He additionally requested that the fees for Arrow be paid with Phase b and 7 development. He agreed to do an engineering analysis for the drainage as required in Engineering condition 2, but would lie the understanding that this property is in an assessment district for storm drain construction. He felt that under that assessment district the City took on the responsibility to design an adequate storm drain system to cover water removal from Jersey, Utica and Vincent. If something is missing from the City" s design, he did not feel it should he his responsibility to replace that system. He requested a a clause stating that any storm drains necessary within Jersey are the City's responsibility because they have already collected fees for them. He referred to Engineering Condition S requiring a -foot throat depth from the public street curb to the first; parking stall and stated that this condition is an undue hardship. He requested' that the condition require a minimum 10 feet from the property line. He additionally requested that Engineering condition specify the number of driveways and their approximate location subject to review by staff and Design Review Committee. Regarding Standard Condition - 3, he advised that drainage fees have already ;been paid through the assessment district and requested that the condition be stricken. He noted that i n Standard Conditions Section M street improvements for Utica should have been i ncl uded. There were no further public comments. Chairman Stout requested staff to explain how the assessment district works with respect to drainage fees. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the backbone storm drain system within the area was ;put in under the assessment< district All properties within the boundaries of the drainage area contributing water to these` pipes is assessed fees on a yearly basis" to pay off the bonds. Chairman Stout if the drainage ordinance approved by the City Council would exempt the properties within the assessment district because of their contribution to the assessment. r. Hanson replied that it did. Chairman Stout stated that if the Council established that ordinance, the Commission does not have the authority to change it and that the assessments should apparently be in place of the fee. He asked for discussion of street access on Arrow and asked if staff had reached some sort of agreement with the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -1 October H, 1986 Paul Rougeau, ;City Traffic Engineer, advised that there ,had not been an agreement but staff had discussions with the applicant as to whether or not the master plan as shown is acceptable. He advised that staff did not consider the master plan acceptable and had explored several options for driveway alignment which would include three driveways between Utica and Rod Oak which would mirror the driveway alignment on the opposite- side `of the street, or two driveways not mirrored. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of utility undergroundig in the area of Utica and Red Oak. r. Hanson, advised that this would not be the first case where undergroundi ng was required without the potential for reimbursement. Commissioner Barker asked if there was any direction from the City Council after its last utility unerroundig appeal decision. r. Hanson advised that the appeal which was approved by the City Council was a unique case in that the street improvements were al ady in place, which i not the case in this instance.` Commissioner McNi el stated that over the past several months, the Commission has assumed a posture on the undergrounding of utilities and felt that consistency should be maintained unless' there is a different directive from the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the utility under rounding should be done a a matter of consistency and as good planning. She felt that if the City Council sees fit to change this policy it is there responsibility to do so. Commissioner Barker• stated that since the Commission has been given no specific direction by the City Council , the utility undergrounding: policy should remain a requirement of projects. Commissioner Tolstoy; concurred that the policy needs to be consistent. Chairman Stout stated that relative to the discussion of the assessment district issue, the drainage fee requirements should' be deleted from the Standard Conditions. r. Hanson agreed with Mr. Barton's concern about the fee payment in the Standard Condition section; however, disagreed with regard to Condition 2 of special conditions. He advised that the assessment district put in a backbone system, it didn't put in every drain; therefore, individual evel o ent may need to occasionally put in a local drain. The 'condition indicates 'that drainage study is required to beapproved by the City Engineer, and staff would be fair with Mr. Barton in deliberations of that study. Planning Commission Minutes 14- October B, 1986 Mr. Barton advised that he wanted it made clear that the assumption is that Jersey would have enough capacity to carry whatever water comes through there. If the pipes in Jersey are not properly designed, he did not want to be responsible for that. Paul Rougeau clarified the intent of the assessment district and advised that the district put in the system of storm drains that was considered a master plan system for the industrial area and it was a system that was defined in the assessment district documents. The intent of the district was that this defined storm drain system would be put in place and that the assessments placed on these properties would pay for that storm drain system. The pipes that were put in were big enough to handle all the drainage that would get to them when all the property is built out, but it was not necessarily all the pipes that would be needed at the very end. He stressed that the assessment fees do not alleviate the contributors of their obligation to install more drainage pipes to get to the pipes for which the assessment was made. He advised that there were no pipes installed in Jersey; there were stubs put in Utica and Vincent that were intended to be tied into in the future. Commissioner To stay stated that he didn't see how the Commission could make a decision on that issue until the drainage study is completed. Mr. Barton stated that he would not like to continue the project until completion of the drainage study and would prefer to drop the issue. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of Engineering Condition 5 b. regarding the 25 foot minimum throat depth on Red Oak. He indicated that he was satisfied with the way the business park to the north is designed and did not know what the condition would improve by its requirement. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if there was a problem, she could see changing the requirement, but if there isn't one she did not see the point in changing it. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the location and design of driveways on Arrow and advised that the applicant desires up to three driveways from Red Oak to Utica and one to the east of Red Oak. Commissioner Chitiea felt the request was appropriate. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the condition be subject to staff and Design Review approval and that the locations not be site specific. Chairman Stout stressed that the landscaping concept should be identical or similarly designed as the project on the north side of Arrow. Commissioner Chi tiea was concerned that the condition relative to benches in the plaza area was rather vague as to size and location for placement. Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 8, 1986 Chairman Stout suggested that the size and location be determined by the City P1 anner. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Mc Niel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 85! b with amendments to include the addition of Utica Avenue to Section M, Street Improvements, of the standard conditions, removal of "drainage fees" from standard condition - , Engineering condition 5.b. amended to require throat depths along Red Oak to be a minimum 10 of feet from the property line, Engineering condition amended to reflect review and approval of the driveway numbers and locations by staff and the Design Review Committee, Planning condition 4 amended to require plaza seating bench size and locations to be review and; approved by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, TOLSTOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tol stoy- requested that staff provide the Commission with visuals of the opposite side of the sheet with driveway locations. 11:00 p. . - Planning Commission Recessed 11: 15 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86- 0 - HIMES PETERS developmentof WR ware Dose- s ri a ion ui ins .o aal" ng 37,519 square feet on 11.06 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) located at the northwest corner of bth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN 9- 6138, 39. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comments. Tom Peters, representing the applicant, Mated concurrence with the conditions of approval . Planning Commission Minutes -16- October H, 1986 Moti on Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 86- O. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT, TOL T Y NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-81 - DIVERSIFIED - The review of compliance of Haven Village op ing en erOth W—approved plans, located at the south side of Lemon, east of Haven, north side of Highland Avenue - AP 01-271-5 .'% Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. I Commissioner Chi ti ea< questioned to roofing material Ms. Fong indicated that the approved roofing material was wood shake. Commissioner Chitiea felt this was an oversight and requested that staff call it to the attention of the Commission if the roofing material is other than tile- Chairman Stout asked that since staff's determination is that the project has been constructed in accordance with the approved- plans, does the City have legal recourse to change it at this time' Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the City would not have recourse at this time since the applicant has achieved a vested right in being in compliance with the approved plans. The report was received and filed by the Planning Commission. N. TERRA VISTA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY UPDATE Dan Coleman, Senior planner, presented the staff report. The report was received and filed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -17 October 8, 1986 0. MODIFICATIONS TO MULTI-FAMILY PARKING STANDARDS - A proposal to amend the TeNeMoWeht Code to opgra a e sing par i ng requirements for all multi- family projects Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout referred to the; architecture of carports, garages,; and storage units" and suggested "show " be del eted and replaced with "shall". Additionally, he stated that the lighting for the carports should be architecturally integrated with the rest of the project. With respect to the criteria for parking and site design, he requested additional, information from staff4 Commissioner di el suggested that compact oar parking'.space requirements be looked at as well . Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that double striping in all parking lots should be studied. She felt that only double striping should be used Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would study these issues as part of the amendments to the Development Code. Staff was directed to provide the Commission with further information for consideration at a later meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary Madison, 10551 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission relative to Conditional Use Permit 31, the Diversified Shopping Center* He was concerned that approximate and not exact measurements were used in staff's presentation of the report. He felt that a lot of development mistakes have been made in this area of the City, and urged that more careful consideration be given in the future COUNCIL REFERRALS P. DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZES FOR SINGLE Jack Lam, Community Development Director, presented slides for the Commission's considerations Commissioners McNiel and Tol stoy were selected to work with staff on the development of a program and a schedule for addressing this issue. Planning Commission Minutes 18 October D, 1986 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1 :45 am. - Planning Commission Adjourned. full i t` Brad Ile epu Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 8, 1986 ci CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 24, 198 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at :00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 911 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, Chairman Stoat then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David parker, Suzanne Chi ti ea, Larry McNi el', Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bul I er, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; ; Heard Fields, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, Ralph Hanson,; Deputy City Attorney; Otte Kroutil , Senior Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning Commission Secretary, Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner i Chairman Stout presented a Resolution of Commendation to Herman Rempel for his years of service to the City and the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chtiea, seconded by MlcNiel carried, to approve the Minutes of July 23, 1986 as presented. Commissioners McNiel and Tol stoy did not attend the meeting; therefore, abstained from vote. II CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR. TRACT 9549 - TAG MANAGEMENT - Design Review of building eva ons an p pans or a previous approved tract map comprised of g lots on 24 acres in the Very Low Density Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units ;per acre), located at the southwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - APN 201-17 -1 B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 1227 AND 1227-2 - NORDIC - Design Review of u ng a eva ons an p o pans for 1`O­_T`ot_sV1tWn two recorded tracts 122 7 & 12 7-2) in the Very Low Density Residential District, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside Road - ARN 201- 52-01, 02, 24, 25, 26; 01-46 -09, 14; 201-921-05 through 10. E. TERRA VISTA CUL-DE-SAC FENCING - LEWIS - Proposed changes to fence rea en s a a en o s ' e-on cu - e-sacs. Commissioner Chi ti ea requested Item C be removed for discussion. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A and 8 of the Consent Calendar. C. TERRA VISTA CUL-DE-SAC FENCING - LEI Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Hobert Browning, 10867 Sundance, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the controlled access and stated he was told when he purchased his home that the street would be a closed cul-de-sac. He stated concerns with the potential for increased crime. He advised that many of the children who live on the cul-de-sac play in the street and was concerned with the safety of the children who live in the area. He stated that the 5 to 6 foot access proposed would allow access o motorcycles and three-wheeled vehicles. He proposed that; access to Spruce Street from Sundance be closed off with a low wall and wrought iron fencing which could either go straight across or slightly jogged. Laura Psomas, 10997 Muirfield, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the control access at the cul-de-sac. She acknowledged the need for some type of wrought iron to keep balls and children from running out into the street; however, felt that young children should be supervised by their parents and not be allowed to play in streets. She supported pedestrian access to the park since it is a link as part of the trails system and part of the pedestrian activities that residents ,anticipated with the community. If the access was totally closed, ,she pointed out that the other'residents of the community might as well drive to the recreation areas. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 24, 1986 Charles Feese, :7 17 Cascade Court,; Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the controlled access due; to the heavy traffic on lase line and was concerned that cruse might; increase if the cul-de-sac were to be open. Ed Ceppey, 10854 Sundance, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the controlled access. Chairman Stout asked what the residents were told when they purchased their homes in 'Terra Vista. r. Geppey replied that he was not told what the exact architecture would be but was told that it would be closed off to prohibit access. Ray D l ac, Rancho Cucamonga resident, advised that he was told that it would be solidly, closed off as those on Base Line. Rita Vargas, 10815:; Sundance, opposed the controlled access and asked consideration be given to the number of people showing their opposition. She was concerned with the safety of the children in the area... Chairman Stout asked the ages of the children who normally play in the cul-de- sac. Mrs, Vargas replied that the children were all ages from toddlers to teenagers. Louie a Gonzales, Rancho Cucamonga resident, advised that he was told- that the cul-de-sac would not be closed off because of a fire hydrant on Spruce Avenue, but f el t that situation could be modified to accommodate the Fire Department. He;opposed the proposed access. Where were no further public comments. Commissioner Chi ti ea appreciated the concerns expressed by the residents, but felt that 'pedestrian orientation in the community is very important. She pointed out that the City has worked hard to plan greenbelts, passebs and walkways not only in Terra Vista, but thoughout the entire City. Further, when these accesses are blocked off, the secondary connections are eliminated and there •is the feeling that this is a closed community. She wanted a feeling that the C i t, is open, friendly, and is safe. She did not feel it is appropriate for young children to play in the street. She had serious problems with closing the access completely and understood not wanting motor vehicles having access. She supported the limited access and thought Alternative g would address her concerns. She pointed out that at Design Review the prospect of putting a gate across the access was discussed, but i was eliminated because of problems of children swinging on the gate. 1f the gated was an acceptable solution to the rest of the Commission, she would be willing to support it. Planning Commission Minutes - - September 24, 19 6 Commissioner McNiel stated that the open community concept had been adopted a long time ago by trying to maintain pedestrian access throughout the City. He pointed out that the City has been consistent with requiring trails systems and even requires developers of commercial centers to provide pedestrian areas. Further, that the City had worked hard with the Lewis Company to insure that adequate parkas and playgrounds were installed in Terra vista so that the community would have access to these recreational areas;. He appreciated the position of the residents, however, felt that the children should play in safe areas and not in the streets. He was opposed to violating the posture of an open community. Commissioner Barker stated that he had no problem with fencing off Sundance. As far as an open community, it would require crossing at the most 6 lots to get back out onto Terra Vista parkway. If it were to be closed, he would recommend that it be jogged. if there is need for the Fire Department to have access to fire hydrants, he suggested the access be gated. He felt Sundance could be considered a special concern and by jogging the wall , it would still give the appearance of open space. He did not feel the closure would tremoudousl`y impact traffic, In most other instances, he preferred controlled access and agreed that the City worked hard to provide the passeos and pedestrian access to: guarantee that Terra vista had those amenities, but felt this was a special circumstance. Commissioner To stay asked for; discussion regarding street markings or signs for a pass through so that cars would know that there are pedestrians there. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that any kind of of marking would actually increase the hazards involved for pedestrians using that street. He pointed out that particularly at mid-block, markings would simply lend a sense of security to the children and parents that the signs would make the street safe when in reality it would not. Commissioner Tol stay stated that having set on the early discussions for the General plan, one of the things the people in the community wanted was open access. He did not want to start cutting off cul-de-sacs. He thought the opening as now configured was not a good idea and favored Al=ternate B 'of the proposal . Chairman Stout, asked for discussion relative to the gate. John Melcher, L i s Hotnes, advised that L i s Homes would not agree to a gated concept because they believed it would violate the law. if the latches were arranged so that they could not be operated by children, then they could net be operated by persons who are wheel chair bound. Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNi el , to approve by Minute action Alternative R, thereby requiring controlled access points on all streets, including perimeter streets such as Base Line and Spruce and open access onto the greeway areas. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 24, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS CNITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9973 KENSLEY - A subdivision of acres en into arce s a en r n p e ustri al Designation (Subarea 11), located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue'- APN 229-262- 8. Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Doug Mayes, 2151 East "D" Street, Ontario, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 997 . Motion carried by the following vote RYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, CNITIEA, BARKER, TOSTOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-31- AMENDMENT - DIVERSIFIED :: e requires o amend-—th—e approve sT a pan or ae eve d eel of an approved shopping center (Haven Village), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201-271-53. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John O'Meara, 2910 Red Hill , Costa Mesa, representing Diversified, gave an overview of the amendment`. He referred to Planning Division Condition 5 of the Resolution and advised that he did not object to installing the parking and landscaping; however, could not accept a condition- which restricted the Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 24, 1986 occupancy for the Payless project since that project is not owned by i versi fi ed. He referred to condition fi requiring 10-foot wide landscape areas on both sides of the temporary access to Highland Avenue and stated it should be understood that the landscaping would of a temporary nature and that permanent structures would not be built since it is Cal trans future right-of- way. He referred to condition 7 and asked that the landscaping not be required to be so dense that it would create a visual', screen, but would be consistent with the rest of the shopping center. He was additionally concerned with the Engineering Division's condition of approval which required construction and striping of a deceleration lane and left turn lane prior to occupancy for any buildings within the shopping center. He advised that some of the buildings would be ready for occupancy in October and it would be impossible bl e to obtain permits fromGal trans and to complete the work prior to p p occupancy. He stated that he would complete the improvements; however, did not want to tie the condition to occupancy. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant would be willing to close off the access until those improvements were completed r. O'Meara replied that the shopping center could not exist and the Lucky store could not open without the access.' He advised that the access was part of the original approval for the shopping center* With this application for modification, staff had added the requirement for a decel arati on lane, which he did not oppose :to installing. His objection was to the timing for completion. He advised that he would rather withdraw the application for the amendment than to risk the access being Jeopardized. Mike Mitchell , 1049 Kingston, Rancho Cucamonga, advised that if the Highland access is blocked off, the only access the delivery trucks would have would be Lemon, which would be objectionable to the surrounding residents. He stated that part of the original approval for this shopping center was a condition which required that the view of the adjacent residents would not be blocked. He felt that the project violated that condition in that it has blocked the view of the adjacent residents and asked that this be corrected before any future approvals are granted. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked for discussion relative .to the applicant's concern with condition 5 requiring parking and l andcapi ng improvements prior to occupancy for the Payless project Commissioner "col stoy stated that the improvements have to be tied to something and the problem was what to tie it to If Payless is not a part of this project, he felt it should be conditioned on something else. 1 Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 24, 1985 i I Chairman Stout pointed out that the applicant really doesn' t have to do anything to Phase III* they could leave it dirt. This request to finish the parking lot was a bonus for getting the end of the piece of property finished off as far as he was concerned. If Phase II ,has been sold off, it seemed o him that it would cause the applicant legal i i col ti es to impose conditions t this point. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney;, advised that if Lucky and Payless own their own parcels, at this point a condition could' not be imposed restricting their occupancy. Chairman Stout suggested placing a time limit on the improvements and if they had not been completed within the time specified, the conditional use permit could be revoked Ms. Fong advised that the applicant would agree ,to placing a 6 month time limit for completion of the parking and landscaping requirements. Chai man Stout asked that condition 6 clarify the intent that the 10 foot wide landscaped area would be of a temporary nature* He - asked for discussion relative to the condition requiring dense landscaping along the southern property boundary. His interpretation of dense landscaping would be more of the ground cover and shrubbery type than the use of tall trees. Elan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the landscaping would not be on the slope enbankment, but at top between the pavement and the top of the slope. Commissioner Tol stoy;asked how erosion of the slope would be handled* r. Coleman advised that normally the grading ordinance only requires seeding with groundcover for erosion control , particularly when the situation is temporary in nature. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that slope planting was required during the Caryn Development approvals in which the issue was not the density of the landscaping but the quality. She suggested that the same slope planting condition be applied to this project. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that it might be appropriate to add a requirement that the applicant provide hydroseedi ng or grodcovr treatment placed on the slope areas. Commissioner Barker pointed out that this will be focus point for some time. He asked fors e type of quality landscaping plan to provide 'visual attraction. Mr. Buller suggested that the landscape plan be referred to the Design 'Review Committee for review and approval Planning Commission Minutes - - September 24, 1986 Chairman Stout asked for discussion relative to the access from Highland Avenue. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that 'staff would prefer to have completion of the deceleration 'lane tied to a time limit. He advised that the City has experienced pro l ems with projects partially opening before full public improvements are installed. He suggested that the time limit be established by the City Traffic Engineer. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to adopt the Resolution amending Conditional Use Permit 84- 1, with the following amendments: Planning Condition 5 modified to require parking and landscaping improvements on Phase III to be completed within 6 months of this approval landscape plans for both the 10-foot wide landscaping area and landscaping along the southern property boundary to be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval ; and construction and striping of the deceleration lane to be completed at a time established by the City Traffic Engineer*. Motion carried y the following vote® AYES:_ COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, TO .STOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS.- NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.- NONE -carried Commissioner Barker requested that staff report back to the Commission on the issues that were established by the adjacent homeowners regarding the line of sight for the project. He requested that the Commission be provided with copies of the minutes of that meeting and the original Resolution and conditions of approval . F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86 15 e es a is en o a mo or homi7559 ass y si nes within an existing 168,000 square foot industrial building and the 83,000 square foot expansion of the existing building on 11.8 acres of land in the 0eneral Industrial/pail Served District (Subarea ' ), Located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue - APN 09-1 - is. Chairman Stout announced that a letter had been received from the applicant for this item requesting a continuance to the October H, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He then opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the public 'hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85- 5 to the October 8, 1986 Planning Commission sheeting Planning Commission Minutes - - September 24, 1986 : 8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:40 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE ;TRACT 1334 PANNON - The devel opment of 68--single-family deac a omes on 11.46 acres oT 1 and i n the tow Medium Residential District (4-8 du ac), located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street PN - 1 1-1 , 23. I addition, the applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove 1 Eucalyptus trees., Howard Fields, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Petar ; aden, representing Pannon Development, was concerned with the condition of approval which granted easements to use common open space and recreational amenities to parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 334. He advised that the applicant would agree to do so only when the parcels are developed according to the master plant He believed that it would not be wise to grant the easements through the stubbed out street. He advised that condition 5 of the tract map should be corrected to read 68 lots rather than 69 since one lot had been dropped to accommodate the master plan. He stated that the applicant was willing to provide the wrought iron gates to the central open space; however, would like to provide the homeowners with the option of the gate since not all homeowners may want the _gates for security reaso ns. He referred to Design Review Condition 18 which required foot corner sloe yard setbacks. He advised that the applicant was willing to provide these setbacks for lot 54 if that was the direction of the Commission; however, to do so would require a delay in processing of the final engineering plans. Jay Trunel , 10244 Ring, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the Highland Terrace homeowners, stated concerns with the square footage of the lots and the size of the units. He requested that model "A" be eliminated;from the floor plans, the remaining corner lots be included in the minimum 20 foot setback requirement, and that the existing ;trees that are to be removed be replaced with a size greater than 15 gallon. He additionally expressed concerns that the intersection of street °"A" and 19th Street may be too close to the intersection of Hermosa and 19th and requested that this be further studied. Gary Wagsdale, 10254 Ring, Rancho Cucamonga, objected that the tract would be gated community with no access available to the surrounding residents, Connie Grigsby, 6606 Kinlock, Rancho Cucamonga, objected that the surrounding residents would not have access to the parks and pools proposed within this project, yet the residents of this project would have access to the 'public parks and pools. She advised that the fences for the Highland Terrace project had not been placed on their property lines due to the -location of the exi sting trees. She asked how' this would be handled by this developer since Planning Commission Minutes 9- September 24, 196 the trees were now scheduled for removal . She additionally asked if there had been a recent change in the ity' s tree removal regulations. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that preliminary information from the applicant indicated that the wall is off the property line. - He advised that condition 15 of the Resolution requires the developer to work with the adjacent property owners to build a wall on the property line, thereby giving those homeowners back the land that is actually theirs. Dan Waters, fr 96 Kinlock, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with the traffic on lei nl ock, He indicated that Ki nl ock was to be a closed cul-de-sac; however, it is currently open to Highland Avenue. He asked why kinlock had not been closed. Donald Denny, 10275 Ring, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the real estate agent who sold him his home had told him that Ring was to be a cul-de-sac and was concerned that the applicant's plans show the street as going through. Carol Wagstaff, 1053 Ring, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that;the developer be required to upgrade his product so that the surrounding homeowners don't lose equity in their homes. There were no further. comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked staff to explain how these trees were selected for removal and how the Tree Ordinance works, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, explained that the 'Tree preservation Ordinance was adopted in 1985 and only allows removal of trees where it is determined by the Planning Commission that no other alternative exists for the plotting of units on the layout of the land. The applicant' s proposal would require the removal of the trees as indicated on the plans. He advised that the ordinance provides for the replacement of trees and that the pity Council determined that 15 gallon size were more appropriate because the root system will provide stronger growth for the trees over the ,years. Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that the debate over trees has been going on n the City since incorporation. He advised that Eucalyptus trees are noted for rotting in the center when they reach maturity and to have brittle branches which often brew during high winds. He concurred that planting 15 gallon size trees is more appropriate than planting box size trees since many times the box trees- are root bound in their containers. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that the replacement Eucalyptus is a different variety which is much safer and does not have the problems that the Blue Gums have. She advised that the Blue Gums are being replaced as a matter of safety and liability. Planning Commission Minutes _10 September 24, 1986 : Chairman Stout advised that this development will pay approximately $6 ,000 in City park fees and would also pay- for the open spaced provided within the project, which would also be maintained by the homeowners who reside in this development. Therefore, they would be able to use both parks because they are paying for both parks. he asked staff to comment on the traffic circulation plan. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, advised that no special traffic study was required for this project since the General Plan Amendment actually lowered the intensity of the original use. He advised that staff had worked closely with the developer to come up with a satisfactory plan. He stated that approximately 700 cars will be generated by this project; however, the volume of traffic would still he below projections at ouil dout of the City. In reference to the closing of Kinlock, he advised that the street is currently open to give a second access to the Highland Terrace Tract, which is in keeping with the City's access policy and is required for general safety reasons Commissioner Tostoy was concerned that the Fire Department would not be able to turn a fire truck around the length of the street in the event that the outparcel is not made a part of this project. Mr. Reugeau advised that the Fire Department had approved this plan during the Technical Review Committee and were satisfied given the temporary nature of the situation, i Commissioner Barker asked if a product breakdown was available. r. Laden 'advised that there are 7 Model "A" provided in the project* He indicated that he would not object to the elimination of this model . Commissioner C hi ti ea was concerned with the developer' s request to allow him o provide the option of gates ' to the rear yard access area. Shepoined out that this would not give future homeowners the option of access to the central area and felt it would be simple to put a padlock on the gate to restrict access. This would allow future residents to have access should they want it. She felt that the 0-foot setback was appropriate, however, shared Commissioner To stay"s concern relative to the length of the street and the safety aspects. She thought it would be appropriate to add language to condition 3 to tie access to the development of parcels 2 and 3, as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Tol stay advised that he still felt the street was too long but staff had provided him with the Fire District's review which required either a cul-de-sac with a large enough radius to turn a truck around' or turf blocking of a turn around area. Planning Commission Minutes -11 September 24, 1986 Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not object to eliminating the gates to allow pedestrian access into the project; however, felt that the homeowners should be provided with membership cards to prevent intrusion into their swimming pool areas Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, advised that the Resolution contained a condition providing pedestrian access into the project, which would mitigate Commissioner McNiel 's concern Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, asked for direction from the Commission as to which' lots would be required to have 20 foot setbacks. It was the consensus of the Commission o include lots 12, 13, 16, 52 and 56 in the 20-foot setback requirement. Motion: Moved by Sacker, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 13342, with amendments to Design Review Condition 5 to correct lot 69 to lot 68; 20-foot minimum corner ideyard setbacks required on lots 12, 13, 1 , 52 `and 6; and a condition to provide the option to construct one wall' along the eastern property boundary or to purchase the property from the adjacent owners, evidence to be sutxnitted to the City Planner prior to issuance of: building permits; and access easements for recreational amenities and common open space to be provided for Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 3334 at the time of development. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Commissioner Chi i ea stepped down from the podium and was not present for discussion or voting on the following item: H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 86-01 - reques o amend the lana use map--of Terra s e r proposeJunior High School site to Low Medium Residential (4-8 duac) for 20 acres of land located on` the west side of Rochester, north of Church Street and various related amendments to the density provisions of the Community Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 i6o-pl imiffilafire en regar ng Twe- approximately 20 acres a ocated on the west side of Rochester, south of Base Line Road. Dan Coleman, Senior planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 24, 1986 Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Homes, gave an overview of the request, Greg Pearson, 7434 Henbane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he had no objection with this request; however, felt the City needs to address the issue of providing enough schools since the schools are extremely overcrowded. There were no farther comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.. Commissioner Tol stoy advised that Mr. Pearson should also present his concern regarding providing schools in the area to the Etiwanda School Board since the City does not govern schools. Commissioner Barker advised that the City made the decision to withhold building permits until School Districts are able to provide spade and education for the children. in this instance, the school district is saying they runt to take the money from this project to purchase another site. Commissioner McNiel Mated that it is assumed that the School district knows hest what they want to do with school sites and what their future needs are. The only thing the Commission is dealing here is the zoning on this piece of property and releasing it to mother zone. The Commission was merely being asked to provide the vehicle for the School District to go ahead' with their plans and establish other school sites; Chairman Stout advised that the School District is saying that whether or not this is zoned Junior High School they are not going to build on this site. He felt confident that the School District had another site in 'mind which would better accommodate their needs. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNel , to recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community plan Amendment 86- 'to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote': Y A CO MMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, TCLSTaY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend adoption of Terra Vista Park Development Agreement No. 1 First Supplemental Agreement to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, TOLSTOY, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES:' COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITI -carried Planning Commission Minutes - - September 24, 1986 9:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present * *; * I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-03A - LA1NG HOMES ;- reques o amen a an se en a en era an f rom cod Control to low Medium Density Residential ( -8 du/ac) for 40 ages of land located at the southwest corner of the extensions of Banyan and Milliken - Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff reportt Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Al Coffer, 445 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, gave an overview of the request. There were no furthers comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker was concerned that later in the agenda is a request east of Chaffey College to change from Low-Medium Density to Low Density which should be taken into consideration, Commissioner McNi el was concerned with the rapid transition in densi ty to Medium High. Commissioner Barker pointed out that the density of the Caryn Planned Community is Low. This site is asking for Low-Medium and the property above t there is no ;request at the moment but the two pieces which are Low-Medi oar above and to the left of that will probably end up being Low. He wanted to assure some sort of continuity. Otto Kroutil pointed out that there is a freeway right-of-way which cuts off good part of the Medium site; of the 40 acres, the property owner would lose approximately 14 acres to the freeway* Additionally, there would be on and off ramps with Milliken proposed to be a major divided arterial continuing northward, `;separating the area 'between Caryn on the east side with the subject site on the west. Chairman Stout Mated that Low should also be an alternative for discussion. He felt that the flood Control channel appears to make a reasonably good separation ;between the densities to the east and west of the site. Since the Caryn project is at -4, the only problem seemed to be the medium piece to the south.; Commissioner Chi ti ea suggested that staff' be directed to study that piece. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 24, 1986 Mr. Kroutil advised that this amendment is only on the 40 acres on the north. If the Commission was uncomfortable with approving the amendment, they could direct staff to return with an alternate amendment including the advertising for reconsideration of the southerly piece as well . He clarified that the northerly half of Caryn is close to the City's City' Low Density designations; the south half would be more consistent with the ity's Low Medium Density designations. He added that there is a site at the immediate northeast corner of Milliken and Highland which is not technically part of the Caryn Planned Community and which is designated Low Density in our General Plan. He ' advised that there has been discussion relative to requesting a commercial designation. He advised that the Commission' s options were to either act on the request by app vi ng or denying it, or the item could be continued with direction to staff to come back with a study involving the area immediately south of the site. Commissioner Barker stated that he would be inclined not to approve Low Medium for this site, but to recommend Low Density Commissioner Chi ti ea agreed and stated she would prefer to consider the Low and also consider changing the property below that Low Medium. Mr. Kroutil advised that any amendment to the southern property would have to e done as a separate amendment during the next General 'Plan cycle. Commissioner McNiel thought that the Commission needed as much information as possible before making a recommendation the the CityCouncil . He suggested that the item be continued with direction to staff to provide the Commission with a study of the surrounding area. I Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mciel , ;unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 86- to the November 12, 1986 ;meeting, with direction to staff to study the site with 'Low Density as an alternative, and to include the property to the ` south in the study. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-0 B - -GLUR N - 'A reques o amen the Land use El iffiRt6f thi GRPM an r edi um Density Residential (4-14 du/ac) to Neighborhood Commercial for 10.7 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of Haven and Highland - APN 01- 6 - 8, O, ` 1, 7, 4O 41, 43. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-0 request o amen a eve o en is r c ap f r u ac to "NC" for 10.7 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of Haven and Highland - APN 201- 6 - N, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40, ` 1, 43. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 24, 1986 Jim Wood, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 215, Long Beach, California, gave an overview of the request. He advised that the applicant had met with the Garden ApartmentHomeowners' Association. in an effort to mitigate their concerns, he suggested parcel 2 be left as commercial with some type of restricted use. He additionally outlined mitigation measures which could be taken on their proposed site plan and indicated a willingness to work with the City. Commissioner Barker stated that the applicant appears to be attempting to condition mitigation measures on design elements as part of the land use change and asked counsel 's direction. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that this application is for land use approval and there could be no conditioning of a particular design at the General Plan stage. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant would be willing to consider an Office Professional designation for-parcel 2. (fir. Wood indicated that he would be willing to consider such a designation. Craig Justice, 6330 Haven Avenue, representing the Garden Apartment Homeowners' Association, stated that the quality' of the apartments is not consistent with commercial development. He stated a concern with commercial development on parcel one primarily due to the view which would be presented to the apartment owners who face that parcel . He concurred with staff''s recommendation that parcel 2 remain Medium Residential , and suggested that parcel 3 be carefully analyzed and be designated Office -Professional or remain residential . He additionally stated a concern for the viability of this center due to the proximity of the Lucky shopping center currently under construction. He pointed out that the proposed intersection of Alta Loma Drive and Haven Avenue is not an easement but property owned by the Garden Apartments. Further, that no neotations had been entered into on this property and that the homeowners would not be willing to give up one square foot of their driveway for commercial use. He was also opposed to the significant amount of grading which would have to be done on the site and the potential for flooding problems which would be created. Phyllis Allen, 6402 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the Commercial designation request. Steve Self, 640 Revere, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that consideration be given to the type of easement for ingress and egress which would run behind the back of the apartments. Floyd Allen, 6402 Haven Avenue, opposed the commercial designation for parcel 3. teve`Kellog, 640 Haven Avenue, opposed the commercial designation. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 24, 1986 Sid Sylama, Garden Apartment resident, opposed the -commercial designation and question the viability of another commercial center at this location. He additionally stated that commercial would be incompatible with the surrounding area. Richard Herron, 6425 Revere, opposed the request and was concerned with the placement of the street access. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker questioned the viability of the project and further stated he questioned whether it was really needed in the area. If needed, it develops both sides of the street strip commercial , which he did not feel particularly attractive. He was concerned that there were no provisions for mitigation measures and was not sure it could be appropriately mitigated. He could see no advantage to the City to approve this designation change. Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that parcels 3 and 2 should remain as designated, however, felt that parcel 1 might be a difficult location for housing and that Office Professional should be considered. Commissioner McNi el stated that the City ;has longed struggled with the del i ma of irregularly shaped pieces of property that remain as a result of the proposed freeway. He pointed out that in many cases, Commercial is the most practical designation. He felt that the fact that some of the business surrounding this area are having financial difficulty is simply a matter o growth and when the areais fully developed they will be viable. With respect o lots 2 and 3, he did not see any; reason to change them from Residential to Commercial other than possibly an Office Professional designation, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not see how a commercial project could e designed on Parcel 2 that could be appropriately buffered from the apartment project or the people to the west; therefore, he felt Parcel I should remain residential . He also suggested that parcel 3 remain residential and indicated it has a lot of problems and did not see how it could be joined with the vacant commercial on Lemon, as suggested by staff, because of the grade differential and was also concerned with its compatibility with the Garden Apartments. His concern with leaving Parcel 1 Residential was its location next to the freeway. He suggested consideration of office Professional with access restrictions for Parcel 1. ` Chairman Stout stated that both parcels 2 and 3 should remain residential and e designed in such a matter to be compatible with the Carden Apartments, almost as an extension of them. He felt a density of 14 would be too high and suggested it should be more in the range of 4-8. He was not sure what the pproi ate designation would be for Parcel 1. If an Office designation was determinined the most appropriate, he suggested an asterisk on the designation to restrict the uses. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 24, 1986 Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, :advised that the request before the Commission was an amendment of the 'entire site from Residential to Commercial and the options would either be approval or denial . To change it to another designation would require an amendment ent at a future date. Mr. Buller advised that the best solution would be to deny this request, and if the Commission feels that another designation may be more appropriate they could direct staff to proceed in that manner. Be additionally advised that this amendment would be brought back to the Commission during the next General Plan cycle. Motion: Loved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution denying Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment Bb-QB to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS T LSTOY, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA OUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to adept the Resolution denying Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 86-03 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES. COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, TOLSTOY STOUT NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman .Stout recommended that the Resolution of Denial be forwarded to the City ,Council denying the requests along with the Planning Commission's recommendation that action be taken to further study this area for possible changes to another suitable land use. The study would include the three parcels in question on this site, the portion of vaunt commercial along Lemon Avenue, and the Barden Apartments. Consideration is recommended to be given to reesigting the Garden Apartments and Parcels 2 and 3 Low Medium at 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre, and Office Professional for Parcel 1. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-03C - CITY OF RMW-CUMN - reque o amen- a Land Us# amen o e snare Plan from -Medfuin High Residential (14- 4 d /ac) to Office`for 75 acres of land located on the south' side of Foothill Boulevard 1125 feet west of Hellman Avenue (911 Foothill Boulevard) -' APN 08- 1,-Og. Planning Commission Minutes 18 September 24, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-04 - CITY reques 6--a:mend the DeveloFmiffrt C ap r ac to "}OP►' (Office/Professional for .75 acre of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, 1125 feet west of Hellman Avenue (9113 Foothill Boulevard) - APN 08- 41-09. Alan warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Smut opened the public hearing. Ryan Sellers, 1 106 McKinley Avenue, Chino, urged approval of the request. Steve,Lucas, 9489 Apricot, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the request on behalf of the adjacent property owner. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment and. General Plan Amendment 86-03 C to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote- AYES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, TOLSTOY, BARKER, CHIT EA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Motion: Moved by : Stout, seconded by Barker, to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 6-04 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: ; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 66-030 - CITY OF RANCHO--CUCAMONGA request 6 iin-Rd thi an se Element of the Genergy Plan from Cow--Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) to Low Density Residential ( -4 dua ) for 68 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Nilson (if extended) and Milliken ( 'f extended) - APN 1-191- 1 , 17 Planning Commission Minutes _19- September 24, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-05 - CITY --iwe-4-u—est to amen the D646 5FRK is ric ap rom UFTood Control ) and "" M" (Low Medium Density Residential - 4-8 du/ac) to "L"; (Lower Density Residential - 2-4 du/ac) for 68 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Wilson (if extended) and Milliken (if extended) - APN 01-191-11, 17. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout statedthat he thought the County' s Foothill Community Plan showed Nilson extended across to Etiwanda. Paul Rou eau City Traffic Engineer, explained that the Foothill Community Plan shows a street in the general vicinity of Nilson which extends across to 4th Street in Etiwanda. He advised that Banyan is to extend to Etiwanda and that staff would be initiating an amendment to the C i ty's Circulation Plan in the very near 'future. He further stated that the issue needs to be more closely studied as to whether the curve from Wilson to Milliken should be retained* Chairman Stout was concerned that it looks like the City has turned its back on the area north of Highland. He suggested that if the City was going to correct Banyan on the Circulation Plan, Wilson should be studied at the sane time. He then opened the public hearing. Tracy Lowman Tibbels 10522 Wilson, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission on behalf of himself as a resident and also ,on behalf of the landowners. He felt that -4 units per acre was a seemingly appropriate designation for this site. He suggested that the Commission continue its decision on this amendment for 90 days to allow the landowner to meet with City staff, surrounding homeowners and Chaffey College, He indicated that the landowner would then bring a project Proposal to City. Jim Delorie, representing Chaffey College, supported the Low Density designation. He pointed out that on the: east border of the college there not only are athel eti c fields, but also=undeveloped land that has been designated by the college specifically for field study. Further, that the college had no intention of ever developing that land. He encouraged discussions between the landowner and the College in order to develop a more coherent idea of how the land will be used. There were no further comments, therefore the Public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that he would like to see what the project proposal might look like on this site. He felt this might be an appropriate direction to take prior to making a decision on the amendment. 'i 'I I Planning Commission Minutes - C- September 24, 1986 Commissioner Barker stated that he had no hesitancy in voting at this time. e stated that the appropriate designation should be Very Low. Commissioner Testoy stated that he was on the Commission at the time the map ,was filed on this piece of property and one of the things the Commission was quite concerned about was the edge treatment between the College and this i te. He explained that it was decided at that time that the higher density would allow clustering of the units and provide open space. He thought that the final project mitigated the concerns of the Deer Creek residents in that it allowed transition between their property and this project and the clustering; of buildings, open space and the edge treatment also addressed itself to the ollege's needs. It seemed that the reason the project was never built was because it was not economiccaly feasible to do so. ` He pointed out that if the project was developed at 4 units per acre, 'there would be a terrible grading problem. He felt that the Low designation would not provide a proper transition and the only project alternative would be Very Low. Commissioner Chitiea stated that her inclinations were the same and agreed that Very Low seemed to be the appropriate designation. Commissioner McNi el stated that he did not have an objection to the Low designation. Otto Grout l , Senior Planner, advised that the City is the applicant on this amendment request. He asked counsel if the City could reinitiate the amendment and readvertise it in this General Plan c le as a request for Very Low density. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that if the City is willing to withdraw its request, it could reinitiate an amendment to Very Lore. Joe Sevilla, representing the Pennhill Corporation, advised that some conceptual plans had been submitted on this 'project to City staff. He felt that the request for the continuance would give everyone the opportunity to see what a good developer can do with this piece of property. He felt that he could' solve all of the concerns of everyone involved. He asked for time to approach Chaffey College' and the Beer- Creek Homeowners to show them the conceptual plans and then present :them to the Commission before they ;make a decision on this piece of property. Mr. Buller pointed out that this amendment is for land use and the applicant could come back with a proposal , but there would be no guarantee that this is the way the project would be 'built. He suggested that if the Commission's direction would' be to continue the amendment request for 90 days, staff could advertise the amendment as either Low or Very;Low, He asked if the Commission would like theproposal applicant b the to be conceptual or should d h _ a to , y applicant file a tentative map concurrently with the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes - 1- September 24, 1986 Commissioner Tol stay stated that the problem he would have with filing the tentative map concurrently, is that if the Commission feels the site should be Very Low, the applicant would have made the expense of designing the tract at the Low designation Sam Sterpa, 200 W. Glen Oaks, Glendale, California, property owner, was concerned that the Commission was once main considering reducing the density on his property. He advised that he has been in negotiations with this project many times. He did ,not feel he could find `a buyer who would be willing to comply with one or one-half acre lots if below the property there s a 12 unit per acre project. He advised that while he would not be extremely happy about it, he would accept the -4 unit per acre designation. e stated that a Very Low designation would seriously inhibit the marketability of the property. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 86-03D and Environmental Assessment and Development District 86-05 to the January 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The landowner is to supply the Commission with a conceptual plan at the Low designation, The conceptual` plan is to become a part of the permanent record for comparison of future applications. Staff was directed` to provide options at boor the Low and Very Lbw desi gnati ons. Me ENVIRONMENTAL SES ENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-03E — CITY D rogue iiii6a thi DR Ugi EliffiRf o the General Plan rom ce/Professional to Medium Density Residential 4-14 du/ac) for 3. 6 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Church and Archibald - APN 1077-332-26. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-06 - CITY request o anion a UiMWeff Mtrictmap r o du/acl for 356 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Church and Archibald - AN '1077- 3 - . Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked for clarification as to why this amendment was proposed. Brad 'Buller, City Planner, advised that the City Council directed that all Office Professional parcels in the City outside the Haven; Corridor be re- evaluated. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Lloyd Michael , 630 Havers Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, co-owner of the parcel , opposed the amendment. He did not agree that all Office Professional should e located on Haven Avenue and felt the property was appropriately designated. Planning Commission Minutes - - September 24, 1986 Bob Mills, 58 West 15th Street, Upland, California, co-owner of the parcel , also opposed the amendment. Steve Lucas, 9489 Apricot, Rancho Cucamonga, advised that he represented the property owners and indicated that negotiations were underway with a developer on this site. He opposed the amendment There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that he did not think adding 50 more units to this corner was appropriate Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to recommend denial of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 86-03 E to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, STOUT, CHITIEA, MCFIEL, TOLSTOY NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved, by Barker, seconded by Stout, to recommend denial o Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 86-06- to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. YES ; COMMISSIONERS BARKER, STOUT, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 86-03 TEXT - CITY OF - regaes o amen a ex of the, enera an, e definition edium Density Residential from 4-14 dwelling units per acre to 8-14 dwelling units per acre. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout ;opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 86-03 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote. Planning Commission Minutes - 3September 24, 1986 AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT, TQLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-03F - CITY OF Fi40gf t6 Rifid the an Tement of a ; enera Plan from MediumDensity Residential 4-14 du%ac to Low Medium Density Residential i _g' du/ac for 3.67 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue, portion of APN U -101- 1. Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tot stagy, seconded by Barker, to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment and General plan Amendment 86-03F to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS TGLSTOY, BARKER, CHITIEt, MCN EL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried NEW BUSINESS P. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-09 - BIXBY - The review of the proposed Master Plan u Tgn 0 one or comp ance of conditions of approval for a 5- acre master site plan, located 'between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Avenue, and between' 4th Street and 6th Street - APN 229-261-58, 59. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Judy MlcCaslin, 13882 Gimbert Lame, Tustin, representing the applicant, advised that 19 percent of the perimeter landscaping is groundcover and shrub hedges. She advised'that:the proposed turf would use approximately 25 percent less water than that predominately used and are proposing iroetes to monitor the moisture content of the soil . She felt that this would meet the intent of the City's concern relative to water conservation. She advised that she was willing to put in the benches for the bus stop; however, needed direction as to the location and design guidance and was concerned that the condition was Planning Commission Minutes - 4 September 24, 1986 tied to the issuance of building permits. She presented photographs of the gateway design for the Commission's consideration. Relative to the Uniform Sign Program colors she advised that rather than dictate that all buildings in the project be identical to theirs we are trying to leave flexibility to use the design guidelines but to be innovative to avoid a cookie 'cutter appearance. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Master Plan text be modified to read that the bus stops are to be approved and installed, with language relative to issuance of building permits removed. Motion.- Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to find the perimeter landscaping, gateway and Uniform Sign Program consistent with the Master Plan. Staff was directed to work with the applicant on the location and design of the transit stops. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, T ESTCY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Q. VACATION OF 22ND STREET Barryo Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Motion: Moved by Barker;, seconded by McNi el , to forward the item to City Council for approval . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES; COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, STOUT NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McN el , unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1:05 a.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Planning Commission Minutes - 5- September 24, 1986 Respecr lly u e retar y Planning Commission Minutes - 6- September 24, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 10, 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 Ease Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout them led in the pledge of allegiance. City Clerk', Beverly Authelet, administered the oath of office to Peter `tolsty. ROLL GALL COMMISSIONERS. PRESENT: David Darker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry 'cNiel, Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT, Noire STAFF` PRESENT. Brad Buller, City Planner; Darn Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph ' Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Barbara rail , Associate Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning Commission Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW D6-16 - O.T. PARTNERS T e deve opent of---a- 6,0 square foot o ice 6ui ing on .D6 acres o land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea. 7) located at the northwest corner of Utica Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN 08062-06;. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OS- 9 - D VIES - The development of our i ust i ildings tot- i;ng ,6 O square feet on 1.86 acres of land in the General Industrial area (Subarea located on the; north side of 8th Street, south :side of Feron Boulevard at the south end of Helms Avenue - APN 20 - -55. i 1 C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-22 - HIGHLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH - The proposed Master Plan for the development of a ,4DD square foot church and two 2,250 square foot accessory buildings on 3.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District' (2-4 du/ac) located a ,the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland' - APN 201-214-0 . D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12820 - HIGHLAND i COMMUNITY CHU H A proposed custom lot subdivision to create 5 ots on about acres of j land in the Low Residential Development District 2i-4 du/ac , located at I the southwest corner of clasper Street and Highland 'Avenue - APN 201-214- 0 . E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13022 WEST - THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - Review of new house pan for t' e 5D Series for Tract 3622, a recorded residential subdivision, including 275 single family lots on 44.1 net acres within the Victoria Planned Community, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 202- 11-13, 38, 41, and'42; 02-2 1-2 Motion: Laved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar :as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9595 - HARDCASTLE - A-division of 5.0 acres into 1 parcel and a remain er pare in the Very Low (1-2 du/ac) and 'Estate Residential (0-1 du/ac)' Development Districts, located on the north side of 23rd Street, east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 25-122- 1 . Barbara Kroll, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked for the division boundaries between the Very Low and Estate Residential Districts. s. Krall explained that the southern portion of the parcel is Estate Resideatial , with the top portion being Very Low. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Dewey Hardcastle, 735 W. 650 Street, Hurricane, Utah, asked for approval of the parcel map. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Hardcastle if he had reviewed the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hardcastle replied that he had. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 10, 1986 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 adopting Parcel Map 9995. Motion carried <by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9955 - B.C.E. DEVELOPMENT INC. - division of 14.36 acres rota7 parcels in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located between Arrow Highway and Civic Center Drive, and between Red Oak Street and White Oak Avenue - APN 209-351-42, 43, 44, and 45. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jack Corrigan, BCE Development, opposed the undergrounding utility policy. He suggested that systems development fees be used to accomplish undergrounding in the City and felt it was unfair to burden the developer when the Under gnoun ding benefits the entire City. He addressed the issue of shared access and advised that he had always attempted to set his driveways in planning stages. With the 1200 feet of frontage on Arrow, he did not feel that the amount of driveway cuts requested was out of line. He advised that by setting the driveway cuts, it gives him control over the design of the buildings and where they are placed. He advised that Parcel One was in negotiation with the Federal Government for construction of a post office and indicated that the Federal Government does not allow easements or shared driveways on their property. He asked that the conditions of approval reflect that access will be granted to Parcel One off of Arrow, White Oak, and Civic Center, Drive. In reference to the other driveway cuts shown on the submittal, Mr. Corrigan requested that the Conditions reflect that access would be granted upon submittal of a development plan. He opposed the requirement to record a reciprocal access easement prior to recordation of the final map. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a master plan would be submitted for the remainder of the parcels, aside from parcel one. Mr. Corrigan stated that a master plan would not be submitted for the remainder parcels. He indicated that BCE would more than likely develop on the property themselves. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 10, 1986 arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that staff was not: necessarily setting the access points, but making an option with the shared access points. He advised that the access points would be by separate instrument and if it occurs that the project cannot work with this configuration, there is still some latitude to change it at a later time. He advised that access was not being precluded, just not establishing them at this point in time and leaving the option for shared access open because once property is sold it is very hard to get the access. He stated that staff was not certain that the Federal Government would actually develop panel One; therefore, would prefer to retain the shared access. If the Federal Government does develop on that parcel and will not allow shared access, the City would abandon the easement, Chairman Stout asked for discussion relative to Mr. Corrigan's request to allow access on all three sides for Panel One. He indicated that he had no problem with this request and suggested that the conditions include the statement requested by Mr. Corrigan. Jiro Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was against placing restrictions on driveways. Commissioner McNiel stated that the City is merely reserving the option for driveway access when development occurs. Hedidn't see where a great deal of hardship was being created by this condition. r. Corrigan stated that he could not record the shared access easements prior to recordation of the final map. arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that staff had required the easements by separate instrument map to male it easier on the applicant. He pointed out that if the condition was placed on the map, the map would have to be amended to eliminate it, If rewired by separate instrument, it could be eliminated by separate instrument Commissioner Tolstoy painted out that staff is not asking the driveways to be shared accesses, only to retain the right to have them if when the plans are submitted they call for that type of a situation. He saw no problem with the condition. Further, that since there is no roaster plan and since the City does not know what the footprints for the buildings would be, we should retain the possibility that we are able to have shared driveways if we feel at that point they are needed* if someone buys one of the parcels and comes in with plan, if its clearly visible at that time that shared driveway is not reasonable, the City could remove the access Commissioner McNiel addressed the issue of undergrounding and stated that every piece of property that comes before the Commission opposes the condition,' and felt that ' a policy had been established by the Commission to require an in-lieu fee or the actual undergrounding. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 10, 198 I Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that the Commission has set policy and until they are 'told to change that policy, she did not see a reason to be inconsistent. She concurred with adding language to the conditions granting access to parcel one, as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Barker stated that he had no problem with guaranteeing the right to an access on white Oak, Arrow, and Civic Center Drive. Chairman Stout suggested a modification to Special Condition 1 stating the intent of the Commission, which is not to require reciprocal driveways, merely" to reserve the option at a time when it becomes clear ghat the development was going to be. He suggested the condition read: "in order to reserve the option to the City of requiring reciprocal driveways at the time o development, a reciprocal access easement , .. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, asked for the flexibility to limit the driveway on Arrow Route for Parcel One to a service drive* Commissioner Barker felt ;that the condition maintained the flexibility o making; a determination at the time the plan comes in. Chairman Stout pointed out that the concern of the Commission is Braking those decisions at the time the development is known so that we can decide in a more intelligent way where the drives should be located. Commissioner Tolstoy referred to the Upland Post Office, which has two accesses for letter drop off where the people don't go into the parking lot. He felt the option should be left open to allow a similar design to be developed Cr. Corrigan presented a plan to the Commission which depicted such a situation. . Motion'. Moved by Chi'tiea seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving; Parcel Map 9955, with the introductory statement to Special Condition One outlining the Commission's intent with regard to reciprocal access as proposed by Chairman Stout, and a statement that a separate access would be acceptable for parcel 1 on White Oak,` Civic Center Drive, and Arrow. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES COMMISSIONERS CNITIEA BANKER, MCNIEL, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS* . NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS Planning Co mission Minutes -5- September 10, 1986 H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 -C9 MODIFICATION - BIXBY - The request to add an optional truck loading dock facility for each building within Phase I development, located on the north side of 5th Street, between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Street m APN g- 61-58, 59. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner,: presented the staff report. Ms. Fong stated that she had been contacted by the applicant and informed that they concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commission was not in favor of the Conditions as presented, the applicant requested a two week continuance. Commissioner Tolsto,y asked if there was enough room in the lot to maneuver a truck Ms. Fong advised that there is approximately 110 feet from the loading dock to the end of the landscape planter, and the standard is 90 feet. Further, the applicant proposed to eliminate the raw of parking spades to accommodate the truck traffic. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the project would then meet the parking requirements. ; s. Fong advised that it would and could be checked tenant improvements plans. Chairman Stout invited public comment. There were 'none.' Commissioner Chitiea stated that she saw this modification at Design Review and felt it made sense. Chairman Stout stated that the circulation was discussed at Design Review and he was satisfied that the modification was appropriate. Motion. Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Chi'tiea, to adopt the Resolution modifying Conditional Use Permit 8 -C9, adding a loading dock facility for each building within Phase I. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT, TCLSTCY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6- 10 - BROOKS - Appeal- of -staffs decision N5y156 the instal anon o a satellite ish antenna within the rear yard area of a single family residence located at 687 Sapphire Street - AN 106 -471-48 Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 10, 1986 1 Chairman Stout invited public comment. George Brooks, 6287 Sapphire, appellant, opposed the requirement of additional landscaping to screen the satellite dish and its relocation. He advised that he had contacted the satellite company and had been informed that relocation of the dish would interfere with satellite reception. Dan Coleman, Senior planner, advised that the Development Code states that a satellite dish antenna or other types of antennas shall not occupy any required setback area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would consider approval if the applicant was to screen the dish with landscaping along with the requirement to lower the height of the dish. Motion. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, to deny the appeal and direct the appellant to pursue various alternatives with staff. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, `BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT, TOLSTOY NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Barker suggested that the intent of the Development Code with regard to satellite dishes be clearly stated outlining the 'intent that they not infringe upon the public view or have a negative impact. He felt more guidelines should be establihedw Commissioner Chitiea stated that color should be included as a consideration. Chairman Stout suggested that staff study the Development Code with respect to satellite dishes and if necessary, return to the Commission with 7 recommendations for ;amendments. He felt that at the time the requirements were placed in the Development Code, there were not enough of them in the City for anyone to have any experience with them Now that the City has some experience with the issue, we should take another look at it. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the installers be contacted and informed that_ permits are necessary for dish installation and that there are pertain requirement that need to be met,. Planning Commission Minutes - - September 10, 1986 Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that staff was preparing an article for the Irapevine publication, which is distributed to eery homeowner in the i ty. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McN el, unanimously carried, to adjourn. :40 p.m. Planning Commission Adjourned. Respe tfully su itted Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - - September 1. , 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting_ August 27, 1,986 Chairman Dennis Stott 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, Larry McNiel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, 'Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph; Hanson, Deputy City Engineer; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Planning Commission would adjourn this evening' s meeting to a ,point meeting on September 4, 1986 :with the Historic Preservation Commission. This meeting will be held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Live Road, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Mr. ;Buller presented the Commission with a copy of a booklet on historical landmarks and points of interest, which he requested they bring to that. meeting. Commissioner Barker stated that the booklet compiled by Planning; staff contained information which might be useful to a person doing research, and suggested that staff consider distributing copies to the public library. Chairman Stout stated that the staff work on the booklet was excellent. Chairman Stout announced that Herman Rempel had reigned from his position as Planning Commissioner. He rude a motion to direct staff to prepare , a Resolution from the Commission outlining the many contributions Mr. Remel had made to the City over the years as one of the original Planning Commissioners. This motion" was seconded by Commissioner Barker, and unanimously carried. Chairman Stout asked that the Resolution be prepared a soon as possible and that Mr. Renpel be invited to the meeting for the presentation APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mclel , seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes of the May" 8, 198E Planning Commission meeting, with an amendment proposed by Commissioner Barker to page 5, paragraph 7, to reflect that many hours were spent in public hearings for the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman Stout abstained from vote as he was absent during that meeting.. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 8578 - SANTA FE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Located on the south side of Arrow Miig way, east and west of Milliken Avenue :- APN 9-111 a B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10414 - LANDCO - An proposed custom lot sobdivi`sion of of on acres of an in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) , located south of Carrari Street, west of Haven Avenue - APN 201-101 17. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW _ 1 - MIMES-PETERS WRITECT - The eve opme t of two `fndustr-1a uildin s tota —ng--4U-,9T6- squaree -feet on 2.54 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) located at the northeast corner of Jersey Boulevard and Utica Avenue APN 09-14 - , 23. D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12670 LENS HOMES - Review of two a itiona house pans f6F t e I or 'r series 76F Tact 12670, a recorded residential - subdivision of 23.06 acres within the Terra Vista Planned Community into 13 lots, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Spruce Avenue `- APN 1 77.1 2-1 through 47; 1077- 71-1 through 39 1077- 1-1 through 59. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar as submitted. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 27, 1986 i PUBLIC HEARINGS, E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-1 - 3EHOVAH I`TNESS - Development of a ,33 square foot buy ing on acres of a d located in the Low Residential District on the north side of Church Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN I.D - 1-D . Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. David Harper, gDSD Telegraph Road, Downey, California, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and concurred with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Henry Shropshire, 9774 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, Mated he was in favor of the project. He asked the width of the gravel road on the east end of the property. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this road would be paved and would be standard local street, which is 60 feet right-of-way to right-of- way and 3E feet between curbs. Ed Hamilton, 9762 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if there would be a dock wall- on the north side of the site and advised that he had several Eucalyptus trees on his property that lean over onto the property lure. He asked if the installation of the block wall would necessitate removal of these trees Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant aould be required to construct a 6 foot high block wall. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that it may require removal of the trees and explained that the installation should be coordinated with the adjacent property owners. Richard Fu rste n, 9582 Golden, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern with the location of church uses in residential areas. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner arker responded to Mr. Fuertein's comments by stating that the way he read this particular layout, the design was not conducive to outdoor activities. He understood Mr. Fuerstei ' s concerns, but was not sure that they applied to this particular situation since traffic generation would be comparatively minimal and the fact that the church will be located on a major street. He, therefore, did not have the same concerns as he had with the LDS property. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 27, 1986 11 Commissioner McNiel stated that the applicant had done a fine job architecturally from what they started with and what is now before the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea'.stated that she did not foresee any problems sine the Church was not requesting additional outside lighting or operation into the evening. Chairman Stout stated that there seems to be a philosophical complaint as to whether churches and schools should be allowed in residential zones. He pointed out that this City made a decision many years ago at the time of the General Plan, to allow churches and schools in residential areas... Once this decision has been made, the position becomes making that use as compatible with the surrounding residential uses as possible. Further, that the decision could not be made tonight; to not allow this one church use in a residential area because the, precedent had been set all over the City. He agreed that the project had come a long way and felt it was a project that bath the users and the City could be proud of Motion`. Moved by Barker, seconded by Chiiea, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 5-1 . Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried * * E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14 CANAOAY COMPANY - Total residential developmiR , olf 50 units on 5. 5 acres of land in the Medium Residential District ( -14 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Highland, approximately 800; feet east of Archibald Avenue. In addition the Manning Commission will consider a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 16 :trees' - APN 01- 5 - P. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if there was a condition which provided for the common landscaping areas. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that there was a standard condition which requires establishment of a Homeowners' Association through CC&R's. Chairman Stout -asked if . any thought was given to canting the lot lines slightly to provide interest and variety. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 27, 1986 Mr. Fields replied that the rigid site plan was a concern and the staff had worked on several different options with the project engineer. However, it was determined that due to the unusual topography and size of the buildings, this was the best solution. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Chris 'Canady, 292 S. Daimler, Santa Ana, 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. Commissioner Barker admitted to being a little paranoid ;over the variation o garage doors suggested in the staff report* He was concerned that this might be misinterpreted and pointed out that the intent was that the streetscape would not be identical. He urged a conservative approach to the term 11v ri Lion". He further stated that he hoped that when staff talks to developers they would calm down any creative impulses for color materials and variety. Commissioner McNiel tanked the developer and his representatives for their cooperation during Design Review. Commissioner Chitiea stated the additions made as a result of Design 'Review made a much more acceptable project. Chairman Stout stated one; of the things he was previously concerned with in apartment projects was grided out apartments. Now that he looked at this project, he realized that the open space in the center becomes important to making this project work and his original concern had been addressed. He thought the longer elevations were very attractive and wished they could be seen better. He admitted this was a difficult piece of property and did not know how you could accomplish this and still achieve the 'open space. Based on the situation, he felt they had done the best they could but was still 'a Tittle uncomfortable about that issue. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract '1 , Canaday Company, Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, STOUT, CHITIEA CNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 27, 198E C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -18 ABUEL JABEP The establishment of a convenience market in an existing industrial business center, with a lease space of 1,9920 square feet on 1.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) , located at the northwest corner of 7th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 209-1.71-4 . Debra Meier, Ass-istant Planner, presented the staff report Commissioner Barker asked if there was a potential for the same type of problems as with the Haven Plaza project. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that staff felt comfortable that the conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit would mitigate any concerns. He pointed out that this use would not require shared parking as was the case with the Haven Plaza project Haan Abdel Jaber, applicant, concurred with the findings of the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Steve Browthy, retail parts store owner in the shopping center, stated that the major tenant in the center is a church which uses the parking spaces only once a week and occasionally in the evening and the remainder of the businesses utilize customer parking in the back of the center. He felt there was adequate parking available and supported the project There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker wanted it made clear that the owner of the shopping center recognizes the impact of this type of Conditional Use Permit',and this type of usage and were aware that this Conditional Use Permit would inhibit the future uses in the project. Ms. Meier stated the property owner did not address this issue specifically, but was aware of the issues of the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff could follow up the Commission's action with a letter to the property owner to further clarify the concern of Planning Commission. Chairman Stout suggested that a certified letter be sent to the property owner with respect to the remaining space in the center. Commissioner McNiel stated in situations such as a parts house and a convenience store, people don't do their weekly shopping and so parking impacts should be minimal . Commissioner Chitiea stated that she shared the concerns of Commissioner Barker, however, much of this center is now vacant and this use would probably enhance the businesses which exist there now. She felt comfortable with the Resolution as presented. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 27, 198 Chairman Shut stated that the problem is this is an industrially: zoned area. He was concerned that no one is building commercial in this City or very little and as a result this applicant has to go to a building that is not really designed for this type of use in that it is an industrial park, not a commercial center. He had no problem with a convenience market here, but taken into consideration that there is a tiro store which will shortly begin construction on the corner of the parcel, soon this would be a strip commercial shopping center. He stated that he had no problem with this Conditional Use Permit, but was saying there is a- serious problem with land use and we're getting into the same problem as Haven Plaza where there is an office building being used for a commerical shopping center. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the Commission' s recent action which is now before the City Council on the Industrial Specific Plan amendment identifies the ancillary uses not only along Haven but throughout the industrial area and limits it to 20 . Chairman Stout stated that this satisfied his concern. Motion. Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit -18. Motion carried by the following Vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA RUES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6-14 - HAVEN ;AVENUE INVESTORS _ 'The evelopment o one square foot o flce 66175g on .DOS cre :of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ' ), located on the east; side of Haven Avenue, approximately 550 feet south of Civic Center Drive - APN 208-15 -12 and 1 . (Continued from August 1 , 1986' meeting.) Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff' report. Chairman Stout asked if this project has adequate on-site parking. s. Meier advised that the project hason-site parking and the applicant is trying to initiate sharing four to seven spaces with parcel 4, Chairman Stout asked if the Commission could act on this project without the parking situation being resolved. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 2 , 198E I Ms. Meier advised that staff was provided with a copy of a parking agreement signed by both parties. Commissioner cHiel suggested that the agreement be reviewed as a condition of approval. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Sonny Mascarenas, project architect, offered to address any building ;design concerns. There were no comments relative to the design. Joe Carmen, 7365 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, advised that a signed and recorded reciprocal parking agreement was in existence for this parcel , Chairman Stout asked if a lot line adjustment to get fours more spades would be more advantageous than a parking agreement. r. carmen replied that the parcels were changing ownership so he did not see how a lot line adjustment could be obtained. Mr. Carmen additionally objected to a condition of approval requiring a right-turn pocket entering the proposed driveway at the north property line.. He stated that the street is extra wide at that location and did not see the need for the pocket since it would reduce the amount of landscaping by taking out part of a parkway. He also objected o the requirement for undergrounding overhead utilities on Haven Avenue. He advised that the cost of and rgrounding would be approximately 1 % of the value of the property, and felt placing that kind of foe on a one acre site created an extreme hardship. There ;were no further public comments. Commissioner Barker asked the Engineering Department to address the right turn pocket issue. arrye Hanson, Seniors Civil Engineer, advised that this was a condition placed on the project by the Traffic Engineer, who was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Hanson stated he could not address issue except that the it was � needed to get the people out of a possible north-south lane. He further stated that he was not aware of a natural widening of Haven at the location of this site ; Chairman Stout stated that a right turn pocket begins approximately in this area for Civic Center give. He stated that this driveway has the same problem as the one in Barton Plaza I in that the driveway is: in the center of the transition where it widens out into the pocket and crakes it difficult to negotiate a turn. He asked for discussion regarding the utility issue. Planning Commission Minutes =B_ August 27, 1986 Commissioner McNiel stated that a determination was rude a long time ago to attempt to underground utilities in the City. He was of the opinion that the Commission has to maintain a posture that utilities must be undergrounded or an in-lieu fee required, otherwise the dndergrounding will never be accomplished. Regarding the turn pocket, his concern was that the pockets would eventually have to be installed at the City' s expense. Chairman Stout stated that there is a certain point where the major streets obviously need turn pockets, but if turn pockets are required for every small drive, them would be 50 of therm He felt the amount of traffic turning in the driveway would probably not be that great. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that without the Traffic Engineer being at the meeting to discuss the issue, the Commission might want to continue the item to the next meeting, or modify the language to read this condition may be waived subject to the City Engineers approval. The other option would be tether the Commission felt that removal of the amount of landscaping and the impact that it makes is significant. Chairman Stout asked if there should be a driveway there or not. Commissioner Chitiea `stated that this issue was discussed Design Review and the driveway was determined to be necessary for the adjacent parcel to the north. She felt it Might- create more traffic problems for the center if the driveway was deleted. Commissioner Barker wanted some kind of reasonable radius to allow people to enter the driveway without having to be creative in their driving. He was looking for some sort of radius that would be a compromise to at least allow a safe ingress and egress from Haven. Commissioner Chitiea did not want to see the landscaping eliminated. She stated that if this driveway was a major entry to the center, a deceleration lane might make sense. However, since there wouldn't be much traffic entering this far north of the project, she did not feel the deceleration lane would be necessary. Commissioner McNiel stated he saw a lot of problems in that he could see the necessity for a lot of turn pockets at a later date all up and down Haven at the City' s expense. His preference was the turn pocket. - Brad Buller, City Planner,; advised that this condition to require turn pockets had been placed on some previously approved projects on Haven. Motion: Moved by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 86- 4 with modifications to delete the right hand turn pocket with the radius to reflect that which was demonstrated on the plans, and a reciprocal parking agreement to the satisfaction o the p g _ _ City Planner and City Attorney. Motion was seconded by Chitlea and carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 27, 1986 AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner McNiel stated that his No vote was because- turn pockets would be necessary in the future, and would have to be installed at the City's expense. I. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW C-O - GROAT; - Appeal of staff's decision denying-t e �nsta ation o a sate ite ash antenna on the side of The Exchange building located at the southeast corner of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road - APN 7-01- . (Continued from August 1 , 1986 meeting. ) Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Richard Crowell, owner of the building, stated that the Mr. Groat had asked his permission to install the dish and it had been determined that the best location for installation would be on the side of the building with large trees to shield the view. He advised that his permission for installation had been on the condition that permits be obtained from the City, however, due to misunderstanding the dish was installed prior to obtaining the ;proper permits. The permit was filed for and the trees were purchased to shield the dish. He advised that the decision was made not to install the satellite dish on the ground due to the possibility of vandalism, which was a problem in the center. He felt the dish was totally invisible on the side of the building. e presented the Commission with photographs and stated that the dish is truly screened and is painted the same color of the building. Commissioner Barker asked ;if the Sycamore trees always look like they do now. Mr. Buller replied that they don't; they have a tendency to grow much taller and broader than they appear in the photographs and do drop their leaves. He suggested that an evergreen may have been more appropriate. John Groat, applicant, did not think the satellite dish was visible and advised that it would be extremely costly to move.. He asked for the Commission's approval of the request. Curt Groat, stated that they would be more than happy to plant evergreen trees rather than the deciduous trees if that was the direction of the Commission. He felt the moving of the satellite would create more problems than it would solve. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes - O August 27, 198E Commissioner Barker stated the Commission should explore the intent of the Development Code regulations, which was that the satellite dishes not be seen and they should blend in with the environment. He pointed out that before the dish was painted, it was visible and that the Cede requires that it be screened, which it was not at the time of the code violation. He felt the intent of the Code could be met without placing the dish on the ground, and suggested that consideration be given to approving the request on the condition that the trees be of a type, size and density that would guarantee screening, subject to the approval of the City Planner. Chairman Stout stated that when he initially saw the satellite dish, his first inclination was to deny the request However, since that time it has been painted and the trees have been added and he thought the bask intent of the Development Code had been uet. He had no problem with the Sycamore trees, but would agree with Commissioner Barker's suggestion. Commissioner McNiel stated that with the steps taken by the applicant, he did not feel the satellite dish was visible and concurred that the intent of the Code had been met. He was not concerned with the use of Sycamoretrees and felt they were appropriate. Commissioner Chiiea was satisfied that the intent of the Code had been root. Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , to approve the applicant's appeal subject to the conditions that the satellite dish be maintained and painted consistent with the building exterior, and that the location, size, type and density of the trees to screen the dish he to the satisfaction and approval of the City Planner. AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARBER, MCNIEL, C ITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 9':0 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR FIVE OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL SITES T NE TUMME_RC IAL I E Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -11a August i7, 1986 11 Site No. I west Side of Archibald north of Base Line south of Lomita .58 acres Chairman Stout pointed out that this site was the subject of considerable discussion during a recent Development District Amendment request. Commissioner Barker remembered that when the Commission was working on the Senior Citizen apartment complex on the west, a tremendous amount of time was spent justifying its placement there and making sure around it within walking distance were certain types of development. The Senior Citizens were to be Provided away of getting groceries without having to =drive to a store and very specifically in this location, the Commission talked about keeping office professional at this location so that we could have doctors, dentists, and services such as this in that area. This parcel was not considered as -a tiny little piece taken out context, the total of the area was considered to be compatible with the Senior Citizen complex. He maintained that the Commission spent a lot of time and had a lot of discussion on this area in an attempt to make sure the Senior Citizen complex was functional so that people could walk o and receive services within a relatively short difference. To place this area into High or medium high housing, he felt was totally illogical. when taking the entire area into consideration, he favored leaving the designation as Office/Professional. hairran Stout recalled a lengthy debate at the Commission level and the determination was rude that there was one too many shopping; centers at that intersection already even before the last shopping center rezoning across the street from this site. His inclination was to recommend leaving the current designation. Commissioner Chitiea stated that Commissioner Barker was correct in his arguments and she saw no logical reason to change the designation. Commissioner Mc' iel stated that he had advocated retaining the Office Professional sites in the City for a long time. He pointed out that the Office Professional develops slower than the rest of the sites and it is not known what the City will need in the future in tees of Office 'Professional , which he felt should be a consideration in reviewing the remaining sites. He concurred with leaving the site as it it currently designated. Commissioner Barker spoke in general terms regarding the amendments and stated he understood that modifications were made to the Haven Corridor which may be one of the justificationsfor moving office professional sites around. But by removing the office professionals and by doing the wrong thing in some of these sites he was concerned that additional housing would be created and the only type of housing which be logical would be that of a higher density. That higher density is not what was; planned for initially he was concerned that. problem would be created. He was not in favor of bringing in any more high density projects. It was the consensusof the Commission to recommend that Site 1 remain Office Professional Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 27, 1986 Site No. 2 - Office Professional Site on the south side ;of Base Line at Ameth st S acres Chairman Stout stated he saw no reason to change the designation at this time, Herman Rempel, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that one part of this piece of property belongs to hire and it is actually four parcels with only one access at the lower south end of the property which would not lend itself to dividing the parcels into any decent size lots. He advised that most of the people around it would like to see it stay as it is and recommended that it remain Office Professional Commissioners Chitiea and McNiel stated that their positions were consistent with Site No. 1 . i Commissioner Barker .stated the only alternative he could see if Office Professional is determined to be inappropriate would the the Cow Density Residential'. At this time he agreed it should remain OP It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend that Site No. 2 remain Office Professional designation. Site No. 3 - Southwest corner of Hellman and Base Line .S ages Chairman Stout stated that he was not sure what to do with this site. In the past he felt that some serious mistakes had been made with respect to the back half of the property, which grade it difficult to know what to do with the front 'half. Obviously with the access road running down the middle of it, it rakes it difficult to develop as any thing. He suggested that it could make nice extension of the park. Commissioner McHiel stated this is a bad intersection and agreed that this site is difficult. He pointed out that the'office professional across the street by the gas station is a difficult situation but it is working. To change this piece of property from what it is to something else would only n and h d� i t should b' magnify a problem which exists a_ way, a _ e d not think s _ l e changed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that higher density would not be appropriate and with the access through the property she did not think that neighborhood commercial could work well with the traffic. .She concurred that the Office Professional designation should remain. Commissioner Barker agreed with the statement regarding Neighborhood Commercial and his position on increasing the density had already been expressed. Of the three choices given, the least of the evils would be Office Professional , although he recognized that this could be a problem at this location. If there was another choice, he would like to see that. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 27, 1'98 It was the consensus of the Commission that Site No. 3 remain Office Professional. Site No. 4 - Northeast Corner of San Bernardino Road and Vineyard 6. 6 ages Chairman Stet Mated that this is one site which he did not think should be Office Professional since it was surrounded by residential uses. He was net sure ghat to do with it. Commissioner Barker suggested that the Commission consider this ;site: on the basis of Low Density Residential. Commissioner McNiel agreed and felt this would be the most appropriate direction in which to start. Jeff Sceranka, Rancho Cucamonga: resident, advised that he was a broker on this Piece of property at one time and thought the consideration on this property is the traffic flows up or down Vineyard trying to get into the parcel if it is designated for office. He felt there was no way to get access for a service type of use. He suggested that the best chance of developing it would e to combine it with the use to the east and make it the sane kind of use so that if someone wanted to develop, it could be done' as one large project. Chairman Stout suggested that it be lowed at for residential use in either Low or Low Medium. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the traffic at the Low Medium designation. Commissioner Barker stated this was also_a concern, but would have no problem with looking at both designations. He suggested that the public hearing be noticed on Lowy with the understanding that the Commission would like information on both designations. This was the consensus of the Commission. Site No. 6 - Southwest corner San Bernardino Road and Vine and . acres Site No. 6 - South side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Ramona . 6 'acres : Commissioner Barker stated that both of these sites are part of the. Foothill Corridor Study and felt it was rather illogical to tell everyone else who comes before the City to wait ;for a whine until completion of the study, and then to have some type of separate type of hearing for the City. He recommended that the decision on both of these, sites be withheld until completion of the Study. Chairman Strout concurred. Commissioner Chitiea stated that since she was on the Foothill Corridor Study Committee, she felt it make perfect sense to withhold decision at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 27, 19 i Commissioner McHiel concurred that this is the logical direction. ,- It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend that decision on the appropriate land use for Sites 5 and 6 be withheld until the completion of the Foothill Corridor Study. PUBLIC CiMTS Ronald Hancock,; construction supervisor for the Automotive Division of Lucky Stores, the parent company for iCragen Auto, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the repainting of the Kragen Auto Store in the Ceco Shopping Center. Mr. Hancock stated that the store had been painted consistent with their new national image. He Mated that approval to repaint the exterior of the building had been granted: by the property owner and was not aware that approval needed to be granted by the City. He further stated that 203 stores in California had been painted in this theme; and this was the first time he had to appear before a City to gain approval . He asked to leave the signae s it is and leave the gray background Just over the sign area with the remainder of the building painted as it was before. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that applicant would: be required to submit an application for a modification to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 9-01 in order to change the colors, which would require a public hearing. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised the applicant that he was entitled o file an application for modification and that the Commission would be acting this evening in an advisory position. Chairman Stout stated that the-Co ission had done a tremendous amount of work n the City on the Design Review process, and it does no gaud to go through this process if a year or two later someone cones in and changes it. Further, there are a lot of people in the City ;who built their shopping centers in conformance with these standards and it is not a matter of this one individual situation, its a matter of fairness to all these people who have gone to all this trouble to add extra money for architectural improvements and refinements to give a , pleasing aesthetic overall shopping center building program. He stated his advise would be that the applicant would be wasting his time to ask for a"change to what he was requesting$ Commissioner Barker stated that projects go through a Design Review process in this City for some times a number of months with fine tuning before they are presented to the full Planning Commission. His opinion was that if these criteria can be changed after this review, the total of that process would be wasted; we no longer have a design project we have wasted the time and Planning Commission Minutes -1 August 27, 1986 involvement of all the architects, Commissioners, and designers and anyone else involved. He felt it is illogical to go through that kind of process and then once everything is completed, someone could make changes in any manner they pleased. Commissioner McNiel supported this position and stated he saw no advantage for Mr. Hancock to pursue his request. Commissioner Chitiea asked if Mr. Hancock was aware that there were certain commitments in this particular type of center, there was a theme involved, and that this was not a free standing building on its own separate parcel . Mr. Hancock replied that he was not aware of this. Chairman Stout advised that Mr. Hancock could rest assured that the City would not allow a rival auto parts store to come in and paint their buildings so that they attract more business than he does because the standards apply to everyone. He additionally stated that there is a philosophy behind the City's Sign Ordinance that advertising is not one of the things that signs do; signs identify things. All the businesses on Foothill comply with that particular philosophy other than a couple of historical ones such as Thomas Winery and what he saw was an attempt by this sign to advertise. Mr. Hancock stated that the violation indicated that he had until August 28th to comply, and he would not be able to obtain the funds to repaint the building within that length of time. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff could work with Mr. Hancock and if staff could have a letter of commitment stating whether Kragen was willing to comply or if they were going to pursue the modification, staff could work out the time frame subject to the City Planner's approval. David Michael , representing the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center, addressed the Commission regarding the trellis work in front of the Edwards Cinema. He asked to temporarily postpone the trellis work until the time of construction of the Food Court. He advised that funds would not be released for this work until occupancy of the cinema and he did not have the dollars to put the trelliswork in until the refinancing package goes through. Chairman Stout recalled quite a battle over the trellis as to, whether it should be there in the first place and there was quite a discussion on the Commission's part that it should be there because they wanted to emulate the Front of the building which has the integrated trellis structures on it. He had difficulty in understanding how the trellis could not be integrated as part of the theater unless the applicant didn't intend on doing it in the first place. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 27, 1986 Mir. Michael stated he intended on doing the trellis work but it had only been recently that he asked Glen Gellatly the architect, and Fong and Associates, the landscape architects, to come up with an alternative plan that would be even better than the trellis work. He advised that certain cots of this project are contained within the financing for various buildings and the building to the 'right of the cinema and the food court contained the financing for some of the on-site items, one of which was the trellis work. He stated he was only asking for a 150 to 180 day deferral. He suggested conditioning the occupancy of the Food Court on the completion of the trellis work. Chairman Stout stated that he did not want to set a dangerous precedent of separating parts of buildings off when occupancy is the only key that the City has for tying completion of what is suppose to done to a-building. He was not willing to postpone the trellis work. Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood the problem, and did not feel it was that great of an :issue. He felt they would proceed and any other building could be conditioned and had no objection to the request: Commissioner Chitiea stated she understood the situation but was concerned that something may happen to hold up construction of the food court. She di not support the request Commissioner Barker Mated that from a project four years ago of which he was really excited,; its come to a; place where his stomach turns every time he hears' the nave, Mr. Michael used the term misunderstanding or miscommunication, but he felt that misrepresentation may have been appropriate at some time. He stated that he was not implying that what Mr. Michael said is not true, his presentation had been professional and positive in approach and nature. But through experience he had gotten to a place where there is a tremendous amount of distrust on his part. He did not know what leverage the City has to guarantee that the food court would be constructed in six or nine months. He needed assurance there is a guarantee that the trellis work would go in Mr. Michael started that at this point in time this is his project and would appreciate the opportunity to prove his integrity. He felt this was a minor issue, but he was stuck and wou.-ld have to put his integrity on the line. Commissioner Barker asked when the trellis work would go up. r. Michael replied it would , e installed during construction of the food court, which will break ground by the first of November and would need six months to build. Chairman Stout asked if the food court had done through plan check. r. Michael' replied that the food court had gone through the first plan check, and had been holding off on the last: check until he found out where this issue stands Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 27, 1986 Commissioner Mciel asked if there would be a way to place a definite date for completion of the trellis work. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff strongly believed that the trellis work should be constructed prior to occupancy of the theater. However, he advised did discuss with Nor. Michael various options such as prior to occupancy o the food court or a cash deposit to the City to insure completion of the food court and right of entry for the City to complete i . e indicated that all the options have their draw backs. Chairman Stout pointed out that the food court is an approved project on a separate legal parcel ; therefore, it would require a public hearing to go back and change the conditions to reflect completion of the trellis work. He stated that this is basically a 2-2 vote and asked what that would mean. Ralph Hanson, Deputy.City Attorney, advised that it would simply be a no vote with no action taken. Further, the Commission was acting in an advisory position at this time since there has been no formal modification request. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by: Barker, seconded by Stout,; unanimously carried, to adjourn. The planning Commission adjourned to the September a, 1986 joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, beginning t 7 p.m. 10; 5 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary ;i Planning Commission Minutes ®18- August: 7, 196 L ____..__._ CITY OF 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 13, 1986 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting ofthe City of Rancho Cucainonga Planning Commission to order at 7: 0 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 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; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil , Senior Planner; Dino Putrinb, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, carried, to appove the Minutes of June 1.1, 1986.- Commissioner McNiel was absent from that meeting, therefore, abstained from vote. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried:, to approve ;the Minutes of July 9, 1986, with an amendment by Commissioner Chitiea to page 4 to clarify her statement. I CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESIMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW S-SROADRUNNER - The- dove opment of a 920 square f oot industrial building o'r a truck repair/maintenance service business on 3.5 acres of hand in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) located at the north side of Whittram, 600 feet west of Pecan Avenue - APN 209-211-40. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 9225 - HILL,/WILLIAMS - A review of building elevations for 46 ing i y detached homes within an existing residential subdivision of 69 lots on 15 acres in the. Low Residential District located on the northwest corner of Highland and Carnelian - APN 102-621_0 through 71. C. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE'- TRACT 10088 - FRIDM HOMES _ A residential on subdivisi of 8 acres into singe family lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac) ' generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 2 1-071-14, 37, and 45. Chairman Stout requested removal of" Item 8 for discussion. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A and C of the: Consent Calendar. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 92 - HILL/WILLIAMS Chairman Stout was concerned With the perimeter wall treatment on Carnelian and felt the conditions of approval were vague. He requested clarification that the intent is that the perimeter walls are to be tan stucco, consistent with the existing walls along Carnelian. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt Stem 8 of the Consent Calendar with direction to the City Planner that at time f submittal of detailed ;plans, the perimeter walls along Carnelian are to be of tan stucco, consistent with the existing walls. PUBLIC HEARINGS . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-09 - AMENDMENT - LDS CHURCH The request to amend the approved crn i to ono se Permit a 605ig the installation o four -foot high and two SO-foot high light fixtures for the northerly softball and soccer fields located at 6829 Etiwanda Avenue, north of Victoria Street ` - APN 227-06-65 and 23. (Continued from duly 23, 1986 meeting.) Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 1 , 198 Chairman Stoutopened the public hearing. Dave Long, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and the lighting issuess. Mr. Long suggested that, based upon the lighting report, a sound blanket could be used to mitigate the noise level . He indicated that he had contacted Etiwanda School District and had reached an agreement that the noise level- of the public address system would either be reduced or eliminated. He advised that he had no problem with not installing a public address sound system for use at these fields. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the hours could be rearranged so that games were not being played late in the evening. Mr. Long replied that playoff games are generally played during the months of July and must be scheduled after working hours to accommodate the participants. He indicated that the games begin after working hours, but sometimes are required to go into overtime. He further stated that limiting the evening hours to Fridays would conflict. with current church programs and requested that the sports program be allowed on Thursday evenings. Beth Davidson, 13018 Larrera Avenue, Etiwanda stated concerns with the use of the public address system. She urged that the Commission insure the surrounding neighbors that the noiselevel would be mitigated. There were no further comments, therefore the; public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that if the block wall was engineered for 6 feet and the two feet could not be added, he would concur that the sound blanket would be satisfactory; however, felt that the sound blanket should be approved by the City Planner. He was not in favor of inhibiting the programs to only the weekends and was satisfied with the 'evening hours as long as they did not go particularly late. He supported the applicant' s request to allow the sports program to occur on Thursday evenings. He asked for discussion on the length of time Commissioner McNiel supported increasing length of time to 10:00 p.m. for evening games. He stated that it is almost impossible for games to end before that time during playoffs. Commissioner Chitiea objected to 1000 p.m. during school months. ; Commissioner Hempel 'agreed that during the winter months 10:00 p.m. was too late. Mr. Long indicated that he would not object to limiting the hours to 9:00 p.m. during the winter months.' Planning Commission Minutes -3 August 13, 1986 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-09 with modifications to include limiting the sports program to Thursday and Saturday evenings; sound blanket required to the satisfaction of the City Planner; and games to end at g:OO during winter months, IO:OO during summer months. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - - TARGET STORES` a The establishment of a temporary of ice trai er as an ancillary use to an existing warehouse facility on 6.4 acres of land within the GeneralIndustrial/Rail Served (Subarea IO:) District, located on the east side of Pittsburg Avenue, between Newport Drive 'and /th Street - APN g 6-46. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that he did not support this request and felt that the trailer should be removed. He did not see the need for a' temporary office trailer to house only three people. He pointed out that. the City has spent lot of time with its industrial area in an effort to make it an area everyone is proud of. He did not consider this request consistent with requirements for the industrial area. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with location of the trailer as it encroached into the drive area. She concurred with Chairman Stout that approval of this request would not be consistent with the City"s requirements for the industrial area; therefore, would not be 'in favor of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner McNiel stated that he supported the request. Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Rempel , to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use ;Permit 85-36. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, REMPEL, BARKER NOES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried '3 Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 13, 1986 F ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12571 w- LEWIS NAMES - The tota eve opnrent residential subdivision f ih Low Medium Residential District ( - du/ac) within the Terra Vista Planned Community into 151 lots, located on the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue; and Terra Vista Parkway - APN 1077.091® g. In addition, applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove the existing; windrow to accommodate the Milliken Avenue'alignment. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Cook indicated that condition 12 of the Resolution was missing then end of the sentence and should read "subject to review and approval by the City Planner". Chairman Stout opened the public hearing: ,John Melcher, representing Lewis Homes, concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. With respect to the landscape treatment at the end of the streets to provide an ;open view into :the interior f the cul-de-sac,, Mr. Melchor informed the Commission that the current residents of those streets had approached Lewis Homes with a request that the streets be closed off. He indicated that Lewis Homes would formally approach the City with that request at a later time. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion; Moved y Chtiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12671, with the modification to Planning condition 12 to complete the sentence to read "subject to review ,and approval by the City Planner". Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REM EL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout announced that the following items were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission: G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP; 950 - DICKER-wARMINCTON - A di vision of` .3 acres into parc_M within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN 202-801-25, 26. (Related project. CUP 6-05 Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 1 , 1986 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT o-C - DIC R- WARM NET N - The level cprnent of an integrated' shopping center of approximately 136,730 square ' feet which includes six ( ) satellite buildings where one satellite building is a one drive-in facility on 1 . acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN C -801- g, 26. (Related project: Ply g C4') Barbara Kral] , Associate Civil Engineer, presented the Parcel Map staff report. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the Conditional Use Permit staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Jerry Dicker, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He concurred with the findings of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval . Chairman Stout stated that the City has experienced problems with shopping centers m building e making changes to the u7ldang :architecture and landscaping after period. of time. He asked if Mr. Dicker would object to a condition of approval prohibiting theses types of changes without prior approval by the City. Mr. Dicker indicated that he would not object to this condition and was mare of the situation which exists with Kragen Auto. He stated that his company is currently working with Kragen to see that the situation is resolved. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated that the project design had come a long way since the project was first submitted. He was concerned with architectural or landscaping changes and stated that a condition should be placed on the Resolution that the site is to be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved development plans. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the treatment of walls, and stated that all free standing walls and fences should have decorative treatment, such s stucco, ;which would be consistent with the exterior building materials. Rarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the parking agreement had been addressed in the Parcel Map resolution; however, had not been included in the resolution for the Conditional Use Permit, He suggested that the Commission consider 'adding the condition to assure that on-site circulation and enforcement was adequately addressed in the CC&Rs. Motions Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9504. Motion carried by the following vote Planning Commission Minutes - - August 1 , 1986 A1E1: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA,' BARKER, MCNIEL STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86® , with amendments to include conditions to require that the site be developed ;and maintained in accordance with approved development plans; freestanding walls and fences are to have decorative treatment, such as stucco, consistent with the exterior building materials, and a -provision in the CC&Rs for oar-site circulation and parking enforcement. 8:30 p.m. - Planning; Commission Recessed 8: 0 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 10007 - SURACOTE INCORPORATED A ivision of acres of In into 2 parcels within t e General Industrial Area _(Subarea ) , located on the north side of Arrow Highway, east of Maple Avenue - APN 08- S1-1 . Barbara Krall , Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. `Phil Addington, representing the -applicant, stated an objection with the condition of approval requiring utility undergrounding and stated that the cost of this condition would be enormous'. He requested that the condition be deleted. There were no further comments, therefore the ,public hearing was closed. Barre Hanson, ; Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the policy for utility undergrounding states that utilities are to be undergrounded'or an in-lieu fee obtained. He indicated that in this particular ease, the applicant is being required to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to one-half the cast of under ounding on the: south side of Arrow Highway. Commissioner Repel stated that the policy must be maintained consistently and could not support deletion of the condition unless the policy is changed. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 13, 1986 Commissioner McNiel stated that the undergrounding policy had been established by the Commission in an effort to upgrade the City. The only way to achieve underrounding at this point is to require new development to begin the task. He did not support the request to delete the condition. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in reality, the undergr unding condition results in a hardship to almost every applicant; however, felt that the policy roust be maintained consistently. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the ;Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 10007. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL CHITIEA, BARKER, REMPEL STOUT NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout " announced that the following items, were related and would be heard concurrently by the Planning Commission- J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND [DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT Ho- 1 - BR CK DEVELOPMENT - A eve opment istrict Amen mint rom Off ace ro' essioana to Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) for 3.67 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 19th Street APN 202-1091-21. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1: 53 BROCK DEVELOPMENT The total dive opeet o acres o an 7n the Medium Res i dent il District ( -1 du/ac) into a 2 lot residential' subdivision for the development of a 64 unit multi-family condominium complex, located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 19th Street - APN 202-1091.21.. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Gary Mitchell, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the; project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the location of the driveway and was i favor of getting the driveways away from the open spade. He was concerned 'with the open space provided within the project and felt it was inadequate. Commissioner Chitiea supported the concept of, open space in the center;of the project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 1 , 196E Chairman Stout was concerned that the landscaping and irrigation of the portion of the street which would be vacated as a result of the realignment of Archibald. He suggested that a lien agreement be required to assure maintenance. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 86-01 to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:` COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13353, with a requirement for a lien agreement for landscaping and irrigtion of the portion of the street :vacated as a result of the Archibald realignment. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:' COMMISSIONERS BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES:: COMMISSIONERS: RMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Rempel stated his no vote was due to the location of the driveways and felt they were hazardous. Chairman Stout advised that the following items were: related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. L. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 86-0 - CITY' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ A request to amend t e Development District Map frog "Love" d'u'/i to Low Medium ( -8 u/ac) for 13.5 acres of land, looted on the south side of Feron, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 09-085-0 , 03, 14. U. NORTH TOWN PARK DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT Lisa Wininger,; Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the Development District Amendment. Bill Holley, Community Services Director presented the North Town Park Density Bonus Agreement report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -9 August 1 , 1986 tl ® ��� M • �' � Commissioner McNiel stated that the City would sell have leverage when the project comes back before Design Review; therefore, was not concerned with not seeing the; product at this time. He pointed out that typically people come to the Planning Commission greetings are angry with a project; apparently, they attended the previous meetings and were satisfied with the proposal otherwise they would be here. Commissioner Rmpel stated he had a great many reservations. The fact that there is no community representation this evening, was no reel indication that they were happy with the proposal ,; ,just that they are beginning to give up, e felt the park should be integrated with the project; simply cutting off a portion of the parcel and masking it a park with the remainder faily high density housing it that area of City could have some serious problems. He thought a more creative use of the property could have been accomplished. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mciel , to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 8-0 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS BARKER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -carried Chairman Stout announced that; Items M and p were related and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. M. VARIANCE 86-03 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK A request to reduce the front yard setback for the devei'opment o a 4,DOO square foot office addition to an existing 4,800 square foot office building on 1.44 acres of land within the General Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman Avenue - APN 08-15-01. (Related project: DR 88-17) O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88'- 7 a VINEYARD ;BANK he deve opment of a 14;005 square foot o ice a dition to an existing 4,800 square foot building on 1.44 acres of land within the General Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman> Avenue - APN 8-15-01. (Related project: VA 88-0 ) Dino Putrio, Assistant Planner, presented the staff reports Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Tom Harris, 136 gth Street, Upland, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Planning Commission Minutes 11- August 13, 1986 Steven Sensenbach, Vineyard Bank, stated concerns with a ,Condition of the Development Review which 'required utility undergrounding. He stated that at the time this project was submitted to the City, this requirement was, not in effect. He asked that the bank be allowed to enter into a lien agreement to underground the utilities at some time in the future® i There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that in light of the Foothill Corridor Study currently underway in the City, he would caner that it would make more sense at this time to; require a `lien agreement for utility undergrounding. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with the landscaping ` treatment. She suggested that the landscaping extend around to the lusman side of the project Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Variance86-03 with an added condition requiring the extension of the landscaping around the Vlusm n side of the project. Motion carried by the following vote`: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, BARKER, tCNIEL, RE PEL,. STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution` approving Environmenal ,assessment and Development Review 86-17, with inclusion of a lien agreement for utility undergrounding. Motion carried by the, following' vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NINE carried N. REVISIONS TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN - CITY OF ;RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Reconsi deration of Research and Development use stun aids a the potential of authorizing Research and Development uses along Haven Avenue within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended the Commission consider' the selection of Alternate A. . and further recommended that research' services should be allowed in Subareas where light manufacturing is allowed under the proposed office provisions. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 13, 1986 I 'I Chairman Stout 'asked if the C would be cumulative to the commercial uses or if it would be total for bath uses. Mr. Marren advised that it would be C total . Chairman Stout asked if there Was language which would state that the total of ancillary uses shall not exceed C Brad 'Buller advised that there was language which stated that the purpose of this section is to set a maximum provision and goes on to state that a total of 0 of the total building or business area. Chairman Stout asked if it applied to the Research and Development hybrid, or a general statement which applies to the entire overlay district. r. Warren advised that it could apply to both. Chairman Stout Mated that he also felt the language should specifically state that the cumulative is no more than C of the cumulative of all ancillary uses. He felt this would clarify the intent that C is to be pure office use. He referred to the Chart on 3-1 which indicated that fast food sales are conditionally permitted on Haven and stated that he thought they were not permitted 1 Can Coleman, Senior" Planner, stated that he believed the discussion was that fast foods were permitted if attached to a structure; free standing buildings were not permitted. Mr. Warren advised that the language in this revision was drafted to require the ancillary use to be within a structure which houses the primary use. Chairman Stout : asked staff to research the Haven Avenue Overlay District language and if it did not specifically state that free standing fast food services are prohibited, some language be drafted for adoption if possible prior to the C uncil`'s adoption of this revision. He asked staff to describe the differences' between the philosophies of Alternative A and` B. Mr. Warren explained that Alternative B showed Research' and : Development divided between two distinct groups, office and manufacturing, with commercial having professional service and administration under its land use types. He advised that this is the format approved by the Commission to date. Alternate was in response to the City Counci'l ' s discussion and the Council had referred the item to the Commission for discussion of a hybrid where Research Development is not defined as a use in an by itself. Commissioner Chitiea stated that "hazardous waste` materials"" in the Research and Development section appeared to have been blocked out. She ask for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - August 1 , 1986 Mr. Warren explained that in previous revisions there were some minor staff corrections and that this section was actually highlighted to alert the Commission that this section had been added. Chairman Stout stated for the record that staff had provided him with the language in the Haven Avenue Overlay District relative to fast foods which alleviated htis 'concern. He then opened the public hearing, Gary Mitchell, representing the Economic Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, recommended that if research and development is permitted within the Haven Avenue Overlay District it be allowed subject to being ancillary to a permitted use, ; that it meet all the City's ether performance standards, and that they be confined to a total area within a building not to exceed "a total of 2 of floor area within any one; building. He stated loading dock facilities and other types of daily activities which might be incompatible with office type uses were also concerns; Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, did not feel additional 'language was needed to define ancillary uses but that the existing language needed to be clarified. He" felt"that ;as long as the composite is not greater than 20%, no additional language was necessary. His opinion was that any ancillary activity is acceptable as long as it does not affect noise, vibration, odor, traffic or any other items which would make the other B occupants sensitive. He suggested that the more words which provisions contain, the harder it is to understand the interpretation. He ;suggested that no more than per tenant with an aggregate of 20 per building was all control that was need. He felt this was a simple statement that everyone has a better chance of understanding. Lowell Gomes, Rancho Cucamonga, supported staff's recommendation and stated that it basically incorporated the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce. Tim Beedle, BC Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed with Mr. Barton's statement dealing with building area to avoid conflict with interpretation. He supported staff''s recommendation with this clarification. Where were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout poled the Commission on the selection of Alternate A.2. There was a unanimous consensus that Alternate A.2 was to be recommended to the City Council . NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 13, 1986 P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -14 - HAVEN AVENUE INVESTORS - The development of one 796 square foot office. building on 1703 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea ) located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately Sao feet south of Civic Center give - APN 08-15 -1 and 13. (Continued from duly 23, 1986 meeting. ) Chairman Stout announced that th e e applicant f _ cant or this item requested a _ continuance to the August 27, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-18 - L&M DEVELOPMENT The deve opment of a 40,000 square foot off ice building on acres of land within the Office Professional District, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Turner Avenue;- APN 08- 31-30. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Sonny Mascarenas, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Barker stated that when this project came before the 'Design Review he was concerned with the landscape treatment along Foothill Boulevard. He stated that he would recommend that portions:of the landscape area along Foothill be greater than the 'street grade so that the` view coming down Foothill would not be a tong expanse of wall . _ _ Commissioner Rerpel agreed and ;suggested that Planning condition 4 be modified to address this concern. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel,; to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment' and 'Development Reviews 86- 8, with an amendment to Planning Condition 4 to require portions of the landscape area along Foothill Boulevard to be designed greater than the street grade. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS RE PEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIA, STOUT NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE ®carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 1 , 18 R PRELIMINARY REVIEW - RISINGER - a consistency determination between the Foothill orri r Interim Policies and a proposal to occupy an existing structure for the operation of retail 'floor covering sales in the General Commercial District located at 8291 Foothill Boulevard - APH 7- 1.1 - 4. Debra' eier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if staff had attempted to calculate the actual buildable area on this site if all setbacks were mot. s. Meier replied that she did calculate the area and there is very minimal building area after the 45 feet of dedication required on Foothill. Chairman Stout asked the square footage of the existing building. Ms. Meier indicated that the square footage was approximately 900 square feet. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Scott Risinger, applicant and owner of Rainbow Floor Covering, gave an overview of his request. He advised that he realized that this was a nonconforming building at this time; however, the property owner eventually intends to build a building on the site which would also include the land on which the ; adjacent power tool shop is located. He advised that he had obtained a business license for this Foothill location on May 0, 1986. Chairman Stout asked where the floor covering business is currently located. Mr. Riinger replied that the business is currently located in Upland between Benson and Central . He asked if there would be any; way he could seek approval to allow him to open his business Chairman Stout advised that the City is doing a complete study and plan for Foothill Boulevard which will probably call for some very extensive revisions to what currently exists on foothill . He advised that the problem with this site is that it is unusually shaped;. He pointed out that there would be some general things that creed to be done such as the widening of the street and 45 foot landscaping setbacks which are required along Foothill . These would take a large piece of property. He advised that the situation in this area is that there' are a bunch of small lots which may eventually have to be combined in order to make them viable. r. Risinger stated ,that he would merely like to get into the building and begin operation; when the Foothill Plan' is approved, he would be willing to comply with whatever needs to be done. He pointed out that the building currently is an eyesore to the community. He -indicated that he had resurfaced >! and restried the parking area and painted the building. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 13, 1986 Commissioner Chitiea pointed out that something that is being seriously considered with the Foothill plan; is that this section of Foothill will be primarily a restaurant row. She advised that if ;the City does move in that direction, the floor covering; business would" not be in a suitable place and the use would be inappropriate. John Upton,- property owner, advised that the property has currently been cleaned up. With regard to access, he stated that access from the Magic Lamp down to the underpass is, such that if you get in the right hand lane you do not obstruct traffic at all. He advised that he also owns the tool sales shop which is adjacent to this site and his intent was to :eventually consolidate the two properties. He advised that he had a -year lease with Century 21 Pools. The pool company ran into financial difficulty and could not meet the rental payments. He advised that the building had been vacant since February Hth. He leased the building to Mr. pisinger and told him that he couldn't move in until the building was cleaned up and he had a permit from the City to operate. He advised that Mr. Risinger had invested money and he had also invested money; however, no major modifications had been done. He indicated that if he couldn't lease the building, it would; cut off 50 percent of his only income and his only recourse would be to sue Century 21 pools. He did not think that using the existing sprinkler system, putting some landscaping on the corner and operating out of the building would in any way interfere with the final Foothill Plan. Further,..- when the final plan is adopted, he would comply with what is required. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Barker advised that the City had placed' into operation preliminary reviews and consistency'determinations so that people wouldn't put money into a piece of property to build it, change it or make major improvements until such time as the Foothill Plan is completed. 1n the past, the people who have come before the Commission either wanted to make major changes or had already moved into the the building. Chairman Stout asked what development approval` would the applicant need if the use was conforming. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that this is an :existing nonconforming site and structure and the applicant would need development review in order to do the improvements he is making to the site. He pointed out that some people misconstrue a business license to mean granting of approval to be in business at a particular location; however,; it very clearly states on the business license that this is not the case. Chairman Stoat stated this is a general commercial use in General Commercial zone. He asked what the triggering mechanism is that sags a person has to get approval . Planning Commission Minutes -1 - august 1 , 1986 Mr. Buller advised that the Development Code stipulates that conversion of gas station requires either a -Conditional Use Permit or Design Review for the conversion from the gas station to any other use. Commissioner Rempel pointed out that this hasn't been a gas station for at least 40 ,years Commissioner Barker stated that until tonight, he did not knows this had been a gas station. He asked if the use had been anything other than a gas station, could the applicant use the building for a floor covering business? Mr. Buller replied that if there was an existing conforming use and they were simply changing to another conforming use, this would be acceptable. He explained that it triggers the Design Review process once improvements are made to the property. Chairman Stout asked if the Commission could make the determination that the building is a commercial building and not a gas station. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that there is still a problem since the use of the building has been discontinued for a 180 day period. Chairman Stout stated that this is a requirement of nonconforming uses and asked if it also applied to nonconforming sites. Mr. Coleman advised that there is ;a provision in the Development Code which allows the City Planner to review any alteration, expansion, or restoration of a nonconforming use or structure. The applicant has not applied for that review. He advised that if the Commission were to make a consistency determination, the next step would be for the applicant to submit an applicationto the City Planner for the restoration of the building and the site. Commissioner Barker suggested that if the Commission determined the use consistent, the applicant should be instructed not to spend any money on the site because it is totally inconsistent with what is going to take place on Foothill Commissioner Chtiea questioned that if the applicant is allowed to operate his business at this location, hors could the City be assured that he would bring his site into conformance once the Foothill Specific Plan is adopted? Mr. Buller replied that he believed the Design Review process could be conditioned on a period of time similar to a Conditional Use Permit, Chairman Stout stated that he did not see a reason why the building should sit vacant Jor another year while' the study is completed. However, he did not rant them to spend any money on the site at this time. He advised that the purpose of this review was so that people didn't spend any money designing something that would have to be torn out later and then replaced or prevent the improvements necessary later. The intent was not to shut people down for a year. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - Au ust 3, 1C g ommissioner Barker stated the applicant seemed to want to comment on the 10 day vacancy issue. Mr. Upton stated that there has been no full vacation of the building because cork has been going on and the only reason no one is in there today is because the inspector came by and said he would shut the business down if they opened. r. Coleman asked if the date used by Mr. Upton as Century 21 Pools vacated the building was February 28, 986? r. Upton stated that the building still had electricity and water and a business license was issued on ;May 2th. Mr. Coleman stated that the business use has been discontinued according to staffs investigation of the site. Further, than staff's,; preliminry investigation indicates he has no business license for this address that is valid at this time: Mr. Risinger presented the Commission with a copy of his business license issued on May 20, 1986. Mr. Coleman stated that this was new information; the last contact he had with the Business License Department was that there was no license at this address. Ms. Meier indicated that this was not an approval ;of the business license at this site, but the changing of the address. Mr. Coleman stated that unfortunately the Business License Department does not check with the Planning Department when issuing a change of address. Mr. Buller asked for a recess to allow staff to consult with the City Attorney. The item was recessed to allow staff to consult with the City Attorney. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that the City Attorney and staff reviewed the Development Code section dealing with continuation and maintenance of nonconforming structures. He suggested that staff and the City Attorney's office review the background of this site and determine exactly what alterations have been done. He additionally suggested that the item be referred back to the City Planner and that the City Planner meet with the applicant for further direction. Chairman Stout suggested that painting and general clean up of the site would be appropriate; however, would not want to see anything more done to it. Be additionally requested assurance that any approval be conditioned upon the understanding that eventually the site would have to comply with requirements f the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 13, 1986 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to refer Preliminary Review 86-52 back to the City Planner for final determination. S. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86- 9 - GROAT - Appeal of staff" s decision denying the installation of a satellite i'sh antenna on the side of The Exchange building located at the southeast corner of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road - APN 07- 31- . Chairman Stout announced that the applicant for this item requested a continuance to the August 27, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved ,by Barker, seconded by McNiel, -unanimously carried, to continue consideration of Appeal of Minor Development Review 8 -09 to the August 27, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue past adjournment time. T. APPEAL OF THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR HAVEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ® CUP 8 - DI —STFIED - The request to appeal the conditions of approval fdr a Uniform Sign Program imposed by the City Planner for the major tenants within the Hagen Village Shopping Center located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue. Nancy: Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Isaac Chavez, representing Lucky Stores, advised that the bakery, liquor and deli departments are specialty departments which are not in every' story. The signs were being requested so that customers would know that these departments exist within that particular market. Bill Barker, QRS Corporation, Los Angeles, advised that Diversified Shopping Centers informed hire that if "food center's was dropped from the sign, they would look; favorable upon the deli , bakery and liquor signs} He asked Lucky Mores if they would do this in order to get the additional signs and they concurred. He stated that they could get by without the liquor sign since it is a general consensus that most stores have liquor, but deli and bakery are not available in all ' stores. There were no further public comments. Chairman Stout stated that when the Sign Ordinance was adapted, provisions were made that the City would not allow signs to advertise, they would be used to identify. Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 13, 186 Commissioner Mciel suggested a ceiling hung; under the mansard roof on which to hang identification signs. Ms. Fong pointed out that the Uniform Sign Program approved for this shopping center does allow directional signs hung from the arcade. Commissioner, Rempel stated that he would not like to see them on the building, but would have no problem with the signs 'hanging under the roof. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to deny the appeal . The applicant was directed to function within the approved unifo rm sign program which would allow the signs ;to be hung under the arcade area. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS V. MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS Jerry Grant, Building Official, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked that a letter be sent to the. State Building Commission on behalf of the Planning ; Commission stating its concerns and number of complaints received on the Building Code relative to common walls between units W RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS Merry Grant, Building Official, presented the staff report. Chief Lloyd Michaels, Foothill Fire District, stated that this is a sensitive and important issue which'has long been the concern of the Eire District. He advised that the topic of residential fire sprinkler systems has just begun to e studied by the Fire District Association. He recommended that the Commission give the Fire District 90 days in which to compile a comprehensive report listing options and alternatives. Kevin Eggleston, Foothill Fire District Board, stated that the Fire Board and Fire District would be very interested in working with City Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council on adoption of a City Ordinance. Commissioner Barker 'stated that the request for this report was initiated about a year ago. He requested that the report be compiled as expeditiously as possible. Motion* Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue discussion ' of residential fire sprinkler systems- to the November 1 , 198 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - 1- August 13, 1986 COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Stout requested that the parkway landscaping design for Haven Avenue be given top priority in the work program. PUBLIC COMMENTS Richard F uerstein, Rancho Cucamonga, asked that a study be done on the I location of churches` within the City. He was concerned with the problems that exist' with churches currently being operated within commercial areas and those within residential areas ADJOURNMENT MOTION. Moved by Re pel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carded, to adjourn. 12:45 a.m.' - Planning Commission Adjourned, e ally s td, Sul er, epty :secretary Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 1 , 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 23, 1986 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:UO 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: Suzanne= Chitiea, Larry McNiel , Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Bruce Cook, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Blane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Stofa, Assistant Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Fourth Street Rock Crusher was denied without prejudice by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission by a vote of 4-3. He advised that the applicant has stated his intent to appeal this decision to the County Board of Supervisors. City staff will continue to to oppose this project at the Board of Supervisors hearings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chitiea, carried, to approve the Minutes of May 14, 1986 with an amendment by Commissioner Rempel to page 7. He indicated that the vote should reflect that the two buildings at the driveway would have to be diagonaled off. Commissioner cNiel was absent at that meeting and abstained from the vote. CONSENT CALENDAR; A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 - IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA - The Design Review o e uilding eva and footprints o r e (3) lots within recorded tract in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than du/ac), located on the north side of Sun Valley Drive, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN 1- -11, 13, and 15. (Continued from July 9, 1986 meeting. R. VARIANCE 86-04 - PANNON DEVELOPMENT - To reduce the minimum corner side yar so ac rem o-7- feet and to reduce the front ,yard setback from minimum 18 feet to 14 feet 6 inches, on a 9.76 acre parcel in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 du/a ) located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue APN. 01- 5 - . , 26, 26. (Continued from July 9, 1986 meeting. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 15 - ALLIANCE PARTNERS e development of two- ffMi M106gs bf 6,00squara fa --each on acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea , located on the south side of Aspen Street, between Utica and Red Oak Avenues - APN 08- C6 -11 and.. 12. D. DESIGN REVIEWS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11653 ' DALY - Design Review to revise uT -ng a eviMna foF' rac Ebfiiigfing of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue. In addition, the applicant has requested' a Tree Removal Per it to remove 27 out of 91 Eucalyptus gees - APN+ 0 - 71-4 . E. TRACT 12238 - CITATION - Design Review for Lot 11 of Tract. 12238, a res en f a u i v,sl on of 18.5 acres in the Lour' Residential District ( -4 du/ac) into 78 hots, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue,; north side of Church Street - APR 06073-1 through 4 , 08-16 -1 through 3, 5 through 9, 11 through 24, 34, 35 and 08-17 -1 through 5. Chairman Stout requested the removal of Items A and D for; discussion. Commissioner Rempei requested Item C be removed for discussion. The applicant for Item E requested removal for discussion. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiol , carried, to approve Item D, Design Review for Tract 11853, Daly. Planning Commission Minutes - - July 23, 1986 A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 - IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA Chairman Stet advised that the Design Review Committee requested that staff provide the Commission with photographs of existing homes in the area to insure compatibility. The photographs satisfactorily depicted compatibility. Motions Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , carried, to adopt the Resolution approving the Design Review for Tract 12237, Iron Mountain Ski Area. R. VARIANCE 86-04 - PANNON DEVELOPMENT Chairman Shut recalled discussion of this item at the previous meeting and stated that it ,was agreed that extensive front yard landscaping was to be provided on 5 of the lots. Motion; Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNi el , carried, to adept the Resolution approving Variance -04, Pannon Development, with an added condition requiring extensive front ,hard landscaping to Lots 1, 55, 56, 57, 77, and 78d C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-15 - ALLIANCE PARTNERS Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the parking problems in the area of this project. He requested that the exact square footage of these buildings to be verified at the time of plan check. He indicated that neither of buildings should exceed 6,000 square feet each. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti e , carried, to issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 85-15, Alliance Partners, with direction to staff to verify the square footage, not to exceed 6,000 square feet each, at the time of plan cheek. E. TRACT 12238 - CITATION, Jerry Linton, representing the applicant, stated that this request is to build model home for sale in Tract 12830 and would not be sold: in Tract '12238, which is where the model would be constructed. Commissioner Repel was concerned that this plan is for a smaller house which is not the same quality as those which exist in the tract and felt it should be constructed within the tract where it would be located. Commissioner McNiel stated that as long as this model will not be constructed in this tract, he would not have a problem with the request. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she did not see 200 square feet as a significant difference between this model and the existing homes in the area and would not object to a model home being constructed in Tract '12238. She stated she would be opposed if` the request was to build out the remainder of Tract 12238 in the model presented, I Planning Commission Minutes -3- duly 23, 1986 11 Chairman Stout stated that he would not be strongly opposed to this request. _ Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that if the direction of the Commission would be to approve this request, the Resolution should be modi fed to reflect approval . He stated that this approval would be for the construction of a single family hone since the model home ordinance had not yet been approved by the City Council . Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Chi ti ea, to modify the language of the Resolution to approve Design Review for lot 11 of Tract 12238. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCNIEL, CHIT EA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: BARKER. carried Chairman Rempel voted no for above stated reasons. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 - 9 - AMENDMENT - LDS CHURCH The request to alien a approve pan idh-a se e a owing e installation of four 35 foot high and two SC foot high light fixtures for the northerly softball and soccer fields located at 6829 .Eti Wanda Avenue, north of Victoria Street - APN 7 O5-8S and 23. (Continued from dune 25, 1986 meeting. ) Chairman Stout -announced that the applicant for this item had requested a continuance to the August 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, He opened the public hearing for those who would be unable to attend that meeting. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by MdNiel , unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 8 -09 to the August 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9986 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA d -provide rrg -o -iay far-the w en hg of_ Hermosa--Avenue ;e ween Mignonette and 19th Street and the extension of Hamilton Street from Beer Canyon School to Hermosa Street - APN'' U - 01-U , BU 9 and 71. Blane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -4- duly 23, 1986 j I Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Debra Hawkins, 6766 Carti1la, Rancho Cucamonga was concerned that additional traffic might be generated as a result of the street extension. She also asked if sidewalks would be constructed on Hamilton. Mr. Frandsen explained that traffic generated with construction of the park would not significantly impact the area and traffic through Hamilton should be decreased with construction of the street extension. He further explained that sidewalks would be constructed on the north side of Hamilton as a result of this project; however, sidewalks on the south side would be deferred until time of the development ofvacant land. s. 5aruki , 10323 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned with impacts to her property which is adjacent to this project. r. Frandsen explained that Mrs. 5aruki ' s property would remain the same and that improvements which would be beneficial to her property would be installed. Before the ultimate sidewalk installations or landscaping of the parkways could be completed, a dedication would be required from her. El ly Herr, 10198 Golden Yarrow, Rancho Cucamonga, supported the project and stated it was necessary for the safety of school children who use that route to school . Vernon Morrison,, Rancho Cucamonga resident, was concerned that the project might affect his sewer system. He felt there ,were a lot of questions associated with the parcel map which were not addressed in the staff report. Chairman Stout advised that there seemed to be many technical issues and questions that residents had and suggested that this item be postponed to later in the agenda to give Mr. Frandsen an opportunity to discuss the concerns with these individuals. The item was recessed until later in the agenda. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 10008 - HAVEN _TECH CENTER - iMion o acres of laha1n o J parce s in e n us ri Park District' (Subarea 6 located on the west side of Utica Avenue approximately 500 feet north of Jersey Boulevard - APN 09-14 1 , 25, 29. Joe 5tofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Joe Carmen, 7365 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, asked for clarification of Assessment District 8 -1, He indicated that he thought this assessment had already been paid under a previous parcel .nap. Planning Commission Minutes -5- duly 23, 1986 B'arrye Manson, Senior Civil Engineer,, advised that Assessment District -1 is for construction of storm drains. He explained that this assessment is placed each time a parcel is divided and the purpose is to pay accounting costs to set up; different parcels within the districts. There were no further° comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 1000 , Haven Technical Center. Motion carried;by the following vote: AYES: COMMI-SSIONERS CHITIEA MICNIEL, REMNPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT. COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9946 - WILLIAM LY©N COMPANY - A vision of 18.78 acres of landRn o parse sn< a is or1a anned Community located at the northwest corner of Rase Line Road and Victoria Park Lane - APN 7-11 -1 , 1 , 28, 34, 35. I Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that at the time of development of the Village Commercial would there be some type of consideration as to the necessity of a traffic signal Base Line and Victoria Loop. Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that 'a traffic signal might be considered if warranted at the time the Village Commercial Center is developed... Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.; Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company,; concurred with the findings of the Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval . Commissioner Chitiea asked when construction of the commercial site is anticipated r. Ford replied that it was 'anticipated that plans on the commercial site would be submitted to the City in approximately 30 days, with construction o the first phase anticipated oy late next year with opening in early 1988. Helen Diamond, adjacent property owner, asked how the street improvements proposed would affect access to her property on the south side of Base Line. Planning Commission Minutes -6- duly 23, 1986 Mr. Stofa advised that the street improvements would occur on the north side of Hale Line with half of the improvements on the 'south side, however, would not affect the access to Mrs. Diamond's property on the south side of the street. There were no further comments, therefore;the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Chi ti ea, to issue a Negative ;Declaration and adopt ,the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9946. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DARKER -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9829 - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - d create acres d an o a par e n er ^a 7s a armed Community, located at the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Elan Avenue - APN 1077-091-14. Joe St fa, Associate Civil Engineer, pres nted the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, John Melcher, representing the applicant, concurred with the findings of the Staff Report, Resolution and conditions of approval . Commissioner Chi'ti ea asked when the park at Ease Line would be developed, Mr. Mel Cher explained that the site had recently been regraded and construction of the hardscape would begin shortly, Further, that landscaping activities were currently underway at Terra Vista Parkway and as 'soon as the landscaping contractor was able to move from that site, the theme park construction would commence. There were no further comments,; therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving' Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 989. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA CNIEL, REMPEL , STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried Planning Commission Minute -7- July 23, 1986 K. TENTATIVE TRACTS 13057, 13058, 13059, ANC 13C6C`- THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY -requesto amen conditions approve r^ prevou ` y approve residential subdivisions totaling 51 lots on go. 36 acres, generally located south of Highland Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of the Deer Creek Channel - APN 0 - 1 -13,` 38. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if the intent ,of the language within the Resolution was require all conditions of' Tract 130 to becomplied with prior o occupancy of any unit within any of ;the four tracts and if this language was to staff's satisfaction. He was unsure that this language was clear. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that this was the intent of the language and that staff felt the language provided in the Resolution satisfactorily accomplished the intent. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steven Ford, representing the William Lyon Company, stated-concurrence with the Resolution. He felt that the language contained in the Resolution satisfactorily stated the intent to allow the applicant to obtain building permits in one or all of the tracts prior to the off-site improvements being completed, but not to allow occupancy of any dwelling'' units in any of the tracts until the referenced improvements could be completed. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that' the ways the condition is now written if one tract is the first to develop, that tract would be tagged to have the backbone infrastructure in prior to occupancy. He was satisfied with the language in the proposed condition. There were no further public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution approving the amendment to Condition 1 of the Resolutions of approval for 'tentative Tracts 13057, 13058, 13059, and 13060 . Motion carried by the following vote: I AYES: COMMISSIONERS RE, PEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOIRE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -curried Yc xr :k 7k Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 23, 1986 L4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 -12 - WESTERN SERVICES COMPANY : Th—eestabl 1 gfiifii6t Bf n automoYl I e I easing of fice—in an existing 51 1 ng;, with a lease space of 3,750 square feet on 1.66 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) located at 9375 Archibald - APN 210-071-47 : Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff suggested an additional condition be placed on the Resolution prohibiting the overnight parking of lease vehicles or associated hailers,. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout was concerned that the applicant might get the impression that approval of this Conditional Use Permit was also an approval- of the security guard control company. He suggested that an additional condition ;be added to the Resolution stating that this approval was for the office-administrative uses only and that additional use expansion would require separate consideration by the Planning Commission. He stated he did not have a problem with staff's recommendation to prohibit overnight parking, however, would liked to have had the applicant present to discuss this issue. He asked i the applicant had been notified of the hearing: s. Meier replied that the applicant had been notified and that she had spoken with them prior to this hearing. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there were any parking complaints received recently. s. Meier advised that staff had contacted other tenants within this project and had been informed that since the property owner had spoken with the applicant, there had been no further parking problems, Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by Mc i el , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment= and Conditional Use Permit -12, with an added condition stated that approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-12 is for the office-administrative use only and that any expansion of the use to include the security partrol company, and a condition prohibiting overnight parking of lease vehicles and/'or trailers. Motion carried by the following vote: AWES. COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA NIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 23, 1986 : 10 - Planning Commission Recessed 830 _ Planning Commission Reconvened M. DEVELOPMENT .AGREEMENT SCHLOSSER FORGE An agreement between the City of a5rc o ucamonga and Pfiilio c-g—osser, Elaine M. Schlosser, Albert Hol qui n Jr. , Roberta J. Hol qui n, Jeffrey P. Schlosser, Jacquelin L. Schlosser, David M. Richardson and Gene M. Richardson, regarding the future development and current operations of the industrial facility on 27.7 acres at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue AP, 229-111-05, 17, and 18.' Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing Phil Schlosser,; applicant, asked that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this Development Agreement in order to preserve the Schlosser Forge facility and to; not zone it out of the City. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, : supported the request. He complemented the applicant and City staff on its effort to preserve industry in the City. There were no further public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed* Commissioner Re pel supported the agreement stated that the City owes 4r. Schlosser and the people who first came to the City a debt of gratitude since they caused the City to happen. Commissioner Chi ti ea 'stated that the purpose of this agreement was to insure protection of this industry after these Commissioners have gone and are replaced by new Commissioners. She also supported the agreement. Commissioner c iel advised that this Commission' had been concerned with Schlosser Forge as other areas around it began to develop and felt this was the best method to insure its protection Chairman Stout concurred with these comments and further stated that the Schlosser Forge is one of the cleanest factories he had ever seen. He 'stated that it is a perfect example that heavy industry does not have to have smoke stacks Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel , to recommend approval of the Schlosser Forge Development Agreement to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 23, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS STOUT, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MONI' L NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: BARKER -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12830 - CITATION - A request rein nos a en on Street a cul-de-sac south of Tract 12830 located on the west side of Beryl Street at Oi el i to Street. Chairman Stout announced that the Planning Commission had received a letter from the applicant of this project withdrawing the request. NEW BUSINESS 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-1 - MESSENGER - The eve o en o a acre Mus FIS as er PM S5d Phige 1 and development consisting of 7 light manufacturing buildings 'totaling 139,000 square feet and 2 warehouse distribution buildings totaling 22 ,400 square feet on 22 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served District located at the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Highway and 9th Street - APN 209- -1 . Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. John Ascheis, representing the applicant, requested an amendment to the Resolution of approval to allow the applicant to submit detailed designs o the pedestrian oriented facilities prior to issuance of building permits. He was concerned that the requirement for submittal prior to plan check would add delays to the process. Danielle Rpen project architect, requested deletion of the condition requiring a textured band around the building. She felt that the band would not make the building look better and that the use of the textured band has been overdone on industrial buildings. She also addressed Condition 8 regarding special landscape treatment and stated that she did not feel .stepped retaining walls were needed. Ms. Fong advised that the Design Review Committee had recommended terraced planters to soften the height of the slope. Planning Commission Minutes -11 July 23, 1986 I Chairman Stout advised that this Condition lists a series of suggestions for special landscape treatment. without viewing the landscape plans, he felt the Commission could not make a decision to delete one of these suggestions at this time. He suggested that once the landscape plans are finalized the applicant could come` before the Commission if they felt it was a condition they could not live with, John Ascher•is requested that the overhead electrical lines on Vineyard Avenue be rewired to be placed underground prier to issuance of occupancy permits for phase III development. He was additionally concerned with the wording of Engineering Condition regarding off-site drainage facilities. He stated that rough grading needed to be accomplished and certified prior to the completion of the off-site drainage issue. There were no further public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the applicant's request to submit detailed plans of the plaza area at the time of building permit issuance, Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff required the submittal of the plans to the Design Review Committee for the plaza area prior to plan check to insure that the condition had been provided on the plans, He suggested that if the applicant could have the plans ready prior to the August 7, 1986 Design Review Committee meeting, it could be placed on the consent calendar for review, Commissioner Rempel stated; that requiring submittal of the plans prior to plan check should not cause time delays in the processing. r, Ascheris advised that the plans were ready and could be submitted for review by the Design Review Committee on August 7th.. Chairman Stout asked for discussion regarding the applicant's request to condition the udergrounding of utilities on Vineyard Avenue to the occupancy permit for Phase III development, f Rarrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that this condition had been tied to the entire project due to staff°s concern with having the undergrounding stop at that point, then if the project is sold there might be problems getting the utilities placed underground. He felt it would be more equitable to spread the cost over the entire proiect, Commissioner Rempel disagreed and stated that the utilities should be undergrounded at the time of Phase III occupancy. He advised that this request is 'consistent what has been done in most cases in the City.- Planning Commission Minutes -1 July 23, 198 r. Hanson stated that if this was the direction of thepermit Cfo i ss o level owoe t sin, he uld suggest that the condition tied to occupancy within Phase III. Chairman Stout asked for discussion relative the rough grading. Mr. Hanson stated staff's concern was with the that any n drainage of done n the s to properties to the south: He was concerned g applicant has some could affect the drainage. He i rthe granttheringstatd of certain that the perr its, i t would unsolved off-site problems and with g become more difficult to hold occupancy on the buildings. He indicated his preference would be to withhold permits. Commissioner empel stated that you have to realize flooding where the water ,ctheswatemr problem, He stated that during the g te the to cause the ,p need to delay project, came from Cucamonga Creek. He did not see the n since a permit for the building could not be obtained until the problems were resolved. Brad Buller, City Planner, pointed out that if a grading permit only were issued and the drainage problem went unresolved, i t wold problem i n as l creed site that could sit there indefinitely until the grading p He suggested that this might not be in the best interest of the project or the Cit . are i Commissioner McNi el stated that since the existing l robbl emswi with whi difficult cto get resolve, the withholding of, permits would be permits them resolved. He agreed with staff' s recommendation to withhold any p for the project until the drainage issue s commissioner Chi ti ea was concerned with the potentialproblems should nthe project be graded and.. set there for a while and thenthe rainy y season s. Chairman Stout supported the condition as recommended by staff. Chairman Stout asked for discussion relative to the accent textureband on the eat side of Building I and the south side o Building Commissioner Rempel stated that he had no problem with eliminating this textured bandy Commissioner Chi ti ea had mixed feelings. Some l of ar e the 1 d ng desi gsn and 1 ovre er w attractive but she was concerned that these g of e and the newer ones the older manufacturing buildings are a toss up painted as to whether smooth or textured have the texture. She felt it was represents industrial , he building di ng was attractive and did not need the Commissioner MNi el felt t textured band. Planning Commission Minutes -13- duly , IgH I Chairman Stout stated that he was not really satisfied with the applicant' s proposal . There area lot of extremely attrasctteatmentive taus ial i�nterdesti nging i t built in the City and he felt that while this h did not come up to the quality standards of some of the other buildings currently being built in the City.; For that reason, he ansfelt that at per aps not textured bands, but suggested there are other s ncase the quality. Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNi el , to i si not ude sue a gaei ve on Decl ofa ion and adopt the Resolution with amendments t requirement for a textured bte ind on the east side dutility Buildingud r roundi e to south side of Building- 1 ; and, Vineyard neyard A permit for any level o ent wi t i n required prior to issuance of occupancy Phase Ill. Motion carried by the following voter AYES* COMMISSIONERS CNITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEC, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS*. BARKER Chairman Stout announced that the Planning Commission would reopen the public hearing for Item C. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9986 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Bl ne Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer, advised at he sad met ati ve its this th the adjacent homeowners in n effort to alleviate r project, He advised that the concern t Mr.r. ed Morrison,around who ownsproperty increased traffic' on Hamilton. He stated ; , had requested that the design show the existence on the west side of Hermosa of server holding tanks and had requested land ca fng ret. sloe hthatmh occur above the walls aligning his side the advised Mr. Morrison that landscaping is net included as part of toff articular project. Mrs. Saruki , who< owns land on the nor�thamildtor Streetton, had concern with any traffic increase which would occur Chairman Shut asked if anyone wished to comment further r h r o this.item. There were no further comments, therefore,the public hearing motion: Moved b Chit ea, s rovi n by Reanpel , to i sssssessme ttive a d Parcel Declaration Map and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental As 9986. Motion carried by the following vote* duly 23, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes -1 - I AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COWISSIONERS: BARKER -carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-14 - HAVEN INVESTORS - en one snuareTOOT. gifi�C� U�In`gon � acres reS ict (Subarea 7) located on the east dei Haven Avenue, approiratel o feet south of Civic Center Drive - AP 208-622-35. pplicant for this item had requested Chairman Stout announced that the a continuance to the August 13, 1986 planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Chi tiea, seconded by pel , unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 86-14, Haven Investors, to the August 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 8,6-49 - HEWN DE - A consistency determination between F—F to occupy an tWe 0 1 ilerfm oTicies and a proposal f retail sales in the General li existing house for the operation of general I r Boulevard - APN 208-153-12 Commercial District located at 9612 Foothil and 13. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman stout, invited public comment. Larry Hernandez, applicant, gave an overview of his proposal . Commissioner cNiel stated that he would not like to see Mr. Hernandez put a lot of time and money into renovation of this location and then have to turn around and invest even more once the Foothill Plan is adopted. He suggested that the applicant should look for another location. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and further stated that it would take a lot more to bring this location up to standards than what the applicant is proposing. She agreed that the applicant should look for another location to start his business. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1986 I chairman Stout advised that there are major improvements which would be required to bring this project into conformance with the Foothill Interim policies He stated that the City would lie to see this location cleaned up, but did not feel it would be fair to the other people who have come before the Commission and were turned down because of inconsistency with the interim Policies. He concur that the request would be inconsistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim policies. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to determine Preliminary Review 86-49, Hernandez, inconsistent with the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. R. APPEAL CE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 8 FRIED MAN - An appeal of a con '� on pproa requ ring e uri ergroun ng existing overhead utilities fronting the project, ;located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, 700 feet east of Vincent Avenue -'APN 09-1 - 6 Barre Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Paul Friedman, applicant, stated that he was appealing the undergroundi ng of utilities due to _ the enormous costs involved. He advised that all other conditions of approval had been complied with. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Friedman had an approximate cosh for the undergrdunding r. Friedman replied that he had an approximate budget on this project for $ C,CC , if the new poles were set on the property corner that will cost approximately $107,000. If the existing lines are left where the are and tel the lines have to be undergrounded as proposed, it would be appro xima 159,00 , He pointed out that Edison stated the would either likethe tontee se all of the lines undergrounded or all of it loft overhead be causence of the 'lines is done by different crews Chairman Stout asked if staff had gone over the reimbursement procedure with . Friedman. r. Friedman replied that staff had discussed ri rnburs ent with him; however, the problem is the unknown of when the remaining parcels will de el op. He stated that he would be agreeable to some type of lien against the property which would provide a share of the cost for eventual undergroundsng Commissioner Rempel reiterated his position that conduit should be placed underground, then the lines dropped when the whole street is ready to be undergrounded. He supported modi fyi rig the conditions to reflect his position. Commissioner etc 'i el asked if an in-lieu fee or a lien agreement would be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes1,6- July , 1g6 r. Hanson replied that the ;applicant would probably not be interested in an in-lieu fee since it would cost the same as undergrounding. If the Co lesion's date inaton would be to grant the appeal , he preferred the lien agreement. commissioner Chitiea stated that she wants to see utilities undergrounded, , but this property is such a small piece it y timet seem comes,ateoutilities She arefavored placed lien agreement, to insure that when the underground. Chairman Stout stated that this is a Minor Development Review and this condition would necessitate approximately a 50 increase in the cost of developing the project, which he felt was not minor compared to what the applicant was accomplishing. He was in favor of;a lien agreement. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked for the Co i ssi on's direction to staff regarding undergrounding along this section of Jersey Boulevard. He asked if a lien agreement would apply to all projects or only to remodels. Chairman Stout stated that in minor development situations where a considerable percentage of the project would be in undergrou ded, ' the lien agreement would be satisfactory. However, with new development, the direction would be to require the actual undergrounding. He indicated that this direction would be consistent with policy established by the Planning Commission, Motion. Moved by Mc iel , seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to modify the condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities fronting the project and direction df future undergrounding.applicant to enter into a lien agreement for one-half the cost COMMISSION BUSINESS commissioner Remel stated that the improvements constructed on the China' Alley property were in total non-conformance with the Fodthil�1 Corridor Interim Policies, especially in the area of landscaping. He asked for staff' s j input. Bl ane Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that the situation with China Ailey had gone on several .;years prior to the Foothill Corridor Policies. He stated than the original owner had submitted bonds for on and off site improvements. e indicated that the amount of money placed in the bonds limited the extent of the improvements. Commissioner Reel pointed out one major problem was that the site plan had never received City approval , Planning Commission Minutes -1 - July 23, 1986 Commissioner Chi ti ea stated that any Project such as this should be reviewed by the Planning commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, was concerned with the Commission' s approval of Minor Development Review 85- 8. He state that the Commission was allowing this applicant to come, into the City for less money than they are requiring of anyone el se. He questioned approving modifications of existing structures without the same re ui rments as new development. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by MdNiel , seconded by hitiea, unanimously carried, t o adjourn. 10:05 p.m.- Planning commission Adjourned Respectfully su itte Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 8- July 23, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July g, 196 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order a :00 P.M. The meeting was held at Lions Pare.: 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 MNiel, Herman Rempel , Dennis Stout ABSENT: None i STAFF" PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Engineer; Debra Meier,, Assistant Planner; .Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Barker indicated that the Commission had received a memorandum from City Building Official Jerry Grant relative to 'fire sprinklers. He asked that Mr. Grant"s report be as specific as possible regarding condominiums. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of April g, 19 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT" B. EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-0 - VINEYARD BANK - A temporary a ace 1 i ty on 5.9—ages in t enera rcMa Y i c t 1 o c a t e d 18C feet south of Foothill Boulevard on the crest side of Vineyard Avenue - APN 07- 11-1 . C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11 Qb- , 3, & 4 - GRUPE DEVELOPMENT -,The Design Review o building evations an eotprfints or previously approved recorded tract comprised of 148 lots on 37 acres, located in the Low Density Residential District ( - du/ c), south of 19th Street between Haven Avenue and Geer Creek - APN 0 - 1- . D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR BR 5-1,7 - ROBERTSON HOMES - 'The request to review new clo or c eme or e previous y approved e evation of 14 condo units, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard and Arrow - APN 08-2 1-11, 3 E. DESIGN REVIEW FORT ACT 12237 - IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA - The Design Review o - _tVeF__b_u_iI dinge eva ions and foo_tpFintsfor° ree (3) lots within a recorded tract in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than du/ac), located on the north side of Sun Valley Drive, east of Hermosa Avenue APN 01-463-1 , 13 1s F. VARIANCE 86- 1 - GOLDEN - A request to reduce the minimum lot depth from ee o ee pan a proposed 20,195 square foot parcel in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 du/ac), located at the northeast corner of Hillside and Moonstone - APN 1061-25-02. G Chairman Stout requested Item A be removed. for discussion. Commissioner Barker requested Item D be removed for discussion. Commissioner Rempel requested Item E be removed for discussion on behalf of the applicant, Motion. Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to approve Items B, C, and F of the Consent Calendar. APPROVAL OF HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT Chairman Stout requested discussion of -the Haven Avenue median landscape concept relative to its compatibility of design with 'tnat of the City of Ontario, median treatment above and below Foothill Boulevard,, and the type of tree selected for use in the median. Commissioner Barker requested clarification of the lighting to be used in the median. Chairman Stout stated that he in ,no way wanted to imply that the median treatment used by Ontario from the freeway to 4th Street was not a quality treatment; however, felt that many hours had ;been spent in Design Review o projects in this area and he wanted something unique and specially designed so that a; statement would be made that you are now in 'Rancho Cucamonga. He felt the median treatment should be uniformly designed north and south of Foothill . Wi th regard to the use of Pal m trees wi thi n the medi an, he di d not feel the tree was unique to Rancho Cucamonga and asked if another tree might Planning Commission Minutes -P- July 9, 19 1 be substituted which would give the same effect. He suggested that the types of trees be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. He asked for clarification of the median lighting Laura Psomas, Landscape Designer, stated that lighting would be at the corners of the median. Commissioner Darker stated he had no problem with lighting the corners of the median; however, if there were unique elements within the median, those should al so be 1 i ghted. He stated that the median should not necessarily be a duplication of that in Ontario but should certainly be compatible. He was not sure that a tree existed that would give the same effect as the Palm. Commissioner ci el Mated that Ontario had done a very good job in their median design and felt that a dramatic statement could be made to signify that you are in Rancho Cucamonga. He thought the median treatment should be consistent north and south of Foothill . He stated that the concern should not only be for the aesthetics of the median, but the safety of motorists a well . He was not parti cul ari l y concerned with the use of the Palm tree and did not feel that he was qualified to select a replacement for this species. With regard to median lighting, he agreed that special areas should b accented. Commissioner Chi ti a stated the median design should be consistent north and south of Foothill . She stated that she was very proud of Rancho Cucamonga and a distinct identifying statement be made for Rancho Cucamonga,; particularly at the 4th Street entrance. She preferred a flowering tree for use in the median since a lush feeling was the intent and did not think that the Palm tree was appropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that the landscape treatment needs to be consistent with that used in Ontario. He thought that on an issue as important as this one, it needed to be brought back to the full Commission, not just the Design Review; Committee. He additionally suggested that the Commission take a tour of Ontario's median and also have staff prepare a graphic illustrating the median in Ontario and the proposed treatment in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Darker suggested that a special meeting of the full Commission b held following the Design Review Committee meeting on August 7 g . Motion: Moved by Darker, seconded by Rempl , unanimously carried, to continue discussion of the Haven Avenue Median Landscape Concept to August 7,;' 1986 following the regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting. D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR DR 85-1.7 - ROB RTSON HOMES Commissioner Darker asked for clarification of the wall color. Cary Massur, representing the applicant, stated that the wall color would be a light tan. , Planning Commission Minutes ® _ duly g, 1986 Motion. Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to approve the Design Review for DR 8 -17, with the condition that the wall color would be light tan. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 - IRON MOUNTAIN SKI AREA Richard Scott, applicant, gave an overview of the project. He indicated that a representative for the project was not available to attend the Design Review Committee meeting; therefore, they did net have the opportunity to respond to the Committee's concerna Commissioner Barker stated that concerns were expressed at the Design Review Committee meeting and since there was no project representative, the concerns had gone unaddressed. He advised that the major concern was the size of the proposed building footprint and the impacts it might have on grading and tree removal . He asked Mr. Scott to address this concern, Mr. Scott replied that the proposed houses are no larger than the footprints for existing two story houses in the development. He indicated that the building footprint area for tree removal associated with a one-story would be 875 squre feet more for a two-story house. The maximum tree density on the lots is one tree per 90 square feet, which would necessitate the removal of a maximum of 10 additional trees. Further that on all three lots, the anticipated area to be cleared of trees to accommodate foundation and grading would require no more tree removal than for a two-story house. Mr. Scott stated that the applicant would be willing to replace the trees removed. H suggested that the Eucalyptus could possibly be replaced with fruit trees a well as ornamental trees and that the tree replacement species and location would be subject to the approval' of the City. Commissioner Barker stated that this answered his concerns for the Design Review and would recommend approval to the Commission. Commissioner McNel advised that he was :also on the Design Review Committee for this project and agreed with Commissioner Barker. He further advised that the Committee did not thoroughly review the proposed elevations and suggested that they go back to the Design Review Committee for review. Motion; Moved by Barker, seconded by Mciel , unanimously carried, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the duly 23, 19 Planning Commission consent calendar. Additionally, the elevations are to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee at their duly 17, 19 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - - duly g, 196 i PUBLIC HEARINGS O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS1ENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 -0 - COMMUNITY 8W17 CHURCHpropose to eve square oo a l lon o existing , 0O square foot church, consisting of classrooms, social hall , auditorium, and gym in three phases in a medium Residential District, located on the northwest corner of Beryl and 19th Street - APN ' 01- 1-08. Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that ;Engineering Division condition one of the Resolution had been placed in error and recommended that it be deleted from the Resolution. Chairman Shut opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that this project was first reviewed by, the Design Review' Committee in April and there were a number of concerns at that time. He indicated that the applicant made a tremendous effort to improve the project and was pleased with finished product. Motion. Moved by Barker, 'seconded by McNiel , to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental ,assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-0 , with the deletion of Engineering Division condition one of the Resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARER, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES- COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-1 - MAURY __-A—request fo utilize five -temporary o is ray ers on asite-Z-ontaining an existing 10,000 square foot industrial facility on 1.0 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea ) located at 8610 Helms Avenue - APN 09-0 -10. Debra Meier, D Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms. Meier stated that the Foothill Fire District had agreed to allow a 21-foot clear access along the south and west sides of the existing building, with 6-feet required on all remaining sides. She recommended that the Conditions of Approval be modified to reflect that change. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- duly 9, 1986 Frank Ouowski , 'representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and concurred with the Conditions of Approval . Chairman Stout stated that in the past, the City has had problems with the removal of temporary trailers. He asked the applicant if he would object to some method of agreement to insure removal of the trailers. r. Cu owski replied that he had no problem with this request. There were no further co ents, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker agreed that temporary trailers have been a problem in the past. He asked if was possible''to insure removal through a performance bond. Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson stated concerns with performance bonds and City employees going on private property to remove the trailers. Chairman Stout suggested that the City Attorney's office prepare an agreement between the applicant and the City which would insure the removal of the trailers and the payment of attorne, 's fees by the applicant should the City have to prosecute Motion: Moved by Harker, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit --1 , with an amendment to eliminate the proposed trailer at the northeast corner to allow 1-foot clear access along the south and crest sides of the existing building, and an agreement prior to installation of the trailers to provide for their removal and attorney' s fees. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITI A, MCNIEL„ REM EL, STOUT DES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 810 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 8 15 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85- 7 - "FOR KIDS ONLY" - A request to amend the on i ti ens -of Approvalremove —of a mature ver Maple tree) for a 9,260 square foot pre-school on 1. 1 acres of land in the Low Residential District -4 du/ac), located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Turner Avenue - A N 1077-U61-09 Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. I Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 9, 1986 Commissioner Chi ti ea asked if the location of the replacement tree would enhance the landscape design. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the original tree had been too close i to the hardscape and the new tree would be planted in the center of the landscaped area to allow for better root growth. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Re pel stated that; replacement should be with a 48-inch box tree at minimum.' He was concerned with the size of tree which might be contained Within the -box and suggested that staff make an inspection of the tree prior o planting Motion: Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNiel , to adopt the Resolution approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 86-17. Staff is to make are inspection of the replacement tree prior to planting. Motion carried _by the following vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. VARIANCE 6-04 - PANNON DEVELOPMENT - To reduce the minimum corner side yard se . ac r10 fe-e-1--t-o-7-T—eeffand to reduce the front ,yard setback from minimum 18 feet to 14'6" , on a 9.75 acre parcel in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201- 52-2 , 25, 26. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Pet r Laden, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the request. Mr. Laden advised that as soon as the construction error was recognized, the applicant approached the City. He advised that a professional landscape contractor had been employed to provide extensive landscaping and wall treatment to mitigate the problems on the subject logs. He suggested an addendum to CCR's to prevent parking in the driveways if vehicles obstruct the driveway. Additionally the applicant agreed to provide each house with a setback of less than 18 feet with an automaticgarage door opener. Ron De Lugo, 99 "C" Street, Upland, California, represented three of the prospective homeowners and advised that; the homeowners concurred with the applicant' s mitigation measures; Planning Commission Minutes - - July 9, 196 Oscar Monte , project engineer, advised that he and other project representatives had met with staff and felt that if the Commission would approve this variance request, ;appropriate steps could be taken to mitigate the problem. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout felt that this was an honest mistake during construction. He felt that this was an extreme hardship: and it would net be in the best interest of the City to enforce strict interpretation of the Code. He thought that reducing the street 'width would not be the answer, and felt that i should be left at 36 feet. He agreed that garage door openers, amendments to the CCR's and increased landscaping would be appropriate;. Commissioner McNi el was concerned with the houses on the corner and felt that there was a' safety problem with shortened driveways. Commissioner Barker agreed and further stated that backing in the driveway would present a serious problem. Commissioner Chitiea stated that this was a good point and that backing i driveways should be eliminated. She concurred with the landscaping and garage door opener requirements. Commissioner McNi el stated that he was not sure how a condition such as this could be enforced and it may be something that has to be lived with. Motion: Moved by Stout., seconded by Chitiea, to direct staff to prepare Resolution of Approval for the duly 23, 1986Planning Commission consent calendar, based on the applicant' s proposal . Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER,` MCNIEE, R MPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - VIRGINIA CARE - An agree en by an e ween e City o arc o udaibbhg , . , and the Tower partnership regarding the development of the Virginia Care Winery project, in particular, shared parking. Can Coleman, Senior Planner:, reviewed the staff report. i Commissioner McNiel asked i this theater would have the same parking problems l as those in Montclair, and Upland. Planning Commission Minutes - _ duly 9, 1986 Mr, Coleman replied that this center would be different in that it contained office uses, not strictly commercial ; therefore, would not have similar problems. Chairman Stout stated that the centers in Upland and Montclair do net have an agreement such as this one which eliminates matinees. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. David Michael , representing the applicant, concurred with the Resolution. Hank Harris, representing the Brunswick Corporation, stated concerns with the amount of parking for the Virginia Dare Center.and advised that the center has 457 parking spade less than what is required.. He stated that the Brunswick project provides over what the Ci ty's code requires and was concerned that theater patrons might use the adjacent Brunswick parking area in overload situations. He was . very concerned with potential parking conflicts during peak hours of both the Brunswick Cuter and the theater and advised that the Brunswick Center would have as many as 250 cars exiting and entering the site between the hours of S p.m to 11 p.m. Barney Veihe, Brunswick Corporation, stated that the problem was the reciprocal access easement between the two properties. i David Michael stated that the Virginia Dare Center is actually overpared a night time. He suggested that maybe a Development Agreement should be entered into with the Brunswick Corporation to 'shut down some of their alleys i parking becomes a problem to the theater, similar to the condition eliminating matinees. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that he wished there were no reciprocal access between the two properties and the two parking areas could be blocked off. If that was possible, he would like to know how. Chairman Stout stated the reason for requiring reciprocal access was because there is no way to go north on Haven from the 'Virginia Dare Center. Further, if a wall was placed along that easement, you would still have people parking in one project and going over the wall to the other; He advised that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to work on a parking agreement and in his opinion this agreement accomplishes what it was intended to do. He indicated that the Development Agreement was between Virginia Dare and the City Council and should be forwarded for the Council 's review.. Commissioner Mciel stated that the reciprocal access was plated on the project to insure traffic safety. Chairman Stout suggested that the project continue, and if a problem occurs the condition could be amended. Planning Commission Minutes duly 9, 1986 Moti on Moved by Chi ti ea, seconded by McNi el`, to recommend approval of the Virginia Dare Development Agreement to the City Council . Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE _carried NEW BUSINESS L. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 8 - 7 MICHAEL Appeal of staff' s decision denying there ova o seven uca yp us reel and one Olive tree located on the south side of Church Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 1077-33 - 6. Scott Murphy, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited public comment. Lloyd Michael gave an overview of his request. Mr. Michael advised that the Water District would be laying pipe; on Church Street which might' damage the root system of the trees and necessitate removal at the Ci ty' s expense. He advised that it would be in the best interest of the City to grant the appeal and al l oar the applicant to remove the trees. There were no further' comments. Commissioner Rempel agreed that if a water line was going down the north side of the trees, it would damage the root system and require the removal of the trees. He stated that the Blue Cum' Eucalyptus are a tremendous liability to the City. He felt the staff's decision should be overruled and the appeal granted. Commissioner Barker stated that it was not the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance to get rid of trees when it's convenient and that these trees were not in anyone' s back yard. He did have a concern that if trenching is done adjacent to the trees' it would damage the root system. He asked if staff was aware of the Water District' s intent. Mr. Murphy replied that staff was unaware of this until this evening. Mr. Michael stated that he only found out that the pipe would be placed in that :area today. He indicated that it is possible that the pipe is not scheduled to go adjacent to the trees, but right through them. Planning Commission Minutes _10_ duly g, 1986 Commissioner McNiel stated that of all people, Mr. Michael should know if a water line is scheduled for that street. In light of this information, he felt the tree removal permit was appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she normally did not like to see healthy trees removed. Due to the specific location of the trees in relation to the water line and necessity for their eventual removal she recognized it could save money for the City in the long run and would consider it an appropriate request. Chairman Stout stated that the location of the existing trees is also a traffic hazard. He stated that he understood the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, however felt the safety of motorist should also be a consideration. He supported the request. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel , to approve Tree Removal Permit 86-27. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS M. VIRGINIA DARE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. The consensus of the Commission was that the modification was appropriate. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to approve the modification to the Virginia Dare Sign Program establishing the use of back lit cast aluminium letters, Optima letter style with the exception of occupants of entire buildings such as Spires and Edwards Cinema, which will utilize individual trademark letter styles to be back lit. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Stout stated that he had received a letter from representatives of the Arnold Anderson project in which they volunteered to sit on a committee to establish a policy for utility undergrounding. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, advised that Lloyd Hubbs, the City Engineer, had taken a report to the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, but that he had no further information. Chairman Stout stated that an Ad Hoc Committee should be established comprised of one or two planning Commissioners, possibly Southern California Edison representatives, and other interested City property owners, along with representatives of the Economic Development Committee. He indicated that he would not merely like to see a report with a policy recommendation come to the Planning Commission from the Economic Development Committee without other public input. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Hamer, seconded by Pempel , unanimously carried, to adjourn. g SS p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned RTCol l + subai , A60� an Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- July g, 1986