Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/09/13 - Agenda Packet __ :_ _.. =.e.o...�_•i-pa4y.—d,:_ ..r..r. _I - - �i.. .,.r-...-.-m ate.. ..._. _ Y•ti., r� .1 `a a• P Y . .r t t RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CODh1ISSION AGENDA Wednesday, September 13, 1978, 7 :00 p.m. Community Services Building; 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, (.A I. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call : Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempcl Commissioner Garcia Commissioner RempelToIstoy Commissioner Jones 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Hearings A. Zone Change No. 123-81 - Changing the zone from A-1 (limited agri- culture) to C-2 (general business district) and M-1 (light indus- trial) for property located at the southwest interesection of I-lS and Foothill Blvd. - The foothill Blvd. frontage wiil be zoned C-2 and the remaining portion to the rear will be zoned M-1 - Request submitted by William Longley. B. Zone Change No. 87-73 - Changing the zone from R-1-T to C-1 for 10 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Carne- lian Ave. - Requc;t submitted by Ontario Savings and Loan. C. Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan S. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Communications 8. Consent Calendar The following consent calendar items are exi)ected to be routine and non- controversial . All items will be acted upon at one time without discussion. Anyone having questions nay request removal from the consent calendar for later discussion. A. Approve a modification to an Engineering condition for Minor Subdivision No. 78-O3Oi to defer dedication of land until such time that the prop- crt recordationpof map. Us awn. rshiUs will cause a significant delay for 9. Adjournment 1 1 STAFF REPORT e DATE: September 13 , 1978 TO: Planning Commission FRDI; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-73 - Changing the zone from R-1-T to C-1 for ten (10) acres of land located on the south- east corner of baseline and Carnelian - Request submitted by Ontar4.o Savings and Loan. BACKGROUND: This zone change was continuer; from the meeting of August 23 , 1978 in order to allow the applicant to prepare a final copy of the "Declaration of Restrictions" acceptable to the City Attorney. The applicant' s attorney has not submitted the "Declaration of Restrictions" to allow Staff to complete the processing of this zone change request. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on Zone Change No. 87-73 to the September 27 , 1978 meeting. Respectfully submitted, � Ld:k JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:dm STAFF REPORT DATE: September 13, 1978 :O: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Zone Change No. 123-81 - A change of zone from A-1 (limited agriculture) to C-2 (general cormnercial) and M-1 (limited ineustrial) for approximately 5 acres of land located at the southwest intersection of Interstate 15 and Foothill Boule- vard -• Request eubmiLted by William Longley BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, Mr. Longley initially requested a change of zone to G-2 for the entire subject property. At the Commission meeting nf August 23, 1978, staff reported that the applicant's intended use for the property was not wholly permitted in the C-2 zone. A building supply center entails the outdoor storage of building materials such as sand, rock, and gravel, as well as retail sales. Such storage activities are permitted in the M-1 zone. Staff,therefore, recotmnended on the .)axis of the proposed General Plan, that the front 300 feet of the subject property be zoned C-2 to accommodate the retail portion of the business and the remaining portion be zoned M-1 to accommodate the storage uses. The applicant agreed to a.end his application to reflect staff's recoramendation as shown on Exhibit "A". GENERAL PLAN: The proposed General Plan designates the project site as general commercial uses along the Foothill Boulevard frontage at a lepth of approximately 250 - 300 feet with the remaining portion designated as indu�tr{al uses. ZONING AND T.AND USE: The project site is presently vacant ara zoned A-1. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: ZONING LAND USE North A-1 Vacant South A-1 Vacant East A-1 Vacant West A-1 Vacant ANALYSIS: The proposed zone change is consistent r+ith the proposed Gen- eral Plan. Th,! site is suitable in size and shape to accommodate uses per- mitted in the proposed zones. It should be noted that the project site is located directly across the street from a potential regional shopping cen- ter. Therefore, any development plans submitted for this site will be care- fully examined by staff to insure that the design of the site will be at- tractive and cumpatible to a regional shopping center. MIP 1 Zone Change No. 123-81 -2- CORRESPONDENCE•: A notice of public hearing was published in the Cucamonga Times on August 31, 1978. In addition, notice of said hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The Commission will recall, that at the meeting of August 23, 1978, a property owner in the area of the subject site was concerned that a building supply center would not be compatible to a future regional center if not designed properly. RECOMENDATION: Tha Planning Division recommends V, ot the Planning Com- mission, following the public hearing, approve Resc lution No. 78-05 and forward such recommendation to the City Council for approval. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development a Ti-EtLI� — nouGevARO • Al to C2 230 o 1 � 72AC �'f��' �, '• l ,r As• lAB.Jb•/J7A Xg .4 i Y 1 , Z2ID 1767 AC 3656A C . I 9.3AC. S nap / 2. •% 9 99 !.0 '•tea '.k� ,rt "'J" 'tii: �.iy T'�p's ,� v� \\� �• `. 1 Roure AUGUST 23, 1978 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f:egular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building , 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga , on Wednesday, August 23, 1978. Meeting was called to order at 7 : 05 p.m. by Chairman Jorge Garcia, who lead the meeting kith the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Laura Jones , Jorge Garcia, and Peter Tolstoy. Absent: Commissioners Herman Rempel and Richard Dahl. APPROVAL OF Upon motion by Commissioner Laura Jones , MINUTES seconded by Commissioner Jorge Garcia and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 9 , 1978 as submitted. i PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE NO. 95-85 - Changing the zone from A-1 and C-1 to M-1 for property located on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Request su mitted by Harry Rinker, and DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-06 - The development of an industrial bus ness center located on the southwest corner of Archibald and Arrow Route - Request submitted by Harry Rinker. Jack Lam presented the zone change staff report detail, which is on file in the Planning Division. He stated that the proposed change is in conformance with the proposed General Plan and compatible to surrounding uses and suitable for the project site. Staff recommended approval of this zone change. Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing for the zone change. He ter, represented the applicant, Harr R n e� k r, and stated that they are proposing to j deveop a light industrial office complex. He further stated that their intentions are to gain Commission approval of Phase "A" of the development plans which will be presented tonight, Commissioner Garcia stated that since the zone change and site evelopment plans are inter- related, that he would like to hear the staff report for the site plans prior to making a decision on the zone change. Since there were no other public comments, the public hearing for the zone change was closed. a 5• • 1 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- AUGUST 23, 1978 Michael Vairin informed the Commissioners that the appl cant had submitted a three (3) phase plan and was seeking approval of Phase "A" and was only seeking conceptual approval of Phases "B" and "C" . He recommended approval of Director Review No. 78-06 based on the findings and conditions recommended by staff . Further, he recommended an amendr.:ert to condition number 3 which should include that "detailed building elevations should be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior tc issuance of building permits. " MOTION: Upon motion by- Commissioner Jones , se— conked by Commissioner Tolstoy and unani- mously carried, it was voted to approve and adopt Resolution No. 78-02 which recommends approval of Zone Chan a No. 95-85 to the City Council based on t e in xngs contained therein. ' MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Jones , seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanl- mously carried, it was voted to approve Director Review No. 78-06 based on the findings and conditions as follows : FINDINGS: 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. Landscaping and setbacks which are provided are compa- tible with the existing development in the surrounding area. 2. The site for the proposed use fronts on a street properly designed both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the sub- ject use. 3. There will not be an adverse effect on adjacent property. 4. That the project will not be objectionable or detrimental to existing uses permitted in the zone district. 5. This project will not be contrary to the objectives nor the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Commission deems that the conditions listed in this report are the minimum necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. CONDITIONS• Planning: 1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied with. 2 . That the site be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Planning Division. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- AUGUST 23 , 1978 3. That precise landscaping, irrigation plans, and detailed building elevations be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits and that landscaping be installed prior to final inspection by the City. 4. That a detailed trash enclosure plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building. permits. 5.• That the most westerly building of Phase "A" maintain a 25 ' setback from the pri- vate drive and that such revision be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior_ to the issuance of building permits. 6. That the three (3) parking stalls located on the south side of the most westerly . building of Phase "A" be eliminated. 7. That a coordinated sign program be designed for this development and be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to installation. B. That this approval shall become null and void if Zone Change No. 95-85 is not approved and adopted by the City Council. Engineering: 9. Install curb, gutter, and drive approaches along the north boundary of the entire parcel. 10. Eliminate most easterly proposed drive entrance as shown on site plan. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits , a site grading plan shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer. Drainage shall be designed to insure against the creation of damage or nuisance to , adjacent properties. 12. Drainage over drive approaches shall be prohibited and sidewalk drains provided. PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-66 - Changing the zone from 7M-R3-T to A-1 fro ro ert located on the north side o I t Street a rol -ately 4001 west of Ameth st Street - Rq uest subm tted Kenneth Bl er; and, SITE APPROVA NO. �- - The development of a nursery for�rc-+ert ocated on the northside of E Street approximatel7y 4001 west of Amethyst - Request submitted Kenneth By er. d� 1 '• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- AUGUST 23, 1978 Jack Lam stated that since the zone change and site approval are directly related that they will be presented concurrently. !le presented the staff report in detail which is on file in the Planning Division. Mr. Lam reported that this request was submitted in an attempt to make the existing illegal :se legal . He stated that by granting such a change would be inconsistent with the proposed General Plan and would create Significant traffic pzoblems. He asked Lloyd Hubbs to present the traffic implications. Llo presented the traffic report. Fie in or We the Commissioners that 19th Street is a State Highway and the major east- Writ arterial which passes to the northern section of the City. He further stated that the Engineering Department recommended that access to 19th Street be limited to as few openings as possible and that no additional commercial type zoning be allowed. Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing . for comments from the applicant and other interested persons. Charles Althaus spoke on behalf of the app ilit cant for the zone change. He stated that on the west side of the property there is a refrigeration business and on the south side it is zoned as A-1. This nursery does business on Wednesday, Thursday , Friday, Saturday and Sunday in the days only. He further stated that on the east there is property that possibly may be acquired which is adjacent to the present property and, therefore, have traffic entering from Amethyst instead of 19th Street. Lloy_ dTH_ubbs stated that Amethyst would be a solution to the traffic problem but this would still be "spot zoning" and could cause future difficulty. Gary Hall, the west property owner, asked what lie- ould do to protect himself if this is approved to a commercial area, especially about machinery noise. Commissioner Garcia informed Mr. Hall that if "spot zoning"-Mowed some sort of provisions to protect the property owners would be address- ed. Robert Shibato, one of the owners of the property, clarified that the large equipment that had been on the property belonged to one of the partners and he is no 1-_.s.9er affiliated with them. His business is offering plants from the grower to the public. Robert Shibato informed the Planning Commission ttiat his entire family is in the plant business. They have a business located in Chino e>here these �+ f PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- AUGUST 23, 1918 plants are grown and brought over to 19th Street and sold. He further informed the Comaissioners that they do raise ground cover and bedding plants at the nursery. Commissioner Garcia closed the public hearing after no comments from the public. NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner TTol�sto�. sec on ed by Commissioner Jones , and unan3- mously carried it was voted to deny Zone Chan a No. 94-66 and adopt Resolution No. 79-03 ' wit an amen ment to the resolution to include an additional finding which states "that the proposed zone change does not conform to the proposed General Plan. " MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded, by Commissioner Tolstoy and unan mously carried it was voted to deny the request for Site Approval No. 94-66 based on im,�,roper zoning . ZONE CHT.NGE NO. 91-82 - Changing the zone from R-1 to C• 2 ferpro erty located on the east side of Arc ibald Avenue a roxima�te�1150�� north of Devon Street - Request submitted by Freda Shelley. Jack Lam presented this report in detail, whi h its on file in the Planning Division. He reported that the proposed zone change is not consistent with the proposed General Plan and that such "spot zoning" practices cause land use compatibility and traffic problems. Further, several objections to this proposal were received from surrounding property owners. Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing to allow the app icl ant and other interested persons speak on the project. Freda Fhelley, th.: applicant and owner of the subject site located at 8239 Archibald, spoke on behalf of her project and explained the improvements that she would make to the project site if this zone change is approved. She stated that she plans to use the site as a real estate office and it could accommodate another office. Jose'ph Gotta spoke on behalf of Freda Shell% ,s .la pro3ect. He stated that he wou1 a to ave the area changed to a commercial zone because of the increased traffic noise. He further mentioned that people usually dor ` t rent mare than three (3) months at a time because - f traffic noise. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -b- AUGUST 23 , 1978 Charlotte W ckoff also spoke on behalf of this pro ect again en orsing the constant traffic noise . After no further public continents, Commissioner , Garcia closed the public hearing. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Tols' ,Jy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried it was voted to deny the request fdr Zone Change No. 97-82 and adopt Resolution No. 78-04 with an amendment to the resolution. to include an additional finding which states "that the proposal was not in conformance with the proposed General Plan. " ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-73 - Changing the zone from R-1-T to C-1 for ten ( 10) acres of land located on the southeast corner of Baseline an CarnI - Request submutted by Ontario Savings. Jack Lam stated that this item had been dis- cussed at the last Planning Commission. The applicant intends to establish administrative- professional uses on the site with some commercial uses, and a restaurant. At the last Planning Commission meeting the discussion revolved around the: appropriateness of rezoning this particular property to C-1. The Commission felt that A-P zoning would be the most appro- priate zone; however, it was noted that a restaurant is not permitted in the A-P zone. The Commission felt that a restaurant use would be compatible to A-P uses and will be initiating an amendment to the A-P zone to allow a restaurant_ Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed contract zoning and feel that this has not been accurately tested through the courts and the City should not be involved with contract zoning until much more research has beer, done. If they were to consider an A-P rezoning then staff would have to make provisions to amend the A-P zone which will take considerable period of time. Jack Lam further stated that the applicant has submitted a voluntary ."Declaration of Restriction" fop the subject property which will restrict the use of land to A-P type uses. However, the staff and the City Attorney had only received a draft of that copy cn August 23, 1978 in the afternoon and have not had an opportunity to review this draft. Staff recommended that this `be continued to the next -Planning Commission meeting in order to formulate a recommendation on the "Declaration of Restriction. " MOTIOA: Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Jones and una�sly carried, it was voted to co *in nue this public hearing to the Sep twaber 13, 1978 Planning Commission meeting . r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- AUGUST 23, 1978 SITE APPROVAL No. 91-66 - The develo men t o�f a re-�sue o facil ty loc3t•_d on the nort�ide of 19th Street between Beryl an Hellman - Request submitted by B lly Wyc o f _ ' Jack Lam presented the staff report in cZFetai� which is on file in the Planning Division. He stated that there are serious traffic implications since 19th Street is a major and State highway. in addition , a commercial use in this location would not be compatible . He stated that the City Engineer will present the traffic implica- tions. Lloyd Hubbs, the City Engineer, presented the traffic analysis for this project, which is on file in the Planning nivision. Mr . Hubbs' stated that a letter from CALTRANS was <t , received which will require dedication and improvements that will put the structure very close to the street which would create safety problems and access problems. He stated that a use of this nature will create a significant amount of traffic in and out of the site which is not adequately designed. Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing for public torments . Charlotte Wyckoff, the applicant, stated t at ay care centers are needed in residential areas. She further stated that she had signatures of 100 Rancho Cucamonga residents who approved of the project. Jack Lam clarified that staff did not mean to riy that these 1.ype of uses are not appropriate in residential areas. They are very appropriate in a residential area, but it must meet all the requirements in regards to safety and access. Commissioner Garcia closed the public hearing after no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Tolsto , seconded by Commissioner .Tones and unanimously carried, it was voted to deny the application for Site Approval No. 91-66 based on the trafficicmpficat ons on 19th Street. Further, that staff prepare policies on limited access for major arterials for commission considera- tion. ZONE C hN0 NO. 123-81 - Changing the zone from A-1 to C- for property located at the southwest intersection of Foothi 11 Boulevard . an�state 1 - Request submitted by wi 1 am Long Iey. a; r . r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- AUGUST 23 , 1978 Jack Lam presented the staff report in :'.et— ail which is on file in the Planning Division. He reported that the application for this request was in error as building materials are not a permitted use in the C-2 zone. Since the General Plan proposes indus.-rial use to the rear of the project site, staff recommended that an amendment to the application be made for a change of zone from A-1 to C-2 in the front portion 'of the property with a M-1 zoning on the rear portion of the subject property. Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing to comments. William Longley, the applicant, was agreeable to the recommendations made by staff and to have this item continued to the September 13, 1978 Planning Commission meeting for the appropriate amendment. Joe Di Orio spoke in opposition to the building supply project at this particular location. He stated that they were currently in escrow regarding the property that is to the west of Mr. Longley's property. He further stated that he did not think that Mr. Longley's proposed building supply project was a compatible use for this intersection. He felt that a good quality design should occur at this site since it is located across from the proposed regional shopping center. Mr. Di Orio requrested that more information on the designation be obtained. Commissioner Garcia closed the public hearing after no furt en r public comments . MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner TolstoY, sec�ed by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried it was voted to co-nt nue this to the September 13, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. RECESS Chairman Garcia declared a short recees at 9 :45 p.m.' RECONVENED At 10 : 00 p.m. with all members present, the Planning Commission reconvened. NEW BUSINESS APPEAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 96-72 - Requesting the expansion of Milano s Pizza Restaurant located in the Alta Lona shopping center on the northwest corner of archal and Baseline - Request submitted y Mail a s Pizza. }n .r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- AUGUST 23 , 1978 r Jack, Lam presented this report in detail wWiZi it on file in the Planning Division. He reported that this request has been solved and the applicant has no need of processing this appeal any further. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that a rear entrance be provided to encourage customers to park in the back and, therefore, avoid traffic. He suggested that this rear entrance be designed in such a manner that it is inviting to the public. No motion was required on the part• of the Planning Commission on this item. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78--03 - Development of i do us ri�al��uildings located on the south side ot9 th Street, approximately 600 west of Hellman - Request submitted tted b Michal e Todd,. Michael Vairin presented this staff report in detail w is is on films in the Planning Division. This proposed plan does conform to the proposed General Plan, and, therefore, staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Michael Todd, the applicant was not present. St+zf had received no correspondence in regards to the proposed conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy inquired about the flood control in that area. tl d %bbs, our City Engineer, stated that this area is an area subject to periodic flooding and falls under the regulation-- of the Federal Flood insurance Program. He further stated that they are working with the applicant to develop measures for protection. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that block wall screening is more appropriate behind Building "A" rather than the proposed chain link fencing. He recomnendad that it be included as a condition. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Jones , seconn ed by Commissioner Tolstoy and unaani- mously carried, it was votee to approve the application subject to the following findings and conditions : FINDINGS : 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. Landscape and building setbacks which are provided are compatible with the existing development in the surrounding area. 2. That the site for the proposed use fronts on streets properly designed both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type of quantitive traffic generatecl by the subject use. 1; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- AUGUST 23, 1978 3. There will be an adverse effect upon adjacent property. 4 . This project will not be objectionable or detrimental to existing uses permitted in the zone district. 5. This project will not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Commission deems that the conditions in this report are the minimum necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community: CONDITIONS : 1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied with. 2 . That the site be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Planning Division . 3 . That precise landscape and irrigation plans he submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits and be installed prior to final inspection by the City. 4 . That a detailed trash enclosure plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. That the warehouse door on the west side of Building "E" be relocated to the east side of Building "E" . 6. That a copy of the recorded deed guaranteeing the reciprocal easement for Buildings "E" and "F" be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. If said easement is not obtained, then a revised site plan indicating adequate access shall be submitted to and approved by the y. Planning Commission. 7. A coordinated sign program shall be design- ed for this development and submittal to the Planning Division for approval prior to installation. 8. All conditions of Minor Subdivision No. 78-0245 shall be adhered to in conjunction with the development of this project. 9 . In lieu of the chain link fencing in the rear of Building "A" that s masonry wall be constructed with view obstructing ' gates . 1 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -11- AUGUST 23 , 1978 DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-05 - Develo ent of professional of !ice bu I in located on the . northwest corner of Baseline and Amethyst - Request submitted by James Van Antwerp. Michael Vairin presented the staff report n detail which is on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommended approval of this project based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Allen, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was satisfied with the proposed site. His only concern was that proper drainage exist between Mr. Van Antwerp 's property and his. Commissioner Garcia stated that he would like : '. to see more plant material on the unused portion of the property. Mr. Van Antwerp, the applicant, was pleased Wit ] al t cooperation he has received from staff on his project. Mr. Van Antwerp stated that frvit trees could be planted w ere: Commissioner Garcia had indicated that more plant -naterial be put in . MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve Director Review No. 78-05 subject to the foll�g findings and conditions : FINDINGS: 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. Land- scaping and setbacks which are provided are compatible with existing develop- ment in the area. 2 . The site for the proposed use fronts on a street properly designed both as to width and type of pavement to carry the traffic generated by the subject use. 3 . There will not be an adverse affect upon adjacent property. 4 . The project will not be objectionable or detrimental to existing uses permitted in the zoned district. 5. This project will not be contradictary to the objectives nor the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Commission deems that the conditions of the report are a minimum necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the conmiunity. i e: c�. 4".i. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -12- AUGUST 23 , 1978 CONDITIONS : 1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied with. 2. That the site be developed in accordance with the approved plans that are on file in the Planning Division . 3. That precise landscaping and irrigation plans be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits and be installed prior to occupancy. 4. That revised detail building elevation plans be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. That the trach enclosure be constructed of a 6 ' masonry wall with a view ob- structing gate compatible with the building. 6. A coordinated sign program shall be designed for Lhis development and submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to installation. 7. A 20' corner cutoff shall be provided at Baseline and Amethyst. 8 . 171 . of property shall be dedicated along Baseline Avenue street frontage, to make Baseline Avenue 50' wide from centerline. 9 . Prior to the development of the property, . grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Hydraulic calcu- lations will be required to support the size and location of the drainage structure shown on the plans. 10 : Sewer and water connections shall be coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water District prior to the development of this site. 11. A Title Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to issu- ance of building permits. That curb, gutter, drive approaches, sidewalk, street trees , and A.C. match-up paving be provided along Baseline and Amethyst. 12. That plant material be planted along Roberds Street. w ss .l_ l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE: -13- AUGUST 23, 1978 i MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 78-0301 - A subdivision . ool ``T acres into three 3 arcels for ro ert locatedcn the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street - Request subrnitted by Mr. Brannan. Jack Lam presented this staff report in detail which is on file in the Planning Division. Jack Lam recommended approval of this minor su3­vTs'ion .based on the findings and conditions in the staff report. Mr. Andrew Barmakian, architect, represented the buyers of the property and stated that they would be interested in saving the Eucalyptus trees if they could be saved. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner To���l�ss�tto__yy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanusly carried it was voted to accept the request for this minor subdivision subject to the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report: FINDINGS: 1. That the minor subdivision is consistent • with the proposed General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. That the zitc physically suitable for the type of development. 3. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environ- mental damage. 4 . That the minor subdivision meets all the . requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS : Engineering Division: 1. An offer of dedication consisting of three (3) feet along Sixth Street of parcels 1, 2 and 3 be made. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading, drainage and street plans must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Hydraulic calculations will, be required to support the sizing and location of drainage structures . 3. Sewer and water plans shall be submitted and approved by the Cucamonga County Water District prior to development of the individual parcels . 4 . A Parcel Map shall be recorded on the proposed land division in conformance with the provisions of City ordinances and the State Subdivision Map Act. PLANNING' COMMISSION MINUTES -14- AUGUST 23, 1978 5. At the time of development of parcels 1 , 2 and 3, curb, gutter, drive approaches , street trees and A.C. match-up paving shall be provided along the Sixth Street frontage. Foothill Fire District: 6. Fire flow will be determined by the Foothill Fire District upon receipt of the following information: (a) Two (2) sets of plans, (b) Structures per acre (density) , (c) Location of tract, and (d) Type of roof covering. 7 . Calculations indicating that the fire flow requirements will be met shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire District prior to plan approval. B. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the re- quirements of the Cucamonga County Water District. 9 . The Foothill Fire District shall be notified to w4.tness an acceptance test of the water system prior to construc- tion of any building (s) or structure(s) . 10 . Fire hydrant assemblies shall be installed in accordance with require- ments of the Foothill Fire District. 11. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to commencing construction of any building (s) or structure(s) , and shall be approved wet barrel type only. 12. All streets and cul-de-sacs shall meet the minimum City of Rancho Cucamonga 's standards. 13. Streets leading to cul-de-sacs or dead ends shall not exceed 600 feet in length. In the event these streets are redesigned in any manner, the 600 feet length shall be maintained on all resubmitted plans (tentative or final) . The following requirements are necessary prior to completion or occupancy of the aforementioned development: 14 .. Trees existing on the property are to be topped to 30 feet and trimmed from the base up 15 feet. All dead limbs and leaves are to be removed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -15- AUGUST 2„ 1978 15. House or building address numbering shall be provided in accordance with San Bernardino County Ordinance 2108, adopted by the City of Rancho Cuca- monga. 16. Any structure which incorporates fireplace chimneys shell have approved arresters installed. Planning Division : 17. All rules and regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be complied with. 18. Unless otherwise specified in this approval, any other alterations of the land must be approved by the Community Development Director. ,e COMMUNICATIONS Jack Lam brought to the Commissioners ' attention the two (2) letters on Tracts 9193 and 9262. They requested that the property owners go ahead and trim the Eucalyptus trees along certain portions of these tracts. Jack Lam further stated that the City has no way of requiring that these trees be trimmed at a particular time. Jack Lam informed that all the Planning Commission could do is acknowledge receipt of these letters. Jack Lam informed the Planning Commission that T City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 19) to modify the director review on a multi-family development. Mr. Lam furnished the Commissioners with copies this ordinance and stated that this ordinance will nog be in affect until 30 days after approval. Jack Lam also informed the Planning Con:91 oners of the report he had prepared for the City Council meeting requesting additional staffing. Mr. Lam further informed the Planning Commissioners that at that meeting staff was authorized to immediately staff the Building and Saf eLy functions for the City and that staff is now proceeding as quite!y as possible in taking over the Building and Safety func- tions from the County. The plans are to take over all the functions on September 15. s \\. ' ' F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -16- AUGUST 23, 1978 Jack Lam further informed the ?lanni"g Coss on that we had hired Mr. Jerry Grant as our Building Official.—Mr. Grant is—currently the Superintendent of Building Regulations for the City of West Covina. He has over 20 years in i building technology and he �s widely respected by his peers throughout the State. Mr. Lam stated that he personally r feels that we Rave gotten an outstanding person. Commissioner. Jones complimented Mr. Lam on his presen to i�on to the City Counci regarding the additional staffing request, and further stated that she war very proud of how Mr. Lam made his presentation. Commissioner Jones wished ::= Tam further luck on tTie 6th of Septac;�ar_ Jack Lam also stated that he hopes to Have a meeting in September to discuss future programr and nriori.ti ,- s . At the meeting he also plans to present a new draft of the proposed sign ordinance. Commissioner Garcia spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission, and extended 100% support to the Community Develop- ment Director when. he goes to the next City Council meeting asking for additional manpower. He further suggested drafting a letter in support of this request. * � a Jack Lam stated that he had one more item to present. It was in reference to the shopping center on the southwest corner of Carnelian and 19th. This center was approved and building permits issued prior to Ordinance 19 , so the City did not have the opportunity to review the site plan or the requirements of that center. Jack Lam, had a meeting .that afternoon with the developers of that center including their attorney, engineer and architect. He suggested ways of improving the site plan to the applicants and they seemed to be agreeable. Jack Lam requested approval from the Planning Commissioners to work with the developers and improve this site plan. The Planning Commissioners fully supported Jack Lam on his suggestions for improving tTie site plan for this shopping center. 1 is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -17- AUGUST 23 , 1978 '!a r The Planning Commissioners directed staff to proceed with the policy of limiting access on major arterials. Commissioner Garcia stated that they were very pleased with our legal counsel's ' performance and cooperation as a whole.. He thanked him for keeping us out of trouble. � c ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and ur,anirrously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1978 at 11: 00 p.m. to its next regularly scheduled meeting. Respectfully submitted, Diana. Mansf e_d , Secretary y, 'a RESOLUTION NO. 78-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA XLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONE CHANCE NO. 123-81 TO ORDINANCE NO. 17 BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM A-1 TO C-2 FOR THE FRONT 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND M-1 FOR THE REMAINING PORTION LOCATED ON -THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULSVARD WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND SHOWN ON EXH.'.BIT "A". WHEREAS, on the 24th day of May, 1978, an application was filed and accepted cn the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of September, 1978, the Planning Com- mission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of September, 1978, the Planning Com- mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds; 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with exist- ing land uses in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed zone change would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed zone change is `.n conformance with the pr"pos,2d General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1.. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of ti:e California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 13th day of September, 1978, Zone Change No. 123-81 which is attached hereto znd made a part of this resolution. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recammends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 123-81. 3. That a certified copy of this resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be transmitted to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1978, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Hermen Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I' Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduces, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day of 19 by the �. following vote to-wit: s AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOLFS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DISCIISSION OF GENERAL. PLAN ISSUES Page 4 September 27, 1978 2. Issue: There are existing commercial uses in this area as well as developing commercial uses. Factors: Because of the existing uses and the new uses being built in the area and the location of the Southern Pacific Railway and the juncture of two major artet ial s and the location of a shopping center on the corner of Baseline and Archibald, it is questionable whether this area is conclusive far residential development. RECOHMENDATION: Change General Plan to reflect service commercial designation. 3. Area: Thomas Vince Winery General Plan Designation: SLm ice Commercial . Issue: Thomas Winery intends to mpand the small commercial center. Factors: The Ceneral Plan does not prohibit this the designation Is service commercial. whether a free stnading use or a center. RECOMMENDATION: No conflict . Retain Ceneral Ilan c'.esignatlun. 4. Area: Alternative A. General Plan Designation: Regional Center Alternative. IssuL: Individnll objects to regional shopping center concept as a focal point for community, desires mire open space. Factors; Over the course of futuro City development, the community can Support a regional type commercial center which can have hcncfits both to the community In terms of the availability of commercial fac-Hitles as well as contril:ueions to the community tax base. The quest !on of central identity for the community v:as a topic of previous discussion and since it is difficillt to project precisely into the future and project precise locations of such a center proposal it desirable fa show the three most rcaonable alternatives for potential center sites and to indicate a choice in the General. Plan rather than to reflect one site. There was strong agrecnent by the Planning Conm ission in previous Discussions that a shopping center if designed properly and planned for properly can provide a strong central identity for the urban area. RECOMENDATION: Maintain policy position of the Planning Commission. 5. Area: Southeast corner of Hellman and Foothill. General Plan herignation: Service Commercial. DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES Pate 5 September 27, 1978 . 5. Issue: Lucas desires. commerc ial center designation. Factor: There is no cG:Iflict between this desire and the General Plan designation since service commercial does not discriminate between freestanding uses and multi-tenant center. RECOMMENDATION: IJo conflict. Keep General Plan designation. 6. Area: East ride of Vineyard between Arrow Route and Foothill. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use. Issue: Speaker desires commercial uses rather than mixed uses. Vineyard is a major arteri..I and a major entry into the City. It is undesirable to encourage uses that would change the character of the street to a commercial strip when there is an opportunity to control development of the area by allowing only uses which develon less vehicular turn movements from Vineyard. RECOMMENIATION: Retain mixed •.1se designation. 7. Area: Area abounded by Southern Pacificcttracks. Devore Freeway and u East Avene in Etiwanda. General Plan Designation: Windrow. Issue: Property owner feels property .ts Flot conducive for residential. development and instead desires commercial designation. Factors: ilecau•ve of the area's relative small, size .and buffering from the transportntion corridors and its exilmaire and accessibility, service commercial can he compatible on this site. This; was once a proposal on a previous sketch plan. F.ECOMMENDATION: Modify the General Plan to reflect service conmier.clal . espectfu�iy submitted, .]A ,h 1. M �i Nor of Community Development JL:dm 0 L r,v'p uepnl:r Dr\lli: S11-11TEMPER 27, 1978 TCt: PLANNING C(WHISSION FROPI: .JACK LAM, DIRECTOR OF CODir11JNITl' DGVELOPMF,NT SUIL1GCI : PARCEL DIA1' No. 4693 - Dividing; 2.78 arrcv of land located on Lhe wo=C side of Sapphire Street approximately 330' north of 1901. Street inin 1. nnrrolo - R-1-RSn(i i.... _ M.... ....h...t««...1 t... Vanguard finildcrs. APPLICATION AND DACKGROUND: Vanguard Builders arc rcgnrsc ing approval of Porrol Nap ;:o. 4693 (Fsii(htt "A") . 'rile oppl iviutt i� pt-ohnsini; to rt Ivi,L• 2 . 78 acre:; into 4 parcels. Three of the parcels pr"cliLly crnitain a deviling: unit and the fourth is vacant. EVA_L_11AT_ION: 'file Suhject. property is proposed to he divided .in a manoi•r con- sist-cut wit-h the Toning Ordinance and the (.e•UCral Plan. Ifirther, tho i^all as proposed, meeLs the standards of the State= SitbdivIsion Mil, Act: and the Citv's Stihdivls;Iwi Ordin.',ncc. - 'The Environmental Ann I-V:; I:; Star t has as::u:se,d this iti-,.low t for a:gnIrIcant rely ironnu'n Ca 1. impacts. Based on review of trio Intt. 1a1 Study, SLaff has published a br:ifL Nurative ber.laration for public review and counent. To date, no correspoudvrice has been rec(•ived . Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Criinmission adopt a Negative Derlaration for Parccl Map No. 4693. RGCOMMENDA71014: The Planning Division rveinnmends that the Planning', L701111iiSSinn upprovc and adopt Resolution No. 78-04 I•.:isc,d on Lin, finrlhig-S and Condition:; listed l.hrrcin. Ror:prrtfnl lei sulnnit Lod, �i .JACK LMt, Director of Co"T11111 l Lv Devc I Opinont JI.:dal attnchmcnt i.. SIAIA: laipoRr I)Ari;: September 27, 1978 TO! Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development slIn-cr: DIRECTOR RCVIEW No. 78-20 - An industrial development on 49 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald nn_th and adjacent to the Frito-Lay plant - M-1 and M-2 zone - Request submitted by Vanguard Builders. BACKGROUND: The applicants art proposing to develop an industrial complex that will consist of eight (8) buildings totaling 264,300 square feet (Ex- hibit "A") . The project is designed to accommodate multi-industrial tenants in the front buildings, light industrial uses in the center buildings, and heavy industrial uses in the rear buildings. Ample landscaping and a pedes- trian mall have been designed into the project. The site presently contains some older building which will all be removed. ANALYSIS: The development as proposed is in conformance with the 7.oning Ordinance subject to the revisions recommended in this report. In addition, such a development is consistent with the General Plan. Access is provided by three (3) driveways off of Arc'.Abald Avenue each 30 feet wide as shown on the -applicant's site plan. As Archibald is a major thoroughfare, the Engineering Division is recommending that access be limit- ed to two (2) driveways at a minimum of 36 feet wide. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space fnr every 1,000 square feet of building area for industrial uses. A development of this size will require 320 parking spaces. The applirant 's Elan indicates that 744 spaces are being provided. The parking spaces and driveway aisles are adequate with the ex- ception of the parallel spaces on thc•. north and south property lines and the parking spaces located between the heavy industrial buildings. The parallel parking spaces do not provide enough room between spaces for ingress and egress. Staff recommends removal of the parallel spaces since there are more than adequate spaces proviO.2d for the development and since these aisles will he widened to 36 feet . Staff also recommends removal of the center parking aisle between the heavy industrial buildings as there is not adequate back-up space for this area. The elimination of these parking areas will result in 78 less spaces. However, thcee will still be 666 spices which is well above the required parking standards. The development plan indicates pedestrian sidewalks and landscaping around the buildings. As parking stalls are adjacent to the areas, staff is recom- mending that the landscaped areas and sidewalks be reversed; the landscaping adjacent to the building and the sidewalks adjacent to the parking area. This will allow better pedestrian access without having to walk through land- scaped planters. Director Review No. 78-20 Elevations of 00s project are nhown on Exhibit "B". They provided a varying degree of materials such as clay tile roof, slump stone, wood trim, concrete tilt-up and glu-lum beams. The Environmental 9nalysis Staff has reviewed the Initial Study and has pub- lished n draft Negative Declaration as no significant adverse impacts were found as, a res ulc of thts development. No correspondence has been received in regards !o such publication_ Staff recommends that. the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for this project. RECO`@1ENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve and adopt Resolution No. 78-08 based on the findings and conditions listed therein. Res:pectiully submxttcd. JACK LAM, Director of Community Develo,ment JL:MV:deb i F' 0 0 STAFF REPORT DATE September 27, 1978 10: Planning Commission I;RO%I: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUR-JECT: DT.RECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-19 - Proposal for an office-retail building on the northeast corner of Amethyst and 19th Street. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The Vanir Development Company is proposing to dev^lop a 7,230 Square foot office-retail building on the above mentioned site. The property is currently zoned C-1 with a T Standard limiting the use of the property to a Post Office. Since a Post Office has been con- structed north of the subjoc�: site, the T Standard is no longer appropriate for this site. In view of this, the City Council has adopted a Resolution of Intention to drop the T Standard for the subject property at it meeting of April 19, 1978. ZONING AND LAND USE: The site is presently vacant and zoned C-1-T. The surrounding land use ana zoning is as follows: 70NING LAND USE North C-1-T Post Office South R-1 Single family residence ;:ace_ A-1-5 Vacant West R-3-T(7000) Retirement Home ANALYSIS: The proposed land use element of the Ceneral. Plan designates the lot as high density residential (1.5-30 units per acre). Staff has thor- oughly reviewed this request and feels that professional uses with inci- dental retail uses would be more compatible for this site than high density residential. The present C-1 coning allows for other retail uses which would not be compatible to the area. Staff has worked with the applicant to try and resolve the issue of land use for this site. The applicant has agreed to voluntarily restrict uses on Lhis site to those allowable in the A-P zone. Exhibit "A" is a sketch plan of the proposed project . Detailed site plans will be displaved at the Plnnninl; Commission meeting. The pro- posed buildinn will be 7 ,230 square feet, which wi_I require 36 parking spaces. The project with the recommended modifications will. leave 37 spaces. The widening and street improvements required along 19th Street will offset the traffic generated by the project. t Staff is recommending that an 8 feet landscape barrier he provided along Aa;iethyst to match the existing landscaping in front of the Post Office. Staff further recomarends that the trash enclosure be relocated from the .•r r , Director Review No. 78-.9 cast end of the building to the east property line, so as to prevent a fire hazard. Detailed elevation plans will also be displayed at the Planning Coimnission meeting. Staff is recommending that the mansard roof be extended the length of both sides of the building. All other Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department conditions are listed in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends approval of Resolution No. 78-06 based upon the findings nad conditions contained therein. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAP►, Director of Community Development JL:deb t • 1 . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1978 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednes- day, September 13, 1978. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Herman Rempel, who lead the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Richard Dahl, Laura Jones, Jorge Garcia, Peter Tolstoy, and Herman Rempel. APPROVAL OF Commissioner Tolstoy requested a correction to the minutes MINUTES as follows: Page 15, fourth line from the bottom, the word should read "quickly" rather than "quitely". Upon a motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commis- sioner Tolsto�and carried unanimously, it was voted to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 23, 1978 with the correction as cited. it PUBLIC ZONE. CMGE NO. 123-81 - Changing the zone from A-1 HEARING (limited agriculture) to C-2 (general business) rnd M-1 (light industrial) for property located at the southwest corner of I-15 and Foothill Blvd. - Request submitted by William Longley. Staff rep3rt was presented by Michael Vairin, which is on file in the Planning Division. This was a continued item from the Augu�!t 23, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Staff reported that the C-2 zone was improper for the entire piece of property and relative to the applicant 's Esc. Staff recommended that C-2 zoning be granted to the first 300' of the subject property and that the remaining portion be zoned M-1. Staff indicated that the applicant was in agreement with this proposal.. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 78-05 as submitted. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Rempel. There were no opponents, nor proponents to the zone change. Tile public hearing was then closed. Upon MOTION by CcmmiEsioner Garcia and seconded by Commis- sioner Jones_ and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve and adopt Resolution No. 78-05 based on the condi- tions and findings listed therein and transfer such recom- mendation to the City Council for their review. PUBLIC ZONE CHANCE NO. 87-73 - Changing the zone from R-1-T to HEARING C-1 for 10 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Carnelian - Request submitted by Ontario Savings and Loan. Staff reported that this item was being continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1978 (as the "Declarations of Restrictions" were not complete for Com- mission review) . The applicant was in agreement with this request. ,y xf PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 Upon MOTION by Coianissicner Garcia and seconded by Com- missioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried, it was voted to continue Z.C. No. 87-73 to September 27, 1978. At this time, to facilitate tha General Plan discussion the Consent Calendar items were moved forward for approval. CONSENT Upon MOTION by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commis- CALENDAR sioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve Consent item "A" as submitted. PUBLIC The public hearing for the proposed Rancho Cucamonga HEARING General Plan was opened. Commissioner Rempel gave a brief outline of how the meeting was to be conducted and the procedure to follow in submitting comments. Community Development Director, Jack Lam gave a brief , background on the requirements of cities to have General Plans and the need for public hearings. He indicated that this was the first formal hearing and that others would most likely follow before the Plan is submitted to the City Council . During the public hearing process, the Draft EIR will be circulated for a period of 45 days to obtain, public comments prior to certification of such EIR. . General Plan Consultant, John Blayney, was introduced and alsr) gave a brief description of the process and require- ments of a General Plan. Blayney also explained the "errata" sheet and gave further information regarding the EIR. Blayney indicated that the copies of the EIR would be available when completed at local libraries and City Hall. At this point, Blayney explained that the adoption of the General Plan was not the adoption of a Zoning Ordi- nance, and that this procedure would have to be completed after the General Plan was adopted. He indicated that the CWY General Plan and Zoning Ordinance must be consistent as required by State law. Changes in the General Plan may occur over the years as conditions and policies of the City change. Blayn _indicated that since most of the City west of Haven was already developed that t :. General Plan was more specific for this area. Since most of the City east. of Haven was still undeveloped, the General Plan is much more general in nature as In the casr of the reserve area. He also stated that the locations of schools, parks and shopping centers are general locations and are not specific. Mayor Jim Frost was then introduced and made a brief statement and nresentation. At this point, tl.e public was invited to 'come `orward with their comments. The following is a listing of those items that were discussed . RESIDENTIAL { 1. Walt English, 7946 Lion, Rat.chc Cucamonga, 987-2686. f Location: North of Foothill, west of Hellman, east of Vineyard, and south of the railroad tracks. The 1 PALNNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 homeowners in the Immediate area opposed the high density residential that 1s reflected on the General Plan. This group wanted residential to see something more compatible with the surrounding area, such as a park. 2. Clark Vollintin •, 5204 N. Sierra Road, San Bernardino, 883-5122. Location: Reserve area north of Etiwanda. He indicated that 1: was outside the City limits and that he would like to see it planned for residential uses rather than be left undesignated. 3. Vle Cherbak, 9926 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga, 987-1890. Location: Hillside properties between Archibald and Milliken. ►►e indicated that he wanted to be informed about what was going to be happening in this area at the time final decisions or zoning is to occur. lie wanted to gel together with Staff to discuss items that he will present later. 4. Bruce Uhl, #13 Butternut, Irvine, 92715, 552-4491. Location: 65 acre,; next to Chaffey College. He indicated that the General Plan shows low density residential and that high density residential would be more compatible. 5. Arthur SridZc-,_ 8715 Banyan, 987-2797. Location: Fast bank_..f the Cucamonga Creek, along the wash. • He wanted to see that area zoned for 2 1/2 to 5 acre parcels rather than the `i acre that it is presently planned for. 6. Ralph and Agatha Kleinman, 2500 N. Euclid, Upland, 982-5094. Location: F.tiwanda Devore Freeway area at Baseline, north side of the street. They own most of this acreage and requested that it be planned for service commercial since the railroad and free- way make it difficult to develop residentially. In addition, they requested that their property to the north which is designated as windrow, be shown as low density residential. 7. Ron Nottingham, 9211 Archibald Avenue, 987-6376. Vanguard Companies - Location: North side of 19th Street, cast of Archibald and west of the prolonga- tion of Ramona. The Vanguard Company requested mul- tiple residential as such a project was approved by the County last year. They still plan to develop this project when they get the go ahead from the City. 8. John D. Goldson, 19811 Vicenza Way, L.A. 90024 213-472-7500. Location: Reserve A-r.a. He indi- cated that he owned over 500 acres north of Swnmit and west of the Freeway. He wanted some kind of idea about what type of development would be planned for that area since it Is not designated for any use. 9. M.B. Montgomery, 2460 Huntington Dr. , San Mariro, The Jones Co, 213-285-9711, Tract 9387, East side of Hermosa, south of 19th Str^.et and north of Vic- toria . The General Plan shows this location as a future school site. He stated that their Tentative Y. Lit r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 Tract Map is still on f ae with the City and that they are awaiting their sewer allocation. They requested that this area not be shown as c future school site. 10. L_ loyd Dorsey, 7825 Almond St., 987-2337 . Locat:_n: I1111pide area - Northwest portion of Alta Loma. Requested that the hillside area be retained in its natural state. He felt 1i acre lots were too small that the density should be lower. in addition, he stated that the power lines and fault line was not accurately drawn on map. - 11. Wayne_ Calla!&han,_ 2029 Century Parl, East, L.A. 90067, Marlborough Development Corp. 213-553-51.31. Indicated that they owned property above Foothill, east of Archi- bald whle'i the General Plan indicated as a park site. He stated that part of thi.; site is already used as commercial and that they did not want the remainder to be designated for a park. Ccammissianer Tolstoy stated that the park location is general which means that- it could be anywhere in that general vicinity. 12. [lick Maricie, 1399 S. Rolling Knoll , Diamond Bar, 598-5253. lie was concerned about the special study zone west of Haven. He requested that more precise densit !es be designated for this area and that he be notified of any specific meetings. 13. William Moorhous. 2223 Avenida ale la Playa, La Jolla, 454-9162, Toups Corp. He was satisfied with the den- sity shown north of Alnond and west of Sapphire. He disputed Art Bridge's comment that this area should be plcnned to a lower density than 14 acre. COMMERCI.AL 1. Dr. Kleinman spoke again about this request for commerciai uses on his property. lie had his rer.l estate agent also make . brief statement:. Pat Uraas, 131 :1. Granada Ct: .. , Ontario. 2. _Gary Miernu, Vaniv Development Co. , 290 N. "D" St. San Bernardiao, 884-9477. Location, Northwest cor- ner 19th and Archibald and the northeast corner of 19tii and Amethyst. Requested that these two loca- tions be designated as commercial rather than high density residential. 3. Mary NimnerFot, Opici Winery, 967-2710. Hetmora and Highland, 200' cast of Ilennosa. She stated that they have plans for expansion of the wine tasting room and possibly the develulaent of a restaurant. The proposed 0 neral Plan ind{Cates residential uses and they felt this will not allow for their expansions. They requested commercial in this area. 4. Wayne F. Nelson, 624 W. El Morado ^.t. , Ontario. S.M. lloyt Co. 986-2721. Location: 7110 Archibald Ave. Indicated that this 5 acre piece is zoned com- mercial and construction is already underway on a commercial building. He indicated that all the pro- perties around him are zoned for commercial usage. 3 n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 5. John A. Laar o, 7111 Elmhurst Ave. , 987-3018. Spoke in general about the mixed zoning. He suggested that areas designated as mixed uses within residential areas be required to heavily landscape the properties and locate the parking behind the buildings. 6. Tom Ursua, 759 N. Mountain, Upland . 985-0958. Southwest corner of Foothill and Vineyard. The General Plan Shows high density residential and he requested a commercial designation. 7. Sidney Silliman, 6316 ilaven Ave., 987-1737. Location: Northeast corner of Foothill and Haven. Would like to aec this area held In upon space. He did not like the idea of a regional shopping center. 8. §Sephen D. Lucas, 9224 Foothill Blvd. , 987-1732. Location: North side of Foothill Blvd., from Vine- yard to Hellman and south side of Foothill from Hellman to Malachite. The land is partially in cormercial use and the General Plan shows high den- sity residential. On the southeast corner of Foot- hill and Hellman the commercial designation seems to split a piece of prnperty into two pieces. He would like to see commercial further back from the frontage on Foothill . 9. Joseph A. Filippi. P.O . Box 2, Mira Loma, 984-4514. Location: Northeast corner of Foothill and Vineyard (10 acres) . Requested that the area not be changed from the commercial designation that the General Plan now reflects. 10. Terry Malone, 8986 .'un dlewood, 987-6997. Location: Vineyard and Orchard. Expressed his desire to see rhis Brea designated open space. 11. Scott Robinson, 12326 Summit, Ettwanda - Stated that he would '_ikc to see provisions made so that Fast Avenue will be able to handle traffic in the future as It is becoming a main street in that are.. 1.2. Gil Rodriguez; 1078 Patrick St., Upland, 982-4589. Location: W-1 acres west of Vineyard on Foothill Blvd . Lik^s the commercial designation and would like to see it east of Vineyard as well. 13. Steve Ag azzotti. 11929 Foothill Blvd., 987-1657. Location: A parcel east of Rochester Ave. on Foot- hill Blvd . He would 1 ike to see commercial below Foothill, just below the Rochester track instead of manufacturing right up to Foothill Blvd. He felt that this would provide better buffering. 14. Paul Cerra, 7748 Val Vista, 985-3682. Location: North side of Baseline, just west of Beryl. Would like to sec this area designated as mixed uses rather than residential.. ff INDUSTRIAL 1 i 1. Steve D. Lucas, 9224 Foothill Blvd. Location: 1 "H" Street south to Fourth Street and from Archi- bald to Haven. Submitted a letter from the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce which he read for sr' PLANNING COMMIS-,ION MINUTES -6- SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 i r the record. Requested a more general industrial designation rather tiw:n minimum impact or 'wjor impact. 2 R.S. Brummett, 505 N. Daroca Ave. , San Gabriel 21'1-281-7612. Location: 6th and Turner. This is designated f-sr rinimum impact but is already occupied by Frito-Lay. 3. _Gerald L. Edwards, P.O. Box 2280, Pomona, 629--3023. Also referred to the same area that Lucas did, Indicated that a railroad spur ran down through the property and he did not like the minimum classif ication. 4. Ron Nottingham, 9211 Archibald, Vanguard Companies. He indicated that they had the same concern as the Chamber of Commerce. 5. Arthur Warren, 636 S. 2nd Ave. , Covina, 213-331-2251. Warren Companies. Location: North side of. 6th Street, east of Archibald. He is proposing a light Industrial complex for this area. The General Plan shows it as residential, but it has been zoned M-1 for many years. tie requested that thie area be designated industrial to allow him to complete his project. 6. E. Fedwin, P.O. Box 326, Etiwanda, 989-1881. H 6 M Wholesale Lumber. Indicated that tie was one of the first developments that appeared before the City. He is locat_d nortt of Baseline, east of Rochester. He is currently zoned M-1 and he would like to see it remain that way. He doesn't want to be given a non-conforming status when the zoninE is made to conform with the General Plan. Would like co be kept as M'-1 and felt it made sense for his priperty since to the north is a flood con- trol reservoir, to the east the power lines and Day Creek, and to the snuth a wide strip of land for toe future straightening out of Baseline. tie requested that this area of the General Plan he shown as industrial. CIRC4LATION I . Bernice DeGarmo. 200 V. Holt Blvd. , Pomona, 623-3141. Spoke aheut the need for the Foothill Freeway. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1. W. Rosalind Winters 5614 Peridot Ave. , 987--1825. Landscape designer for thp: City of Walnut. Indi- cated concern for the equestrian trails and for some method of maintaining and designing connec- tions between all the trails to make thew contigious for the benefit of the residents in the area. She volunteered her services to the City to help in setting up the trails. 2. Pamela Henry, 9012 Caballero Dr. , 987-9474. Also expressed concern about the equestrian trails and their development north of the City. She would like to see it within, our sphere of influence. ;is t .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7 EEPTEMBER 13, 1978 5. Stephen Finch, 6102 Amethyst, 989-3183. Indi- cated that lie would like to see the City acquire more open space to preserve the rural atmosphere. 4. Harvey Levitt, 7070 Ramoika. Indicated he did not like the location of the park on Ramona Avenue, as i' was on his property and he was zoned R-3. He felt that parks would better serve the public if they were Ioented in the eastern part of the City. 5. Fran Freclove,_ 8979 Whirlaway Ct. Also expressed concern for the equestrian trails. 6. Brian Mulligan, 9045 Candlewood. 987-5823. Indi- cated his desire- to see the City start addressing the need for rapid transit or mass transit within the City. OTHER 1. Richard Lewis, 2120 Vallejo Way, Upland. location: North side of Foothill to the cast of the Thomas Winery. Indicated that this area is designated high density but that lie felt it would be more appropriately designated as commerci:.l.. He also expressed concern for the north side of Foothill from Hirien to Rochester. Fie- felt that a green belt wa= a good idea, but that the expense of upkeep to each home along this street would be great. 2. Rich StaneskiZ 6304 Haven. Questioned whether the City wanted to revolve and build itself around a regional shopping center. 3. Mr. Fedwin from Etiwanda. Congratulated the Staff and Mr. Blnyncy for all the hard work they had done on the General Plan and the Com- mission for the opportunity to come forward with all the concerns the public had. Commissioner Dahl than!,ed all the residents for parti- cipating. * k ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION by Chairman Rempei, Commission requested that Staff notify all those people who had expressed residential concerns of the next Planning Commission meeting at which residential topics would be discussed. Upon MOTION by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Com- missioner TolatM and unanimously carried it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1978 at 10. 20 l..m. to the Special Studies Session on September 1.9, 1978 Pt 7: 30 p.m. at City Hall. c Respectfully submitted, E.y ^•lara J. P rillo, Secretary Y