Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/04/11 - Agenda Packetl ...Y t... .. -. t. ma 11; or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, April 11, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Commwnity Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. ACTION D. I. Pledge of Allegiance only. VI. Public Hearings II. Roll Call ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -01 - ALTA LOMA PROPERTIES - Request 5 -0 Approved for a change of zone from R -1 to R -3 for property Commissioner Dahl . X Commissioner Rempel X Amethyst and Archibald (continued from 3/14/79). Commissioner Garcia X Commissioner Tolstoy X BRESHEARS - A change of zone for 4.97 acres of (At request of appli- Commissioner Tones X cant) lINUTES - and 19th Street from A -1 (limited agriculture) to A -P (administrative - professional). Feb. 28 - 5 -0 III. Approval of Minutes NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -03 - "r 1-0 A roved than a from approve as submitted Mar. 14 - 5-0 IV. Announcements approve as submitted Mar. 28 - 5 -0 V. Consent Calendar approve as submitted A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4912 - VANGUARD - The division of 13.25 acres of industrial land located APPROVED on the northwest corner of Seventh and Archibald into 8 parcels. B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5176 AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -11 - 7N-N -OUT BURGER - The APPROVED division of 1.57 acres of lac.i into two parcels and the development c_ a fast food restaurant on property located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., east of Vineyard. APPROVED C. TIME EXTENSION OF PARCEL MAP NO- 465/ - VAUGHAN 7 PP a VA A -1 to A -P - eliminated agriculture) to A -F ( administrative - professional) -aa4 -- R -,3 due to moratorium .(au144- €am4Zy) -for property located on the north - 4, ° .'.west corner of 19th Street and At�chibald A�•enue. Assessor's Parcel No 202- 101 -16. TM�f �•� , D. SUffifI1TAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT - Information INFORMATION ITEM only. VI. Public Hearings E. ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -01 - ALTA LOMA PROPERTIES - Request 5 -0 Approved for a change of zone from R -1 to R -3 for property located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald (continued from 3/14/79). F. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -04 - Continue to May 9, 1979 BRESHEARS - A change of zone for 4.97 acres of (At request of appli- land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa cant) and 19th Street from A -1 (limited agriculture) to A -P (administrative - professional). G. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -03 - "r 1-0 A roved than a from NIR RESEARCH - A change of zone from A -1 (limited 7 PP a VA A -1 to A -P - eliminated agriculture) to A -F ( administrative - professional) -aa4 -- R -,3 due to moratorium .(au144- €am4Zy) -for property located on the north - 4, ° .'.west corner of 19th Street and At�chibald A�•enue. Assessor's Parcel No 202- 101 -16. TM�f �•� , Tentatik „agenda April 11, 1979 Page 2 VII. VIII. tI Continue to May 9 x_ 5 -0 for further study Approve 3 -2 Garcia & Jones voted no as felt further study was needed on elevations (eliminate multi - family phase at this time) Old- Business New Business H. DrRFrrrm The deVElo -- - '-" - P-61'A L(&:A PROPERTIES - PM of a 184 ni ±t apartment coaplex as 6.6 acres located on the south side of 19:h Street between Amethyst and Archibald Avenue. Assessor's.Parcel No. 202- 11 -19. I- DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 75 -28 Development - VANZR RESEAR- -i - The pfess of a financial institution, resi:qurant and professional offices in the first phase of develop- ment- v3mn;tfe�. fie. on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archihaldated Avenue. Continue for further study J. of elevations - 3 -2 Rempel & DailI voted no K. Approve 4 -1 Garcia voted no as felt further study was needed DIRECTOR.rMEW N0. 79 -26 - LONCLEY development of a re nd al tail a wbolese Request for materials and building side of Foothi7lpBlvdce iep00� +awestonftthesouth Freeway in the C-2 zone and M -1' zone. Devore DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78-11 - 1N -N-OUT BURGER development of an In -N -Out Sur er fa- _ - The located on the south side of Foothill Blvd.,o- of Vineyard. Continue to 4/25/79 L- DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -29 JENSEN - of as 88 unit apartment~ to beThrd development 5-0 (At request of applicant) northeast corner of Victoria Street and Archibald Avenue.. Appeal denied - 5 -0 Appeal denied - 5 -0 IX. Continued to special X study session of 4/26 XI. M. �� - bir:&RA SAVINGS - The appeal of a public service and identif cation oign to be located at 8730 19th Street. N. APPEAL OF PARCEL MAP 4783 SANCHEZ - Appeal of conditions SidehofCTurner* south sof Report - Baseline. on the west Council Referral Director's Reports 0- REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW- Oral Report Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any Items not listed on the Agenda may do so at thin ri,- C . ti� dgenda xenta _ April 11, 1979 page 3 XIII. Upcoming Agenda for-April 25, 1979: 1. Site Approval No. 79-05 - WYckoff 2. Site Approval No- 79 -09 - Cable TV 3. Site Approval No. 79 -10 - Nazarene Church 4. Director Review No. 79 -18 - Room Builders XIV. Adjournment - The planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of the Corimisslon. Adjournment - Adjourned at 12:15 a.m. to special study session April 12, 1979 at 5 P -m- y: jr r`• �y� Y ~ � l j� I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Jones III. Approval of.Minutes IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar A% Commissioner Hempel Commissioner Tolstoy r., N0. 4912 - The division of 13.25 acres or anauscr,p• on the northwest corner of Seventh and Archibald into 8 parcels. Bdr NEGATIVE DEI:L&rA -11uLn run rnn...... .. =.r •�• -•- - -'- DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -11 - IN-N -OUT BURGER - Th division of 1.57 acres of land into two parcels and the development of a fast food restaurant on property located on the south si4e of Foothill Blvd., east of Vineyard. + Cj TIME EXTENSION OF PARCEL MAP N0. 4657 - VAUGHAN D/ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT - Information only. Public Hearings Q E. ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -01 - ALTA LCI4A PROPERTIES - Request y for a change of zone tram R -1 to R -3 for property located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald (continued from 3/14/79)• NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE N0. 79 -04 - V(a•�, BRESHEARS - A change of zone for 4.47 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street from A -1 (limited agriculture) to A -P (administrative - professional). C' NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE 140. 79 -03 - s. VANIR RESEARCH - A change of zone from A -1 (limited to A -P (administrative - professional) and ra; agriculture) R (multi - family) for property located on the ,north -3 corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue'. . Assessor's Parcel No. 202- 101 -16. E�i .:a G''4.1 ` D2 pit.+ ! ' p- fir•+ .�a� I'MV y r- ?PRJ PIREUKUK !(EVLEW Nu. /J -10 - AL1A u rnvra &� The development of a 184 unit apartment comple on 6.6 acres located on.the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald Avenue. Assessor's Parcel No. 202- 11 -19. DIRFPLTOR =MVIEW N0. -79 -28 - VANIR RESEARC9 - The _- Development of a financial institution, restaurant and professional offices in the first phase of develop - inent with multi- family units in the second phase: located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald , Avenue. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -26 - LONGLEY - Request.for development of a retail and wholesale building materials and supply ceoter located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., 1';000'+ west of the Devore Freeway in the C-2 zone and M -1 zone. JF. DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78-11 - INg: -OUT BURGER -. The development of an In -N-Out Burger facility to be located on the south aide of Foothill Blvd.. east of Vineyard. C�DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79 -29 - JENSEN - The development' • of as 88 unit apartment complex to be located on the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Archibald Avenue, M. APPEAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW 79 -12 - SIERRA SAVINGS - The appeal o? a public service and identification sign to be located at 8730 19th Street. i N. APPEAL OF PARCEL MAP 4783 - SANCHE2 - Appeal of conditions in the City Engineer's Report - Located on the west side of Turner, south of Baseline. IX Council Referral X. Director's Reports O. REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - Oral Report XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to couaent on any items not listed on the Agenda mpy do so at this time. XII Commission, Comment s .y HtCk. . i �:� ♦ " 6 � � �l ( (4 Y Af ( i xWd ti��'�C C.����f!•� i��'1 �.*�� -�i� � ( �/ _ - irii' � ti _, r}C f�!�i•G4iL'�4. fi!Y3`.+�JA�� �t l tp l i1 S A (V'�n1, U HY �)�� .. •�,'r%YU � .Z.. fi''I�.�A'St; 'Z1 4 e r t Tz� Tentzcive. Agen a April -11, 1979 Page -3 X111. Up�omi�g 'Agenda for April 1979: 1 Sije Approval No- 79-05 - Wyckoff 2. Site Approval No . 79-09 7 Cable TV 3. Site App . roval No. 79-10 - Nazarene Church 4. Director Review No. 79-18 - Room Builders XIV• , Adjournment The planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11--00 P.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, it rhall- be heard only,with the consent of the Commission, 'Z1 4 e r t Tz� a A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNTING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1979 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 Cuca- monga, on Wednesday, February 28, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Rappel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Herman Reapel stated most of the Planning Commission attended the League of California Cities Conference in Monterey on February 21 -23, 1979. It was a totally worthwhile meeting and the Commissioners that attended really got a lot out of it. Some of the things that will be presented to the City as a whole will have more meaning after _hat conference. He thanked the City for allowing them to attend. CONSENT CALENDAR Barry Hogan stated Item "D" on the Consent Calendar —;Time E tension for Minor Subdivision No. 77 -0517 to July 23, 1979 - is to be_ removed, because it has been determined to be unnecessary. / A Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Tolatoy/ to approve the following Consent Calendar items: a. Mr. Hogan stated for clarification purposes we are recommending that a 6' wall be constructed on the property line. The play area will be removed 20' minimum from the southerly property line and a minimum of 30' from the northerly property line and surrounded by a 5' chain link fence. The purpose of this is to contain the children within a play area away from the property lines. That will contain any noise that might be ge- :rated to the interior of the site. Additionally, not all 84 children will be on the playground at one time. Mr. Bob LaScondak, who lives on Hellman below this site, stated he does not feel this development would be compatible with the master plan. Chairman Rempel stated schools are permitted subject to site approval in residen- tial zones and compatibility with the master pan is not at issue but compatibility with the surrounding area. Mrs. Fisk, who lives across the street from tha Coopers, stated they are most concerned about traffic. They can hardly get out of their driveway now. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, stated a recent traffic count taken at Hellman north and south of Baseline indicated that traffic on Hellman at approximately this proposed site is about 200 cars per hour from 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning. After that time, it drops to approximately 100 cars per hour. This is generally considered very light and considerably below Hellman's rated capacity. An additional 84 cars, even in one hour, would not meet the capacity of Hellman and probably not even cause a noticeable change. Mrs. Fisk stated they disagree. Hellman Avenue is a narrow street and is barely wide enough for two cars. Another 84 cars on the street, in her opinion, would cause a traffic problem. Mr. Bowen, who lives on 19th Street, stated his main concern 1s traffic. He has waited for approximately 10 to 15 cars to pass before pulling into his driveway. His main concern is visibility as far as traffic goes. It is difficult to see coming up Hellman to 19th Street because of houses and landscaping. It is also hard to stop because of the gravel on the street. He is concerned with the added traffic this center might bring. Y Mr. Drake stated it is hard to get out of their driveways because the street is only 24 feet curb to curb. He has also had to wait for 10 to 20 cars to pass before getting out of the driveway. This streetis quite flooded in the winter when it rains as it acts as a channel for water. r; Mr. Bill Hutchinson, Mr. McKeever's partner, stated he appreciates the concerns raised and he would like to clarify some of the points. All 84 children would not be on the playground at one time. Part of them will be inside while others are on the playground. The property is located approximately 100 feet south of 19th Street. In terms of traffic there is a four -way stop at 19th and Hellman. They propose to widen the street in front of the facility which would help individuals getting out of their driveways. The widening of the street will be beneficial to the adjacent owner. In terms of traffic, pre - schools do operate at various times. All the children will not be coming at one time. He pointed out that next to their property, apartments could be allowed. This would be a natural break between high density and the current property owners. There is certainly a great demand for pre - schools in this area and this would be offering a service to the community. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 28, 1979 A. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5015 - Previti B. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5044 - Norris et al C. Time Extension for Tract No. 9540 to June 1, 1979 MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED Barry Hogan stated in light of the fact that the Director of Community Develop- ment is presently in another meeting, he asked that the Sign Ordinance be held over until approximately 8 p.m. and go on with the nit item on the Agenda at this time. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried to continue review of the Sign Ordinance until approxi- mately 8 p.m. at which time the Director of Community Development will give his presentation. lY- UR11VE DEGf.AKAT1UN AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -04 - MCYEEVER - Request '!or development of a 4,400 square foot building and outside play areas for a child day care facility located at 6730 Hellman, south of 19th Street in the R -1 (single family residential) zone. Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He recommended adoption of Resolu- tion No. 79 -17 approving Site Approval No. 79 -04 allowing the development of a day care center at 6730 Hellman Avenue. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. Commissioner Jones asked if wood shingles would be good for this particular area. She asked if a tile roof should be required. Mr. Hofman stated perhaps we should get a determination from the Fire Depart- ment and reserve the right to change i.f they do have a problem with it. Mr. McKeever, applicant, stated Staff had concern with traffic. He is presently Principal of a private school that has a pre - school. As far as traffic, there will be no more than 10 cars at any one time to drop off or pick up their children. John Drake, representing John Cooper, property owner to the south of this proposed site read a letter from Mr. Cooper in detail for the Commission. They are protesting this development. They moved to this area for the rural atmosphere. They stated this development would be quite disruptive to them. Traffic on Hellman Avenue is atrocious. Mr. Bob Goals, neighbor of Mr. Coopers, stated he is also in opposition to this development for the same reasons as indicated by Mr. Cooper. He also questioned the 5' wall being sufficient for noise abatement. It seems 84 children will make considerable amount of noise. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 28, 1979 kjY; :, 0 Mr. McKeever, applicant, stated they are governed by the State licensing board as to who can run the school. They must have a licensed Director. Traffic was one of staffs' main concerns on this project; howryer, they worked with Mr. Hubbs, the City Engineer, and after designing the parking facility and widening the street, the traffic problems can be taken care of. He added they can assure everyone that 84 cars will not be coming to this center at one time. Even if there were 84 cars coming to the facility within one hours time, it would not create a problem. Mr. Hogan stated he might add that the severe flooding of Hellman, as mentioned earlier, occurs below this site. The parking standards that we have in our code are based upon studies done in the County. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tols toy asked the Traffic Engineer how many accidents have occurred in this location. Mr. Rougeau stated the Engineering Division has no record of accidents on Hellman in this to ca?ity. There has not been more than 1 or 2 at the four - way stop at Hellman and 19th. Commissioner Garcia asked what is the present street design in terms of traffic flow. Paul Rougeau stated the present street carries two lanes of traffic, one north- bound and one southbound. The capacity of the street is approximately 1800 vehicles per hour, per lane. We are considerably below that with the total traffic on Hellman, as there is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day total at that location. Commissioner Garcia stated in terms of design, he is concerned with the compat- ibility of surrounding land uses in terms of aesthetics. He would visualize a different type of design for a child care center and does not feel that this particular project is compatible in terms of the residential environment. There are problems with the location of the child care center, the playground and the different types of buffering that we are providing to the surrounding pro- perties. Mr. Ernest Clark, Architect for this development, stated they designed the building to be compatible with the residential environment. They have provided a wood shingle roof and a stucco exterior rather than masonry. They chose a deep setback partially for the U- shaped drive for ease of entrance and exit of vehicles and to give a large setback from the street so that the building is much further back than the required. .The width of the building is similar to the residences in the neighborhood. The 4,000 square feet is achieved by a deeper building. They feel it is compatible because it is a similar width to the adjoining properties. They wanted a warm, low, pleasing looking building and in his opinion they did this successfully. Commissioner Tolatoy stated this plan does not address itself to any of the plants proposed for the site. Mr. Hofman stated the applicant proposed high dense landscaping on the north and south property lines. Staff added to that the requirement for a 6 foot '_r. .. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 28, 1979 masonry wall and maintaining the same barrier to break up that wall. We are requiring a detailed landscape and irrigation plan and when that is submitted, we will ensure they provide dense landscaping. Chairman Hempel stated he does srr: '`._el this street could carry 1800 cars per lane. Mr. Rougeau stated this street h:pt:: ".g capacity is approximately 1x,000 vehicles per day; however, at the present time with the peak hour at that location, there are approximately 300 vehicles per hour. Commissioner Garcia stated if the street is widened for this development, it would create a pocket which could cause problems. Mr. Hogan stated what happens when property is near the corner of a block, the Engineering Division makes a decision on whether or not to require improvements at the time of development. They base this decision on traffic and drainage problems. If they feel there are problems, they will ask for a bond and put the improvements in when a larger portion of the street can be improved. Commissioner Garcia stated based on reasons previously stated lie would like to see a restudy of the structure with particular concern paid to drainage, traffic and compatab ility. Chairman Rempel stated he has two concerns; one is traffic and the provision for a drop off area. People don't always drive into the parking stall and let the children out. They stop out in front which, if there are no provisions for this, it will cause more traffic problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree there are some parking problems. He has another problem with noise but he feels it could be mitigated Iny proper screening if the screening provided is mature when put in rather tuan one gallon size plants. We cannot have good traffic flow if people back out into the flow. He feels this should be looked into further. �- Chairman Rempel stated the concern of people having a school next door to them can happen in any area in the city. He dues not feel the street at this time can carry the traffic. He has lived in this area for over -30 years and he has seen what happens on Hellman Avenue with water problems and the tremendous amount of traffic in this area as well as the areas to the north. Commissioner Dahl stated he shares his fellow Commissioners` feelings when it comes to traffic problems in the area. It does have a tendency to stack up ak very heavy at certain times of the day. Mr. Hogan stated the Planning Commission has two options; 1) deny the uee based on the reasons stated; or 2) continue the item and request a traffic engineers report and a hydrology study to determine whether or not there are problems. This could be a focused EIR. Commissioner Garcia stated in all fairness to the applicant a focus EIR is more than we want. It would be fair enough to allow the applicant to respond to the issues of traffic and hydrology. If the applicant would be receptive to that, he would move for c. continuation. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to add that more exact traffic counts be obtained. He would ask that the parking lot, specifically from the ingress and Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 28, 1979 0 0 egress standpoint, should also be reviewed. Chairman Rempel stated the traffic study should encompass two things. One, know within reason the exact number of cars in and out of the facility during the day plus traffic counts on the street. If the study shows that there are over half of the cars coming in and out in a one hour time frame, then, in his opinion, there will still be a traffic problem. Chairman Rempel asked the applicant if he would be willing to go along with a continuation of this matter to make a traffic and hydrology study. Mr. McKeever stated their main concern is if they went through the effort of getting a traffic and hydrology study, they would like to know that the Commission will look favorably upon the development if the studies show there will be no problems. Chairman Rempel stated if a fair study is done of what the conditions actually are in the area, they will make that determination at that time. Mr. Hogan stated our Engineering Division will review both - _:dies to make sure they are proper. Ve will set the scope of work so that it is clear. If the Commission continues this for study, staff would suggest the date of March 28th for further review by the Commission. Commissioner Garcia stated by continuing this matter, the applicant can decide whether or not they wish to continue with the project. Mr. McKeever stated it would be acceptable to them to continue this matter to March 28th. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue review of Site Approval No. 79 -04 to March 28, 1979 for further study by the applicant on traffic and hydrology. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE * e NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -06 - HERITAGE PARK - Request for development of a temporary equestrian riding ring to be located in Heritage Park on the west aide of Beryl Street south of Hillside Street in the R -1 (single family) zone. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed-the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He requested that a condition be added to the Resolution as follows: The Alta Loma Riding Club shall be responsible for cleanup of horse manure. Itshall be contained within air tight containers and picked up on a timely basis. This condition should solve any problems related to flies or odor. He indicated all property owners within 600 feet of the boundaries of subject property were notified. A number of letters were received from adjoining property owners as follows: Letters in favor of this request were received from Mr. and Mrs. Philip Martinez, 5710 Arabian Drive; and Mary French, 5611 Moonstone. Letter in opposition to this request were received from Antonio and Sylvia Ramirez, 9070 Cottonwood Way; Mr. and Mrs. John Chandler, 9085 Camellia Court,; Mr. and. Mrs.Lakkers, 9086 Hillside Road; and Mr. Irwin Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 28, 1979 0 B. Golden, D.D.S. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Chairman Rempel asked if the plan indicates how much of the total park site will be used for the equestrian riding ring. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, stated approximately 3 to 3� acres total will be used for the facility. It will sit in the extreme southeasterly cornrr of the park. This will be a temporary site until we get funding to go ahead with a more permanent facility. A better location would be adjacent to the Demens Channel which will have equestrian trails. Commissioner Garcia asked what is the time factor for use of the temporary area. Mr. Holley stated hopefully, we are looking at a period of time less than 4 years. This is one of the first phases of work being done by the Alta Loma Riding Club and City which addresses a :rail system. President of the Alta Loma Riding Club stated this proposal is to provide recreation facilities for the community and we are in a position to donate a riding ring for the use of the community and their club. Their club puts on horse shows tnd the Heritage Park is an ideal location because of its centrality to the horse community. The facilities they plan to install are all donated. They expect a very limited use of the parking area except on weekends when they will hold horse shows or community activities. As far as the dust, they will prcvide a watering system for the arena area and the parking facility. One of the items in the proposal is the suggestion by the city to use slag for the parking area. Their club members have gone to other arenas and observed the type of parking facilities. All of the areas use a compacted dirt parking facility. They asked the Commission to reconsider that area allowing compacted dirt and watering of that area. Their main concern with slag is the possibility of hoof damage or other problems with horses. All other requirements in the proposal are agreeable to the club. Despite the temporary nature of the ;., riding area they are in favor of the landscaping required. He thanked the City and particularly Bill Holley for his efforts in helping them present this program. Mr. Jack Plassey stated he owns the vineyard next to this property. He understands this development will be up against his property. He does not feel this is the appropriate place for the development. It will create noise and flies. If the riding ring is allowed, it is his opinion it .; hould be located in the center of the 40 acres. He would not have any objection to the arena as long as it is in the proper location. Mr. John Golden stated his parents live adjacent to Hillside, across the street from the park. When a park caters to organized activities, it causes Infiltration of outsiders. It encourages people from outside of the City to the riding ring. When the horse owners are out together it causes noise, dust, hose manure and a lot of people. When a private body -is allowed to take over an entire park you are dedicating land to a special interest group. When horses and the riding club are in the park, the entire park is going to be their park for as long as they are there. Who is going to police the area to make sure everything is in order after a show? They are not in favor of that kind of activity in a public park. The city should not encourage an organized activity in a public park. Planning Commission Minutes —7— February 28, 1979 Mr. Bill Accomple who lives on Hillside Road, stated he has horse property and he feels there is a need for a horse ring. This type use is well over due for the area with certain restrictions. This will create a problem if there is not enough parking. Perhaps the parking lot area could be oiled. The manure should be picked up daily and perhaps a time limit should be placed for the activities. With the right restrictions this could be a good ' evelopment. Mrs. Sue Draper stated she is a horse 4 -H leader. She has been in this club for 3 years and has 65 kids in the club. Most of the children have horses and they have no place to show and ride their horses. A riding ring is needed for the kids and the community. The kids in the 4 -H club are very anxious to do anything they can in order to have this facility. This could be a central place where everyone could meet and have fun. This will be a place for the children to learn how to ride and take care of their horses. Mr. Rod Collins stated the big issues in opposition seem to be the noise, flies and manure. There seems to be an objection to people getting together with their kids to have a good time. When families cannot get together then there are drug problems and crime problems which are much more serious. The kids that have horses are not expert riders and it is better that they not ride them on the streets. Mr. Ray Thomas stated he has visited the last location of the Riding Club. They have never had a house keeping problem at that location. The members were organ- ized in a clean up program. He cannot see where the objections come from other than the fact that people haven't been there to see how the club operates. Mr. Mark Rise stated he does not belong to the Alta Loma Riding Club; however, he does live a half block from the old Alta Loma Riding Club. He stated lie enjoyed going up there and watching the kids and he was sorry to see a school developed in this location. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dahl stated he, too, lives up near where the old arena was located and he really did enjoy it. The Club did a good job of keeping the property clean. He indicated he is in favor of this development. Commissioner Jones stated she is also in favor of this facility. Commissioner Garcia stated the issue of compacted dirt vs. slag needs to be discussed. A member of the audience indicated perhaps oil could be used in order to accommodate a good surface. He asked the president of the Club his opinions on this. President of the Alta Loma Riding Club stated he does not think an oil applica- tion would be advantageous because of slipping. The oil on horses hoofs is not the beat thing. Perhaps more research is needed in this area. Watering the parking lot before and after activities would greatly solve the dust problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated this community has a lot of horses. The people need a place in which they can go get instruction on how to take care of their horses. This proposal would certainly be that center and would provide a place for those kind of activities. +`. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 28, 1979 w: s ' Chairman Rempel stated the General Plan has been discussed for a number of months and one of the Items constantly being brought forward was the item of bridle trails and places to ride as there is a tremendous number of people with interests in the equestrian trails and riding facilities. During the public hearings on the General Plan there was no one that came forward in opposition to having equestrian facilities for horse people. This facility is temporary at this time and when the permanent facility is located on the site, it will be situated in a better location. This is a start and an essential part of our community. This is a much needed facility and one that has been long planned. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to approve Resolution No. 79 -21 approving Site Approval No. 79 -06 subject to the conditions as listed in the Resolution with the following changes ead additions: Condition U1 changed to read as follows: A revised plan shall be resub- mitted showing 60 parking stalls minimum aisle width of 25', dust controlled paving in the parking lot area and a water system for the rings. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to any construction. Add the following condition: The Alta Loma Riding Club shall be responsible for clean up of horse manure. It shall be contained within air tight containers and picked up on a timely basis. Add the following condition: That the Alta Loma Riding Club develop the property free of mechanics liens. AYES: DAHL, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, JONES GARCIA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Rempel called a recess at 8:05 p.m. Meeting Reconvened at 8:20 p.m. 4 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations (Continued from 2- 14 -79). Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the Sign Ordinance has been in preparation for a long time. We have advertised the development of the ordinance so that all those who have interest can state their views. Staff has conducted study sessions with the Commission and has worked with the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee. The ordinance has also been presented to the three citizen advisory dommittees. An additional open study session with members of the Chamber of Commerce was held last evening to present the concept of the ordinance and solicit additional input. The basic purposes of the Sign Ordinance is to have reasonable controls of signing within the community to ensure that signing has the proper scale in relationship to structures and to reenforce strong and stable economic environment by creating a sound, aesthetic, pleasing environment. It is intended to eliminate the hodge February 28, 1979 Planning Commission Minutes -9- � h podge of signing seen throughout the community including tract signing which is illegal now. The ordinance recognizes that signs are a very important part of the character of the City. He presented a slide presentation to show the major concepts contained within the ordinance. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. There being none, Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Arden Berg, Legislative Consultant for the Sign Users Counsel stated he has been involved with several merchants basically located on Foothill Boulevard and they have come up with a set of recommendations. The Sign Users Counsel is in favor of the Sign Ordinance and believe it is the first step towards organizational signage. Basically, they are concerned with thesigning allowed for the major shopping center versus the mom -and -pop stores. They recommend that the sign background area for each business located on the property should be based on 2 to 1 ratios and should not exceed 40 percent of the building. Wall signs should be no higher than the eave line whichever is higher. Most of the people they have talked to are in disagreement to the 8 foot free standing sign. They would recommend one sign per street frontage of a shopping center with a maximum height of 25 feet to the top of the sign. Marquee signs should be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit. They feel the 8' free standing sign is necessary in a pedestrian oriented society but not in terms of motorists. As far as mom- and -pop stores, he feels the wall signs should be the same basic limitation that governs shopping centers. Roof signs should be allowable under a conditional use permit granted by the Commission. Animated and revolving signs which could be incorporated within a free standing sign shall only be permitted with the granting of a use permit. Variations should be allowed in cases of hardship. They are against the sliding scale of abatement for non - conforming signs. They would recommend that when more than 50 percent of the sign is damaged or in a state of disrepair, such sign shall conform to the requirements of the ordinance. A member of the audiencr +eked if anything is in the ordinance concerning out- door advertising or billboard signs. Mr. Lam stated these are classified as off premise advertising structures and are not allowed by the proposed ordinance. Amortization will be over a five year period. Mr. John Glen, representing Foster Outdoor Advertising C.mpany, indicated they have six advertising structures in the community aad they change their copy regularly. He asked if they can continue to change their copy on the signs during this five year period of time. Mr. Lam stated we want to be as fair as possible for all sign structures. The intent o' the ordinance is to allow this type of sign for the entire five years unless V e City Council, in their review, recommends otherwioe. Chairman Rempel stated a notation in the ordinance needs to be added that even though the copy is changed on billboards, they need to be amortized over a five year period of time. Mr. John Glen stated he would like to speak in support of the Sign Users Counsel with regard to the grandfather clause. He would like to go on record not supporting the amortization period. We in the industry do not support r_hp amortization period and will, if we have to, go to court. �t Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 28, 1979 Mrs. Romero from the Citizens Advisory Committee stated some of the points brought up from some of the speakers recently are notvalid from the citizens point of view. The 8' high sign can be read from an automobile. It is not necessary to have a huge sign to identify a shopping center. Most everyone can recognize a business and do not need a large sign to bring them in. Word of mouth is far more effective than a large sign. M.-. Bob Frost expressed his support for the sign ordinance. It is probably one of the most important things a new city can.! do and will make the existing areas look better than they do now, especially along Foothill Boulevard. The ordinance will also help as far as bootleg signs are concerned. Mr. Rod Collins stated he never gets in his car and drives around looking for a place to shop. At the most he is looking for a small sign that will identify the place where he plans to shop. If he goes to a business, he will first look it up in the phone directory or hear about it by word of mouth. The only reason the sign is needed is to tell him that he is at the right store. He is personally put off by a boistrous, loud, untasteful sign. The staff has done a good job with the ordinance and it should be considered favorably. Mr. Bryant stated as a property owner, he would like to compliment the Planning Commission on a job well done. As far as the sign ordinance, he feels in five years every sign in town will be obsolete and will have to be changed. He feels this ordinance is for the betterment of the community and would like to compliment those involved with its preparation. Mr. Betty McNay stated she chaired the Sign Committee for the Chamber of Commerce and stated she appreciated the help and time that staff spent on this ordinance. Last night another meeting was held and she felt most everyone present were pretty much in accord with the ordinance except for the 24 square foot free standing signs. On the major thoroughfares they feel there is faster traffic and possibly the sign should be higher. There is some concern about vandalism on signs that are low, particularly one that is lighted. On the whole; however, they feel u there has been tremendous help from the city anu those on the Commission who attended the meetings, and particularly the staff. Mr. Jeff Sceranka stated he was also on the sign committee and would like to support the Sign Ordinance. He feels very strongly that it,;is important to limit the height of signs for one basic reason- -high signs cause visual problems and make it harder to figure out which sign represents what business. He totally supports the concept of having low signs for the community. g. Mr. Chuck Buquet stated he was not on the sign committee. However, anybody in doubt of the need for this ordinance should take a drive down Foothill Boulevard, take a look at developments along Baseline, if anybody has doubts, that short drive would convince them of the need for the ordinance. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carcia stated we have dealt with the sign ordinance for a considerable amount of time involving private business as well as the public. The ordinance addresses the type of image this community is trying to achieve. Chairman Rempel stated he might add that historical signs are covered by the ordinance. The ordinance also provides for variances for those people that have a unique circumstance where there are no other type of signing available. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 28, 1979,. We do not want any business in the city to be left out in the cold. He fully agrees with the orddnance as proposed; it will be a step forward in the beautification of our city. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the staff, Commission and business people in the community have certainly worked bard on this ordinance, it reflects a lot of good thinking, and is one of the first things that the public is going to recognize that we have become a city. He particulary feels that the amortization section is the best way of dealing with existing signs. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -08 adopting the Sign Ordinance as submitted with a clarification in the advertising structure area allowing the change in copy for outdoor advertising structures. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -01 - LIONS PARK COMFUNITY CENTER - Renovation of and addition to existing Lions Park Community Center located on the southeast corner of Lion Street and Baseline Avenue in the R -1 (Single Family) zone. Barry Hogan, Sea'-or Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -18 approving Site Approval No. 79 -02 subject to the conditions deliteated in the Resolution. Chairman Hempel asked for questions from the Commission to the Staff. There being none, Chairman Hempel opened the public hearing. Mrs. Barbara Huber stated she lives across the street from the park. They have been in this area for five years and they were told at the time there wab going to be a residential park at this location. It now seems to be a parking lot. She is opposed to the number of cars that park along Lion Street in front of her home. Mr. Larry Wolf, Architect, stated he is here basically to answer any questions. As far as the parking problem, they are aware that there is a problem. They have tried to orient the major access or main entrance to the building off of the easterly side, or the library parking, and will hopefully alleviate parking on Lion. There being no further discussion from the audience Chairman Hempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated he feels that development is long overdue. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -18 subject to the condition as listed. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONEP, 'TOLSTOY, REMPEL Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 28, 1979. NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 0 0 DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 1- 24 -79) - Request for development of a two- story, 10,000 square foot office building located at 8030 Vineyard in the C-2 zone. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for construction of two (2) one -story commercial buildings totaling 12,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the C -2 (General Business) district. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, recommended that the above two items be continued to the March 14, 1979 meeting as requested by the applicants. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones cu continue Director Review No. 78 -12 and Director Review No. 79 -04 to the March 14, 1979 meeting at the request of the applicants. AYES: GARCIA. JONES, TOLSTOY, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -05 - KETNER - Request for development of apartment units on 10+ acres located south of the extension of Victoria Street on the east side of Archibald in the R -3 (Multi - family) zone. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Director Review No. 79 -06 based on the findings and conditions listed in Resolution No. 79 -19. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Commissioner Dahl asked if a landscape plan has been submitted. Mr. Hogan stated a landscape plan has been provided in the packet. It is not what we would consider to be a conceptual landscape plan. The Commission could require that this be brought back for review in conformance with the landscape standard adopted by the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission desires, a condition could be added to state that the total landscape and irrigation plan be submitted to the Planning Division. This could be placed as a consent calendar item in order for the Commission to be assured that they can at least see the plan. Mr. Ken Ketner, applicant, stated they have enjoyed working with the City and have no problems with the conditions of approval. Mr. George Sohovich, architect, stated they have gone a little further than the Commission has suggested as far as handling the front apartments directly on Archibald. Instead of wood and windows they have added shadow boxes around the windows themselves. This should be very pleasing as far as the frontal Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 28, 1979 elevations are concerned. The wall has been proposed for flood purposes. It is to push the water back out into the street. Commissioner Garcia stated Archibald Avenue is designed as a special boulevard on our general plan. He is concerned about the location of the tennis courts along Archibald Avenue and does not feel this is the proper location for the courts. The tennis courts would require a high chain link fence and is not really a pleasing item to be looking at along this street. He does not see a very creative solution to the facade on Archibald Avenue. It is his opinion that the tennis courts and the building elevations on Archibald Avenue should be restudied, in addition to the landscaping plans. Mr. Ketner stated in regard to landscaping, at the last meeting the Commission adopted a landscape standard. They submitted their plans prior to the adoption Of this policy; however, they have no problem in conforming with it as a condition of approval. As far as the wall is concerned along Archibald Avenue, they designed a serpentine wall as a water prevention. They have agreed with the Engineering Division to improve the storm drain system along with Bob Jensen to the north along Archibald Avenue. In regard to the tennis courts, they have worked with staff on the concept. They initially had the courts in the back. However, they moved the courts for the convenience of those living in the apartments. Commissioner Garcia stated he is not in agreement with staff as far as the tennis courts are concerned. He stated if the applicant is in agreement, he would request a continuation of this matter for restudy. Mr. Ketner stated they have spent a lot of time and thought on this project. Apartments in the city are needed. It is their opinion that the things they have done within this project conform to the aesthetic value of this community. He does not want to have to come back if at all possible as they like the concept they have proposed. Commissioner Garcia stated he is not trying to discourage the project. The tennis courts should be restudied as well as the wall along Archibald as he is not in favor of walls along the streets. Mr. Ketner stated the storm drain system was not proposed for development at the time the project was designed. This is the reason for the wall. Now that we have agreed to install that storm drain the wall can be eliminated, if that is the Commission's desire. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the applicant should consider the use of differing paving material to indicate pedestrian crossings between the tennis courts and the apartments so that those driving cars through this area realize that it is also a pedestrian walk. Mr. Kerner stated they could treat this area with a different type of surface and/ or signing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he appreciates Commissioner Garcia's concern about the tennis courts; however, landscaping might mitigate any problems in this area. Mr. George Sohovich stated the fence line will be a maximum of ten feet high in this area and they would basically line the area with ten foot trees. es. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 28, 1979 Chairman Rempel stated if he was a resident of these apartments he would not want the light from the tennis courts shining into his apartment windows. He stated he does plot have a problem with the tennis court where it is now located. He would rather ape tennis courts in this area than a parking lot. He would, however, like to see the total appearance with the landscaping showing the fencing and such to give him a better perspective of the total plan. Commissioner Garcia stated it will take a long time before the landscaping will camoflauge the tennis court area and would personally like to see the courts located in another area of the development. Commissioner Jones stated she feels the lights from the tennis court in this area would make it difficult for those driving along Archibald. A Motion was made by Chairman Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue review of Director Review No. 79 -05 to March 14, 1979 in order to review the complete conceptual landscape design plus renderings showing the tennis court area and buildings elevations on Archibald. It was further recommended that an alteruate plan for the tennis court area be submitted for review. AYES: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA. JONES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE * *xrr* NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -57 - HUTNER - Request for the development of a 2 story, 20,450 square foot office structure located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of San Diego Avenue in the C -2 (General Business) zone. Mr. Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -16 approving Director Review No. 78 -57 and adoption of the resolution of intent to change the zone of the suSject property from C -2 to A -P. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Commissioner Garcia stated the removal of the eucalyptus trees along Foothill Boulevard should be kept to a minimum. He is definitely opposed to taking out any trees unless it is necessary. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the water is to drain on to Foothill. Paul Rougeau, A.'isistant Civil Engineer, stated there is a provision that the drainage is sub„act to Caltrans and city approval but precise plans have not yet been prepared. Mr. Larry Hutner, applicant, stated they do not feel as though there is an unusual problem with drainage at this location. A flood study was made of the site and it has been determined that it is not in a flood danger area. Mr. Rougeau stated street improvement plans prepared by a registered engineer will be required to examine the drainage problems and show the city an acceptable way of getting the water along Foothill to the Cucamonga Wash. There are problems in this area now, and we would not want to make it worse. Planning. Commission Minutes -15- February 28, 1979 i Mr. Hutner atated there is a condition requiring street lights along Foothill Boulevard. They do not own the property on Foothill and they are concerned as to how that would take Flace. Mr. Hogan stated the developer would be required to pay for the installation of lights; however, the city would help with the agencies involved as far as the location. Mr-Hutner stated in regard to the eucalyptus trees, he understands they are of historical value to the city. Some of the trees are rather ragged and over- grown. They will trim them and eliminate those that are unsafe. They will work with staff regarding this matter. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the projects located above this development will be able to look down on the top of this building. Mr. Hutner stated the houses above the site are many hundreds of feet away and are extensively elevated. Mr. Hogan stated they will not be able to hot mop the roof or use a light colored asphalt. They will be required to use something on the roof that will blend into the architecture of the building and will be required to locate the air conditioners so that it is not visible or screened. A notion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79--16 subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -20 declaring their intention to change the zone of properties located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of San Diego Avenue. AYES: GARCIA, IOLSTOY, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE GREENROCK NURSERY - ALTHOUSE AND BAiffiER - Request for extension of time to cease operation of the Greenrock Nursery located on the north side of 19th Street, 400' west of Amethyst Street. Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends denial of the request for an additional three month extension of time for the Greenrock Nursery and referral of this item to the City Attorney. Jack Lam stated this is one of -he few difficult decisions in terms of recommendations staff has to make. On one hand the individual wishes to attempt to pursue finding a new site. An enforcement issue by the County led to the zone change request which was denied. There has been complaints from adjoining property owners who feel the city is not doing anything. The staff has pursued the matter In a logical fashion, and feels that the six month time limit was an adequate time frame. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 20, 1979 Mr. Charles Althouse, representing the Shibata's, stated the initial action that occurred In August of last year resulted from some type of enforcement proceeding. The Shibata's came into the picture and bought property after the owner had applied for a zone change. The Shibata's are not asking for a permanent continu- ation of the operation at this location. They are asking for the right to be able to c.utinue their nursery because without extending the request tonight, they wil7.literally be out of business. They are attempting to move along with a general plan amendment for another location_ He understands there is concern about the traffic along 19th Street in front of this operation. There are now boulevard stop signs on several of the intersections that slow down all of the traffic which passes through the area. Their operation does not begin before 10:00 a.m. in the morning and they are only open Wednesday through Sunday. They are not open during prime time of heavy traffic along 19th Street. It is his understanding that the trucks that would pass in and out is one per day to carry nursery items into the location. During this interim period. if the Commission does grant an extension of time until they can get into a new location, they would make a change in their entryway. Traffic would pass all the way to the northern part of their property and have no parking in the front part of the business. They will have a two -way, small alley -type street on their property to prevent traffic from backing up. This is strictly temporary and not a permanent request to remain at this location. They have been working hard trying to find an alternative location since September. He indicated a six month time extension would be more in line with getting an alternative site. Mr. Althouse stated a general plan change for the Archibald property would encompass a considerable amount of property. He stated had the Shibata's found this property prior to the General Plan being adopted they would have worked with staff to change the General Plan designation. They found this property in early January and opened escrow at the end of January. The escrow is moving towards completion and that is why an extension is important so that they can close escrow and continue their operation. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he understands the reason the Shibata's were before us in the first place was because of complaints. The fact is that there is a retail operation in a neighborhood where it was not zoned to allow the use. The Commission also has to consider the complaints received regarding this use. Mr. Althouse asked if this could be postponed until the next meeting at which time they would be willing to contact the adjoining property owners in the area and as': if they will give them a letter of consent to continue this operation for a period of six more months. Mr. Lam stated the Commission, at this time, should not prejudge the Archibald site. The issue is the illegal use and whether or not the Commission wants to consider an additional time extension. Commissioner Dahl stated one of the reasons this was brought up was because of complaints. In all fairness to the applicant, as they have stated, some of the conditions have not changed as far as traffic is concerned along 19th Street. Mr. Althouse stated they are willing to put together a- letter for the neighbors stating whether or not they would be in favor of them staying on board for six months. He feels strongly against wiping out a persons business and livelihood if there is a way of preventing it. He would personally be in favor of continuing this matter until the next meeting and allow him to see what they can do. Mr. Lam stated he would caution the Commission in that they are seeking Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 28, 1979 enforcement of a use not allowed in the district. Vhile the thought is goo4, puts the Commission in a strange position of condoning a use which is clearly illegal in the district. Mr. Althouse stated the Shibata's are very serious people trying very hard to move ahead and do the right thing with the city and hopes that the Commission would be willing to go along with the extension to work towards solving this problem. If this is not granted, it will end the 19th Street operation. They were caught in the transition between the City and the County aad this is a special circumstance that is not likely to come up again before this Commission. Commissioner Garcia stated he feels with the data we have received tonight presents a difficult picture. He stated he would like to entertain a continuation to the next meeting so that Lhe: Commission can have some time to think about our position. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue review of the Greenrock Nursery time extension to the next regular meeting of March 14, 1979. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES; NONE ABSENT. NONE Mr. Lam stated a City /County Planning Commissioners meeting is scheduled for March 8, 1979 at the Greentree Inn in Victorville and asked that the Commission members let him know as soon as possible whether or not they plan to attend. Mr. Lam stated there was an urgency item brought before the Council at their last meeting. This referred to the industrial area specific plan and basically the industrial community raised $40,000 to do the first phase of the specific plan. The City is working very closely with the industrial committee and because of time constraints, did not have an opportunity to run it by the Commission; however, the Council merely approved the conceptual program. The first phase is primarily involved with a traffic model and circulation master plan for the industrial areas; with the first emphasis looking at east /west circulation. Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meetint of February 28, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Jack Lam, Director of Community development Planning Commission Minutes -18- February 28, 1979 6-1 it , CITY 011? RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1979 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 Wednesday, March 14, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by, Chairman Hempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Toletoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary CONS %NT CALENDAR r_.. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4869 AND DIRECTOR REVIEW 79 -15 - CROWELL LEVENTHAL - The division of 9.3 acres of land into three lots and the subsequent development of a professional office complex; located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Carnelian. A Motio:. was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried to approve the Consent Calendar - Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4869 and Director Review No. 79 -15 - Crowell/ Leventhal. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 7.9 -01 - ALTA LOMA PROPERTIES - Request for a change in zone from R -1 to R -3 for property lucated on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Zone Change No. 79 -01 and issuance of Negative Declaration to the City Council. Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned about the impact this project will have on the traffic on 19th Street, as well as noise problems and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes -1- March 14, 1979 0 0 Mr. Rogan stated any problems due to traffic, drainage and noise are specifics to the type of development proposed. At this point in time all the developer Le asking for is a mono change. The General Plan spoke to these issues at the time high density land use was approved for this area. Staff has informed the applicant that we are concerned with drainage which is one of the reasons the Director Review for this project is not on the Agenda tonight. Regarding noise and traffic, 19th Street is slated as an arterial highway. If this development is approved, it would provide improvements on 19th Street and the Engineering Department has indicated it would not create significant traffic problems. The applicant has been informed that the City would be looking at traffice and any noise problems. Tiese are really site specific problems that can be dealt with at the Director Review level but were concerns that were expressed to the applicant at the time they applied for zone change and director review. Mr. Hogan mentioned that one letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Ruchers stating they cannot appear at the meeting tonight and vote no on the proposed zone change. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mrs. Lela Jab in, one of the applicants, stated they have an extremely good development which will be good for this area. She indicated she is available to answer any questions. ._A Commissioner Garcia stated it is his opinion not enough information has been pro- vided for granting a negative declaration. A project of this size wil have an Impact in terms of utilities, traffic, circulation. pattern. There is not enough information to satisfy him in terms of the impact this project will have on the community, Mr. Hans Peterson, 6724 Jadeite Street, stated the zone change would directly effect everyone that resides in their tract. There are problems any time there is a mix of multi - family with single family areas. it detracts from the property values. There is a dead end street which terminates into the proposed property. If that were opened up, it would subject this area to a lot of heavy traffic through their particular portion of the tract. He presented letters from the following people in opposition to this request that could not be present at this meeting: Mrs. Connie Duffey, 9647 Hamilton Street; Mr. Paul Caldeira, 9637 Hamilton Street; Mr. and Mrs. Dennis McCartin; Sharie Nighbert; Mr. and Mrs. Scott King, 9638 Hamilton Street, Mr. Michael Trenton 9756 Jadeite; Audrey Wheatley, 9558 Hamilton Street. Mr. Clark Roeson, 9:29 19th Street, stated he has lived in this area for approxi- mately 22 years. When he first moved here, the area was zoned R -1, 20,000. They are opposed to R -3 zoning for apartment houses in this area. The apartments will cause noise, traffic and flood control problems. Mr. Jim Parker, 9615 Hamilton Street, stated if the apartments are developed, it would add approximately 3 times the number of families in the area. If children are allowed in the apartments, there is a problem, as children at the present time are on split sessions. He is a fireman and is also concerned about the fire protection, and asked if the City will increase the fire protection in this area. Mr. Paul Olson, 6950 Shamrock Lane, stated they moved to this area as it was a growing commrnity. The people that moved out here wanted to get away from congested areas. He stated we should slow down a little bit. There is sewage problems and there is nothing but red blinking lights up and down 19th Street. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 14, 3.979 0 If the growth continues, before we know it, we will be living in an area like downtown L.A. Mrs. Sharon McGehee, living on Hamilton Street, stated her husband is a police officer for the City of Montclair and he is very concerned about the crime problem involved if the apartment units are approved. This is a major problem because the police force for Alta Loma is wide spread so the officers have a hard time responding to calls. Mr. Amos Harding. living on Hamilton Street, stated one thing he checked when he bought his home was that the area was zoned R -1. If the apartments are developed, their property value will go down. He personally would not own a home that backs up to parking stalls. He is 100% against this zone change. Mr. Frank Venti, one of the proposed developers, stated they are not novice developers. Before they came in and looked at this property they inquired and talked to the city as to the needs in the area. Their understanding was that the property is in an area that R -3 would be in conformance to the General Plan. Not all people can afford to buy a single family home. There is a need for rentals. They have hired one of the best architectural firms for this development. They are not here as an outside developer to put in low cost or low priced housing to draw in any undesirable people. There is a need for a complex that would serve people who work in t'iis city and cannot affort to buy a home. Their understanding was that a change to R -3 would be in conformance to the General Plan. Mrs. Jabin stated it is their present intention to have an adult apartment development and therefore would not place any burden on the schools. This development will be very aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Gene Smith, one of the partners of the project, stated it is his understanding that there were no plans to funnel traffic out through the tract to the west of this property. It will come out to 19th Street. In that respect there will not be a traffic flow to the homes. Chairman Rempel stated at this time the Commission is concerned with the zone change and the negative declaration for this project. As far as the units to be developed on this property, it is not up for discussion, as that will have to come before the Commission at a lat3r date. Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to see some additional information brought to the Commission prior to any judgement. Additional information should be in terms of circulation pattern, traffic, noise, as well as how the children are traveling from the adjacent tract to school. He stated if the applicant is receptive to providing this information, he would be receptive to continuing this matter. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Garcia. A project of this size would require a little more thought to the existing conditions and the impact it is going to have. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission is concerned with the environmental review, an environmental impact report could be required. All the issues discussed would be combined into a singular document if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Garcia stated at this point it would not be advisable to ask the applicant for an EIR. Additional information regarding the Commissions' concerns In a summary format could be submitted. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 14, 1979 Chairman Rempel stated our general plan indicates a considerable amount of multi- ple family areas. He is also concerned with traffic. circulation through this area and how it will affect the single family residents. Commissioner Garcia stated the applicant is correct in stating the zone change to R -3 would be in conformance with the General Plan. The city needs to determine that the project is compatible with the surrounding land use. There in not enough information at this time in which to base a decision. With the proper information, the Commission can properly evaluate the project. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue review of Zone Change No. 79 -01 to April 11, 1979 in order for the applicant to submit further information regarding traffic, noise and drainage. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ** sc* DIR:CTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued frum 2- 28 -79) - Request for development of a two story 10,000 square foot office building in the C -2 zone located at 8030 Vineyard. Michael Vairin, Associate Flanner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Director Review No. 78 -12 by the adoption of Resolution No. 78 -13. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia asked if this were in an area which requires flood insurance. Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer, stated yes. The basic requirements are that the building floor be elevated above the expected high water mark of any flooding and that walls be provided to protect against debris and water damage. This new structure should be far less subject to any possible flood damage than any of the existing structures in the area. Mr. Wally Schultz, representing the applicant, stated he is present to answer any questions the Commission may have concerning this request. Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to address the architectural aspects of the proposed project. He is disturbed in terms of aesthetics regarding Lhe building. This is not what the community is trying to achieve in terms of architecture. This Commission for the last few months has been very strong in terms of the aesthetics within the community. He is uncomfortable with the plan as presented at this time. Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to discuss this if the Commission could be more specific on what they require. This is a family owned project and the sole idea is to develop it to be in confor- mance with the existing structure on the site and make it look like one project. He would like to hear the Commissions suggestions on architecture; however, it is his opinion that it is very pleasing as presented. `.P7nnn {nn P..-4 0 i Commissioner Garcia stated perhaps the architect could take a second look at the project in terms of the elevations color and treatment used on the project. Commissioner Dahl stated driving north on Vineyard, the elevation seen from the street is unappealing. Also, the plan shows windows on the north elevation that go almost to the base of the slab. If there is any flooding in the area, this could be a concern. Mr. Schultz stated the view from the south is ve y restrictive because of location of the roller rink building. As far as the windows on the north, the finish floor slab is actually a minimum 2 feu•t above grade. Commissioner Dahl asked if landscaping is proposed on the south elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed building ison the lot line. Other than the area around the stairs on the southeast corner of the building there would be no room for landscaping. Mr. Lam stated since there is concern regarding the architecture of the building, and the fact that previous drawings shown might not reflect the engineering requirements on the site, he would suggest that the applicant produce further architectural drawings that reflect changes more accurately so that the Commission can review them at the next meeting and be in a better position of determining exactly how the buildings relate to the specific site. Chairman Rempel appointed Commissioners Garcia and Dahl as the committee to review plans with the applicant and asked that the Commissioners get together with Mr. Schultz to set a time and date. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue review of Director Review No. 78 -12 to March 28, 1979 for further revision of the building architecture. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL y NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -04 - MCKEEVER - Requert for development of a 4,400 square foot building and outside play area for a child day care facility located at 6730 Hellman. ,�. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Plaaning Division. In light of the Commission's concerns expressed at the February 28th meeting regarding traffic circulation and water flow, and since the applicant is unwilling to supply studies to satisfy -the Commission's concerns, staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -17 denying Site Approval No. 79 -04. Ile indicated a letter was received from Carl McKeever and William Hutchison, applicants, which he read in full for the Commission. The letter expressed their decision not to provide a study of the traffic and water flow at this site. (Letter on file in the Planning Division). Commissioner Garcia stated considerable time was spent at the last meeting addressing ourselves to the issues as stated in order for the Commission to make a constructive judgement of this project. It seems as though the applicant is not very cooperative, therefore, he does not see any other action but to go Planning Commission Minutes \ -5- March 14, 1979 along with staff recommendation. Ted Hopson, Attorney, stated the following findings should also be added to the Resolution: 1) The Commission cannot make the finding that the proposed use will not have an adverse impact on abutting property because of the lack of traffic, noise generation and drainage studies. 2) That this development does not comply L-ith Section 61.0219f -3B. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to approve Resolution No. 79 -17 denying Site Approval No. 79 -04 for the reasons as listed in the Resolution plus the following: 3. That the Commission cannot make the finding that the proposed use will not have an adverse effect on abutting property because of the lack of traffic, noise generation and drainage studies. 4. This development does not comply with Section 61.021gf -3B. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, .TONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for construction of one, 2- story commercial building totaling 16,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the C -2 (General Business) district. (Continued from 2- 28 -79). Barry Rogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Divis {.on. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79- 12 approving Director Review ro. 79 -04 with the conditions as delineated in the Resolution. Chairman Rempel asked for quentions from the Commission to the staff. Chairman Rempel stated he was a member of the committee which reviewed the plans with the applicant and it is his opinion the plans are quite an improvement over what was presented at the last meting. Commissioner Garcia concurred and he would like to complement the applicant for their patience and desire to work with the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was happy to meet with the applicant and it is his opinion that the project is better for the community and better for the i'uture tenants of the building. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -12 subject to the findings and conditions as listed in the Resolution. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning.Coumission Minutes -6- March 14, 1979 t. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -05 - KETNER - (Continued from 2- 28 -79) - Request for development of apartment units on 10+ acres located south of the extension of Victoria Street on the east side of Archibald in the R -3 (multi family) zone. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Director Review No. 79 -05 and adopt Resolution No. 79 -19. Chairman Rempel asked for questions Gf the Commission to the staff. Mr. Ketner stated he is present to answer any questions the Commission might have concerning this project. Chairman Rempel stated this is quite a change on the tennis courts. He likes the tennis courts as shown on the Archibald Avenue frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he also likes the tennis courts on Archibald Avenue as it breaks up the long row of buildings. The treatmen•; of the courts, i.e., depressing them and the mounding, berming and landscaping along Archibald, is very nice. Commissioner Garcia stated he expressed his concern at the previous meeting regarding the tennis courts along Archibald Avenue. It is now his opinion that with the depressing of the tennis courts, it solves his major concern in terms of visibility as well as lighting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the pedestrian walkways across driveways delineated with some kind of- texture. This is a large project with cars coming in and out. He asked that this condition be added to the resolution. Mr. Ketner stated he would have no problem with that condition. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to approve Resolution No. 79 -19 approving Director Review No. 79 -05 subject to the conditions as listed with the following addition: 1. That a textured area be provided on the pedestrian walkways. S. AYES: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, JONES, DAHL, GARCIA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE GREENT CK NURSERY - ALTHOUSE AND BAMBER - Request for extension of time to cease operation of the Greenrock Nursery located on the north side of 19th Street, 400' west of Amethyst Street. Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported staff has received four phone calls from individuals who indicated that they support the extension for Greenrock. Apparently a card was passed around that the city is zoning the Greenrock Nursery out of business. The people he has talked to were not aware it was an illegal business. This is a very sensitive issue and one very difficult for the Commission because, 1) the business desires to find another .location as this is an illegal site and 2) on the other hand, people feel the city is not doing their job enforcing the ordinance. Plannina Commission Minutes -7- March 14. 1979 The original use was established other than by the present applicant and on- could maintain that the present owners were not responsible for establishing the illegal use. With that, the Commission -must make a decision on whether to grant the request or not. He stated the Commission should weigh all the issues expressed at the last meeting prior to making a decision. Commissioner Jones asked if the applicants are still planning on buying property on Archibald where a geceral plan amendment would be required or is it true he has found anther property. Mr. Lam stated the applicant should respond to this. Mr. Althouse, representing the applicants, stated it is true that they have found another parcel just within the last few days. This has happened very rapidly but the'property is within the C -2 zone which would be compatible with this type of use. It is in a proposed shopping center located on Haven Avenue at Lemon. One of the concerns of the Commission at the last meeting was the impact upon the neighbors. He read a letter signed by some of the neighbors immediately adjacent to or very near the Greenrock Nursery. One of the signers of the letter is Gary Hall who spoke out against the zone change application. Previously, he was concerned about the wall or chain link fence between his property and the nursery. This has been taken care of with the tall. planters placed near the fence to give privacy which Mr. Hall was concerned about. The letter signed by property owners adjacent to or near Greenrock Nursery, states they have no objection to the continuation of the operation at its present location until approximately August. By making no objection, they are not condoning it, since a continuation of the nursery would only be temporary. The owners are trying to relocate the nursery. This letter was also signed by Mr. and Mrs. White, living directly to the east; Mrs. Barker, directly across the street and Mr. and Mrs. Bangle at 6714 Amethyst. One of the other neighbors who has been on vacation was not able to sign; however, a friend of his at his home felt sure that he would. It is his belief that the Commission could find that this is a special situation. This is a carryover from the County and the Shibata's were not the original owners. He submitted an additional letter from Barbara Sairna 6768 Cambridge in favor of this request. Mr. Doug Hone, one of the owners of the property which the Shibata's are in the process of buying on Haven Avenue at Lemon, indicated it will take time to correctly develop plans and have the necessary approvals in order to develop something which the City will be proud of. The Shibata's are the kind of tenants that he wishes he could get all the time to work with. If they can come back at the end of 180 days and have a plan that this city can be proud of, then it is his opinion they have done their job correctly. This will involve quite a bit of planning and expense. If the Shibata's cannot maintain a continuous operation, it does not matter what they design, it will take a lot of time to get back to where they are now. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the zoning of the proposed site is at the present time. Mr. Hone stated the propery is zoned C -2 now and not in conformance with the newly adopted plan. It would be an excellent buffer to the residential on the south and west. They would develop an integrated center to the east. It is his opinion this will be a good use for this area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a six month extension is a realistic one. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 14, 1979 I Mr. Hone stated this will only get the plan on the ground but not developed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated in six months time a facility cannot be developed and ready to move into. At the end of the six months time the Shibata's operation would have to cease until such time as the new facility is completed. Mr. Hone stated it is his opinion this will take at least an additional 90 days over and above the six months time period to move into the new facility. Mr. Lam stated the planning consultant preparing the new zoning ordinance is considering nursery-type uses allowable in the C -1 zone. If an extension is granted by the time the project is ready, he is very confident that our zoning- ordinance will reflect that use within the C -1 district subject to Commission review and approval. Mr. Hone stated at the end of the six months, if the extension is granted, they would have plans together so that the Commission will know that they are proceeding. Mr. Chuck Mathis asked what the City's objection is to granting this extension of time. Chairman Rempel stated this is presently an illegal use and the Commission has to make a decision one way or the other at this time on whether or not to grant the extension. Mr. Hopson, Attorney, stated the City inherited a number of problems with existing illegal uses. There are a number of uses that are watching the results of this problem to determine what the City's policy will be. lie are accutely conscious of the fact from staff level because we have had other problem areas. It creates some problems for us from a legal prospectiv ^ >-_rying to treat all people equally and at the same time trying to preserve uniformity of uses in specific areas which t.a what zoning and planning is all about. Before the City started, we had complaints which were voiced by people about this use. That is the way these kinds of things are brought to the City's attention. Staff does not go around and search out illegal uses. This use was brought to the City's attention because of citizen complaints. Mr. Mathis asked if the intent of the applicant is taken into consideration? He is.trying to find a location or trying to do something about the problem. This should be given some consideration. Chairman Rempel stated this is the decision that the Commission has to make tonight. Mr. Bob Bnboe, who lives on Haven Avenue and 19th Street, stated the Shibata's are a valuable asset to the community. They give an excellent service, help people, and have a very good product with reasonable prices. They have a good business and are really trying to do the right thing. If they are allowed to stay and transfer their business to the new location, it can only enhance the community. Mr. Rob Coggin stated if the Shibata's are given a six month extension, it will at least give them an opportunity to find a new location. If he is not given this extension, his business will have to discontinue completely. Mrs. Natalie Dunlap stated she is speaking in favor of the extension. She has done business with them and she feels they are an asset to our community. A+ March 14, 1979 Planning Commission Minutes -9- Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated the applicant has spent a considerable aunt of time in terms of trying to establish their business within our community. What has happened tonight is different than what has happened in previous meetings. Tonight an alternate solution that is more acceptable to his point of view has been presented. The applicant is obtaining a new site within an area that will be in conformance with the adopted General Plan is more acceptable than the previous proposal presented at the last meeting. In behalf of the applicant, in terms of their effort to remain in the City, he would be receptive to a time extension. If no satisfactory solutions are established within the extended period of time, then it is the City's duty to discontinue the use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the main issue is not if the applicant is a good businessman in the community, but whether someone conducting a business in an improper zone can continue. Because of the evidence submitted tonight, he would be receptive to an extension. He indicated the length of the time extension needs to be discussed in order to give them adequate time to accomplish their goal without having to come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Rempel stated he was not here when the original request came before the Commission. When he first saw the six month extension, he felt it was not realistic, and he still feels the same. Possibly one year would be an adequate amount of time. If a year extension is granted he would; however, like the applicant to come back within six months for review and if proper proceedings for a site have not been make at that time, then the extension should be revoked. He stated the Commission can find this is a unique circumstance. The Shibata's didn't intentionally start an illegal business and it is his opinion they need to be given another oppprtunity. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to allow a one year time extension for the nursery with plans to be submitted within six months. If this is not accomplished. the time extension will be revoked. This extension is based on the following findings: 1. The Shibata's (present owners) are not at fault to the illegal zone of operation. 2. There are unusual circumstances surrounding this extension application that make this use unique. 3. It will in no way set a precident to grant this extenstion of time. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 9589- BATES - Revision to tract map regarding access located off Red Hill Country Club Drive near Camino Del Sur in the R -1 zone. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -25 approving the revised Tract Map No. 9589 subject to the provisions of the Agree- ment. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 14, 1979 0 Commissioner Tolstoy asked how long it wail be before the bridge is constructed across the creek. Mr. Hubbs stated it is scheduled for construction in the Spring of 1981. Commissioner Garcia asked what are the implications of granting this revision in relationship to the access issue in terms of tracts having two means of access in the future. Mr. Hubbs stated this is a requirement of the County Subdivision Ordinance. We have now established our own subdivision ordinance and that requirement is not included. Therefore, it is not a written policy of the City. The Engineering Division handles it on a individual basis and evaluates the impact of traffic based on specifics of t,ie case. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Bates, applicant, stated he is present to answer any questions the Commission might have concerniug this matter. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -25 subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: GgCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL. JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL - Request for development of a professional office complex located at the southeast corner of.Baseline and Carnelian. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -24 subject to the conditions as listed. He further recommended that the following condition be added to the Resolution: That only 20% of the building square footage be used for those uses explicitely called out in the CC&R's recorded with the zone change. Chairman Rempel stated the lead end street at the south end of the property will be a worthless street once ti is property is developed. He asked if something could be done with this street in order that it would not have to be maintained by the City. Mr. Rougeau stated with regard to the dead end street this is a problem that has appeared in a couple of developments the Commission will be reviewing. In this particular case after working among staff members we have come up with a change to condition #11 as follows: "The developers shall provide improvements on Arroyo Vista Avenue north of Columa Court and at the inter- section 0.-' Columa Court and Arroyo Vista Avenue for the purpose of eliminate' .13 or medify:ing the existing stubbed street north of the intersection to the satisfacrlon of the City Engineer. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian access to the development with the final public right of way configuration to be determined by the City Engineer ". This will eliminate that stub off of Arroyo Vista. if this condition is approved, then the City will take action to Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 14, 1979 vacate the right of way and turn the property over to adjacent property owners. Mr. Hary Heims, Crowell /Leventhal, stated they do not have any problem with the added condition indicated by Michael Vairin. As far as parking close to the southerly line, they are working with the Engineering Division and there is a possibility of moving it back one space in order for them to get berming there to partially block the site of the cars. As far as the knuckle of the existing street, this could be a concern to them. If the knuckle is required, there is then land that will need to be split up with existing property owners. The people living in the area to the south of this street will use this area in order to walk to the center or going to school. In his opinion a cul -de -sac with pedestrian entrance into the commercial center would be the best solutio-ki. Chairman Rempel stated the knuckle might be a convenience for the pedestrians coming through but the street is of no value except for the cost of maintenance. If he were a property owner in this area he would like to see the street blocked. It would be well for the staff to talk to the people living in the area in order to get -chair opinions regarding this. If it is not the desire of the property owners to obtain this property, then he would consider the cul -de -sac. Michael Vairin asked if the knuckle is approved, would the Commission want the pedestrian walkway through the area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would be a nice feature. Chairman Rempel stated there is two different architects on this project and he can't really see the tie-in with the bank building to the rest of the buildings. Mr. Ray Collins, Architect for Crowell /Leventhal, stated they did not want all the buildings to be the same, just the material to be similar. The color and the on the roofs are similar and he does not know what else to do. Chairman Rempel stated it bothers him to see two totally different concepts in building design. He indicated a square building is proposed along with hexagonal buildings; the only continuity is the roof color, tile and the building color. Mr. Collins stated it is their opinion that is what _a really needed. The buildings do not all have to be the same. They feel the buildings are well designed and are very pleasing. They really didn't have any intention of making them the same. Mr. Jerry Eicker, Architect for the Ontario Savings and Loan, stated, in the design of this building, they wanted to be more consistent with what is normally developed for this facility. They did; however, feel they should be consistent with the rest of the development in terms of color and materials. The roofs are also the same as far as color and texture. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he can appreciate the clients wanting to have a distinctive building but it is his opinion there should also be more continuity to the whole center. Chairman Rempel stated perhaps arches could be shown on the outside of the Savings and Loan Building to be more compatible with the rest of the development. Mr. Reims stated he would disagree. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 14, 1979 Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is his opinion that more study is needed by the architect. Mr. Jim Crowell, representing Crowell /Leventhal, stated throughout this City one of the biggest issues was the sameness of the streets, seeing block walls in looking at commercial centers and the sameness. We are now seeing more and more commercial centers being built throughout the community; again they all look the same. To develop everything to look the same detracts from the community. This city should be looking at things that will make this community a little different than others. It is their opinion they have a building site which is unique. They are proud of this development and if this project is delayed, it could cost them the account of the Ontario Savings and Loan, as they have indicated they have to be in the unit by August first. Commissioner Dahl stated Crowell /Leventhal has been very inventive in the design of their portion of the project and it is extremely attractive. The Issue is the Savings and Loan building. This building is the focal point because it is at the corner of Carnelian and Baseline and will be the unit that will stand out from the corner of Carnelian and Baseline and will be the unit that will stand out from the rest of the development. It is his opinion this would detract from the development. Chairman Rempel stated a two member committee of the Planning Commission, along with staff and the architects could meet to review the plans and perhaps come up with some solutions. Commissioner Jones stated the way the bank building is placed on the lot it almost creates the same impression from the corner as the rest of the buildings and she does not agree there is a problem with this building. Mr. Crowell asked if it would be possible for them to proceed with their engineering plans to the point of starting improvements at this time. They would agree to meet with the Committee and staff in regard to review of the architectural plans for the Ontario Savings and Loan building. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission approved the rest of the project it could proceed at this time with the condition that the architectural plans for the Savings and Loan come back to the Commission prior to construction. Chairman Rempel appointed Commissioner Tolstoy and Commissioner Dahl to the Committee to meet with staff and the architects regarding the Ontario Savings and Loan building. y: A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to Z approve Resolution No. 79 -24 based on the conditions as listed with the following additions: 1. That only 20% of the building square footage be used for those uses explicitely called out in the CC&R's recorded with the zone change. 2. Awend Condition #11 as follows: The developers shall provide im- provements on Arroyo Vista Avenue north of Columa Court and at the intersection of Column Court and Arroyo Vista Avenue for the purpose of eliminating or modifying the existing stubbed street north of the intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian access to the development. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 14, 1979 AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA NOES: ITONE , REMPEL ABSENT: NONE MEMO re ardin Campus/Baseline Project in the City of Upland Jack Lam reported the Upland Planning Department has been contacted and the EIR for the Campus /Baseline project is not ready for distribution at this time. They have indicated it will be forwarded to us in the near future for review and comments. * * * * it COUNTY GENERAL, PLAN PRESENTAT?JN - Presentation of Consolidated County General Plan. Mr. Don King, San Bernardino County, gave a brief present°ti.nn on the Consolidated Coutty General Plan. He iadicated the County currently has approximately 40 general plans. The general plans have approximately 2000 Pages of text. What they are attempting to do is streamline these general plans into a single comprehensive system. These systems are working under- three basic goals - to save time, save money and do a better job. The new system will consolidate the General Plan into a single looseleaf booklet with about one hundred pages. He indicated the County will be holding formal public hearings before the County Planning Commission on the 29th and 30th of March. Two additional hearings will be held on the 6th and 12th of April. The Board of Supervisors will then review it on the 23rd aid 24th of April_ Mr. Lam stated this presentation was given to the Commission to help understand the proposal. There will be public hearings concerning this procedure. Mr. King has left two copies of the document and the Commission is welcome to review this material. CITY /COUNTY POLICY far Coordination of Plannin Activities Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -22 recommending to the City Council approval of the City/ County Policy for Coordination of the Planning Activities. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -22 as submitted. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL. TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE * * * * I. Jack Lam stated the Commission has talked a great deal about the issue of the first General Plan Amendment hearing. If the Commission concurs, the first hearing date for a General Plan Amendment can be set in June. If the Commission feels this date is appropriate, then Staff will draw up a resolution for the next Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 14, 1979 Y� meeting for adoption. After some die--ussion, a Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to set June 13, 1979 as the first date regarding General Plan amendments. Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Tolatoy and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 'p.m. Rgspectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 14, 1979 ..M iF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 28, 1979 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 Cuca- monga on Wednesday, March 28, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jorge Garcia, Richard Dahl, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously cartied, the Planning Commission mLnutes of February 14, 1979 were approved as submitted. Jack Lam stated under Old Business, an additional item is to be added as follows: DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -12 - ALDERFER - Review of Architectural revisions to proposed structure on Vineyard, north of Carnelian Mr. Lam indicated this item was continued from the last meeting in order for the applicant to work with the committee and staff in regard to the elevations of his proposed building. The plans have been revised and are ready for Com- mission review at this meeting. r .� ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam stated a notice of public hearing has been received from San Bernardino County for the Consolidated Genera]. Plan which was presented to the Commission at the last meeting. The hearing ii: tomorrow with the Valley portion at 1:30 p.m. He stated if the Commission concurs with Staff to support the general concept sad Coordination Policy between the County and City, Staff would express this support at that meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to go on record in support of the Consolidated General Plan for San Bernardino County. CONSENT CALENDAR r1:.1 LVn Vr.LLAAl IIUN rVK rKrWr.L PIPW aV. ]l Z/ — nPLnl:r1V l.Ul.AMVr#,1k EV.1_1Vzbb raKl - Request to divide 32.6 acres into 40 lots for the purpose of developing an industrial busLness park at the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Haven Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he.wants to insure that water is not carried across Haven Avenue. Paul Rougeau stated there is already a storm drain under Haven at the 4th Street intersection. Any water would be carried into this storm drain. This will be under Haven Avenue and will not flow across Haven. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Dahl and unanimously carried to approve the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5157 as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -07 - ALTA LOMA BRETHREN IN CHRIST - The development of a church and the incorporation of day care facilities for 6 acres of land located at 9974 19th Street. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to abstain from voting on this matter as he is a member of the congregation to the church, on the Board, and Chairman of the building committee. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Site Approval No. 79 -07. He added twc letters have been received in regard to this request. One letter was received from Laurel Hawker,- 6655 Hermosa Avenue, stating this development would br. most unwise as Highway 30 is a very heavily traveled avenue on which to locate a children's center and such a facility would be noisy and disruptive to surrounding homes. An additional letter was received that basically indicated they would like to see landscaping provided on the pro- Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 28, 1979 party. In addition concern was that this use should be required to do those things that are expected of all developers. Mr. Vairin stated all developers are required to put in all improvements in order to build a facility of this nature. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Dale Lang, Architect from Barmakian -Wolf, stated the church is taking a very conservative approach to developing this site and trying to comply with all existing ordinances and aesthetics of the surrounding area. They are trying to bring the building and the activities away from the road and trying to screen the parking lot. Chairman Rempel stated a stucco wall is proposed and asked if an open lattice type fence could be shown t,s he does not like the idea of solid walls. Mr. Lang stated if it is the Commissions' desire to make this fence more open it can be accomplished. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Chairman Rempel that an open lattice type fence is needed. He indicated as far as noise, walla are not always the moat effective manner in which to stop noise. The lattice fence along with dense landscaping would absorb sound. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Ted Huber, 6735 Berkshire Avenue, stated he lives directly across from the church site. He is concerned with the effect this development will have on them. He would like further information in regard to traffic and noise generated by this development as well as whether or not this will block the view from his home of the mountains. Chairman Rempel stated the development of this church wouldn't block the view a of the mountains as much as if houses weia developed at this location. The church will be set back a distance from the street and there will be a lot of open space. Mr. Huber asked where the amphi- theater is proposed. Chairman Rempel stated the amphi- theater will be loceted approximately 250 feet back from the street. Mr. Huber stated he is concerned about traffic on 19th Street. The day care center proposed could bring in quite a bit of traffic. Mr. Vairin stated 19th Street is a State highway and the Engineering Division _ has indicated it will be designed at full width and will have the capacity for carrying a significant amount of traffic. Mr. Paul Rougeau stated as part of this project there will be a provision made for a left turn lane so that traffic can get into the church and then there will be one lane each way. When property is developed to the north, two lanes each direction will to provided. Planning Commission Minutes -•3- March 28, 1979 7 There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Hempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated the development of this church will enhence the entire area much better than if houses were proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what is proposed for treatment for camoflauging the existing structure. Mr. Lang stated the existing structure is a temporary building and not one that is going to remain in the master plan. Their feel'-.. was to screen it with lattice work and heavy landscaping. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -31 approving Site Approval No. 79 -07 as submitted. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: DAHL ABSENT: NONE PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Request to make administrative amendments to the R -3 and A -P Zoning Districts. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adop- tion of Resolution No..79 -29 approving Zoning Ordinance No'. 79 -04. Commissioner Garcia stated he is not absolutely convinced that automobile service stations should be allowed within the A -P zone. Automobile service stations create a series of issues in terms of repairs. Mr. Lam stated that staff is proposing a location and development plan be approved for service stations. At the present time there is not the term,Con- ditional Use Permit utilized in the County ordinance. Rather than go back and change the entire ordinance and put in a new section for Conditional Use Permit, a location and development process is almost identical to the Conditional Use Permit. Staff had the sam! concerns about these types of uses in the A -P District. That is the reason staff placed these into the category of location and development plan approvals. There are a lot of areas where such a service station could properly be designed to fit in with the center. The Commission would have the right to review and approve, or deny the request if it is-felt it would not fl.t in with the center. Commissioner Garcia stated if this type of use is allowed in the A -P District, it would be difficult to deny a project and would tend to deteriorate what the A -P zone should be. Unless the issue is addressed properly, :here will be problems. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 28, 1979 Chairman Rempel stated the Planning Commission would review each development proposed and it would be up to the Commission to make the determination as to whether it can be developed. If it doesn't fit the site it can be denied. Commissioner Dahl stated he can not see excluding automobile service stations at this time as this type of use could be compatible if done right. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Mr. Lam stated the approval of this Amendment would only allow a developer to submit a proposal for review and the Commission would have to judge the merits of the proposal. The purpose is not to promote service stations in the A -P District but to allow the opportunity for someone to bring in a set of plans to show how and where a service station can be developed in the A -P zone. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconn,�d by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -29 approving Zoning Ordinbnce Amendment No. 79 -03 as submitted. AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: GARCIA ABSENT: 1.;06:� Commissioner Garcia stated he is in accordance with this ordinance except the issue of automobile service stations within the A -P District. This should not be allowed within the A -P zone. ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - C.'_ty inityated zone change for properties located on the north side of Foothill Blvd. between the railroad overcrossing and the real estate office from C -2 to A -P. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detai -, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -28 approving Zone Change No. 79 -02. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. c:. There being none, Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Jeff Sceranka stated the owner of the eastern property, Dan Miksel, asked him to speak in regard to this zone change. He is not in favor of the zone ,`:ange from commercial to A -P as his intention was to use the property for commercial use. He raalizes he would have to get a General Plan Amendment to no that but he wanted to go on record as stating he is opposed to.A -P and would like to stay commercial at this time. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 28, 1979 Commissioner Garcia stated the A -P classification is compatible and appropriate for this area. Commissioner Dahl stated if a change to commercial is desired for this area, the property owner would have to wne back with a general plan amendment request. The general plan calls for mixed use at this time. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to approve Resolution No. 79 -28 adopting Zone Change No. 79 -02 as submitted. AYES: JONES, GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE * th ie DIRECTOR REVIEW NO 79 -15 - CEOWELL /LEVENTHAL, INC. - Review of elevations -end building materials for Ontario Savings and Loan proposed for the south - uast corner of Baseline Avenue and Carnelian Avenue. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends if the Commission is satisfied with the revisions, it approve the exterior design of the building in question. Chairman Rempel. asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Jim Crowell, applicant, stated he has no comments at this time and stated Tie would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have concerning this request. Chairman Rempel stated he likes the continuity a lot better than what was presented at the last meeting. A Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Renpel to approve the elevations and building materials for Ontario Savings and Loan as revised. AYES: JONES, REMPEL, DAHL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: GARCIA ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Garcia abstained from voting due to an indirect conflict of interest (applicant's architect, Harnish, Morgan and Causey is Mr. Garcia's employer.). OLD BUSINESS DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER - Review of Architectural revisions to proposed structure on vineyard, north of Carnelian. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March .:8, 1979 '4V .. [.M1, Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He indicated Commissioners Garcia and Dahl met as a special committee with the architect and reviewed the con - terns the Commission had at its last meeting. The applicant has come back with the corrected elevations for Commission review. Should the Commission feel satisfied with the revisions, Staff recommends approval of Director Review No. '8 -12 by adopting Resolution No. 78 -13. Chairman Rempel asked if the applicant has anything to add at this time. Mr. Schultz, applicant, stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have concerning the revisions. Commissioner Garcia stated the plan as presented satisfies the basic concerns expressed in our previous meeting. Commissioner Dahl stated he appreciates the cooperation from the applicant and the architect in working on this plan. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commisdioner Dahl to adopt Resolution No. 78 -13 approving Director Review No. 78 -12. AYES: GARCIA. DAHL, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE ZONING DETERMINATION N0. 79 -01 - ROGERS - Request for determination that a Trade School operated by Chaffey Community College Distif,ict is similar to the permitted uses of the M -R (Restricted Manufacturing) District. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -30 recommending that a trade school be found similar in nature to uses in the M -R zone. He indicated another question that needs to be answered is whether or not this use, if approved in the M -R zone, should be reviewed under Site Approval or Director Review. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is a very good opportunity for people in the vocational training to get training more in the environment which they will be working. Mr. Catanzaro of Chaffey College, stated this is an extremely important pro- ject. A skill center such as this addresses the specific needs of people who need basic employment and need training within 3 to 6 month period. It is his opinion this development would be an asset to the community. Mr. Lam stated the Commission is not approving the site plan this evening; all we are doing is making a determination that it is similar to other uses within the M -R zone so that a proposal can be submitted to the city. The Commission also needs to consider whether it should be reviewed under Site Approval or Director Review. If a Site Approval is required, it would automatically go to the Commission for review and approval. If a Director Review is approved the plans could possibly remain at staff level. ,:.`, Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 28, 1979 A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -30 as submitted. It was further recommended that the plans for such a trade school within the M R district be reviewed under the Director Review procedure. AYES: TOLSTOY, JONES, GARCIA, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DIRECTOR'S REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -26 stating the Planning Commis- sion's requirements for plan submittal review. Chairman Rempel stated the first paragraph indicates the Commission has expressed their desire for improved plan submittals for review by the Com- mission. He asked if this could be further dc..fined by stating the Commis- sion has expressed their desire for improved 'Director Review, Site Approval or Location and Development Plan submittals for review by the Commission. Mr. Hogan stated staff felt this might be confining or restrictive to indi- cate a specific type of application. However, this is really no problem if the Commission desires to more specifically indicate the applications. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to amend Item 66'under Section 2 to read: "Clear drawings and notes of detailed site plans, preliminary grading plan and elevations (See Exhibit "C ")." He indicated at times the drawings and notes are not clear enough for the Commission to review eo this point should be emphasized. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like an additional point added as follows: A general vicinity map indicating cross streets and landmarks. Ted Hopson stated under Section 1 rather than the word "agendized ", Chan -- the sentence to read: That no Item will be placed on an Agenda for a Planing Commission meeting unless all requirements of Section 2 are met. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -26 with the amendments as discussed above. AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 28, 1979 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DATES Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Plan- ning Division. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission establish two General Plan hearing dates as outlined in Resolution No. 79 -27. Chairman Hempel stated he would be in favor of Option 2 establishing two general plan amendment dates and holding the third general plan amendment hearing for city purposes. This will allow the city to hold the third date for the annual review of the plan. C.. missioner Dahl stated because of the shortness in time that the April 1 date should be extended to the end of April to allow a full 30 days from the time this Resolution is adopted to submit applications. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission concurs all the meetings could be moved to the second meeting of the month rather than the first meeting. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to app_ove Resolution No. i9 -27 with the amendment as indicated above, moving the meeting dates to the second meeting of the month for each of the hearing dates. AYES: CIkRCIA, DAHL, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL 240ES: NJNE ABSENT: NONE COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Tolstoy stated a few months ago we talked about the possibility of having some special street standards for the Etiwanda area. The people in this area have indicated they would like to have a distinctive type of community. He asked if the Engineering Department is working on this at this time. Mr. Lam indicated the Planning Division has several interns that are doing a survey with other communities in terms of rural road standards. Once this is compiled the engineering staff will examine it and will take the whole issue tt to the advisory committee for their input. Eventually this will come before the Commission and Council for their review and approval. Commissioner Garcia stated perhaps the interns should also be looking into some information regarding general community design standards especially.in the hillside areas and areas that surround our city within our sphere of influence. Commissioner Garcia stated it would be advisable if the Commission could have enlightment of the program that the staff has for the rest of the year in terms of accocaplishments and what projects the Commission will be involved with later in the year. i _ Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 28, 1979 Barry Hogan stated the Commission may want to set a special study session to talk about this item. There may be other items to -be added for. review in a study session. - Chairman Rempel stated he would agree with this. Some additional items to discuss could be an update of the Zoning Ordinance and the status of the architectural review committee. He has also had several comments in regard to setting up a program for development of our streets. We have streets, avenues, boulevards, etc. and perhaps a standard should be set indicating a designation for east /west streets and another for north /:south streets. We need to have some type of uniformity. Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 9.17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I GIL61k.�� JACK LAM, Director of Community Devleopment Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 28, 1979 0 0 CITY OF 3ANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 11, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Parcel Map Yo. 4912- - The subdivision of 13.25 acres into 8 parcels located on the northwest corner of 7th and Archibald. BACKGROUND: Vanguard Builders are requesting approval to divide 13.25 acres of industrial land into 8 parcels located on the northwest corner of Seventh and Archibald Avenues. The site is presently under construction as an industrial complex with seven industrial buildings and a public storage facility. Basically, the proposed map, attached as Exhibit 'A', is dividing the buildings so that they are on individual lots aryl will have access through reciprocal access easements. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is presently under construction as an indus- trial complex. Because of the construction now under way, the site is nearly totally improved. The project will include a substantial amount of landscaping which is yet to be installed and has been engineered in terms of drainage and topography. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental thee'-"3t, has been completed and a field check has been conducted on the site and staff has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment as a re;;ult of this project. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4912 based upon the Initial Study and the fact that no significant adverse impacta on the environment were found as a result of this project. Rea ectfu y submitted, -- Ja am, if�cf0.tlo>�— - ----�. Community Development JL:cc Attachments: Part I, Initial Study Location Map Item 'W' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I .. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application *.s made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the•public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will rake one of three determinations: 1) The project will Lave no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an & nvironmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Rancho Industrial Park. APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Vanguard Builders, Inc. 9211 Archibald Ave. Cucamonga, CA. 91730 (714 ) 951- NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Steve Topor 9211 Archibald Avenae Cucamonga, CA. 91 (714) 987 -6376 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET FDDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) NW Corner of 7th & Archibald 209- 171 -16 & 209 - 171 -17 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY.ISSUINC SUCH PERMITS: WeNnraF PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Light industrial, commerical, and mini - storage complex ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. OF EXISTING ANr PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 13.25 acres, 'S parcels 214,065_ sq. -feet. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): is no need to remove any trees, change the topography or disrupt any other aspects of the complex un er is parse map - Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? no ,i • EEa 7 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP .190. 4912 SKIRT . Of F SN /.TS AN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSOCIATES IN41Nl92f SEINO A OITISION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF CIRAHO• CA{NPNNA THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER .r. 0.1 ... OF SECTION IS, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH. RANGE 7 EI[yT, S.S.YL 1.^ IOTf• • . r.wx M..i 1. 14 t m. .. : rn xr r ;1.1x3° SCALE t •IDO• �rrunl Ny.w. HFPA4E0 FOR. WHIS. . �rr '�i1� •- �+ii•.�i x���i�ri .u'iJ. lrN..Ma.. wu.' ft: M1ru11 .1W. W. 1 1 { I w 1 1 S� 1 1 � . t l'� 1 �i 'A % J ry ` t I F I rt - WILL THIS PROJECT: YES No x 1. Create a substantial change in ground ' contours? .� .X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? g. 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials.such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the - Development Review Committee. Date March 14, 1979 Signatur Fan Nottingh Title Director of Development yl. tR 0 DATE: TO: FROM, 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 11, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 41 SUBJECT: Environmental Review for Parcel Map No. 5176 and Director Review No. 78 -11 - In -N -Out Burger - A division of 1.57 acres of land into two parcels and the development of a fast food restaurant on property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Vineyard (8955 Foothill Boulevard). BACKGROUND: In -N -Out Burger Inc. is requesting approval to subdivide 1.57 acres of land into two parcels and to develop one of them as a fast food restaurant. The detailed site plan for the development of this site and accompanying staff report is included in this packet for the Commissions' review. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The majority of the site is vacant with the exception of a wooden stand used for the selling of furniture and a single family residence. The land slopes generally in a southerly direction and contains several small citrus trees, a magnolia tree, a palm tree, eucalyptus tree and five elm trees. There is no evidence of any cultural, historical or scenic aspects of this site. Some of the trees may require removal because of necessary improvements; however, whatever trees can be saved will be saved and landscaping will be required to replace trees removed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: After completion of Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental.checklist, and a field visit to the site, staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDP_TION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5176 and Director Review No. 78 -11 based upon the Initial Study and the finding that such a project will not create significant adverse impacts upon the environment. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Direc or of Community Development JL:cc Attachments: Initial Study, Part I Location Map ITEM "B" NI CITY OF XANCRO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY ^ ° ^JECT I-FOR ATTON SHEET - To be cumpleted by applicant Env_ronmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted'to the Development Review Committee through tan department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Envircnmental Analysis staff *ill prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Developcienr_- Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will male one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The- ;oject will have an environmental impact and an Environ.. ntal Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. 1, 0. PA1037ECT TITLE: .%&tEw Yt.1 -M -00r `3t J 42 lm S1 k er APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: __`SN- t�1- OUT'BVQC�C-211�C NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: T> - l.RcrVPr M n f:+i A LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESG AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)' LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND •" FEDnRAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: T6-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: c��• e_� 2i�.� -r ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE• ENVIRONMENTAL SITTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , - ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TIM DESCRIPTION OT P.NY . fI EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): LJ SMbLI GCT2\lf� TY2'E' -51 IDS tv� .WnL l •""ZtCr__ Is the project, part of a larger,pToject, one of a series, eZ cumulative actions, which although individually small, may ::s a whole have significant environmental impact? .� NCO Fti - • r WILL. THIS PROJECT: � YES NO Create a substantial thane iS► g ground cnntours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)?. 4. create changes in the,existing zoning or general plan designations? Remove any existing trees ?. How many? NOl" UFC ✓6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YEs answers above: '=T \S i )Ag IMPORTANT: I.: the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this in,_tial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact-, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.' I fuicher understand that additional informat:'.on may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulat: ion can be made by the Development Review. Committee. Date .g Signature n � Title r 4 a Q� � �Na a I� Cpoy�� AO oc Ci41Zr�� SON u ?WoV �H hZ . ao'D9 j zm� v� 3aa �W �th4 Tit �sw � � w V O Z Z Ltl.09 %m 1 �� �• I a i Vk tir U: I 'F Q M .y I I Vic m %c X13 ion � I o h n n � o 14 �4 I Z� OZO h � h 0 4 i Z I � I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT T0: Planning Commission April 11, 1979 FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 4657 - MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 78 -0199 The subject Parcel Map received Tentative Approval from the County on May 30, 1978. It has subsequently been transferred to the City. .Due to the moratoriums established, it has only been partially processed. The owner has requested the City to extend the period of time given to comply with the conditions of approval. The staff finds no objection to this request, therefore, we recommend approval of the time extension. Respectfully submitted, r W LLOY BS City Engineer LH:deb e 1� o :-7v )F RAM-E'.o rIUCA ONIGA March 19, 1979 LwELOPb.;EW7 DEPT. r AIA Mi Lloyd B. Hubbs City Engineer Rancho Cucamonga planning n°_ar Sir: Please be advised that I wish to apply for an extension Of time for one year on your conditional approval of Minor subdivision application as shown on survey Map 4657now being held in your office for final approval. May I please hear from you as soon as possible on this matter. Thank you, Mrs. Herbert J. `Vaughan 7508 Hellman Avenue Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 L 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 11 DATE: April 11, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: SMaTTAL REQUIR..T"!& °.TS, FOR DEVET_OP_*TRNT evpr.ICArinhS Attached is a copy of the application filing requirements for the various planning reviews of the Planning Division. These filing requirements were recently amended to reflect the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 79 -26 which required special plans for projects that require Planning Commission review. Staff has tried to provide a complete outline of items that may be required for Planning reviews in a concise and consistent. manner that can easily be followed by an applicant.. This. is-submitted to the Commission for your review nud comment.. Resp,ctfu }lb submitted, Community Development JL:cc . C1.7 OT &AMM CIMINC MA ritipc gEqullDaM{ I. t)aTLlul {Egu]gvanfl rollwtas Is a esKriPtim of the place and faformiatlon that may be needed to proeess a project and the umounc of d.call such a Pisa aboold contain. A. Det it d Site Plan shall include the followlast - paµ and address oft Applicant ra{in.er and /or Artht[eCt - Property lines cad lot dlesesiona - Dimensional locations oil Access. both pedestrian and vahltula:a mhawlal amalu area and points of Inatome and *{roes - tiff - .ileac parking and loading area. Obae.lag location, swear aid ! typical dlmen.loa of spaces. and wheal steps placananc. Internal circulation pactsra - Distances bscpmea buildtnla and/or oducturu - - sulldiat astbatks (freest. rear and .ides) - Iscatlm. he/ght. sad aaterlale of walls ltd fences (sections it required) - Lceacim Of llt}ht Jimtwss and typlcel 6w mprend example - All del"a sys to scale on ad Kent and .cream tad • reef ry ernes 1 for s d1.[uKa ofuttteega. *04 alleging Paving width, within sidewalk* - 100 fast an adjacent { 100 tee[ m adlaesc[ ad K[naa the scree[ Propartles i _ Typical atreat section - Any .uscetlng Med/An Salad. wlehls 100 fast of the subject alto i - peorgK craw struts Pa bath aides with Pitts or Mims distances frur, eubjatt site - W.-atLau of all bvlldloge Z�Lchln 100 feet of *distant propertiea - (bating sewage at waylay Mthad of eN.TSag - Across Cho atrest properties - may "feting drainage causes Or scam drains - The. axpeccd "ago of the alto - A vlClsicY map shoring elnesst "jar crags streets. scaler and existing land wa •. Iheatrstlre Slim plea - Such a Visa should Include a graphic scale and north street all Proposed and .Wlztlnl improvenasta. landscape concepts such A moucd[ng Ad moaadering w*llwsys, walla. {round Carer. cross. shrubs. anduw. PaYlag and othar almanacs as wy be necessary to 111wtra[e the site plan. (Dlm.wions shall be secluded free this plea) C. preliminary 0radlnx sad iMLU Mac - Eslieia{ ad Proposed eaataurn on the stem and within 100 feet of the boundaries of the sits. - news tic" of the site - - Existing on -sits free, lndicatloh tbo)e to be caved - Proposed drainage Patceru ad any propos*d dtaLmg* fACLL111*a D. I11v.tr.clve %uJldlnt Cl.vatlme - Illustrative bwtlding slevstiau shnelna all sides of *xiatLng cad I proposed balldinls *ad structures- - Illustrative building elevations seam arch.-tactual elwA[Soes shwlag ["keel materials to be "ad. trees. laadac*PLot. cad shadow to give the slAvaclOCS ones graphic d.'aeeslen. . t. public wesring bc.utrao nts The following Stems are requlrad to be submitted with thou application that require public hearings' - Threa (3) mots of typed, {wmad 10.1s 11aCLn{ the CAMAS. ddtauss. and the essesoor Parcel rvaber of ell Property Owners within 300' of rtarlor bouadarled of the subject Property. - The list shall be obtained from the latest *q-•+liad sesKgment roll . lgresd by the fan bmtnATdtm County Ases*see. - A radium map drawn on the Assessors Parcel Maps ad spllred together lodlcatlol Ch* ecbjmct prepacty with • 300t redlua drown around the property and the boundary lines of all Cho properties Within the 3"' � rdlw. r r r a n II. SPECITI : ROUIR/2wrg A. site Approe L "Let'", We Peoit. planned Unit Dewetatmen[ The follwtm specific 10fo0aatlon and "Cartels shall be subaltted with As application for the above twlewst 1. Sewn (7) Rats of b1mll" 'plat which +hall include a detailed sits plan. na 113usttetivs alto plan. prelfalry grading and drolsege plan. sad illealrRtive building elevations. These plans *hall include the derail of apscltled under the least" Requlresents section I.. 2. One Cl) cat of colored plans which aholl include on c loatrativs $Ica plan. Illustrative building slwations. •W any nrcaesary cross asctiom. 1. an syw X 14^ building Materials board cb.t includes a map's of the seterlsl proposad far the project. 4. one (1) sat of Sy- X 11" eraneporency reductloae which NWI Include the detRilad mite plan, iliwcrativs alts plan. prsllatrry grading and drainage plan. Awl Mustr.civa butld- 1•2 almvstio". S. property ovnsr*hip lilt and rP)Iw up As specified under Socclon 1 -s Public treating roqulrwrants. . 6. fort I of the Initial Study (roviroment "mearmt). T. rotor site Approval - 1100 _ Conditional U's Fatale - 0700 Planned Uric Developerac - 31,000 _ rart I Initial study - 470 e. Director Review - sit. plant The following specific information .v.1 rterial vhall be submitted with an application for the above rsviwt 1. Swan C7) sets of blutlins platy which *hall include a detailed alts plan. An llloacrative alts plan. a prollalrry grading sad drainage pies. and illoacraclvs building *lwatloaa. 2. Part I of the Initial study (envltoaeant eswma*anc). 1, rotor Director pvlw - 7200 Part I Inlcisl Study - (70 *If a director review, ices to refstred to the planning Casaisvion for their revlw. than the Additional Infoteaoion r-hsll be submitted' r4, one (1) set of colored plugs which shall Intl-d' An 111wttativs alts plan. illustrative building aLvatioes And any netesbsry aroma Battle". 63. An sou X 14" building setealmis board that Includes 80*104 of erterior building owterlals. .6. Om (1) set of art" X 11" ennwareneY raductlons Ulrich *hall include the detailed mice plan. 1NIrEAtive alts pl*n. pra- ltalsery eroding and drainage plan, std illustrative building elevations. a r r sot C. Director ravr.w (ar NInar Addttues end Alra tt The following tnlarmaLlOn- sltSll be sub.drted with an applicetiod fa a shoe "Nolan (lu& than 5= a( the cop, Square fsetaao of the Structure) or alteration to An 2ati&g us*$ 1. 11" (2) 0492 of Plana which shall Include a detailed wits plea. detailed butlding dSratlo s, And any other plan@ that say be detaralesd wcsssary. 2. Cases $25 ' D. Dlr.acnr tert.w far i!. The (ollwtng Information sh.l) be submitted with sn applicotlon requastlaX approval of slauss 1. One (1) tot of Plana which Mall Include a detailed sit. elan ahOwina the czart 1crt.Qw ..f 1).e pr.po.md efesa. an elevation of to structures where day are to be placed. and • detailed elevation of the sign lndICALIAg the material. lacer style. Wet dlreedoca. W colors. I. Is addition. requests for a sulforn sign Frescos tall submit an eras X Ian "Aar describing the criteria of to Ilan progru, bath wr[cton and graphically, shell be submitted, I. toeat iinglo sign display - $25 Daifoa sign proarms - $75 X. Variance s The following information *hall be submitud with as application request for a rariarust 1. Chu (1) dot.11ed ILCm plan Indicating the proposed variance• Z. Property o marshlp list amid radius map as cpc.-tflgd under Section 1'9 public Dearing raqulrus:pcs. _ 5. Ceut $200 f. hinor Deviation The following Inforeatun &hall be srbmlcud with es applicwtlon request for a wlaor deviations I. tip. (1) detailed mite Plan On ail" X 11 Minimum site p.por imlucing the Propoyd deviation. i I. lust 150 C. gone Change The fallawing lnlalesttan shall be submitted with an application request for a Woe Changes 1. than (1) alto plan an an W X 11" former Indicating the boundaries of the sub)yL p[oparty. any luprova..atm. and surrounding properties Lich nautlux awning special futures and laodmar s Indicated. 2. part 1 of the initial Stud ' 7 (environmental esaamayat) 1. property swurshlP lint and radius Rep as specified under Section y -X Public Waring requlramanee. 4. tares 5500 4 125 per acre Fort 1 Initial Study - 170 0 r, L_ e. Cenadl plop AAoi dmant The following infurtutinn shall be submitted with an apPllCat /oe requu.c for a &aural plan Nenvuh sur 1. Cps (1) site plan indicating The subject alts sad the present land =v aadng special features molt landmarks. awl general Plan. dwlWtfon. All other our rouacing Properties within $00' shall be show aM aball include Ale lred was. MAUS and gewerel Plan designation. 1. A eritte lsstlflwttnn nutlieing more" for much a change and why "a ch lge would be the beet planning for the subject area and r.lw` Clt. ; - 1. part. I Isici l Study (eavirnemencal sseuamsnt). 4, Aff-.r review at the Initial Study it may be dummiwad that addicioont ttudlu Ruth as a traffic or act 1nt1C Atudy wy be rsqulTM. 1. property oww,srobip list and radlu map u specified under Section I -C Public eutgrti ipulrgeud. e. pen Amendment - $1.000 Initial ecudy - $70 2. T�ponry fanalruet/vw Cfffw 1. One 1 copy of the aid plan on of 51317 i 11• Lotto[ sMwde3 loR laucloe n[ topodgt ol[fee in ralatlon to the preboged development- 2, me 1 copy OF the bulldluS slwatiow Red details on An W 1 11" forest. 5. A cagy of the building petit which ban base - %taiuod for the first remount buildir4. 4. roost ill0 ]. T,u,ru, Oct..." remit for "lea Office And Teaoorery do -sit. 1115- . 1. Owe (1) copy of old plan nlnaulog lniatiou of office._ parking areas. and location of signs an W X II- or ell' X 14- draw to a scale which will adequately Illustrate the pre)ect. 2. Ong (1) copy of the sign elevation showing the pTOpomad wry. erect also and height. +ad colors. 1. pun 121 4. A bond In In tb< fort of Ruh. Certificate of eepoeit. or Saviogo Account puabook tads payable d the City of Rancho Cucamonga AN liste4t a, gales office t $2.000 b. Signal $500 for each sign 40 CITY op RANCHO CUCAM(1NGA Date: April 11, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Dev%l.opment Subject: NEGAl'1.VR DECURATION AM ZC)NO CFiu,"8 Lw. PROPERTIES - Request for change in zone from R -1 to R -3 f property located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald BACKGROUND: This Stem was continued from the March 14, 1979 Planning Com- mission meeting to allow the applicant adequate time to prepare traffic noise and drainage studies in order to alleviate the Commission's concern regarding the proposei zone change. The following facts are now knoun: 1. Drainage: Presently there exists a drainage ravine running north /south along the westerl/ property line of the subject property. This drainage rav!&ne collects the drainage waters from north of the property. At the time Of the development submittal, the City Engineer was interested in how the appli- cant proposed to deal with drainage requirements of the site development. The specific method of providing for the drain- age requirements of the site development have not yet been worked out; however, based on the applicants proposed develop- ment plan, the City Engineer has indicated, that it is likely that a storm drain pipe would be installed ralong the basic alignment of the drainage ravine while still leaving the basic configuration of the ravine for the natural effect. This passible solution would meet the Ctty Engineer's drainage requirements. There is not a -rainage problem for this site. 2 Trnific: At the March 14, 1979 meeting, there was assumption made by the residents, who spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change, t.hat the stubbed streets, Bamilton and Gala, would be nsed fox vehicular access into the project site. The develop - meat plan proposed with this zone change prohibits access from boti: of these streets tnd in effect provides a barrier to vehicular access ;n addition ro providing landscape relief. ITEM "E" SACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: BICH::um Attachments: March 14 Staff Report i i� Negative Declarati and Zone Change No. 79 -01 April 11, 1979 Page C 3. Noise:. It should be noted that present code requirem,.nts allow a 15' minimum rear, yard and allow two story homes. The appli- o� in his development plan, a setback of 75 feet cant has prred, from the property line to building and a 10 foot landscape buffer and a 6' masonry wall along the property line. These are some of the ways in which noise can be mitigated. Detailed ttaff is studies -and noise studies, prepared by a licensed specialist have not been provided because the applicant chose not to do so. However, more detailed information will be provided by the applicant rcgardIng, noiss and traffic. This information will be presented at the April 11 meeting. Concurrent with the applicant's request for zone change he has submitted a request for development :)f the property. This request gestnthat these agenda and is known as Director Review No. 79 -16. We Bugg items be heard concurrently in order ^hat the discussions may begin to center around specif ics of a particular project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning commission allow the applicant to present additional information so that it may provide the Commission with additional information that can be Lonsidered in the decision - making process. r Respectfully submitted, SACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: BICH::um Attachments: March 14 Staff Report i i� DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 14, 1979 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT 6 FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT. Negative Declaration and Zone Change No. 79 -01 Alta Loma Properties - Request for a change in zone from R -1 to R -3 for property located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst aui Archibald. BACKGROUND: The subject property is south of the proposed commercial office complex on 19th and Amethyst. It is adjacent to %n existing single family residential on the east and west; south is a mobile home park. Two streets stub into the project from the west side, they are Gala Street and Hamilton Street. Presently the property is vacant. It has an existing windrow of Eucalyptus on the western boundary and along 19th Street. The property also has a drainage swail along the westerly boundary. The adopted General Plan indicates the property for high density residential. Currently, the zoning of the property is R -1 which is in conformance with the adopred General Plan. A change in the zone from R -1 to R -3 would also be in conformance with the General Plan as is required by State law. ENVIRONMENT.V: ANALYSIS: After a review of the initial study staff has found that there iu no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of thin project. Staff recommends a Negative Declaration be issued for the project. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 793 recommending approval of Zone Change 79 -01 and issuance of Negative Declaration to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Direc ^or o Community Development JL:BH:cc Attachments: Iritial Study Site Plan - Resolution No. 79 -23 i �y IT F14 B CIT] OF RAOC110 CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SIiEET - To be completed b•y applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee; $70.00 For all projects requir:.ng environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the De velopment Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of thin application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part Ir of 'the Initial Study. The Vvvelopminit Review Committee will meet and Lake action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to 'oe heard. The Committee will make one rif three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplies: by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: __ Windrow Village APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Alta Loma Properties 701 So. Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, Ca. 91754 (213) 283 -9551 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: John navian. (213) 377 -6976 w /Neil Stanton Palmer Architects and Planners, 672 Silver Spur oa Palos er es sninsu a, Ca. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) South sides of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald Parcel #202 -11 -19 - LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY 1PRO14 LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND r. FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None x- - • PROJECT DESCRIPTION !1' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Apartment development of 184_ units (27.5 D.U.'s /Acre The prnject utilizPc -.__.. _,_____ Yarrcan space; a m'orit of the covered spaces axe directl un er t e units. a project is divi a into several 3. sc co s ce, ape ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AIdY: Site acreave - 6.6 acres. Proposed 184 units - 155 000 square feet. DESCRICE THE I.'MIRONME: ^TPAT, SI:I'TING OF TIM PROJECT SITE INCLUDII7G INI`ORId1TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIRALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TILE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TIIEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Phe site for Windrow Villa e ' the property is characterized by a very gentle slope from 19th Street em,t1,..-'A f ------ - !e e. there are vacant properties as well. A Post O_ffic c�Fire Station are northwest from the sate on Amethyst.^ '- he Cha anal Hei ht Trailer Park development is located arectly south of the mite In past nears, the site has robably been cleared tilled, filled. and r»t_ eages of the site. Additionally there is a natural cdrainage basin running north and south along the west property line. North of this wash, drainage is handled by a CnnPrs+tn .r .. , Is the project, part of a larger.project, one of a seriosvy of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? drivewaysrwithinntheutrai .lerypark) (i.e., paved private x- 2 n ly ~ WILL TII S PRO.7ECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create, a substantial change in exist?ng ncise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)°. X 4. Create changes in the exiting zoning or general plan designations? _X 5: Remove any existing trees? Mow many? 21 A 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers a7-ove: Ta -_ l - t are reet, x c sentry in 19th S W wj.th Cal Trams h is a desitznate Lq parking lanes on either side. IMPJRworr: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhihits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of ray ability, and that the fact ;; tatements, and infermntian presented are true and correct to the best oC my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additinnal infnrmitiOn mzy 11� required to be submitted before an adequate evauuation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date 20 February 1979 Signature . Title Project Planner -i: YAf I. .J PESIDMITIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the • school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. .Alta Loma Properties Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Parcel No. Zg2_11 -17 Specific Location of Project: South side of 19th Street, between _ Amethyst and Archibald. 1. Numi;cr of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 184 uni s 3. Date proposed to 40 begin construction.: Sept. 1979 4. Earliest date of occupancy: June 1980 Modal 4 and f of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range A -1 2 Bedrooms +_1-3/4 $ath 950 s.f. PHASE 4 TOTAL Market analysis now in progress will determine rental structure. • A -2 2 Bedrooms + 1 -3/4 Bath 950 s.f. B 2 Bedrooms + 1 Bath 800 s.f. _ C 1 Bedroom + 1 Bath 650 s.f. 7.- 4 LU v> :F rn '-�INV . GIV f He`d 6 � I 1 ; - 1 1 C5 - -- � I I 1 I I I 1 wwsm�A- CL 1 I 1 1 I 1 � I 1 i 1 1 I I I is 1. N .1�lNd d Q I i� 0 �u o� �v 0 !, RESOLUTION N0. 79- 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO R -3 FOR 27.5 ACRES LOCATED AT SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN AMETHYST AND ARCHIBALD WHEREAS, on the 13th day of February, 1979 an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. that the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The propcsed zone change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding pro- perties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on March 14, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to-65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 14th day of March, 1979, Zone Change No. 79 -01. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council - approve and adopt Zone Change No. 79 -01. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re- lated material hereby adopted by the Flanning Commission shall be forwarded -to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, Passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; 0 t Date: To: From: 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 11, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 0 Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -04 - BRESHEARS - A change of zone for 2 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street from A -1 -5 (limited agriculture) to A -P (Administrative - Professional) BACKJROUND: The applicants are requesting a change of zone for 2 acres of ?.and located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street from A -1 -5 to A -P (Exhibit "A "). The applicant's intention at the present time is to complete the zone change, subdivide the property, and sell the individual parcels. The applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map which is attaches/ as Exhibit "B ". The site presently contains a single family residence is and some accessory structures with the remaining portions of the site devoted to Grange groves, miscellaneous trees and some grazing areas. Surrounding zoning, land use and general plan designations are as follows: Land Use Zoning General Plan North Vacant R -1 Mixed Use South Agriculture, Vacant R -1 Mixed Use, Proposed East Agriculture, Vacant A -1 -5 Low Residential West Single Family Residential R -1 Low Residential School Site ANALYSIS: The applicant has no intentions for any specific development on this site at this time. His intentions are only to change the zone, divide the property, and sell the individual parcels. Throughout the Ge. -,eral Plan hearings, it was made clear that the mixed use areas would be zoned only when the property was going to be developed as a specific use. Many factors need to be analyzed prior to making a decision to rezone this site. The General Plan indicates that the purpose of the mixed use areas are to provide a relief from residential and block wall treatment. However, it also stated that this should be done so as not to create hazards or sub- stantial traffic congestion. In addition, the General Plan states that sites should be large enough to accommodate required parking and on -site circulation and that driveways should be 200 -300 feet apart. The General Plan further states that many of the land use proposals of the Plan should be kept general until development is imminent. This is mainly ITEM "F" Zone Change No. 79-0 April 11, 1979 Page 2 because mixed use areas are located mostly in residential areas and the issue of compatibility becomes very important. The need for site specific plans is therefore reinforced because the issue of compatibility is such a sensitive issue for the mixed vine areas. The school district is in the process of obtaining the site directly to the south of the subject property. Whatever development may be proposed for this site may not be compatible w'!th the school. Possibly a market analysis and traffic study would be in order to ascertain whether this site is appropriate for uses permitted in the A -P zone. Staff feels that the proposed subdivision is creating parcelization that will create a non - uniform devel :3pment. Without seeing specif is development plans and the proposed uses of these sites. Staff feels that a zone change and subdivision at this time may be premature and inconsistent with the general plan objectives of the plan. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Daily Report on March 30, 1979. in addition, notice of said hearing was mailed to property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date, no corres- pondence has been received in regard to said notice. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Com- mission, following the public hearing, deny Zone Change No. 79 -04 based upon the findings listed in the attached Resolution No. 79 -35. Respectfully bmitted, JAC LAM, Director of Community Development JL: MY: nm Attachment: Location Map Parcel Map Resolution 0. 0 Z ONI NG Iq A P Q i I tivs-0 ll� • M y 1 M I \ •�l OF P _ YY jj �� 6 1 I 1 I 1 1 � 1 •�' 1 t I r t o •'. I •'�; O 404•!91-0 •Yi I t 40l -7� As, ?' ! I I 1*r ' P,t •Pei - 99 i,t.. � .4. S k I I O �•' � Y v;i► lit1 1.vw1 I F. I ter -aa•4o � Cndlcra /e Lrir� lol A/ X00 fiaT 8/ 2ez- 40,•17 (Y Sabderf tC lv /- I I TFllT TA'IE { PARC _�- EL . M 1�i0 514 a ��.. .. .- r r. - .�.... , ....n: N TMr. c,^Y of �iwaaw i.u+LV.K.1 r ..�•. - -. r , F}, S�_ Ma'af �)S.V.air11 d i, 1.1rTV ! Cr T•i HrnT.•tAfT � w ATM r' � - r+4 .• •••• bl 1>4.NIIp ILip.(Y M+Hfi rte. rP.i,�M wer:os er '1 �- !•� ... �]' • fa••M.MVP..Ie'C+.:,•.YY s(.jr �r GL.r/Fr.rti ' . � ^3 I aaa...CH ("111 .I'i .,• ;. MF L I'•'!Y �� tli 1 I .- � �.•. LC NL IN .:(� [ -,' -'. _ �'�•: - .t' -.:' 7R�K9,_4dDt A13 4'+9f Ae p _. .� I '.. . •' '• , - I , "1 `` ` \ \' \L 514 !�,'"' ?, � � �I _� wt- Yew . • Q I $ p T FL \ ,t I \.� I j N. :.\ - tiro I � 1 _ ... .,♦ fhFtq'L'l.TLX ^L" P.f+WC.t TML _ .\ � ' I I - i.•.i.UttwI _ _ \ . NMv.LLN - f voOrCH. Homw fAsf ,y, - . N►V, C�J../wna.6 1„f4 T. .a Mwq MY MT.cT - T�+tw•i ra "ffv fm. "aw G urw..,F •p,w Cw . .. ep Iw.•T..rw sFL•w..u. Gw n OWrd/Fi Tnsr ,&- 4- Tal(• w 4. NI�LTeN e.ra•'t •Y°i•"•4 {KrJeo /.fMILA fp # ",Apo b,ansK. teN.Ny f 4A.Jb Wf —� f1 N!�7 e aa� Ir.fr. /r +�.+..t / lwwr urr =La ,a.1f _ A+P� 7 T T —,+.y rc�...�.,L� NCTpItNLL /i tAL.aFlfMy Klaraa:r - i1yLiL 1 Ref hMC1L a 0.47 !LUCI4 • p, fT ILL 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -32 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -28 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND ARCHIBALD IN THE A-P ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of March, 1979, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the llth'day of April, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro- posed use, and all yards, spacer. walls, fences, parking, landscaping, loading av-' other features required by this section. 2. That the improvements as indicated on the development plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverPe impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 11, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -28 is approved. subject to the following conditions: � r Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance kv with the following: The parking lot shall be revised to eliminate the two parking spaces shown on Exhibit A and reviaed to add the planter areas shown. 2. All wheel stops shall be eliminated in favor of 6" high PCC curbing and overhang parking. / 3. The restaurant and financial sites are not approved and must be resubmitted for Director Review prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The landscape plans shall be revised to indicate a substantial amount of trees, earthen berming and varying sizes of plant material. Precise landscape • plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. All landscaped areas shall be auto- matically irrigated and maintained in a healthy state. 5. No signs are approved. A uniform sign program shall be submitted prior to building occupancy including any free standing signs. 6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally screened from view of the street to the satisfaction of the-Planning Commission. 7. All trash areas shall be constructed pursuant to City standards. 8. The future restaurant and financial sites shall be turfed until such time of development. 9. All parking lot lighting shall be a maxis• - of 12' from parking lot grade and shielded from aajacent properties and streets. 10. Approval of this Director Review is subject to the approval of the Zone Change No. 79 -03. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance with the following: 11. Street dedication and improvements shall be in conformance with the currently adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways and to the specification of the City Engineer. 12. The following missing street improvements shall be constructed which include, but are not limited to: Sidewalks, driveways, wheel chair ramps, curb and gutter, street paving, street trees, street lights, and drainage. 13. Street improvement plans prepared on standard size sheets by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be sub- mitted 5or approval by the City Engineer. 14. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements. 15. Street striping and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. All damaged off site public works facilities, including parkway trees, shall be repaired prior to occupancy to the.satisfaction of the City Engineer. 17. All street structural sections shall be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer. 18, Grading plan of the subject property shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and in accordance with the Grading Ordinance and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19. Grading of subject property shall be in accordance with the grading plan and to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to occupancy. 20. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading, drainage, storm drain, and street plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. Hydraulic Calculations and a topographic map will be required to support the sizing and location of drainage structures shown on the plans. Concentrated flows across driveways and sidewalks are prohibited. 22. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the City- approved agency and the City Engineer with all incidental fees paid by the developer. Written verification that all requirements have been met shall be supplied at the time of building permit application. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 24. All prcposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 25. Utility easements shall be provided. to the specification of the appropriate utility companies and the CLty Engineer. 26. Developer nhall coordinate, and pay for, the relocation of any Fower poles or other existing public utilities, as required. 27. Street lighting shall be installed by the applicant and the advance energy charges paid. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following: 28. All plans shall be prepared in conformance with the UBC, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electrical Code, and all other applicable codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance. i Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with the following: 29. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be met. Applicant shall contact the Cucamonga County Water District for compliance with the following: 30. All requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District shall be met. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF /.PHIL, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ,NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: it r� LEI'� DATE: TO: FROM: El CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA STAFF REPORT April 11, 1979 Planning Commission Sack Lam, Director of Community Development 0 SUBJECT: Director Review 79 -26 - Longley - Request for approval of conceptual site plan for office /retail center and building material storage/ sales yard located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Devore Freeway in the C -2 and M -1 zone. BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this applicant applied for approval of the building material sales and storage yard on the subject property earlier this year (Director Review 78 -58), which was denied by Resolution No. 79 -01. The particular reason for denial was that the proposed use was not allowed in the C -2 zone. The applicant was advised that he should redesign and resubmit his project to conform with the current city codes so that the building materials storage and sales yard would be located entirely within the M -1 zone. There was little or no discussion regarding the architecture of the proposed office building. The applicant is now proposing a retail /office center to be built at a future date with phase one being the office /retail building to be used in conjunction with the building material /sales /storage yard. All storage of building materials will be out doors and at least 300'south of the ultimate right.of way of Foothill Boulevard. Two means of access are proposed for the property, one approximately 260' west of the flood control right of way and the other proposed access approximately 600' west of the flood control right of way. Constructed with phase one will be approximately 150 feet of street improvements along Foothill Boulevard from the western boundary going east with the addition of landscaping totalling 25 feet in depth from the ultimate right of way of Foothill Boulevard and a fully improved 30 foot access road to the building material supply storage yard. Additionally, the applicant will supply 16 parking spaces north of the proposed office retail structure and approximately 160 feet south of the ultimate right of way of Foothill Boulevard. The applicant proposes to use flat black sprayed chain link security fencing surrounding the building material storage yard. There will be two means of access to the yard, one on the west property line and one near the east property line. Behind the chain link fence would be a landscaped berm and retaining wall. Dense vertical landscaping is proposed along the flood control channel. The building proposed by the applicant is a block structure, two stories in height (22' - 8 ") from finished floor elevation to the top of the mansard roof. The exterior elevation is proposed to be accented by dark padre brick and use a false porch structure on the north facing elevation. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the site plan and proposed building plans. We find the site plan to be a substantial improvement over previous submittals. It allows the Commission to see how the proposed phase one will fit in with the ultimate development of the sire. The location of the building material storage yard is now in the proper zone, and the location of the office /retail building ITEI�f J" to be used in conjunction with the building materials storage and sales yard has now been appropriately placed in the commercial area and integrated into the master plauni:1 of the site. The conceptual landscape plan proposed adequately indicates the concept proposed. However, we have some questions concerning the adequacy of the architecture and design of the proposed office /retail building. 1. Is this the type of structure that displays the high quality of design desired for Foothill Boulevard? 2. Is the design of structure acceptable as a concept for the entire office /retail center? 3. Is this structure consistent with the prior approval. of structures aloug Foothill Boulevard? It is ourconcern that the structure proposed lacks the quality, thoughtful design and high standards of architectual development of projects that have been previously ap ?roved along Foothill Boulevard. We suggest that the applicant be directed to upgrade the architectual. quality of the proposed office retail structure. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item Tor four weeks (to the May 9, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting) to allow the applicant time to revise the architectual ?lane for the proposed office retail structure and give the applicant the direction necessary for those architectural • revisions. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development JL:BKH:cc Attachments: Site Plan Building Elevations 8 k' 6 L" € z lo.v� M • x I i 1 �i A f6w ; V i rP3Ry�� sdi31g j r y 9 f L 1 L7 f s I • 1 . I-J5112; J k R--. hikwa :N :_IICE[eITRE i I.. 0 1 I 1 7 It i • j7, � • V J I� 1 a 1 • 'fit }v1 V O W K uj QVI i � V -i L � I i r: j'; - A AS. -, Zr x IV . (l I I� .qty • �1 t! I i i } 0 n �n 1- w 3 �u Q� AV � 1. V v w r J n �n 1- w 3 �u Q� AV 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT* Date: April 11, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -11 - IN -N-OUT BURGER INC. - The development of a fast food restaurant on .78 of an acre of land located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. east of Vineyard Avenue - C -2 zone BACKGROUND: In -N -Out Burger is requesting approval to develop a fast food restaurant on the south aide of Foothill Blvd. east and adjacert to the existing Redhill Liquor store which is east of Vineyard . F ue (Exhibit "A "). The applicant owns 1.5 acres and is proposing to divide the site in half (Exhibit "B "), constructing a fast food establishment on the west parcel and eventually developing commercial shops on the east parcel (Exhibit "C "). The applicants intention is to only develop the fast food restaurant at the present time. The majority of the site is vacant; however, an existing single family residence lies on the southeast portion of the site and a small furniture store exists in an old fruit stand on the east half of the site. The applicant has no immediate intentions to remove the two existing uses since only the west portion of the site will be improved. The site is presently zoned C -2 and is General Planned for service commercial uses. ANALYSIS: The site as indicated on the aevelopment plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, landscaping, parking, and on -site circulation. Street improvements will be provided across the entire frontage of the site in accordance with the street master.plan for Foothill Blvd. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways. One driveway will be on the west property line and will eventually be merged with the existing liquor store driveway as a shared access. The :second driveway will be in the center of the project site which will be a shared access between the east and west parcels of the site. An existing 20' access easement is provided up to the southwest property line from Vine- yard Avenue and will be used mostly for service vehicles. The fast food restaurant will be a drive - through and walk -in facility. There will be a total of 60 seats provided in the walk -in portion of the facility. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for every three seats in the facility. The first phase of development of this ® project will be providing 43 parking spaces. ITEM "K" Director Review No.011 April 11, 1979 Page 2 0 The applicant will be installing complete street improvements along the entire subject property on both the east and west parcels. In addition, the applicant has posted a $1,000 cash deposit to in:cure that the west driveway will be eventually combined with the existing driveway of the liquor store. The development plans indicate a landscaped area across the entire fron- tage of the site at a depth of 25' from the property line. This is in accordance with the standards adopted by the Planning Commission for Foothill Blvd. This landscaping will include mounding and other typical landscape features_ Additional landscaping till be provided throughout the site around the building and within the parking areas. Colored site plans, elevations and perspectives will be available at the Planning Commission meeting for the Commissions' review. The architectural building elevations indicate the use of mission tile roof, rough sawn wood trim and masonry veneer (Exhibit "D" and "E"). The applicant is also requesting approval for a monument sign. Attached as Exhibit "F" is an elevation of the proposed sign and size. A colored ren- dering of the sign will be available at the meeting. The sign proposed into <porates the typical In -N-Out Burger logo and arrow. The rectangular portion of the sign measures 3'x9' equalling 27 square feet. However, the arrow adds additional square footage to the sign. Therefore, the total square footage of the arrow and rectangular portions exceeds the maximum allowed sign area for a monument sign which is 24 square feet. In addition, the design of the sign is not architecturally compatible with the building design. Staff. therefore, recommends that the Commission not approve the sign as shown and require the applicant to redesign the sign. Such design shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Environmental Analysis of this facility is included with the parcel map review which is included on the Consent Calendar. Staff completed the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts upor:the environment and therefore recommends the issuance of a Negative Declara- tion. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Director Review No. 78-11 based upon the findings and conditions listed in the attached Resolution No. 79 -36. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:nm Attachments: Exhibit "A ", Vicinity Map Exhibit "B", Parcel Map Exhibit "C", Site Plan Exhibit IV% Elevations Exhibit "E ", Elevations Exhibit 'T', Sign Elevations Resolution No. 79 -36 0 0 { 0 O north Q 5t361EGC pRpPEf�7'"{ RSD HlL1- 1 -1b1V� pi REcToR i�\,,EV EN W,70-11 IW M- CUT rlto� ..; 5uKGET-�- err ILK Ll i �a . \� ƒ. kNN TZ, •5� Sa kkkk 4¥ / � 77�/ �{$ k %Cl tu lzs {k$ � \k�( X22§ } ~ %� ) )4k w _ }�Oki Ziz ®� §2 §f� { }/ ~ ©« 'k ku %2 tG §� z �a . \� ƒ. •5� 4¥ / % �{$ . � X22§ } ~ %� ) )4k w _ }�Oki \ { }/ ~ 'k 6%- %2 �^ } \. . \� ƒ. •5� \ / . � , � 7 m% v� �k �« Q m : � ��_ .��Y r OiYe— Z }� } $ \ §k » K�.& !%f$ kk\ • a�7 % \ $ k % §2 k! �� �\ k2\ ] 2 f t & @ $\ %~ .� §& �k �� \ / w /a � ��_ .��Y r OiYe— Z }� } $ \ §k » K�.& !%f$ kk\ • a�7 % \ $ k % §2 k! �� �\ k2\ ] 2 f t & @ $\ %~ .� §& �k �� M I, s, f, l T i i i i ^i � �� � i �� . • e J M •. n n i ilrr�[� ;_r !r i I_r rr U! r r 1 NMI I A i n n i ilrr�[� ;_r !r i I_r rr U! r r 1 NMI I RESOLUTION NO. 79 -33 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING commiSSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -03 REQUESTING 4 CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM A -1 TO A -P FOR A PORTION OF THE 6.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND ARCHIBALD - ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 202 - 101 -16 i4HEREAS, on the 13th day of March, 1979 an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The proposed zone change would not have signifi- cant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this projert will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on April 11, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to-65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 11th day of April, 1979, Zone Change No. 79-03. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 79 -03 as shown on Exhibit "A ". 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Coun- cil. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979. i< PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Hempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission. I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do ;.ereb} certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of tha Planning Com- mission held on the 11th day of April, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 Y'i ~ CITY OF RAMCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70,00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be. completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Conunittee will ma }:e one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an env,.romnental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report- should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning ® the proposed project. J M PROJECT TITLE: VANIR PLAZA APPLICAt:T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEF11ONE: N. Frank Dominguez,_ dba Vanir Research Company, Post Office Box 310, 290 North "D" Street. San Bernardinu. CA 92402 (714) 884 -9477 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Same as above LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue Assessor Parcel No. 202 - 101 -iG LIST OTHER PERMT.TS NECESSAR'i FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATI: AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY.ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: ii Building Permit, 2) Cucamonga Water District Permit, 31 Southern California Edison, 4) Southern California Gas Co.,' and S) CalTrans. Y�� Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have signific:.nt environmental impact? x- 2 .'air r PROJ1'C1' I)rSCRIYTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Phase I will consist of a financial institution, Restaurant facilit Ph s and Professional offices. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE MOTAGE r PROPOSED IIUILDII•IGSO IF OF EXISTING AND ANY: 3.44 acres - office 6,77 Acres professional (6,•000s•f. financial insti- tution $ 4.;DA.O to 6,000 s.f. financial or restaurant facility. 16,000's.f. office professional. 3.33 acres multi-family family units. DESCRIPE THE FNVT.RON,1E *TPAT. S1717MG OF ROJECti- TILE PROJECT SITE INCLLIDIIIG INF0RI.I�TIONON T0POGR41P1IY, PL'1WTS (TREES), ANIMAIS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE1.1IC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE D1SCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHF,ETS): The easterly one -half of the the westerly one -half is cNoamajor coveredpwith mediumabrushr surface obstructions were noted. Draina a is enerall from northwest to southeast. To the southeast o£ sub ect property is proposed multi -famil units, to • the south is residential, to the west is residential, to the east is a commercial shop ip.ng center and to the north is a ro osed faeeway. — Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have signific:.nt environmental impact? x- 2 .'air YES r" X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X( 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal.services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.): X A. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Alemove any existing trees? How many? _ X 6_ Create the need for use or.disposal of potentially hazardous materials sucil as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YTS answers above: Proposed General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as amended by the City Council has designated the subject site mixed use, subject to the Directors Review.' The current zoning on the property is A -1 and we are requesting a change from A -1 to A -P and R -3 (mixed use), as per our proposal included herewith: IMP•JRTE17r.- If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on t•1te next page. CCRT.IPICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this init•ic11 evaluation to tho best or my al ility, and that the fact!-,, Statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my icnourledge and belief'. - I further understand that additional information may lu,� rcqui.red to lye submitted before nn a(1c -qu7te evaulation can be made by the llevulopmrnt Revie%,r Committee. Date_ •}?7&ACk /•Z, /47'7 Signatur u '1`iL•le ruJ Z 13 Y( _/ r R1iS1DE! "'rIAL CON STMUTION The follooinn information should be provided to the CiLy of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: 1. Number of single family units: 2* lluml3er of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model $ and n of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price Rance PIIASP I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PIIASE 4 TOTAL i DATE: TO: FROM: i 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 11, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 40 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration and Director Review No. 19 -16 -- ta Loma Properties - Request for development of a 184 unit apartment complex located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald. BACKGROUND: Earlier on tonights agenda the Planning Commission heard Zone Change 79 -01. This raport is presented assuming approval of Zone Change 79 -01. The site is bounded on the east and west by single family homes. Two .streets stub into the easterly boundary of the property, one street on the north is Gala and the street on the south is Hamilton. Immediately south of the project is the mobile home park and across the street is the recently approved Vanir office project. The property enjoys a windrow of Eucalyptus along 19th Street and a windrow of Eucalyptus along its weetern boundary. In addition, there is a local drainage facility in a natural state that traverses along the westerly property line in a north /south fashion. The property is Master Planned for high density residential and if the 'Lone Change 79 -01 was approved tonight and approved by the City Council, the developer would be allowed a maximum of 198 Dwelling units for the 6.6 gross acres of property. Developer is proposing 184 dwelling units at a density of 27.5 dwelling units per acre. The unit breakdown would be 72 two bedroom, 1 3/4 bath units, 68 two bedroom -one bath unit, 44 one bedroom -one bath units totalling 184 units. Parking required is two per dwelling unit which would total 368 spaces. The developer is providing 280 spaces for the two bedroom units and 44 spaces for the one bedroom units with 92 spaces for guest parking for a total of 416 spaces. Fifty percent of the spaces provided will be covered. The plan proposed is somewhat different than the previous apartment projects viewed by the Commission. There is one primary means of access off of 19th Street. Secondary means of access for emergency vehicles would be off of Gala - and Hamilton Streets. This secondary access will meet the requirements of the Fire Department and also provide for an emergency means of access should the main entrance be blocked for any reason. In designing the project the architect tried to incorporate the major amenity of the site. Particularly the existing windrow of Eucalyptus trees running north and south along the western boundary and the drainage ravine along the western boundary. The primary orientation of the dwelling units is toward a major recreation activity area that is off to the middle of the western boundary. The dwelling units have been so arranged as to center on a smaller recreation area that is indicated on the plan as a node. These nodes could be gathering areas for people to interact, they could have barbeques possibly. gazebo and the like. There are six nodal areas indicated on the plan. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan and :Wicated a preliminary plant list which includes the native California Sycamore, Canary ITEM "H" r� Island Pine and a variety of other commonly used trees and shrubs in the area. At this basic level the concept presented is acceptable pursuant to the applicant submitting detailed landscaping plans for review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Because this particular site has a potential of approximately 2/3 in flood zone B, the applicant has designed his dwelling unit to provide a minimum of six feet from ground level to the First living area. This is created by providing tuck -under parking as shown in the clustered section on the plans attached. A typical cluster elevation is shown using extensive use of wood, shake roofs and accentuated by textured stucco. The site section provides the Commission with a view of how the proposed grading would affect the site. Additionally, the architect has provided a conceptual rendering of a typical nodal court analysis. In staff review of the plans, we find them to be well thought out and presenting a unique apartment environment. We feel that the preservation of the eucalyptus on the western boundary and the use of the drain- age ravine as a site amenity is to be commended. Landscape buffers provided on the southerly and easterly boundaries, building setbacks, restricted windrow orientation to the exterior boundaries of the project, will provide adequate protection for the existing mobile homes to the south and the existing single family residential to the east. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: If after review of the proposed zone change and con- sideration of the additional data presented by the applicant, the Planning Commission finds no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project, then a Negative Declaration should be issued. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission has approved. Zone Change No. 79-01 and finds the project submitted to be acceptable, then the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. 79 -37 approving Director Review No. 79 -16 based on the findings and conditions listed. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: BKH: ran Attachments: F. Site Plan Preliminary Landscape Plan Elevations Floor Plan initial Study Resolution No. 79 -37 0 S _3 t -n rar *9 Z! 6 'JYI* -AUVd MUNC)" MAIG OUNMV M= lcu - ven av1w voNowvono OHONVU - SOT- A m 1: I row a _3 t -n rar *9 Z! 6 'JYI* -AUVd MUNC)" MAIG OUNMV M= lcu - ven av1w voNowvono OHONVU - SOT- A m 1: I 4d iii? 133t= ISARLOW ---------- l3 its IL : 6.c. 'C, V10, c p i z cr. x en 1A -'$i tu I j :!a mug kvn2fm T3• Ili 1--tin 4d iii? 133t= ISARLOW ---------- l3 its IL : 6.c. 'C, V10, c p i s It`. v ,i4 :'ahli 0p13dowd vroo Y tae •^ cauoaaue wrm vrn r• ;VDNOWvono OHoNvu = mvTuA mouamm Lu UJ W loi�t 11 �Z a'A; L l 9 O. J .j r� .dg ''�tWr7r 7r71; SS° ANIL co a I I t 1 I� 5 I � I may.• ` ; 1 1 t __I _ I 1 s It`. v ,i4 :'ahli 0p13dowd vroo Y tae •^ cauoaaue wrm vrn r• ;VDNOWvono OHoNvu = mvTuA mouamm Lu UJ W loi�t 11 �Z a'A; L l 9 O. J .j r� .dg ''�tWr7r 7r71; SS° ANIL co a I I t 1 I� 5 I � I may.• ` ; F4 I� - -titT: i FL'i 1 fill, I I t i r IE I., 1 1 t __I F4 I� - -titT: i FL'i 1 fill, I I t i r IE I., 0 • nna �m'wrve,umtNa1y - MAIM OUMVUV lurae LGt voNowvono OHONVU - 29VTUA MOHOMM , i . . I iC / ` - • , l {' It ✓ � v W F.. LU cc !} !4�1'• � � `h{ � ~ 1, M�1nf N 1 J T l� ui � � Is'•ii 'it'll l,l.. -: .. .. .. J . tlpl r�ne'enw�'HUreF�u+ow .'.� �on,a auHrur wnos wa rnuraauw rnoi vrn � OHONW — 30 V1'l1A MOHONIM , r �.11s � r,�l i • , q Vs s N N ;tF�l ca Z i i• N i \ZI III J r5 i- N r�, `• -�� � � it � Il a _ a 11141, n � nr,4 �i��li CITY ()F RANCHO G'U(7,AM0NGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INPORMATION SIIEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70,00 For all. projects requi.rinj environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department: where the Project application is made, Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The p,,vClnpmcnt Review Committer_ kill. meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meetin_7 at which time the project is to be heard. The COMMittce will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will ?lave no environmental 'impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Windrow Villaee APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Alta Loma Properties 701 So. Atlntic Blvd., Monterey Park, Ca. 91754 c (213) 283 -9551 NAME, Arnr.E•.SS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING.THIS PROJECT: Jan Manavian. (213) 377 -6976• w /Neil Stanton Palmer. Architects and Planners, x .672 Silver Spur Road, Palos Ver es eninsu a, a. w LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCM, No.) South side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald Parcel 8202 -11 -19 LIST OTHER PERMLTS NECESSARY' I'ROM IOCAL, REGIONAL, STAT!. AND FEDERAL, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCEE PERMITS: None I -1 PRO.Tr.CT nt';CRI1"; ION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Apartment development of 184 units`' (27 -5 D.U.'s /Acre ). The roject utilizes 2 With 1/2 story clust ers tnr 7r_n,.A ..� .._�,__ _ Farah 5 ace• a - -•`- •, •• ` -UU m orlty of the covered spaces are directiyr user the units. le g, ,,, IS alVidea into several i'^R7R}RTT,r4rer�fr �i _. _ _ ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARL FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Site acreage - 6.6 acres. Proposed 184 units - 155,000 sauare feet_ DESCRIPI; T11F F:NSMTPONME_"TAI. SIN'TTM; Or TIM PROJECT SITE INCIAMING 114MRI•t1TION ON '1'OtUCRAIHy, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIFIALS, AIIY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEHIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURRhUNDING PROPERTIES, AND T11E DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TIIEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SI1F.,I;rS) the cite F.... w;_a..__.,r�..__ _ a it roperty is charac ation are airectly south of the probably been cleared =rises ny a very gentle slo a from street elevation is 1493 f et a ev n ne is 1468 feet). Occunied single 1 and east_. North of the proposed avant properties as well. A Post Office rthwest from the site on Amethyst. '- ailer Park development is located ite. In past years, the site has tilled, filled, and cut. However, ages of the site. Additionally there is a naturalcdraina e asin running north and ¢meet,. , ->__ _ ��•� ..ca6 NruperLy ilne. North of this wash, drains a is handled by a concrete channel. To t7je sour . waters is is diverted and apparent y cI ontro T I—ea- is Is the rr.oject, part of a largcr,project, ne of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No by underground and surface systems (i.e., paved private driveways within the trailer park). x- 2 U-1 ,1. n ,,Ilo.'IrCT: Ff_5 rr� X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? �. X 2. Create a substantial change in existing I noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, selvage, etc.) l X_ 4. Create changes in the exiting zoning or general plan designations? _X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 21 X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hi::ardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any y = answers above: Item S. There are approximate lv � 21_mat�ure F��� �TpPC that are presently in 19th Street proposed r.o.w. in compliance with Cal Trans re uirements for 19th Street, which is a designated State Hi htvay _ am rovements will include 4 lane for vehicular, tra f3.c and parking lanes on either side. IMM RTANTt If the project involves the construction of '. residential units, complete the form on the next page. Cf.•RTI17WATION: I hereby cr.rtify that the statements furnished y` above and in the attached exhibits present the data and inform-IL.i.on recioired for this initial evaluation to the onLt best- of rt}• nhility, and that: t.ho f,lcts, :luat and irformltAnn pre.::onted are true and correct to the best- of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional i.nfonnation may 11Q required to he submitted _ before nn nrinquate evallation can be made by tite UevulopmpnL ' Reviet. Committee. Date 20 February 1979 ,signature rc, <•. 'lit-le Project Planner , I� f .. 1 IN S +J;f,7{)Y.1:'?'SAL �ni: r'PRitC:TIU'd The £ollotiritin inforsmaL•ion should be provided to t1sC City ak Rtncha Cucawa�tga Planning Division in order to aid in assa,sincy the ahiiity of the school distri.at to accommodate the proposed residential development. Alta.Loma Properties Name of Dev ^lolser and Tentative Tract No.: Pair el No 2a7 -11 -�7 _ -- specific Location of Project: South side of 39th Street 'between Amethyst and Archibald. rsln�l; T r11A� ST 2 raw'. 3 rllh- -hsr 4 TOTAL 1. Numl:cr of single farmlf' unitst 2. Numbar of multiple family units: I&A-Un,iis -» - --•^-~ 3. Date grnposed to begin construction: Sept. 1979 4. Bai-liast date of Jun� a 3980 occupancy: Modal 4 and t of Tentative 5. pedrOOMS lyric Market analysis now in progress will determine rental structure'. A-1 _ 2 Sed__rooms + 1 -314 Bath 2-50-5-f- 1-3/4 ..._. - A -2 2 Bedrooms + Bathes 950 s.f- C 2 Bedrooms r 1 Bath Boo s.f. 3 Bedroom + 1 Bath bSo s.f. RESOLUTION NO. 79 -34 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING C0MMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -29 LOCATED NORTH OF VICTORIA ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHnALD IN THE R -3 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1979, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1979, the Rancho. Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THERF?ORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, loading and other features required by this section. 2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop- ment plan are located in such a manner ae to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will cot create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 11, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -29 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be revised for each lot containing a four- - Alex unit to provide one additional parking space prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Precise landscape plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Plans shall be drawn in accordance with the landscape standard of 50 trees per gross acre, 20% 24" box size or larger, 70% 15 gallon size, 10% 5 gallon size. jf 3. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy state. 4. All landscaping shall be automatically sprinklered. 5. All parking lot lighting shall not exceed 12' in height. from finish grade of the parking area and shall be shielded from a6jacent properties, residents, streets or alleys 6. This approval shall expire one year from date of approval if not exercised by the issuance of a �. building permit. 7. Compliance with these conditons of approval shall not excuse compliance with all other applicable codes in effect prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architectually integrated into the design of the structure so as not to be visable from the street or alley. 9. The storm wall proposed on Archibald Avenue shall be eliminated. 10. A variety of roof material shall be used thrcughout the project. Approval of the selection of the roof material shall be io the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Fire District prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Trash enclosures shall be provided for each lot, constructed to City Standards. 12. The proposed alley shall be constructed as a crown - section without the center "v" gutter. Rolled concrete curbs may be used. The applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 13. Street dedication, improvements, site drainage and utilities shall be provided according to the engineering requirements for Tract 9369. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits the installation of a portion of the master planned storm drains in Archibald Avenue, from its current terminus to south of Monte Vista Avenue, and improvement of the existing earth channel on the west side of Archibald Avenue will be required. Street drainage structures necessary to assure proper functioning of the storm drain will also be required. The developer will be responsible for 50% of the cost of this work. The cost of this storm drain will credit to storm drain fees and a reimbursement agreement will be executed to cover remaining contributions. '.. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 15. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance ' with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable City codes. *.1� 1 Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with.the.folloving conditions: 16. Prior to the i=auance of building permits verification tb =t all requirements of the Fouthill Fire District shill be met and submitted to the Building Official. Applicant shall contact the Cucamonga County Water District for compliance with the following conditions: 17. All requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District shall be met. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Hempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held ou the 11th day of April, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 +F 0 40 Date: To: ] 3Yom: Subject: 0 April 11, 1979 Planning Commission 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Appealing the Director's decision to deny the use or a monument sign for Sierra Savings and Loan business located within the Vons- Thrifty Shopping Center on the northeast corner of 19th and Carnelian BACKGROUND: Sierra Savings and Loan had submitted an application requesting approval of their sign program. The sign program as submitted by Sierra Savings included one 25 square foot double face monument sign (including time and temperature), three wall signs equalling 36 square feet each and several directional signs. The Director approved the sign program with the exception of the proposed monument sign. Therefore, they are appealing the decision to denying the use of a monument sign as explained on the attached letter. The monument sign, shown on Exhibit "A ", includes a 1711 square foot identification sign and a 711 square foot time and temperature sign. The monument sign was proposed to be located at the corner of 19th and Carnelian as shown on Exhibit "B ". It would be approximately 20 feet from the curb on both 19th and Carnelian. ANALYSIS: The sign ordinance permits businesses within shopping centers one wall sign for each street frontage and main parking lot at a maximum of three per business. These wall signs are intended to be the primary identification signs for the business. Within a shopping center complex, the only free standing sign permitted is the center identification or major tenant identification sign. Satellite buildings within shopping centers are typically more visible than the shop buildings within the center because they are locate4 closer to the street frontage. Sierra Savings and Loan is located approximately 60 feet from the 19th Street frontage and 50 feet from Carnelian Street frontage. In addition, th; building pad and building is elevated on this corner which increases visibillLy from the intersection and from both directions on 19th and Carnelian Street3. The Director has approved the use of three wall signs, one facing 19th, one facing Carnelian, and one facing the main parking lot/ entrance (Exhibit "C "). Staff can not find any unusual cie.;w.,,tances in terms of visibility or unusual topography that would justify the use of a monument sign. Therefore, Staff recommends based upon the foregoing facts, upholding the Director's decision. A time and temperature sign could be incorporated ITEM "M" Appeal of Director Ree'No. 79 -12 April 11, 1979 Page 2 into one of the wall signs at a maximum area of 12 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recowmends that the Planning Commis - sion uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development based upon findings listed in the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: MV: = Attachment: Letter of Appeal Exhibit "A ", Sign Elevations Exhibit "H ", Site Plan Resolution No. 79 -36 i 0 0 HE, t [rittl"�yf»up�rn� DISTINCTIVE ELECTRICAL SIGNS Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 atten: Michael Varlin RE: SIERRA SAVINGS 8730 19th RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA JOB #4378 GROUND SIGN DIP.ECTOR REVIE9 79 -12 0 STORE FRONT MODERNIZATION February 28, 1979 Dear Mr. Varlin: Your certified letter dated February 20, 1979 is hereby acknowledged. Item number two (2) is accepted wherein we will be limited to three feet in overall height for our directional signs. However item one (1) we wish to appeal and again request approval of the combination public service & identification, 25 sq. ft. ground sign to a height of 8 feet, as per our plans. Reasons are as follows: A. Unusual circumstances are: 1. 'There is no code to prohibit such a sign. 2. This savings and loan business is in competition with others and banks. 3. This sign serves as a reminder to those in the area and extends the distance of visibility while making persons aware of our location as well as giving a public service of time and temperature. 4. Because of the required landscaping with trees, a low profile is a necessity to proper identification. 5. Limited visibility because of #4 above and adjacent property topography is a circumstance which Nould allow approval of this request. 3225 LACY STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90031 PHONE (213) 223.4141 CIE aru. S'nnp�f! Mr. Michael varlin February 28', 1979 Page Two B. Approval of this small a privilege others in for example: 0 ground sign will not become Your city do not now enjoy, Wilmington Savings & Loan 9590 Foothill Blvd. has two Pole signs with a wall sign. Bank of America at south east corner of Foothill Blvd., and Archibald has two pole signs plus a wall sign. First National Bank, across from Wilmington Savings & Loan on Foothill, has a pole sign in addition to a wall sign Thrifty /Alpha Beta in the shopping center near the north west corner of Baseline and Archibald, has a pole sign in the same location at the north west corner of above mentioned streets is an shaped sign for Pomona Savings & Loan. Pup -N -Taco in Baseline Villag,- Shopping Center at the south west corner. or Bas<.li has a sign together with cente z and Archibald ^ ''in Bob's at the has a - �•- atification. Big Boy across the street from our project north west corner of 19th and Carnelian free standing sign. These are but a few who now enjoy the privileges I am speaking Of (see picture). C. The health, safety not be impeded for 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. and welfare of all concerned will the following reasons. No obstructions to vehicular or pedestrian traffic exits. There will be no impediment to fire fighting eq•lipment or police surveillance. .he creation of a hazard will not exist due to fire, collapse, abandonment or decay. This is a good looking ungarnished monument type Of sign that will not create any public nuisance. In fact, it provides a public service in giving the time and temperature besides identification of a Savings & Loan institution. It also provides safety to those desiring services 0 i s 1� w� �15F1�� Mr. Michael Varlin February 289 1979 Page Three offered by making such persons aware of the precise location. D. in the absence of a sign ordinance, there should be no restrictions for the following reasons. 1. Signage is a permissable use. 2. Along with the approval of the business goes the guarantee of reasonable identification of which this small ground sign is a part. 3. Proper signage is as much a part of the business as the structure it identifies. The afore mentioned seems to me more than ample reason to approve our request. We therefore urge approval of our request. Please notify this writer as well as Mr. Bob Kircher of Sierra Savings & Loan at 501 E Street, San Bernardino, CA. EB:kj Encs. cc: Tony Boland F Sincerely, BEATH ANT) COMPANY aa�w &4"� Eugene Briesemister IT Al E7. al r. t: •,.i i 0 0 �nn ij fi jE b l . I � ` 1 I L ' • i itfE.i 1. ;� r fr ?, 3; - • . IMP I 11-t :.)� .f >ir: .:'jam' 7tLiit i ',.� {�. •,_ :.� � i Liiii.•1 �?�J 1 5 N d 1 1 2 N v Y 7 ,I i WI N Y Y z z i r e; Ws ON go ON asp N •L - '�R -ll. � ••. /PA& V nctio .''ti / 1 5 N d 1 1 2 N v Y 7 ,I i WI N Y Y z z i r e; Ws ON go ON asp t r! 9 }� \ \\ � � � _•. � ' \ � fo 2 ya [ � .•�. _ 1ji /| ;!! | � {� ) � W� ■a & on, ■+ !_] ! �\ |� |.. , I | ] 2IM 2III � ' \ � fo 2 ya [ � .•�. _ 1ji /| ;!! | � {� ) � W� ■a & on, ■+ !_] ! �\ RESOLUTION NO. 79 -35 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -04, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A -1 TO A -P FOR 2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 19TH STREET - THE WESTERLY 267 FEET OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 202 - 201 -08 WHEREAS, on the 15th day of March, 1979, an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That there is not adequate information available such as site development plans, market analysis, and traffic studies to determine that a change of zone would be suitable for this rite. 2. That such a change of zone is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it states that developments within the minced use areas shall not create hazards or traffic congestion. These concerns cannot be alleviated until it is known how the site will be developed. 3. That a change of zone at this time could have adverse effects on surrounding properties. It is not known if eventual development would be compatible to existing and future land uses and if it would cause traffic congestion or other hazards. 4. 711hat a school is being proposed south and adja ;.ent to the subject property and that certain development standards may need to be applied in order to ensure compatibility with the school. n. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission _ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies Zone Change No. 79 -04 on the 11th day of April, 1979. P APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979. C 1 BY Berman Hempel, cFzq+.msn ATTEST: I. JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular taeting of the Planning Cor¢mis�- Sion held on the llth day of April, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: r *MMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIni Mts: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: April 11, 1979 To: Planning Commission Frum: Sack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -03 - VANIR RESEARCH - A change of zone from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to A P (Administrative - Professional) and R -3 (Multiple Femil.y) for propert -r located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel No. 202- 101 -16 EAUCROUND: As the Commission will recall, at the February 7, 1979 City Council meeting, the subject property was indicated as mixed use in the adopted General Plan. The applicant is now requesting zoning to Implement the General Plan. Under the mixed use category„ both multiple family residential and offi:_ -uses are allowed. The total lan.-' area encompasses 6.7 acres. The applicant proposes that the sout %crn taif of the property be indicated A P and the northern hal° of the property be indicated as R -3. In conjunction with this zone change application, the applicant has submitted a Director Review No. 79 -28 which appears later on in this Agenda for the development of the off ice complex in the proposed A -P zone. Attached, please find an exhibit showing the areas to be delineated R -3 and A -P and surrounding land use. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the proposed request and fir.% -.s that there is sufficient land to warrant the change of zone from A -1 to A -P and R -3. How - ever, recent events at the City Council level prohibit the City from processing any zone changes to residential. Therefore, the Planning Commission may only entertain the change of zone for the front portion of the site. Staff has reviewed the environmental checklist and does not find any signi- ficant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -33 recommending approval of Zone Change No. 79 -03 to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, .TACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:SKH:nm Attachments: Exhibit "A" Initial Study d:,C Resolution No. 79 -33 14irguLA MC> AVE. s E5 N "1 �OPo56L -' FALL FWY Ptir( of wad VA CA IJr K -i -85007 f-isi N[T �rt�C31fi A -1 -5 Q -I�S s Ul d �I q J a alsrrAef ,il ar4Le FOWILY 9..1 STATE � K -1 -&Soo - W 0 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -36 . A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -12, DENYING THE USE OF A MONUMENT SIGN FOR SIERRA SAVINGS LOCATED ON THE NORTgEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TH STR£ET WHEREAS, the City has adol.ted a sign ordinance in order to develop consistent signing practices throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City is striving to create a visually attractive com- munity through high quality site planning, building design, landscaping and signing. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby finds the following: 1. That there are not any unique or unusual circum- stances attributable to the project site that would justify the use of a monument where. the sign ordi- nance does not permit such a use. 2. That alternative signing is available and adequate to provide necessary identification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVrD: 1. That the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission uph ^lds the Director's decision on Director Review No. 79 -12, to deny the use of a monument sign for Sierra Savings located on the northeast corner of 19th and Carnelian baaed on the above findings. ADOPTED APRIL 11, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Com- mission held on the 11th day of April, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 . p 13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City-Engineer SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PARCEL MAP 4783 CONDITIONS April 11, 1979 Mr. Roland Sanchez, applicant for Parcel Map 4783, has requested that the Planning Commission waive the provision requiring construction of street improvement on Turner Avenue for Parcel 1, prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. Mr. Sanchez has indicated that the parcel division is for purposes of settling a family estate. Mr. Sanchez further maintains that .flood hazards on Turner restrict the construction of these improvements. Under Section 2.12 (f) of the City Subdivision Ordinance No.'28, the Council has found that all off -site improvements be constructed within a period of nine (9) months following the recordation of a parcel map for each lot upon which there exists a building or other usable structure at the time of re- cordation. Under these provisions, the staff and Planning Commission have no authority to waive the conditions of improvement. In regards to flood potential on Turner avenue, it will be required that construction of improvements be designed to maintain the water carrying capacity of the street. RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of staff that the appeal be denied and the Parcel Map approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report. Respectfully su mitted, LLO B. HUBBS City Engineer LBH:deb attachment: Section 2.12 (f), City Subdivision Ordinance No. 28 Letter of Appeal received from Mr. Roland L. Sanchez City Engineer's Report dated February 5, 1979 0 0 n O • Y r r 6 rJ & Y n 4 ° e n d^ 1 n •°< w r R • [• e r u a �� i eSs sr w•°. .`•• Ca a S R °er s R - "raw- ve i iV.ss i�r42 ib"S er iii 42:12^ Sa r:s.°. ^V° v�"r .°.i .i i i •' w +e—or s.°.Si r� c� i•� al- .i _•aSY� .°. Qabb Do "a ww. .r .°. r V^:2 v• ww .[•^ s w i w .. •-• C • n w w Y •°< w. L -w0 •°< S D ` w L S! D a S i r• O Y CV •-a• a s M C r� f. v � M1. •+ nY p • ww V : +,+ D ••.. L° C na S. - • w V - w n � + .. .r v .... c 0• w L � •. Y 4 '°1 °?w ' r � ! w z ° +� • S -� rinwg� ° a i:: �Q.^. wLr .i S w w Q S � aH gr � •vw•n ' C a= S; w a • C w^ w we a • [ r �V ��•'• M D V • V O Y• a e w n w w i a 8: w S: r + �_ g • 8�rw Y Lb w wS •7� vE� • .°. � wr w rr • •.r.: a . " a � .°. -..yC f ^ w " O'A `°.b � •°. Y �. ti� i W ••V � n spy S[ r:+ = n w L V i •-S n w � 42[ D Mr TYE n w YF n R ti_,R >Yr•^ ^•;°e'a ;^ - w ° • w T Si S: a e S•Y ^ R4 r: a Ssns O: R e•g y -� • w w Wo r °° w`r air n w ti• wr °^ Lw. e� �S w ti+ r ' ,. R_ � ° r area• f eS a .-. 9 »•a•n�^ R R:.' o ^ :.-°. tC a �$ y + +° i rtY S 0 6v�.R. ALL ° & .°. .-. ,[.• » » °'L - �^ _ a ^D f w ppwr� wwo Rl i : • �?" Q ••4 s Q • �•^ •bv. 3:v :•o r R .R' .g €Y r ~ 4¢ . R 0 :0 '� .1rwg•°r<�. .-c. • - n ".`+Mi $r° r :w :•ya n Z .`.ter. r f D ` n •+ n r I°• -: w v � N w w v w L v sr D •°r 1�1yY ° _` p- `� w^ R^ n f.. D ~ Y r E• L~ r A i I< r w b y I,, •n r ftt r C Y^ b D °[ L! 6 42 n •ww' ,+ "iT "wJ I-1 N r .w., a yy _y Y w■ • a S �•. < n� r4t �T Gp c ri Lw RL <Y ..M. as 9yww • aYw: Y L ff •n~ V ^, . r+Y EaG ^b M•. S R y0•°<Ly OY `p Efv Lwn°. A :R =L 423 =naw �e ^ 4n ,•. b i�YY +• • t.^. �:�w rrR � � .p42 �• sa • i e .c° w° w�• Iy +�� p•i ° L.°.. °°.�.'"a a _ � 6a SV a•� I•Ln w R Sr a °w ° 'T' as X- 2j :g L• •• ar •-,D -n _ r S'r : aw S:? ^: : r �ii ` ,Y- D� s: i « v Y :qS L i s s i e• sna Cp eww.s a uyi Jr µS Y w : n D J R °^ Y �. ✓• r s •• O^ n Y a Y^ 1• . O n« w a Y n w R Y ± s • += D n w Y 3 -i p< Ri w Lp a ba 6n w =Y <• i. .Sag R or w° 7 i 7777r rte _ i March 14, 1979 ;•!'i`!t7(� 1shi4'�0 i,a;CftliGi•.GN l u;:.+ �'i:1T'iv : C! G ";•`•1 ::T DEPT. - City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 A �lA Dear Sir: This letter is an appeal of the conditions of the City Engineer's report regarding Parce' Map file number 4783, Parcel #1. My brother; Loren Sanchez, talked with John L. Martin on February 28, 1979 and was advised that the appeal date was ex- tended to March 15, 1979 because of the date that the City Engineer's report was mailed to me. This appeal is based on the following reasons: 1. The potential for flooding of Parcel #1 after the improve- ments without improving Tuinev Avenue, north of Parcel #1 is very great. The lack of a drainage system in the northern part of Rancho Cucamonga also contributes to this potential. 2. The expense of installing such improvements or providing a bond without any profit or benefit being derived by the owners. The purpose of the request to divide this ten acre parcel that has been in the family for over fifty years is to settle the estate. I fee, that these conditions are unreasonable and would cause a burden and hardship on the family. Your thoughtful consideration and approval of this appeal will be very much appreciated. r Sincerely, /tt Roland L. Sanchez V .322 Saratoga Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 rz 4TENTATIVE MAP NO. 4783 Page 3 X 20; Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. X .21: Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: ❑ a. Calt-:ans, for• ® b. City: ❑ c. County Dust Abatement District: ❑ d. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: 73 e. Cucamonga County Water District: ❑ f. Other: MAP CONTROL 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to provide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23_ The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or ay= n and should be corrected on the final_ map �.24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -of -way line in accor- dance with the City of Rancho Cucanonga Standards. 25. A.Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of r.n unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as. follows: 27, The border shall he shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation require -1. 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / _--is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act acid local ordinances. FLOOD CONTROL Install or bond ❑ At time of development of ®Prior to recording X 29. Engineer shall submit a Hydrologic report for subject subdivision to determine storm runoff amount in major N -S streets. 30. All east -west streets must be designed to keep storm-runoff in major N -S streets. 31. A concrete wall along entire north property line may be rewired to div -rt sheet runoff to Streets. Such floc may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. X .32. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 33. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations: X 34. Other flood control requirements: The wr2er carryinE`cGacity shall be maintained RCE20 Page 3 ry hS•Ya s. r, February 5, 1979 Mr. Ronald L. Sanchez 322 Sarar9ga Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP FILE NO. 4783 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the City Engineer's Report for Tentative Parcel Map No. 4783 The improvement and dedication requirements are i-a accordance with the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the City Code. If no request for a revision of the attached report is -received by February 15, 1979 , your Tentative Parcel Map No. will be automatcially approved on February.I - 1979 , su ect to the conditions listed in the City Engineer s report. Appeal to the Planning Commission of any of the conditi ^-s of the City Engineer's report may be filed with the Planning Department within, fifteen (15) days after the Gate of approval. You are hereby notified to contact John L. Martin of this office for information concerning fulfill ment a t e lists conditions and submittal of a final parcel map to be approved by City Council. Very truly Engineer Ili: jLM -.deb cc: J. M. Wilson & Associates 387 North Second Avenue Upland, California 91786 RCE10 POSTOFFIrF nn %701. RAwrrinrlyrA%IMMA rAv.jrnrrnA 0 171.11 non 1 4CI. ` LLCFYD HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER RCE20 Page 4 i0l I till TENTATIVE MAP NO---178L_ Page 4 HIS � 35. Dust abatement will be made a condir!,on of issuance of the grading permit for this project. � 36. Noise Impact on this Project will he mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division 37. report on subject property. This Property is not within the pro-sent C will annexation. itf Boundary and v require _38- All informn-lon required to be shown fLn the tentative nap shown as required not 39. Fr�opergradlng and erosion c trol, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to offsite 40,. property, As / _V7 not provided for as required. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the following reasons:. A copy of the soils report furnished to the Buildlog Division X 41. prior to grading will be furnished td the Engineering Division. The filing of the f,entative map or approval of same does not guarantee that- sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. . When-building permits are requested. the Cucamonga County. Water District w1_12 be asked to -certif7. the avallabilicy of X 42. capacity, Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. The City Engineer shall make the determination, -;b� accordance with Section 66436 (C)(l) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interefere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or Public utility right- of-way or easement and the signature of any such Public entity or public utility may be from omitted the final map unless the City Is-notified in writing of any objection to said determination 43. within. the specified time limits of sald.Section. -At" the time of Final Map subndttall;-the Traverse cale following - shall -be submitted-. calculations.- (sheets), copies of recorded Maps land deeds used as referent: and /or showing orig Inal land division; referenced. tie noras and bench-=arks 44 44.- Development itm-ited to one drive OpProach..per frontkmg on a B�nZl*street str ee t, Multip. 19 t a shall use co=On driveaPFroachee at lot lines, LLCFYD HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER RCE20 Page 4 i0l I till 1° x-78;,= y"m O www:om,. i WOOT . t yra '... � '��•� _.. ;.,�. 111-1 1 11•..��fl 1. I 1. � •' 1 11'_1.11. 0 NO. 79-36 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMOWA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW.NO. 78 -11 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BLVD. EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE IN THE C -2 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of April, 1979, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1979, the Rancho CLcamonga Plan- ning Cocsaission held a meetiag to consider the above deac .tbed project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING AS FOLLOWS: r.r yea . RESOLVED SECTION 1: That the following findings have been mode- l. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro- posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, loading and other features required by this section. 2. That the improvements as i.- tdicated on the develop- ment plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existinZ and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standare.s and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 11, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 78 -11 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall co:itact the Planning Division for compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance witl. all zoning ordinance provisionp.. 2. The site shall be developed iu accordance with the approved site plan on file in the Planning Division and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted r.0 and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weed, trash. and debris.. 5. Any rocf mounted eiulpment shall be scr:ened from view from all adjacent properties. Screening material shall blend with the architectural feature of the buildings. 6. The monm•.�tnt sign as proposed is not approved. ':he sign shall be redesigned and resubmitted to the Planning Com- mission for their review and approval. 7. Any signs that may be placed on the building or direct— tional signs that may be placed on the site shall first be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 8. The detailed site plan shall be revised in accordance with the illustrative site plan and submitted to the Planning Division for its files. 9. Parking lot lights shall not exceed 12' from finished grade and shall not create glare to adjacent properties. 10. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of this approv 1. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 11. All exterior street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. 12. The following missing street improvements shall be con- structed which include, but are not limited to: sidewalks, driveways, wheel chair ramps, curb and gutter, street paving, street trees, street lights, drainage structures. 13. Street iwprovemeat plans prepared on size sheetR by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 14. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of Ole City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing that the west driveway b- combined with the driveway for the ,•roperty to the west as approved by the City Engineer. 15. S'.reet striping and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. All damaged off site public works facilities, including parkway trees, shall be repaired prior to occupancy to the aatisfaction of the City Engineer. 17. All street structural sections shall be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer. 18. Grading of subject property shall be In accordance with a soils report and plan prepared by a qualified engineer and to the satisfaction of the Ctty Engineer. 19. Drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the specifications of the City Engineer. 20. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided to the specif icatione -of the Cucamonga County Water District. Written verification that all require- ments have been met shall be supplied at the time of building permit application. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is avail- able. 22. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 23. Developer shall coordinate and pay for, the relocation of any power polei3 or other existing public utilities, as required. 24. This development falls within those areas indi`ated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and will be subject to the provisions of said program. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following: 25. All plans shall prepared in conformance with the UBC, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electrical Code, and all other applicable codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with the following: 26. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be met. 0 n Applicant shall contact the Cucamonga County Water District for compliance with the following: 27. All requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District shall be met. APPROVED ADM ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the-Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Com- mission held on the 11th day of April, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 DATE: TO: 1 ]FROM: E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 11, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development F] SUBJECT: Director Review 79 -29 - Robert Jensen - Regeust for development of 22 four -plea apartment buildings on 22 subdivided lots encompassing 7 acres of land located north of Victoria Street on the east side of Archibald in the Z-3 zone. BACKGROUND: This request comes to the Planning Commission as a second phase of a two- phased project. The first phase of this project was the applicant's approval by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission of Tentative Tract 9369. The approval of the tract divided the seven acres into 24 lots with a new cul- de -sar_ street north of Victoria called Burgandy Avenue; and created a looped alley system for garage access to the lots. The Planning Commission has no authority to require any changes to the tentative tract map because it was approved by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission and has been finaled. The applicant proposed to locate four -plea knits, one per lot on 22 of the 24 lots. Lots 12 and 13 would have the recreation facilities consisting of a tennis curt and green belt area. All of the four -plex units are identical in floor clan, differences in the units occur by the variation of setbacks, elevation embellishment and roof structure. Parking areas are located to the rear of the Units and take access off of the alley. There will be no driveway access off of ArchibalA. Victoria or Burgandy Avenues. Seven parking spaces are provided for each four- •p.'.ex unit, four covered, three uncovered. The elevations proposed use = cuignsawn wood trim facia and window trimjestticco and wood shingles, roughsawn plywood exterior1l X 3 battons and cultured stone veneer. In an attempt to provide additional variation between units, the applicant has varied the style of the roofs and the color of composition shingles proposed. The landscape plan proposed is adequate; however, the applicant must meet the landscape standard of 50 trees per gross acre. The applicant has indicated that these units are proposed as affordable housing and has submitted a proposed rent schedule (see attached). ANALYSIS: While we concur with the City's need for affordable housing, we also are concerned that all segments of Rancho Cucamonga have the same high quality of design and environment. It is our opinion that the proposed development lacks diversity of design, is an inefficient use of the land, and could be substantia.ly upgraded while maintaining the same rent schedule proposed by the applicant. Specific site problems are as follows: 1) Parking proposed does not meet code requirements of two spaces per dwelling unit. If we consider each lot individually, then, each lot that has a unit occupying it is deficient by one parking space. ITEM °L" 2) Alley access to parking areas is inefficient use of land and should be discouraged unless substantial embellishment of the structures and landscaping is proposed along the street frontage. Specific dwelling unit problems are as follows: 1) Lack of adequate diversity of exterior design of the units proposed to create variety from the same floor plan. Even in R -1 subdivision, the developer does not have the same model throughout the entire tract. There are many different ways that the developer could create diversity within the development. The introduction of a different floor plan with various elevations and roof material would help diversify the monotonous project now proposed. 2) Noncompatibility with previous Planning Commission approvals of apartments complexes is also a problem that this site enjoys. Recently the Planning Commission approved the Ketrer apartment project directly adjacent to this proposed project. It is our opinion that this proposal as it is now presented does not represent the same quality of design and character approved by the Planning Commission for Ketner's apartments. PECOMMENDATION: We suggest that the Planning Commission delineate their specific concerns regarding the ap*licant's project as proposed and continue this item to the May 9, 1979 Planning Commission to allow the applicant time to revise his plans to alleviate the staff and Planning Commission concerns. However, if the Planning Commission does not concur with staff's concerns as expressed herein, we have provided Resolution 79 -34 recommending approval of Director Review 79 -29 subject to the conditions contained within the resolution. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development JL:RKH:cc Attachments: Development Plan Resolution No. 79 -34 9 0 0 rp T,v t j rp T,v Rol )enzen Radler,, Ac. 220 1NE9T E. sTiRC$T ONTARIO, CAWRORNIA 0170a (714) 9e4 -1721 t; i�; o (.;L:y= et;ca, Y C MUNT DEPT. .979 ism 2M g March 27, 1979 Harry A. Hogan, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. How 793 Banoha Cucamonga, California 91730 Res Tract 9369 Dear Mr. Hogans Following is the tentative rent schedule for units in this Projects Apt #l. $395.00 Apt #2 275.00 Apt #3 285.00 Apt 04 225.00 An exteriors of buildings will be natuml earthtone stucco finish with stained trim. Roofs will be composition shingles of various colors to complement stucco and trim colors. Very truly yours, J Carman Construction Superintendent JC sds RvgULUTION NO. 79 -37 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -16 FOR A 184 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET EAST OF AMETHYST IN THE R -3 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 16th day of February, 1979 a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of April, 1979, the Rancho Cucemonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, loading and other features required by this section. ® 2. That the improvements as indicated on the development plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 11, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -05 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all zoning ordinance provisions. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan on file in the Planning Division and the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A minimum of fifty (50) trees per gross acre, com- prised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 20% 24" box or larger, 70Z t `; minimum 15 gallon and 102 minimum 5 gallon. 24. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 25. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 26. Developer shall coordinate, and pay for, the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities, as required. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 27. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable city codes. 0 9 16. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney,- guaranteeing completion of the public Improvements. 17. Street striping and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 18. Pro -rata participation in the cost of traffic signals at the 19th Street intersections of Amethyst Street and Archibald Avenue will be required, based upon 1% of the building valuation. 19. All damaged off site public works facilities, including parkway trees, shall be repaired prior to occupancy to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. All street structural sections shall be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer. 21. Grading of subject property shall be in accordance with a soils report and plan prepared by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22. Participation in an engineering study of a revision of the Storm Drain ;Master Plan in the general project area will be required. Applicant shall be responsible for construction of Master Plan drains through the site and necessary appurtenant structures as required by the City Engineer. 23. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be pro- vided to the specifications of the Cucamonga County Water District and the City Engineer. Written verification that all requirements have been met shall be supplied at the time of building permit application. 24. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 25. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 26. Developer shall coordinate, and pay for, the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities, as required. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 27. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable city codes. 5. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris. 6. Any roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view from all adjacent properties with material architecturally compatible with the design of the building. 7. All carports shall be designed and constructed with materials architecturally compatible with the dwelling such as heavy wood trim and fatias. Such design shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 8. All lighting, with the exception of recreation lighting, shall be no higher than 12' from adjacent finished grade, and shall not create glare to adjacent properties or on -site dwellings. Recreation lighting shall not exceed 22' in height from finished grade. 9. Any proposed signs require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. 10. All trash enclosures shall be provided with 6' masonry walls and view obstructing areas. 11. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. 12. Eucalyptus trees shall be trimmed and topped at 30' with dead or diseased trees replaced on a one for one basis to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. The applicant shall contact the Englunering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 13. Street dedication and improvements shall be in conformance with the currently adopted Master Plan of Streets and to . the specification of the City Engineer. 14. The following missing street improvements shall be con - structed which include, but are not limited to: sidewalks, driveways, wheel chair ramps, curb and gutter, street paving, street trees, street lights, drainage structures, _ and modification of the existing west termini of Gala Avenue and Hamilton Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15. Street improvement plans prepared on standard size sheets by a registered Civil Engineer shall be sub - mitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to '%, issuance of building permits. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with the following conditions: 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits verification that all requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be met and submitted to the Building Offi-ial. Applicant shall contact the Cucamonga County Water District for compliance with the following conditions. 29. All requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District shall be met. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST Secretary of the Planning Commission I, SACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 0 r::r 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 11, 1979 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Director review 79 -28 - Vanir Research - Development of a 16,050 square foot office building and related parking facilities at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Ave. BACKGROUND: In order to hear this request the Planning Commission must have approved the requested Zone Change 79 -03 earlier on tonights agenda. The applicant proposes a multi phased project. Phase one would be the construction of 16,000± square feet of office space; phase two would be the construction of the proposed restaurant and financial building; phase three would be the construction of future apartment development north of the office complex. 0 SITE REVIEW: Please note that the site developer has aligned his southerly driveway of the is provided on 19th Stree of the office complex for necessary. plan indicates across the street driveways. The driveway onto Archibald to coincide with the most Stater Bros. shopping center. One means of access Emergency access has been provided at the rear future use of the apartment development should it be Required parking for the complex is one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for office use. The approximate amount of square footage including the office, restaurant and financial, is 28,250. Based upon the parking requirement the applicant must provide 141 parking spaces -196 have been provided. ANALYSIS: Site Plan. The applicant proposes the use of wheel stops for the automobiles parked adjacent to landscape planters or walkways. It is our opinion that the landscaped area should be increased 2!1 feet and a 6" high PCC curb be provided to act as a wheel stop instead of the applicant's proposal. Where the automobile parking is perpendicular to a walkway, that walkway should be increased 211 feet and 6" PCC curb installed. Additionally, we feel the three parking areas located on Exhibit A should have a raised planter installed perpendicular to the parking stalls to prevent automobiles from going through one stall to the other. Finally, two parking spaces proposed north of the financial building should be eliminated as indicated in Exhibit A. Landscaping. The applicant has proposed a conceptual landscape plan which is included in your packet. As you can see from the plan proposed, it is minimal insofar as City standards are concerned. We suggest that the applicant sub- stantially increase the quantity of trees on the site, use earth berming along 19th Street and Archibald and varying the size of the trees adding some 24" box or specimen size trees. All parking lot trees should be a minimum 15 gallon size. Additionally, there should be dense landscaping provided along the north boundary to screen the view of the north facing elevations. Building Elevations. The office building proposed has been revised from the original submittal. Instead of the linear box -like structure originally submitted, the applicant has revised the proposed office building to provide ,u interior court area with raised planters, bay windows and overhang; roof . tructure. The use of the bay windows and the overhang structure visually pulls the building back and forth. The diversity of the footprint also creates varied roof direction adding dimension and chyracter to the proposed building. The office building proposed is a spanish style using red mission tile, dark stained gluelam beams and posts, and redwood siding. The windows will be trimmed in dark annodized aluminum, the glass proposed is a solar cooled bronze reflective glass. The walkway areas in the courtyard will be punctuated w+_t`i a brick paver. The south elevation you see on the attached exhibits provided by the applicant do not adequately depict the true pic.ure of the structure. The middle of this elevation is recessed and has an over- hang creating an interior court effect. The two ends of the south elevation are brought forward thus providing a back and forth effect. The windows proposed are bay windows which jut out from the structure also adding to the definition of the south elevation. Two partial elevations are also provided; please note that they are labeled as the east and west elevation on the right hand portion of the elevation exhibit. These are the elevations that would be seen if you were standing inside the court area. Staff has reviewed the pmoject and finds it to be in conformance with the adopted codes and standards except for landscaping and some minor adjustments on the site plan. Additionally, the roof structure should be continued around the entire north elevation. The reason for this is the bland appearance of this elevation and the view from the property to the north and the future freeway. These items will have to cone under a separate application when requested. The proposed financial and proposed restaurant /financial site are not approved and are subject to .revision as may be required by code at the time of submittal for development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -32 approving Director Review No. 79- 28,Vanir Research, subject to the conditions as outlined in the attached Resolution No. 79 -32, Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: DKH: an Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Resolution No. 79 -32 s 1 W LA s x W Ia a E . till till c 0 `: '� �• _ ii ..� , it Us `a; N R`2 ' •w: 47i •da � at , •�; Icy � �� gw � rf e.; cos E4 $ww y., t cP w.,. 11 twi dl I_ I V ter.. z g . 3 v 8 =€ aa- - ♦b � .r�j, w. ... � '.� . � � .. Y i ' V �] Y . , � - ♦b � .r�j,