HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/08/13 - Agenda Packetti
J
V
...
CITY OF
RANOJO CLrAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
.AGENDA
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 13, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LION'S PAkK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE,-RANCHO CUC.4MONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
Fi. Roll Call
Commissioner Barker
Commissioner King
Commissioner McNiel
APproval of Minutes
August 25, 1982
September 8, 1982
IV. Announcements
�. Public Hearincs
COMMissicner Rempel
Commissioner Stout
The following items are Public hearings in which
co ^cerned individuals may voice their opinion of
the related Project, please wait to be recognized
by the Chairman and addreas the Commission From the
Public microphone by giving your name and address.
Al' such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per
individual for each project.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 -
NKS - The division of 5 acres o an into 4
omits within the R -1 zone located apprOAimately
660' north of Base Line and 660' west of East
Avenue - APN 227 - 131_29 (Continued from Planning
Commission meeting of September 22, 1982).
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 - ZWISSLER - The
estab ishment of 13,232 square feet of professional
Offices in an existing building and the continuance
of a preschool use in an existing 5,644 square foot
building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial
category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue -
APN 209 - 171 -15 (Continued from Planning Commission
meeting of September 22, 1982).
Planning Commission, Agenda t
October 13, 1982
Page 2
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -15 - MANNELLA - A
request to relocate the previously approved
arcade location from 6652 Carnelian to 6642
and 6646 Carnelian in the Rancho Plaza Shop-
ping Center.
* D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -22 - FRITZ - The
establishment of a 3200 square foot indoor
auction service in the General Industrial
- ategory (Subarea 4), located in the Scheu
business Center at 9155 Archibald Avenue,
Suite 301 - APN 209 - 211 -21.
F
luuoo - niuvzim - H resiaentiai subdivision
o act 131 single family lots in
the R -i- 20,000 zone, generally located at
the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari
Street - APN 201- 071 -14, 37 and 45.
F. ENVI
n 4u{.Ct vtdimeu ueveiupmenT OT !b concominlum
units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -3 and R -1
zones located at the northwest corner of Highland
and Haven Avenues - APN 201- 262 -28, 30, 31,-37,
and 40.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -23 - CHURCH n;: M;MT_
ine temporary use or a z,bbb square foot industrial
building for a church facility in the General
Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at 9581
Business Center Drive, Suites A, B, and C -
APN 209 - 021 -04.
VI. Director's Reaurts
H. GWAFFEY VOCATIONAL SCHOOL PARKING - Oral report by
Rick Gomez, ity anner
I. DEVELOPMENT CODE UVIIATE
* This project fails within the :.oundaries of the Redevelopment``
Area
f'=
Planning Commission Agenda
October 13, 1982
Page 3
VII. Public Comments
This is the time and place fcr the general public to
addLa =Ss ..G I- u-- --:iuc.'. uirc
are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time.
Sf items go beyond that time, they shall be heard
only with the consent of the Co U ssion.
FUNIITY MAP
"'A** pTCR f TIOYAL I **r
It
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COK14ISSION MINTTES
Regular Meeting
August 25, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman. King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order
at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base
Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of
allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COM14ISSIONERS: PRESENT: E. David Barker, Jeffrey King,Larry McNiel,
Herman Rempel,Denn±s Stout
ABSENT: Mane
STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan
Coleman, Associate Planner; Pick Gomez, City
Planner, Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;
Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice
Reynolds, Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior
Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, announced that under Director's
Reports the Commission would be asked to set a date this evening for the
Planning Commissioner's workshop.
Chairman King pressnted a Resolution of Commendation to Councilman Dick
Dahl. Councilman Dahl thanked the Commission and stated that he felt that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga had one of the finest Planning Commissions in the
area. Further, that he felt the City was fortunate to have individuals like
the Commissioners who were willing to volunteer their time in making this a
better City.
• a t s
CONSENT CAIZKDAR
A. TD4—r EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -04 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DR 80-07 - KALBACH
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented the COmmission with a revised
Resolution fcr Item A.
Commissioner Stout asked what the correction was to the Resolution.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that the Resolution contained
in the Cr)mmissionerls packets omitted a section of the original Resolution.
As this section was referenced in the new Resolution, a new one :lad been
prepared.
Commissions: Rempel stared ±'„ t t`.- n -sc,
n =- 11= IL&tion adaea item 2 in S�:tion 3
which required plans to be submitted prior to the expiration date.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unamiously carried, to adopt the
Consent Calendar Resolutions granting time extension for Conditional Use
Permit 81 -04 and DR 80 -07.
• f i i * f
PUBLIC HEAEINGS
Chairman King announced that items F, G, and H on this evenings agenda were
requested to be ccntirued by the applicants and that those items would be
addressed first under public hearings to give those wishing to comment on
those items an opportunity to do so.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 80-02 - BP.OWNE - A change of
zone from A -1 (Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Pamily Residential)
for .96 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Base Line and
Ivy Lane - APN- 1077 - 071 -01.
Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed
G. ENVIROhWNTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7511 - BROWNE - A residential
subdivision -Of-.-99-acres into 3 lots located oil the southwest corner of
Base Line Road and Ivy Lane in the A -1 (R -1 pending) zone -
APN- 1077 - 071 -01.
Chairman King Opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore
the public hearing was closed.
H. EPiVIROhfi4£NTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 83 BANKS The division of
5 acres of land into 4 lots within the R -1 zone located approximately
660 feet north of Base Line and 660 feet west of east Avenue - APN
227- 131 -29.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
the public hearing was closed.
Planning Concision Minutes -2-
There were no comments, therefcre
August 25, 1982
Motion: Moved by bcRiel, seconded by Stout, unamiously carried, to continue
Environmental Assessment and Zone Change 60 -02 to September 6, 1982.
Motion: Paved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unamiously carried, to continue
Environmental Asscssment and Parcel Map 7511 to September 8, 1.982.
Motion: Moved by Re- _Ivel, seconded by Barker, unamious y carried, to continue
Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 3383 to September 22, 1982.
f f f f f
C. ENVIRO_NMENTAl. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10076 - WILSON - A
residential subdivision of 19 lots on 6.9 acres of land in the
R- 1- 20,000 zone (R -1- 10,000 pending) lon.ated south of Banyan Street,
east of .Archibald Avenue - APN 20i- 251 -63 and 64.
Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report stating that
this item was being brought back to the Commission per their request. PIr.
Bose stated that the previous design called for a cul-de -sac street which
would discontinue Banyan Street. After staff's review, it was discovered that
a General Plan amendment would be required to discontinue Banyan and that
staff would be preparing an amendment for the Commission's review in the near
future. Mr. Bose stated that the applicant had revised his man in light of
such an amendment. The applicant was also requesting that, should the General
Plan be amended, he be allowed to redesign his tract bark to its Original
design.
Commissioner Barker stated that the possibility of using the Metropolitan
Water District easement as an extension of Banyan had been suggested that the
previous meeting, however was not mentioned in the report.
Mr. Bose replied that staff was still looking into this possibility along with
several other options which would be brought back to the Commission at the
time of the General Plan amendment analysis.
Commissioner Barker stated that item 6 of the proposed Resolution was worded
as if the General Plan amendment were approved to discontinue Banyan Street,
this would be the only condition to allow the applicant to design the new
street into a standard cul-de -sac. He further stated that If Banyan were
continued through the Metropolitan Grater District property, Mr. Wilson could
still cone back with a proposal to return the new street to a cul-de -sac.
Mr. Bose stated that if Banyan was not taken to the present location, it may
go through the Metropolitan Water District property.
commissioner Harker asked if it would be possible to clarify the language of
that condition to reflect that intention.
Planning Commision Minutes
—3—
August 25, 1982
Mr. Bose replied that the condition could be clarified.
Chairman King asked if the Metropolitan Water District easement bordered and
fronted the northern side of this tract.
Mr. Bose replied that it did.
Chairman King asked if staff had looked into the feasibiity of extending the
street over the Metropolitan Water District easement.
Mr. Bose replied that staff has not rinne
feii, that there would be some problems Mend .n study t r this, however
easement. Mr. Bose stated that there was a spillway loc ted at the over this
the basin where the street would be coming across that easement and that it
would be a little difficult to build any kind of a bridge over a spillway.
The second problem is that the area of Haven Fvenue in question has already
been given to the church project for parking purposes by the MWD and staff is
not sure that a right -of -way in that area can be obtained. The third problem
is that the existing Banyan Street and the proposed extension of Banyan would
only have 100 feet between the two intersections, thus impacting traffic.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Jerry Wilson, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission stating that
he saw some problems with the conditions of approval, however felt that they
were items that could be worked out with staff in a matter of days.
Commissioner Barker asked if the dedicated easements allowed enough space for
equestrian easements.
Mr. Wilson replied that the applicant was already dedicating 74 feet along the
Project's east boundary to the Flood Control District for the construction of
a channel. He further stated that there were two designs under consideration,
one being a rectangular channel which does not require a great deal of
right -of -way then the 74 feet would not be necessary. However, if the
dedication were needed, there would not be any area left to dedicate.
Commissioner Barker asked if that had beer. taker. into consideration by
Engineering.
Mr. Bose replied the possibility of using the Flood Control easement
an equestrian easement would be looked into. also as
Commissioner Stout asked the applicant if he would still wan*_ to name the
street Mandarin Street even though it aligned withnanyan Street if the
General Plan was amended.
Mr. Wilson replied that it would deaend on if the City changed the name of
Banyan east of the City.
Planning Commision Minutes
-4- -August 25, 1982
Commissioner Stout replied that it seemed if the streets aligned, they should
have the same name.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that the naming of the streets does not
occur until tentative map approval is given. These names were placed on the
map by Mr. Wilson, and subject to approval per the Street Naming Ordinance.
Phil Draper, a property owner in the vicinity of the project, addressed the
Commission stating his main concern was not with the tract itself, but with
the streets and flood ccntrel. He asked how the water was going to be handled
coming out or the Mark X11 tract above the project.
Mr. Hose replied that there would be a pipe under the street that would carry
the water tack to the channel.
Mr. Draper stated that
the water
goes through Mr. Miller's
house when it
floods now and he didn't
see how a
pipe could be installed twat
would be large
enough to handle all the
water.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that the size and type of pipe would be
determined through hydrology studies and if' the study shows that there is not
a pipe large enough to handle the flow, other measures will be taken.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the criteria established in the Street
Naming Ordinance was that there would not be streets that were off set and
carried the same name. Further, that if Banyan is carried north into the
Metropolitan Water District easement, the street should definitely be named
Banyan.
Commissioner Barker asked if there was any way Mr. Draper's concern could be
directed to one of the staff to mitigate regarding the drainage of this
property and if the property owners in that area would be notified of the
results of the hydrology study.
Jack Lam, Conmainity Development Director, replied that if Mr. Draper would
leave his name and telephone number with staff, they would notify him of the
results of the hyrdology study and also at that time he could view the design
of the projjct to see how it would affect his property. Mr. Lam further
stated that all the drainage design details are done at the design stage,
which is after the studies are complete. Further, that the Conditions of
Approval are worded so that the applicant could not receive final approval of
the project until he could show through hydrology studies that the drainage
would be taken care of.
Nbtion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unamiously carried to adopt the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 10076.
Planning Commision Minutes -5- August 25, 1982
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, Mc Niel,' King
140ES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
D. VARIANCE 82-02 - GARCIA - A request to reduce the required rear
yard setbacie. in order to construct a room addition in the
R -1- 10,000 zone located at 8621 Lemon pvenj.e - nvi
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. In addition, Mr. Gomez
presented the option of directing staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, which would maintain the rear yard setback and open space, yet
allow for additions to occupy a maximum of approximately 30% of the rear yard
with a minimum 5 foot setback. Mr. Gomez stated that staff felt that the
applicant's request could be adequately addressed by this amendment along with
other requests which might arise in the future. It was further recommended
that the applicants withdraw their request, receive a refund of their fees,
and return with their request after the 45 -60 day time period which would be
required for the zoning amendment to take effe--t.
Chairman King asked how long it would take from tonight's date until the
applicants would be ready to proceed on their project.
.lack Lam, Community Development Director, replied that the modification to the
Ordinance would be introduced to the Commission at their next meeting in two
weeks. If the Commission approved the modification, it would be set for the
City Council agenda for first reading in advance and then be set for the
second reading before the Council two weeks after that date. At that time,
there would be a 30 day referendum period. Mr. Lam further stated that the
problem first came up when the City Council modified the setbacks in several
areas as a result of the General Plan in order to get an open rural feeling in
the City. This modification in setbacks makes it very difficult for the
residents in the existing areas of the City to make additions in their
structures. Staff was recommending an amendment to the Ordinance to allow the
encroachment into the rear yard area as long as a certain percentage of open
space was retained.
Chairman Sing opened the public hearing.
Linda Garcia, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that she and her
husband had applied for and were granted a permit to construct the room
addition two years ago, however financially had been unable to begin
construction. 'When they applied for a new permit a month ago, they were
informed that the requirements had changed and a variance would be necessary
to complete the process. Mrs. Garcia further stated that if they were to
withdraw the request, there was no guarantee that the Ordinance would be
approved and felt that too much time would be lost.
Planning Commision Minutes -6- August 25, 1982
Mr. Garcia addressed the Commission stating that the room addition had been
carefully planned so that it would appear to be part of the house. rurt.er,
that he was a teacher and planned co do most of the work himself; however,
school would be starting soon and if the project was delayed for another
forty -five days, he would be unable to do the work.
Chairman King informed the applicants that in order for the Commission to
grant a Variance, they must make certain findings, undue hardship for
example. He asked Mr. Garcia if he could indicate to the Commission how he
would be :acing undue hardship or that he would be deprived of the normal
privileges of his land.
Mr. Garcia stated that he had been informed that if someone in their area had
constructed a room addition similar to what they were proposing, he would most
likely be granted the Variance and there is a gentleman down the street from
them who has constructed a room addition which is 15 feet from his back call.
Chairman King stated that he felt the Commission may be setting a precident
unless they could find those conditions that would be necessary for granting
the Variance.
Mrs. Garcia stated that she felt the main reason to grant the Variance would
be that they had already been issued a permit for the construction two years
ago and had based all of their planning on the fact that they already had a
permit.
Commissioner Barker stated that he felt there was some confusion on what
Mr. Gomez stated earlier in the Staff Report. Further, that he drove by the
Garcias' property and knew what they were talking about in terms of the lot
configuration and what he thought Mr. Gomez had said was that if the
applicants waited until the Ordinance was approved, they could keep the design
they were now proposing.
Mx. Garcia replied that there was still no guarantee that the Ordinance would
be approved and if it wasn't approved, they would have to again apply for a
Variance and would be further delayed. Further, that since they had put in a
pool and had already dug the footings for the room addition, he would at least
like to pour a concrete slab to keep all the dirt and debris out of the pool.
Richard LaBell, a neighbor of the Garcias, stated that he felt that the
Variance should be granted. He further stated that he had viewed the plans
and felt that the s..ddition was well designed and would not adversely affect
the neighborhood.
Another neighbor of the Garcias addressed the Commission stating that she also
felt the Variance should be granted because the state of the economy presently
does not allow many people the ability to move to larger homes.
?here were no further comments and
the public
hearing was closed.
Planning Commision Minutes
-7-
August 25,
1982
Chairman King stated that he felt' it should be made clear that no one was
making comments that stated they felt that the Garcias should not construct
their addition. The issue now was one of what is the most praotical and
consistent way of constructing the addition.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, explained th 'ity operates its
zoning Policies under special rules. Further, that z�-^.' atback, and size
requirements of a zone were generally designed to apply ..he City; however,
when a hardship or extraordinary circumstance occurred, the Commission could
grant a variance. He further stated that the Commission would have to find
that something per *_icy'_ r ^bc;ut <__
�.aaau pio.,:c Of property restricted it from
adding or and made it different from any other property on the street.
Mr. Hopson also stated that simply because you didn't like the way the setback
ordinance works doesn't mean that a variance could be granted.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that there was a difference of opinion
in that area, however, felt that the setback ordinace was riot intended to
apply to houses built prior to the Code. Further, that the Des =gn Review
Committee should louk closely at the staggered setbacks in new developments as
they may be precluding property owners from adding on to their homes in the
future.
Chairman King stated that he felt that there could be a sufficient factual
basis for granting the variance in this case and at the same time recommend
the C- afting of the ordinance.
Commissioner Remoel stated that the earliest that the Garcias would be able to
start cons ruction would be November 1 and this is a special circumstance in
that they had already been granted a permit for construction. Further, that
the Finding could be based on the fact that if two or three other property
owner.,, in the area have been allowed to encroach into the required rear yard
area, the Garcias were being denied the privilege of uoing the same.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the
finding should be based on the lot depth being slightly smaller than the
others.
Chairman King stated that if approval of the variance was to be given, the
Resciution would have to state that not granting the variance would cause an
undue hardship that is inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan, that there are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances which dictate that the variance should be granted, the strict
enforcement would deprive the owners of this specific property of privileges
shared by othe- property owners within the same zone, and basically that the
granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the general health,
saf:ty and welfare of the community. Chairman King called for the motion.
Planning Commision Minutes -8- August 25, 1982
Commissioner Stout stated that he would make the motion with the inclusion
that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect in any material
way the General Plan or its objectives as he felt that it is inconsistent with
the intent of the General Plan. Motion seconded by Barker, carried
unamiously, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 82 -02. It was also the
consensus of the Commission that staff begin preparation of a Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
f F ■ f a
3:05 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -15 - MANNELLA - The establishment of an
E.
arcade in the C -1 zone to be located at 6652 Carnelian in the
Rancho Plaza Shopping Center.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff Report, stating that staff
was recommending the rewording of Condition 10 to read "two parking stalls
adjacent to the arcade shall be striped 'For Bicycle Parking Only' and b':
provided with security bicycle racks to the satisfaction of the City Plaimer."
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Joseph Mannella, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he would
like to see changes to Conditions 1, 4, and 13 of the Resolution. He stated
that he opened his other business at 10 a.m. during school last year and did
not allow kids under 18 in until after school hours. In regard to Condition
4, he preferred to have one restroom only for control purposes and that anyone
needing the key would have to ask for it, thus giving him better control of
the situation. He felt that Condition 13 was a negative statement and that
people may think that a problem of people under the influence of drugs or
alcohol already existed.
Chairman King asked the applicant if he was suggesting that the last sentence
of the condition stating that a sign be posted be eliminated.
Mr. Marnella replied that he would see that the condition be strictly
enforced, however did not feel that it needed to be broadcast by signing it.
Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he felt that
the Boar's Head customers and the customers of the arcade were not going to
mix without some problems. His concern was that the Boar's Head customers and
the condition they are in when leaving the establishement was going to cause
some child to be hurt when patronizing the arcade.
Kenneth Fawlkes, representing Pomona First Federal Savings, addressed the
Commission stating that he was opposing the arcade based on problems in other
Planning Commision Minutes -9- August 25, 102
areas where arcades exist. The problems 3f vagrancy, litter, disrespect for
landscaping and signs, and the concern, over the mix of : le crowds from the
Boar's Head and the arcade were the main reasons for tJe opposition. He
further stated that he visited JJ's Arcade on Foothill Boul!vard and felt that
it was an exception to other arcades in that it was clean orderly, and very
well run. Mr. Fawlkes asked who could appeal a CLIP?
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that any)ne could appeal a
CUP or bring violations of the Conditions of Approval to tie attention of the
City and it would be brought to the Planning Commission.
W. Fawlkes stated that for various reasons he eonld zr
o iOcated in the center, however after visiting Mr. !anrella's other narcade,
would certainly feel more at ease having hL; arcade there tzan many others.
Lynn Reeder, 8528 Hamilton, addressed the Commissioe stating that he is
employed as a police officer in a neighboring city and h17:s )pinions were based
on both his work experience and views as � private citizel. His concern was
that officers would be required to spend more time policiig the arcade area,
taki=ng away patrol time from other areas of the City.
Bonnie Worell, 6635 Topaz, addressed the Commission sta:
ing that she was
Opposed to the arcade because it would increase traffic, poise, litter, and
crime in her neighborhood.
Edith Bartholemew, 5999 Napa Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she
was opposed to the arcade due to the close proximity to the schools.
Dale Adams addressed the Commission stattnF, that she lived alProximately three
miles from the shopping center and was opposed to the arcade in that
location. Further, that she preferred that her children go the arcade at the
mail where she could control who the- were with and how long they stayed
there. She also stated that she 1._.. afraid that the arcade would attract
gangs and her family's safety would be jeopardized.
Roberta Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission statiig that she felt
that the crowds from the arcade and the Boar's Head customer's should not be
mixed together. Further, that the noise from the two estailishments would
create a disturbance for the nearby residents.
Doug Hone, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that he was one of
the shopping center owners and had turned down a hundred arcade oFerators
wishing to locate in their center. Mr. Mannella was selecte,l by the center
because he has proven himself to not be a hindrance to other businesses around
him and has run an establishment which has not created a distur -3ance.
Chairman King asked Mr. Mannella if he felt that there would 1,e auy problems
with the traffic from the Boar's Head and the bicycle traffic from the arcade.
Planning Commisir-n Minutes _70_
August 25. 1982
Mr. rrannella replied that the bicycle traffic was mainly from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
and didn't feel that there would be a compatibility problem since the Boar's
Head traffic would probably pick up after that time.
Commissioner MoNiel asked Mr. Mannella if he had contacted the adjacent
business owners in the canter.
11r. Mannella replied that he sent a letter to each of the adjacent business
owners.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, stated that staff sent a letter to each of the
businesses and Pomona First Federal was the only one to contact staff.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stcut asked if this CUP was personal to Mr. mEuinelia.
Michael Vairir_, Senior Planner, Stated that it was not.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt it should be because it was well known.
that Mr. Manneila ran one of the better types of arcades and felt that one of
the reasons be :could be in favor of this project was based on how he ran his
business. Additionally, the parking lot should be posted with "No Loitering"
signs to hemp enforcement by the Sheriff's Departrxent. Further, that the rear
exit should be marked as a fire exit only and not be allowed for ingress and
egress. Commissioner Stout stated that he did not feel comfortable with the
operating hours beginning immediately after disco ssal frcm school and felt
:.hat it should be established that the arcade would begin operation one hour
after school dismissal to encourage children to go home.
Commissioner Remae_ stated that with regard to Condition 4 of the Resolution,
he definitely felt there should be two restroons in the facility and that they
could still be controlled with a key. He ft;rther stated that with regard to
the requirement of the sign he felt that it would be for Mr. Mannella's own
orotection to have that sign posted due to the close proximity of Z.he Boar's
Head. Additionally, that it might be better to have the Commission review the
CUP in twelve months rather than eighteen.
Chairman King stated that he felt there were two basic issues; one being the
granting of the CUP and if that is accomplished, what conditions should be
imposed. Further, that there were some real concerns over the integration of
the patrons or the arcade and the patrons of the Boar's head. He further
stated that after weighing the issues and listening to the applicant, he felt
that granting the CUP would be appropriat,-; however, did not feel that the
arcade should be allowed to operate during school hours and that some words
could be deleted from condition two of the Resolution making the :arcade closed
during school hours and no one under 18 allowed after curfew. Chairman King
also stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hempel on the issue of the public
restroems, and also on the issue of review by the Planning Commission in
Planning Co=ision Minutes -11- Auxast 25, 1982
twelve months for even six months) would be appropriate. Also, thu; he agreed
with Commissicn_er Stout on the posting of the "NO loitering" signs in the
parking lot, the ingress and egress on the rear exit, and the fact that the
Resolution was personal to Mr. B"annella. However, could not see the practical
enforcement of a condition not allowing children in until one hour after
school is dismissed. With these conditions imposed on the CUP, he felt nat
it would be appropriate to grant the CUP and review it in six to twelve months
to take more public input to see if the conditions need to be strengthened or
if the CUP should be revoked.
Commissioner Mc &;pl srara that u s of tt a vbjections herd this evening were
based on moral grounds and it is very difficult to legislate morality.
Further, that the Commission has d =nied arcades in the past for various
reasons. He stated that arcades are good for the community in that they keep
some active kids from getting active in places where they shouldn't.
Commissioner MtNiel also stated that with the conditions set forth in the
Resolution and the suggested conditions by Commissioners Stout and Rempel, he
was not opposed to granting the CUP.
Commissioner Earner stated that it seemed something happened in the transition
of the numbers in condition three and that the ranges should be expanded. lie
also stated that he had a concern over the compatibility of an arcade with
other uses, but if enough conditions were imposed, it would at least test to
see if they were compatible with anything. He asked how the appeal process
for a CUP works?
lar. Coleman., Associate Planner, stated that anyone in the general public can
appeal a CUP and request suspension. That request would be scheduled for
heari-Tg before the Planning Ccmmmission, at which time they could attach
additional conditions, revise the conditions, or revoke the permit. This
decision could be appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner Barker asked if that would be in addition to the time set by the
Planning Commission for review of the CUP.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that condition fifteen of the Resolution
established a twelve month review period for their review; however, if there
were reasons to review the permit before that time, it would be scheduled for
public hearing.
Chairman King reopened the public hearing.
Mrs. Bartholemew addressed the Commission stating that she did not feel that
the notification of people 300 feet from the project was sufficient and that
more people should have been notified,
Chairman .Tung replied that the requirement by law is that public hearing items
must be noticed within 300 feet of a project area and that Mrs. Bartholemew is
correct that people outside of those boundaries are also affected; however, in
Planning Commision Minutes -12-
August 25, 1982
practicality, the City would go brc :e if it noticed everyone in the City that
an arcade was being proposed in the shopping center.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated the decision, of the Planning
Commission can be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days and that
by law the only requirement regarding legal noticing is publication in the
newspaper.
Mr. Futrell addressed the Commission stating that he was still very concerned
over the compatibility between the Boar's 'dead customers and the arcade
customers.
Bonnie Worell addressed the Commission asking how the residents could appeal
the decision of the Planning Commission.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, replied that a letter should be
written to the City Clerk's office at the City stating why the residents were
requesting an appeal. This would need to be accompanied by a filing fee and
submitted within fourteen days of this meeting. The item would then be set on
the City Council agenda for review.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout asked if the intent was to strike condition one of the
Resolution.
Chairman King replied that he felt that condition one should remain and that
condition two should be reworded to read "No person under 18 years of age may
enter beyond or remain in any part of the game arcade after curfew." Further,
that it should be closed during school hours.
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the
two conditions were inconsistent.
Commissioner Stout stated that he could not see a problem in adults being able
to use the arcade during the hours school is in session, therefore disagreed
with condition one of the Resolution.
Commissioner Barker stated that he agreed with Commissioners 61:Niel and Stout
on this issue.
Chairman King asked if the Commission concurred with the addition of two
restrooms under condition four.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt there should be two restrooms and that
they should be keyed.
Chairman King asked for discussion on condition thirteen regarding the posting
of the sign.
Planning Commis ion Minutes -i3- August 25, 1982
Commissioner Re el
�_ stayed he felt that the condition should stay because it
would give Mr. Mannella and the Sheriff's Department better control.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unamiously, to adept the
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82 -15 with the following added
conditions: The CUP is personal to Joseph Mannella, "No Loitering" signs
shall be posted in the parking lot, no ingress and egress allowed at the rear
exit, review by the Planning Commission in six months, and the rewording of
condicion ten as proposed by staff.
AYES: r_.�raMlsclOa�aS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS
060ui:, Renpei, barker, Mc Niel, King
None
None
9:30 - Planning Commission Recessed
9:45 - Planning Commission Reconvened
I.
WOODLAND PACI.=IC — A custom - , -
om lot resi.dentia_ development of 56
lots on 55.94 acres, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of
Hillside in the R -1- 20,000 zone - APN 201 - 091 -03, 16, 17, 23, 30,
36 and 38.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Chairman King asked the applicant if he would prefer that he not be involved
in the review of this project.
Richard Scott, applicant, replied that he did not object to Chairman King's review of the project.
Commissioner Stout asked if staff could review some of the history of this
project.
Michael Va_rin, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant has filed a tract
map for the entire area; however, the tract before the Commission tonight is
only for the east lalf_ The other tract map is stil- active and under
review. The current status of that application is that the applicant is
required to do a u li EIR if he wishes to proceed with the project.
Commissioner Stout asked what the basic differences are between the two
traets.
Planning Commision Minutes -14—
August 25, X982
Mr. Vair in replied that the basic difference is that the other tract was
proposed at a 4 -5 dwelling unit per acre density, planned community approach
with smaller lots.
Chairman King asked
if what staff was requiring of
the Commission
this evening
was to decide if a
study needs to be done and if
so, the detail
of the study
along with feedback
in terms of the layout of the
lots.
of a pattern.
Arm. Vairin replied that this was the direction staff was seeking.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Richard Scott, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he was not in
substantial disagreement with staff's recommendation for an expanded Initial
Study; however, wished to share some thoughts and ideas with the Commission
with regard to the ultimate land use. He stated that one section of the
report indicated that the Planning Commission would review alternate designs
and he would not like to spend the additional time and money in the
preparation of additional reports and studies to suit a particular plan,
then have someone not like that design. Further, he would like the Commission
to begin reviewing the lot configurations and street patterns. !ie also stated
that there are some constaints on the development of the property in terms of
phasing and economics. Mr. Scott further stated that Carrari Street was
selected as the most logical extension in that it related to the established
pattern of water service and it allows the entire project to be within the
confines of the project with the trees on it. Also, that this design was one
which he and his engineers felt would least impact the areas addressed by
staff in that it had the mini=m amount of streets to cut and grade and would
be willing to stipulate in the CC&R's that the lots be built without
significant lot grade. Also, the applicant woul" like to leave as many trees
as possible; however, would be amenable to review by the Planning Department
and Fire District as to which trees should remain and which should be removed.
Chairman
King stated that
he had envisioned the
development in that area to be
one of a
mixture of zero
lot line, half acre,
and one and a half acre lots,
rural in
character, and a
little less structured
of a pattern.
Dh,. Scott replied that his staff had given a great deal of time and did a
number of studies to some sophisticated planned community type projerts in the
past and made a number of submissions, both officially and unofficially,
during the time of the General Plan hearings, however could not gain either
Planning Commission or City Council approval. Further, that he was not
totally objective to a slight revision in land use concept; however, would
simply like to sell the lots and not have to build any more houses.
Commi-
ssioner Rempel asked
if there would be a way
for the applicant to bring
some
of the country road
pattern concept from the
original planned community
into
this development.
Planning Commision Minutes -15- August 25, 1982
Mr- Scott replied
the t�°y wereaproPosed were 1prb ate streets and took into this, however
tae streets to
on grading and aesthetics. medicated :hat it would have aoments received at
significant impact
Commissioner nempe9 tated that it might be
original concepts
Frank first Proposed, then t Po lot le to use some of the
Williams, Assoc' r „ take the lines of f of that.
e: - : are mated g:.nee_ s
Prcbjem of whetherblth ways base subdivision�ssion stat?ng that
owner however the..c
P lanes are U^2(j or nvt. are pUb11C n:, P., on, i�
aLe and whether common
aPP�icartnand his stated that he would like to be
configurations.1S engineers to discuss some alternative to sit dorm wit
native street e h the
Chairman designs and lot
Comm;ttee King agreed with this idea
should be included in the meet however feJ.t
that the Design Rev'ew
It was the consensus of the Plain
to do an expanded Initial Stud Commission
be arrangea that the applicant
Committee d between the Y as proposed by staff and that be required his discuss streetaPatterns,a d lot o f --y and the a Desig review
# # # # # 'gurations.
DI.RFCTOR °S REPORTS
J. PLANNING COPLvISSION
WORKSHOP
Rick Gomez, City Planner
shop. the workshop. , reviewed the report
and requested a date be selected
It was the consensus of the , _
be held on .3aturday, Sf theerOF��;982 that inB Co
Base Line the Plana
Rancho Cucamonga, , at Lions Pazk Commission Workshop
n8a, California. Community Center, 9161
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Reel
seconded by Barker, unamioiusly cirri =d
7C•$t, Planning CO'=ission Ad:
,.o ad jou: -n.
,,Darned
Tanning commisioa Minutes
-16-
A"gust 25, 1982
submitted, Respectfully
JACK LAIM
Secretary
a
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 8, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Jeff King at 7 p.m. The ieeting was held at the
Lions Park Community building, 916i Base Line Rvad, Rafc410 CuuafilOntsa.
Following the call to order, Chairman King led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David 'arker, Larry McHiel, Herman Rempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward A. Hopson, Assistant Ci-y Attorney; Joan Kruse,
Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Planner, Rick Gomez, stated that there would be a Planning Commission
workshop on Saturday, September 18, 1982 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Lions
Park Community B+:ilding. He reminded the Commission to adjourn this meeting
to the meeting of September 18. Mr. Gomez stated t1-at the Commission had been
provided copies of t:e Ordinance which deals with notification procedures to
be acted upon by the City Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve
the Consent Calendar.
A. *ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -14 - HOfiGAAU_DEN - The
development of a 20,378 square foot building on approximately 1.25 acres
of end in the General Industrial /Rail Served category (Subarea 5),
located east of Cottage Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN 209 - 193 -07.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MM 57U_= MUNAAY
}This project falls within the boundaries of the Redeve'_opnent Area.
planning Commission Minutes - ?- September 8, 1982
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C.
D.
-,. - ' �nniv�n oe-ud - BROTH - A change of
zone from A -7 (Li.mited Agricultural) to ? -1 (Single Family Residential)
for .96 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road
and Ivy Lane - APN 1077 - 071 -01.
- -- Rnu rAiiLBL MAP 7511 - BP.OWNE - A residential
subdivision of .96 acres into 3 lots located on the southwest corner of
Base Line Road and Ivy Lane in the A -1 zone (R -1 pending) - APN 1077_07;_
01.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that these two items would be handled
concurrently.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Planner, requested that the Funning Commission consider
a change to Condition #8 of the Engineer's Report relative to the parcel
man. He indicated that bonding is required in the condition although the curb
and gutter improvements can be deferred until the time of development of these
parcels.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Browne, 265 E. 7th Street, (Upland, the applicant, indicated that when he
spoke with Mr. Rougeau reg3rdi ^.g these parcels they had spoken of a division
of this property into 4 lots rather than the 3 lots being considered
tonight, lie asked the Commission if it would be possible to change this lot
split to 4 at this time.
Mr- Rougeau replied that it would be possible to obtain four legal size lots
if the proposed carport were removed from the property. He indicated that a
lot could be dropped between lots 2 -3 and it might make a more marketable
piece of property.
Commissioner Barker asked if the Engineering Division had stated that this
could be done. R
Mr. Rougeau replied that he advised the applicant that if he is thinking of
further splitting the lots, he should let the Commission know tonight or it
would have to come back to the Commission.
Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that under the circumstances and
given the fact that there is a publication requirement, if it was being
consolidated into two lots, there would be no problem. However, because the
applicant is now requesting that something .more be done which would increase
the density of the parcel there is a requirement to republish this. Mr.
Hopson indicated that the Commission could grant the applicant's request for
Item C, by Item D could not be taken up tonight.
Planning Commission Minutes -2-
September 8, 1982
Chairman King asked, if the applicant desired to, would it be possible for him
to continue item D until it is readvertised for a four lot parcel map.
Mr. Hopson, stated that in theory everyone had been told that this would be a
three parcel split and those people might have said that they have no
objection to a three parcel split but they might have objections to a four
parcel split. Simply by continuing the item tonight, only those people would
be notified of this change who are present at this meeting. Mr. Hopson
indicated that this would have to be readvertised.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the applicant should reduce the lots to 2 of
7200 square feet and come back to the Commission.
Mr. Rougeau stated that it would be cheaper for him to readvertise than it
would be for him to come back.
Mr. Hopson stated that the Commission could take action on item C and no
additional filing fee would be required when the applicant comes back with
Item D.
Commissioner Barker asked Commissioner Rempel if there were advantages and
disadvantages to doing it this way.
Commissioner Fc,mpel replied that there arc none.
a L ^man King stated that assuming Items C and D were approved as i, and then
it is the intention of the applicant to get u lots instead of 3, would a new
application have to be filed.
Mr. Gomez replied that the applicant would have to show the Commission that he
did not wish to have action taken on Item D and that the item would then have
to be readvertised.
chairman Ring asked the applicant if he wished the Commission to take action
on this or readvertise.
Mr. Browne replied that he would like to have Item C approved and that Item D
should be readvertised.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
commissioner Rempel stated that he felt this area eventually would be rezoned
R -7200, like the surrounding area. He indicated that this would just be
bringing the area into compliance with that surrounding it.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, second by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82-85, approving Zone Change 82 -02 and to issue a negative
declaration.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 8, 1982
Chairman King stated that relative to
taken tonight.
applicant wished no
Motion.: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to continue
this item for readaertising and return it to the Commission for action.
subdivision of 1.42 acres into 2 p
Road, approximately 1361 feet west
RGPN - A residential
southeast of Hillside
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.. He indicated
that the 1k±mgng chann crn,t Li
h _v thae ...,..e..f,. �. >„ ^-
Y �Y -� �! ccu LvW`/1O LOLL 0114 ly
drainage taker care of.
Commissioner Barker asked if there is documentation that the community trail
would be on the north side of Hillside. He indicated his concern was centered
on the ability to enter Heritage Park since it is on the south side of
Hillside. Further, that there is no trail on the north side of Hillside at
the present time or access to trails between the proposed lots or beside the
lots. Mr. Barker indicated that there is access on tit south side of houses
at Hillside bvt this subdivision would force everyone to :ide or walk west at
that section, back up and east again. Commissioner Barker asked if sidewalks
will be put in along hillside.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this would be the beginning of sidewalk 5nsi..allation
because none of the surrounding areas have them. Mr. Rougeau stated tt.at it
is the City's policy to put in sidewalks along collector roads wherever
possible although there are none along the park. Y4. Rougeau stated that a
closer look should be talon around the park.
Mr.. Barker stated that he was not sold on sidewalks and there was no provision
for equestrian access. He again stated his concern especially for accesa into
Heritage Park.
Chairman Ring stated that he echoed Commissioner Barker's concern as it
related to equestrian access and sidewalks as they would be relatively
needless in light of what is presently there.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Morgan, the applicant, and Mr. Gary Sanderson, the civil engineer for thiv
project, indicated their willingness to answer any of the Commission's
questions.
Mr. Sanderson stated that this tract, No. 6760, was recorded in 1963 and at
that time curb and gutter improvements were constructed to the frontage of Lot
10. There was no curb or gutter at ;,ot 11. Mr. Sanderson further stated that
10 years later Hillside Road was extended east from a dead end and curb and
gutter improvements were built across subject Lot 11. Mr. Sanderson stated
that the County also put in a 16 -inch pipe that crosses under in the vicinity
Commission Minutes -4- September 8,
of the northeast corner of Lot 11. He indicated that in his opinion the
enlarged slope and drainage easement shown in the 1963 map is no longer
needed.
Mr. Sanderson commented on the Condition requiring sidewalks and street lights
and asked whether they are necessary. Additionally, since this is a septic
tank area, why there is a requirement for sewers.
Ms. Morgan stated that in the title insurance policy for this property an
easement for utilities, pole lines and incidental purposes was recorded. He
further stated that this is a 6 -foot easement and since this is for incidental
purposes, it could be used as an equestrian easement. Mr. Morgan indicated
that he has no intention of fencing this off to limit access and that access
to Heritage Park can be gotten through the drainage easement and culvert to
the east.
Chairman King asked how you get over that culvert.
Commissioner Barker stated that Mr. Morgan is right but he was not sure where
his property ends and Heritage Park begins.
Pt'. Rougeau indicated that the property line shown on the parcel map is the
property line next to Heritage Park and as the applicant indicated, there is a
total of 12 feet of easement; however, it was never for equestrian use.
Further, that the easement is there but a larger one is needed.
Commissioner Barker asked if the park will develop in such a way that access
will be required for the trails at Hillside.
M:'. Morgan asked if the Commission is suggesting that he dedicate an easement.
Commissioner Barker replied that he did not know where the proper place for an
easement would be and if it is practical
Commissioner Barker asked if there is some way to guarantee an easement.
Mr. Rougeau stated that it really has to be tied into the design of the park.
Chairman King stated that it makes more sense that if they are headiug toward
the ravine that they should cress Hillside and take a path to the south side
that takes them to Heritage Park.
Mr. Gomez suggested that this be continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting to allow staff time to work out some way to provide equestrian accesss
to Heritage Park.
Commissioner Hempel stated that it is not logical to continue the equestrian
trail along the north side of Hillside as they go along east of the arroyo.
He indicated that it is also not logical to take the horse trail along the
south side of Hillside west of the lot. He indicated that the only apparently
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 8, ? 982
logical place for the trail would be to cross Hillside at this canyon. He
dicated f`srther that the question to be answered is what type of crossi.rg it
will be.
Commissioner R:mpel commented on the requirement for sidewalks and the policy
which was set by the Commission. He indicated that Hillside is a main
thoroughfare and should have sidewalks on it especially for the children who
must take shcool buses. He indicated that there are several ways of
installing them and that they could be done through 1911 Act proceedings. He
explained the responsibility of the Planning Commission in providing
pedestrians of every age with a safe method of access.
Commissioner Barker stated that he understood Commissioner Rempel's argument
but he was not sure sidewalks should be constructed on the north side of
Hillside.
Commissioner Stout stated that another look should be taken at the horse
trails.
Mr. Hopson stated that another problem had arisen, that of the easement at
Lots 1 and 2 having been granted away in 1961 by the other land owners. PIr.
Hopson stated that the easement had been granted to the utility companies and
that it could not again be granted away for the public use of horse trails.
Mr. Hopson indicated that staff could ask for 10 feet of easement on the south
that would be preserved for equestrian use. llr. Hopson further indicated that
the general public has no legal right to ride horses on the present easement
granted to the utilities on Lots 1 -10.
Commissioner Stout asked if these people had the right to fence off that
easement.
Mr. Hopson replied that the utilities will allow semi- permanent structures if
the property owner agrees to knock them down if access :.s needed by the
utility.
Commissioner Barker asked why the easement had to be expanded from 6 feet to
10 feet.
Mr. Hopson stated that there is nothing magic about the figure, it was
arbitrary.
Commissioner Stout stated he did not feel sidewalks are needed.
�.hairman King stated that it appears that the Coi. mission is dealing with two
issues: One, access for the people living in the subdivision that is already
there, and the other, as it rilates to horse owners who transition to Heritage
Park who live on the north side of Hillside. He asked if the discussion by
the Commission kills these two issues in light of what the City Attorney has
said about the utility easement on the south side of Lot li and Lots 1 -10.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 8, 1982
Co _—issioner Parker stated it was his opinion tk.st it was still an open issue
especially in how to guarantee access to horse owners. He ind c-ated that
there are a number of p- operty owners who do use the easement for accesz.
Commissioner Mc Niel asked if a utility easement exists for Lots 1 -10 and is
currently being used as an equestrian easement.
Mr. Morgan replied that the -e is a 12-foot easement along there. Further,
that he has no objection to a 10 -foot easement that would be a utility
easement.
Mr. Hopson stated that the problem is that Mr. Morgan cannot std anythirg to
the easement that has already been given away by his predecessor 21 years ago.
Further, that there is no legal bundle of rights that Mr. Morgan has left to
give away.
Chairman King stated that regardless of what the Commissi, .'s thoughts are on
the easement, the six-foot utility easement will exist tn,re so the issue will
be how do people get to Heritage Park and how peo;A a to the north will get
there.
Commissioner Stout asked if some type of covenant can be gotten to prevent
people from fencing the six feet of easement.
Nr. Hopson replied that he thought not because it wouldn't stop people from
fencing it in.
Chairman King again asked the applicant if he would have any objection to
continuing this item to look at the equestrian easement and asked the
applicant if there is any urgency that would impede the continuance.
Mr. Morgan repl.iei that the objection to a continuance would be financial
because every da; of postponement costs mere. Further, there is no bearing or,
this item as to whether a crossing should occur on the north side of the
street rather than on the south side of the street. Mr. Morgan suggested that
the City take the flood control channel all the way up to Hillside and fill
the whole gulley.
Mr. Gomez stated that Mr. Morgan had touched a regional issues with traversing
the channel it could be that the Commission condition this parcel map to
provide access per approval of the Trail Committee or other appropriate body
and in chat way this project could move on.
Commissioner Rempel stated that rather than conditioning the parcel map to
provide access, it should state that the parcel map is contingent upon
development insuring that a trail system is continuous. Further, that slating
that the applicant has to provide the trail is the wrong way to say it.
Chairman King closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission :mutes -7- September 8, 1982
Ciairman King asked if there was a reed for further discussion.
Commissioner Harker asked if the sidewalk issue is also being addressed.
Chairman King stated that this obviously is a septic tank area, and that
sidewalks aren't needed in this area and that the Commission should study the
equestrian issue.
Mr. Hopson stated that the only thing that the Commission must concern itself
with is that it take action within 50 days from the filing of the application
on this project in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Further, that if
the applicant asktnd for a continuance, the 50-day time :Limit is negated.
Chairman King stated that this could be continued to the next meeting if the
applicant allows this to be done.
Commissioner Rtmpel stated that the applicant has stated that he would have :a
problem with this. Further, that the easement really cannot be used nor
considered for a trail. Commissi.cner Rempel stated further that the only area
that the Commission can deal with is or. the upper side of the lots and he felt
that the map should be conditioned to provide an easement.
Chairman King stated that he though: he agreed with Commissi ')ner Rempel but
was unsure. He felt that another two weeks would allow time to study the
matter.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be handled between now and the time
the final map comes up.
Chairman King asked if this could be approved and if that aspect can be left
open. further, if it could again come before the Planning Commission. He
indicated that some method of access to Heritage Park must be worked out and
that he would feel more comfortable in delaying this to work it out.
Mr. Hopson stated that this would be all right as long as it was brought back
within two weeks because he would not have to reach the difficult issue of
whether an approval subject t-- the review of the Planning Commissicn is really
a final approval.
Commissioner Harker asked what the advantage would be for the applicant to
rave this apprcved this evening.
Commissioner Rempel stated that if this is properly conditioned the applicant
does what it stated and the map moves on and he would have to complete the
condition before it moves on to the final.
u. Gomez stated that this could be conditioned or brought back within two
weeks. He suggested that the Commission either bring it back or provide a
condition that they feel comfortable with.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- Ser;t;, Ar " 1032
Notion: MD,rtd by Barker, seconded by King, that the reeuiremert for sidewalks
be 7e=oved and that this be contined for : two week period.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved by P.empel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried to adopt Resolution No.
82 -86, approving Parcel ?Yip No. 7646 with the condition that the applicant
meet with staff and the trail committee to insure that equestrian trail system
have continuity through this area. Further, that sidewalks not to required
and that the sewage system be designed per the requirements of the Cucamonga
County Water District.
Mr. Vairin stated that- this should be done prior to the recordation of the
parcel map.
:,nairTan icing voted no on this matter indicating that his opposition has
nothing to do with the parcel map, just that he was not comfortable with the
resolution.
7:50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:10 p Tne Planning Commission reconvened
f i i 3 i
ENVIRONMEX AL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10414 - LANDCO - A proposed
custom lot subdivision of 10 t acres of land in the R- 1- 20,060 zone into
17 lots located south of Carrari, west of Haven Avenue - APN 201- 101 -17.
Michael Vairir, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King stated in terms of the sidewalk issue and street improvements to
the south and i =rovement in the proposed track, that it would seem that the
same issues exist on this tract as the last one. He further stated that it
does not make sense to put sidewalks in front of the lot when the rest of the
street does not have sidewalks and he felt that the Commission should make a
stand one way or the other to require them in both tracts or none.
Ydchael Vairin replied that another alternative would be to go along the east
side because of the lesser number of homes and make a requirement for the
:.nstaliation of sidewalks by each individual homeowner. He indicated that
this could be controlled by virtue of the issuance of building permits.
Ytr. liairin stated that sidekalks are already required on one side or the other
on the southwest side and this issue should be resolved as to whether
sidewalks should continue all the ray to hillside and whether it should be a
requirement of this map o- a statement by the ::)mmisslon that they desire to
ave the con'iruation of the sidewalk on each individual lot as each lot is
developed. Mr. Vairin stated that he did not believe there were any houses on
the east side.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 8, 1982
loner Stout asked why there is a requirement for sidewalks on 20,000
foot lots_
• Raugeau replied that it is the interpretation of the sidewalk resolution
It they be required on one side of the street on collector streets even
thin the equestrian area.
MISsioner Rempel explained that the former Planning Commission had studied
sidewa Jt issue and adopted a resolution requiring sidewalks on streets of
s nature. He indicated that one of the factors that enters into this is
t on north /south streets there will be a fair amount of water vnning in
gutters during ain
L� water. g y periods and th�r an�r� w —K w-L" be at the merev
er. _
indicated that the resolu._an was adopted to provide a safe route so that
ole would not have to walk in the streets.
issicner Barker asked if on the southeast corner of the proposed street
e is a potential pocket for water gathering.
Raugeau replied that it is; however, it goes under the sidewalk and is
a into the gutter.
Barker asked what the pocket goes into.
Raugeau replied that the whole cul-de -sac will drain into the south curb
the street is graded, Fe indicated that while they only have the
Limina='y grading plan, eventually this whole cul- de-sac will drain
Malit' to the west.
Vairin asked if Commissioner Barker was referring to the cul-de -sac rather
i lot 6.
Barker stated that he was originally referri ng to the cul-de -sac and then
C
Vairin stated that the Grading CO=MiLtee has required am equestrian trail
ell as a drainage structure here.
issioner Rempel asked if on the two Lots in question there are any just
w this tract on lets =:0.1 that have no access to the street.
ougeau replied that although it doesn't show on the map, Yivienda Street
all the way to °idgeview and does have offers of dedication. Further,
may be some offers beyond lot 47 but at least before any permits or
visions can Occur there the rest of it will be obtained. He indicated
s e cut- de-sac has been eliminated and an S curve provide
put in to
Minutes -7o- September 8, 1982
Mr. Rougeau stated that lct 42 could be
that happens, Vivienda would have to be
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Don Hornbeck representing the applicant stated
conditions as required and that the improvements to
enough.
that before
that they would accept all
Ridgeview will be tough,
He indicated further that they must improve the gulley all
Hillnide.
Commissioner Rempel stated
one side.
being no further commentsf
Hornbeck that sidewalks are required on
hearing was closed.
Chairman King asked staff if they have any idea about how many homes are
constructed on the east side of the tract below wi:Qre the present development
is.
Mr. Frank Williams, of Associated Engineers, engineer on the project, stated
that the only house that is on Ridgeview directly is the house on the corner
on the east of Hilside. i?e indicated that lot 42 shown on the sketch is
really not there.
Chairman King asked Mr. Williams assuming that he wanted to put his sidewalk
on the east side, would he wish to have the individual lot owner put his own
sidewalk in. He asked what can be done about the house on the corner.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the sidewalk could be installed under an assessment
by the City or through funds that are now available through a state program.
Chairman King asked if it makes sense to take the approach that the City has
suggested or if it makes sense to make improvements along Ridgeview when they
improve it, as it relates to that piece of property.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this was kind of a subjective thing because the
sidewalk represents the same expense whether it's done now or as part of the
tract fee development. He indicated that it becomes a matter of whether to
impose the condition on the developer at this time. He indicated that the
tract above develops will be the major pedestrian flew and while they will be
putting sidewalks in, it will be quite a few years be'ore it will be of full
value.
Commissioner Stout asked what the current understandint is with respect
sidewalks on the cul-de -sac.
Mr. Rougeau stated that he would interpret
the cul-de -sac.
Commission Minutes -11- Se >tember 8,
Chairman King asked if the Commission is in basic agreement that
Should be done on a lot -by -lot tasis. she si
dewalks
The Commission indicated that they would be in agreement with t ^is concept.
Commissioner Rempel asked if the developer Would participate in
reimbursement agreement if the sidewalk was put in. a
11" Rougeau replied that he did not know.
Commissioner Rempel asked if it
agreement. Would be any different than a
storm drain
Kr- Pte:: -' -
geau stated that the requirement for im:•roving the street
width is a drainage requirement more than anytY.�:g else. He ;
the sidewalks were to he tr to the Pill t
reimbursement agreement. that way there would have be a sid that if
greement. io be a sidewalk
Commissioner Rempel stated that ,.— owner of the Property should be
made to do
It and that he would be able to use the 1911 Act.
h1- ^. Hopson state3 that the only t
agreement as such is when a time the City enters into a re'
state statute refers to as tract has provided what reimbursement
is an supplemental capacity. the City's Ordinance and
improve that has been done offsite and • He indicated s
Project to Provide larger storm as not beer that �f there
enter into a reimbursement agreement d�'a�ns or sewers offsite, one for the
Paving of Ride 8 Bement, He indicated that it tbi
common to
to anything andwwouldan from Hi Indicated does not rerovide supplementce se, the
not be appropriate as a smbursement agreement.
Y
Commissioner Rempel stated that he
is concerned. Further, Was not thinking of this as far as
out whatsoever. that there is nothing in the sidewalk that Paving
He felt that sidewalks should come frog the develo helps him
Mr. Rougeau stated that there Pmert fee.
standpoint but he would 'nave to checketooseeoblem from c 1ng
the Systems Development f this aCUldbe handled
paent Fee.
under
The consensus of the P'anny g Commission was that this should be looked
into. The anplicar=t stated that iP the cost of the side
come from the Systems TeYeloPmat Fees, it Would not
Walks Were able to
Motion: affect they at all,
Tract MOVed by gp�el, seconded ga a btiveout, carried unanimously, to adopt
No. 1J�:14 adding the condition that cl sidewalk and
the Systems Development approving Tentative
oPmet fee for that one lot. cost be recovered from
come vb ac testhe Commissioraition cannot bt satisfied, if this item should
Planning Commissior. Minutes
-12_
September 8, 1982
The consensus of the Commission was that if the condition could not be
satisfied, the applicant would not have to put the sidewalk in.
E i f f i
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 82 -16 - WALL - The establishment of an arcade
in the C -1 -5 zone to be located at 9687 Base Lire in the Base Line
Village Shopping Center.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. lie indicated that the
staff report advised that a letter would be forthcoming from the 91ph Beta
C rpor-ation; however, none had been received.
Commissioner Parker asked i° these conditions are identical to those placed on
the other arcade.
Mr. Gomez replied that they are.
Commissioner Rempel asked if' this could be brought backd to the Commission
after six months to be sure that the applicant was conducting his business in
accordance with the parameters of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Gomez replied that thir could be done.
Commissioner Stout asked if there was a requirement for additional restrooms.
Mr. Gomez replied that there are.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ron Walls, 5081 Via Pa_raiso, Alta Loma, stated that the only condition
that he would have a problem with is the requirement for two restrooms. He
further indicated that the Barro's Pizza in the same shopping center has no
such requirement.
Mr. Walls stated that this would create a hardship for him because of the cost
of installing another restroom.
Chairman King asked Mr. {lolls if he had any knowledge of what the waiting time
is going to be for his patrons.
Mr. Walls stated the he did not know_
Commissioner Stout stated that in his letter, the applicant has indicated his
intent of keeping his estab-lishment open until midnight.
Mr. Walls replied that that had been a typographical error and that the
operating hours would be until 9:30 p.m. or Sunday and 10:30 during the week.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 8, 1982
Commissioner Stout asked what hardship
at 10 P.M. it would cause to have the arcade close
Mr. Walls replied that it would be limited and during the week he would have
no qualms about this; however, he indicated that there are some arcades that
operate 24 hours a day,
Commissioner Stout stated that his concern is that this arcade will operate in
a neighborhood commercial area.
Mr. walls stated that he would not be opposed to those hours during he week;
however, the other businesses within the shonein, ,..,..t__ g
m = ^nia t. �. operate until
Commissioner Stout replied that the other uses are not as intensive as the
arcade.
Mr. ;lolls stated that the closest residential building at the north corner is
20C feet. H2 indicated that the other- residence is a single family house
which operates as a business.
Commissioner Hempel stated that there is a family living thPpe.
K-. walls stated that he would work out any problems and did not wish to be
penalized by limiting hours on Saturday night when business is best.
Commissioner Stout asked what the Commission had done in setting hours at -the
other arcade and whether the hours were limited to curfew.
Mr. Gomez replied that the hours were set in accordance to the curfew.
Commissioner Barker asked about the due process statement regarding minors
indicating that the proper authorities would be called.
hoped this would be as judiciously done. He stated that he
Mr. walls replied that they would do the same thing that the police department
does. A parent would be contacted and he felt confident that the matter would
be taken care of. However, if the problem could not be solved, the police
would be contacted,
Commissioner McNiel asked what Mr. !lolls' experience with arcades has been
Prior to this and indicated that JJ's might be able to help him.
Mr. Walls replied that he has spoken with the owner of JJ's.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
loc�a esxithinSa neighborhood that his feeling is that if the applicant wishes to
commercial shopping center where less intensive
uses are encouraged, the applicant should be required to close at 10 p.m.
Planning Co+smission Minutes _1p_
SepLember 8, 19 62
Further, that one reason the City has conditional use permits is to protect
the citizenry and this should be encouraged.
Commissioner Barker asked if 10 p.m, closing would be required every night.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that with respect to the bathrooms, the applicant
has stated that it would be a hardship; however, it is his feeling that the
bathroom facilities in that particular shopping center are inadequate and
since the patrons will be spending more time in his facility than they would
in other places, the requirement should stand.
Commissioner f??T el s ±ated th °t ce the applicant is talking about having a
family night at the arcades, it would be necessary to have double restroom
facilities. Further, that what Commissioner Mc Niel stated in this facility
attracting more teenagers will create more traffic within the shopping center
and this center already has congested parking. Commissioner Rempel stated
that the staff recommedation that anyone under 18 years of age must be
accompanied by an adult should be strongly emphasized and no school age
children be allowed entrance even if accompanied by an adult during school
hours must be enforced.
Motion: Moved by i1cNiel, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -88, for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit 82 -16 with
the establishment of an 11 p.m. curfew.
f f f i f
H. CONDITION;,. USE PERMIT 82 -17 - CHAFFEY COLLEGE - The establishment of a:i
8,518 square foot vocational trade school for the handicapped in thr
General Industrial category to be located at 9375 9th Street and 8732
Helms Avenue - APN 209- 031 -56.
Girt Johnston, ,Jssistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King asked what guarantee there is that students will be bused to and
from the facility.
Mr. Johnston_ read the condition restricting students driving vehicles and
indicated that Chaffey College will be operating mini -buses to the facility
and also use dial -a -ride. Further, that all students will be arriving and
leaving the facility at the same time.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Chairman iii ^_g asked those i= the audience iz favor of this conditional use
permit to show their approval. Approximately 7 people in the audience rose,
There were no individuals in opposition.
Planning Comen+aQi::n Minutes -15- September 8, 1982
Dr. Harris, staff member of Chaffey College, indicated that he would answer
any questions the Commissic n might have.
Commissioner Stout asked if he should interpret Condition No. 1 under the
Planning Division to mean that no student", will be allowed to drive their own
vehicles to and from the facility whether they are able to or not.
It'. Harris indicated that no students will be allowed to drive.
Commissioner Stout asked if there would be any problem if that condition_ were
reworded to say that specifically.
Mr. Harris stated that this would not be a problem.
fiction: Moved by Stout, seconded by F.empel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82-89, with an awndment to Condition No. 1 under the Planning
Division to restrict student parking on the site.
s ■ • * t
I. ENVIROVENTAL ASSESSI4ENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 82-04 -- An
amendment to Section 61.0219(h)(2)(B) to provide for encroachment of
structures into the required rear yard, subject to not exceeding a
certain percentage coverage of the rear yard area.
Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Rempel asked if the proposed Ordinance means that accessory
buildings and additions should not exceed 18 feet or one story in height, and
if that meant 18 feet on top of the one story.
Ar. Vairin replied that was not what is meant. What is meant that one story
should not be more than 18 feet in height.
Commissioner Stout asked if in areas where you have equestrian easements in
the back does the back yard setback apply to the rear property lin-- and would
you be able to put in a structure right up to the easement.
Mr. Vairin replied that you would be able to do so.
Commissioner Harker asked if this is for new construction as well as those
individuals making additions to their property.
Mr. Vairin replied that it is.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 8, 1982
Commissioner Hempel stated that under certain conditions the one story limit
is not good. He indicated that if you have a two story house and you are
adding on and it is way back from the lot line. you will encroach a little and
the requirement that it will have to be one story should not b.. a limitation
on that type of addition.
Commissioner Hempel felt that the maximum height be limited to 18 feet but the
only way that some people can add would be to go to two stories.
Commissioner Hempel stated that in the rear yari setback, three feet is
getting much too close. He felt that the setback, should be no less than five
feet.
on the side yard setback Commissioner Hempel felt that the three -foot setback
stipulation for main buildings should be the same for additions.
Chairman Ring stated that he is diametrically opposed to what Commissioner
Hempel said. He felt that it is imperative that the Commission limit
additions to one story only rather than allowing a two story addition.
Chairman Ring stated his feeling that a one story addition tended to bring
everything together and would ensure the feeling of openness whereas the
feeling of openness would be destroyed if two story additions were allowed.
Commissioner Hempel stated that any new houses must and can be brought up to
Development Review but there are some types of homes, for example, cape cods,
that architecturally lend themselves better to two story additions.
Mr. Vairin explained the reasons that 'Limitations were not put down ir_ two
story additions speaking of fairness to the individual. Mr. Vairin stated
that the problem usually arises when a person is putting in an addition and
also a second story at the same time_
Mr. Vairin stated in reply to the two setbacks that staff could not see why an
accessory building could have a three foot setback and an addition could not.
Commissioner Harker stated that he could see why there would be limitations if
a person is adding an auxiliary building for bay, etc., which would be taller
than a standard one story building. He further indicated he understood
Chairman King's concern where with a two story addition peoples views have
been cut off by too much height, especially on a hillside building.
Commissioner Barker stated that he is not sure whether he would want it to go
any higher than 18 feet.
Commissioner Stout stated that he has a problem with restrictions on two story
buildings the same as Commissioner Hempel does. He indicated that he does not
know whether it would make much difference if a two story home already exists.
Commissioner McNiel stated his agreement with Commissioners Stout and
Hempel. He stated further that as long as continuity exists with the
structure, it would be unfair to limit additions to one story.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 8, 1982
Mr. Vai_rin stated that if the Commission is saying that it will be all right
to build a two story structure further back in the back vards, then it is no .
longer an exception and the rear yard setback might as well be changed in the
zone. He indicated that what this is is an exception to the zone. He further
indicated what this is is a change to the rear yard setback in allowing a
portion of the rear yard to be used.
Commissioner Stour, stated that perhaps accessory buildings could be separated
from additions. He stated that he has no problem with making accessory
building only one story tali, but he did not feel that it is necessary to
limit additions on existing two story houses to one story.
Commissioner Barker asked if they would be advocating the addition of a two
story building on one story.
Commissioners Rempel and Stout replied that they are not saying that.
Commissioner Rempel stated that what he meant is that the wav this is written
you can have an 18 foot addition and by adding two feet, he can have a two
story house. Further that the way this is written is that a person can put in
an 18 -foot addition whit: is almost as tall as a two story structure but that
he can't put two stories in.
Chairman King felt that perhaps it would be better if this item were brought
back at the time of the develoomert code.
Mr. VaIrin stated that in light of Commissioner Rempel's comments, staff would
like to look into this further and bring this back to the Commission.
Commissioner Barker stated that what he is hearing is that if there is a two
story building, you should have a two story addition.
Commissioner Rempel stated that was not what he is saying.
Commissinoer Stout stated that the two issues should be separated.
Commissioner Barker stated he was not sure that the maximum height should go
to 18 feet.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to see this item brought back to
him in about two weeks.
Mr. Vairin stated that in reference to Commissioner Rempel's statement and the
7200 square foot addition, if there is a two story structure and if the
addition is designed to be two story, should it be brought back to the rear
setback lire.
Following brief discussion, it was moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried
unanimously to continue this for two weeks.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 8, 1982
t t t t t
J. HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
9:25 p.m. Chairman King and Commissioner Barker stepped down.
Vice Chairman Rempel conducted this portion of the meeting.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Gomez' specific concerns have been addressed
in the guidelines.
Mr. Gomez replied that he had received some today and they were being adressed
through specifications within the document.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -90 approving the Haven Avenue Median Design Guidelines.
9:28 p -m. Chairman King and Commissioner Barker returned to the table.
4 t 4 t t
K. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King stated that Thursday evenings would be a good time for the
hearings.
Mr. Beedle stated that the process will be looked upon as an educational
process.
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Beedle if he has any feel for the amount of
community participation that will take place.
Mr. Beedle replied that there has been a lot of participation thus far through
the dozen or so meetings that have been held. He indicated that all have been
well attended and some have been o: the tcwn hall type.
Chairman King stated that a lot of thought has gone into the Interim Zoning
O- dinance and when the Commission comes back in two weeks, he hoped that the
Commission could have a fairly thorough presentation as to the proposed
amendment to the section..
Commissioner Rempel stated that with regard to the item on Haver. Avenue Median
Design, he wished to have a letter sent to the Women's Club thanking them for
their input.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 8, 1982
Commissioner Barker stated that from the comments made by both Commissioner
Rempel and Chairman King, he would second the request that the presentation
on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment be thorough. so that they might understand
the issues that have taker place in The past.
Commissioner Stout stated that judging from the correspondence on the Chaffey
College Skills Center, he felt that this should be brought back to the
Commission for review.
Mr. Gomez replied that staff is currently working with Chaffey College to find
a solution to the problems and what action to take, if any. He indicated that
if what staff is doing now does not work, it will be brought back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see this on the agenda.
Councilmember, Jim F, -ost, addressed the Commission stating that the lease on
this building probably runs from 3 -5 years; however, the program itself is
probably categorically Punded and will change. He indicated that once the
Commission has made a commitment, they will be hard pressed to tighten the
standards later on. He indicated that Commissioner Stout's concern should be
addressed.
Chairman icing stated that if everyone wants to bring it back, that is fine.
Commissioner Stout stated that his feeling is that the c-10° will not work if
the Commission does not review it and let them know that they mean business.
The consensus of the Commissior. was that this item be brought back for their
review at the first meeting in November.
iF i f • iF
Motion: moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn
i.v September 18, 1982.
9:45 p.m. The Punning Commission adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 8, 1982
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS
The division of 5 acres of land into 4 lots within the
R -1 Zone located approximately 660 feet north of Base
Lane and 660 feet west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29
This parcel map has been continued from the meeting of September 22, 1982,
due to the delays in the Developer's surveying and design work- It is accord-
ingly recommended that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of
November 10, 1982.
fully submitted,
LBH fPA- jaa
ITEM A
L]
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
GATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Memtars of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez., City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 - ZWISSLER - The establishment
of 13,232 square feet of professional offices in existing
buildings and the continuance of a preschool use in an
existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the
General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald
Avenue - APN 209 - 171 -15.
BACKGROUND: On September 22, 1982, the Planning Commission continued
this` m to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans for expan-
sion of the preschool. The Applicant is requesting approval of a
preschool for 134 children, which is the maximum number licensed by
the State for the existing 5,644 square foot building. Therefore,
the Applicant proposes to expand the existing parking lot to provide
91 total parking spaces_to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements
(Exhibit "B "). The new parking lot design will improve circulation
by providing a separate parking area for the preschool. Further,
staff has worked with the Applicant to resolve questions concerning
landscaping requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct
a full public hearing to consider all material and in^ut relative to
this project. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided
for your review and consideration.
submitted,
kICK GOMEZ
City Planner
RG: DC: jr
0 l Attachments
ITEM 8
C
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 22, 1982
o cvc�ms °`tG.
r
L WV
Z U 5
I9i. 1
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 - ZWISSLER - The establishment
of 13,232 square feet of professional offices in existing
buildings and the continuance of a preschool use in an
existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the
General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue
- APN 209 - 171 -15.
PRCJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Bruce Zwissler,is seeking
approval-of approval-of a Conditiora Use Permit to establish a garden office complex
and preschool at 8958 Archibald Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The property was
formerly the Willows School, hence, the preschool would be a continuance
of a prior use. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of the
following related uses as shown on Exhibit "C ": (1) Administrative and
Office; (2) Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services; (3) Personal
Services (includes prescnools); and (4) Professional Services.
The project site is located on the west side of Archibald, north of the
Rancho Industrial Park which contains commercial /industrial units it front
and mini - storage in the rear. The project site is 4.39 acres, with
approximately 2 acres undeveloped. To the north and east are single
family residences zoned for General Industrial. To the west is property
used for outdoor storage and zoned for General Industrial uses.
Four buildings are available for the garden office complex as shown on the
Site Plan, Exhibit "B ". In addition, a new 5,644 square foot building is
available for preschool use. An improved outdoor recreation area will be
provided adjacent to the building in accordance with State requirements.
Also, 74 parking stalls will be provided. The previous property owner
posted bonds which will be used for street improvements including
reconstruction of the drive ap,roach to City standards, street lights, and
street trees.
ITEM C
\J
V.quaa VDu rta� I1. ac
Planning Commission Agenda
Septem5er 22, 1982
Page 2
ANALYSIS: The Industrial Specific Plan allows the uses requested svb„3ct
to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The parking requirement for the
o`f ;es is one space per 250 square feet of floor area, which would mean a
total of 53 parking spaces. Therefore, twenty -one parking spaces would be
available for the preschool use. Preschools require one space per
employee /teacher plus one space for each five chiidr,�n. Therefore, the
preschool could ha-;2 up to 72 children based upon parking requirements.
The preschool is iocate8 il,; a building located separate from the garden
office complex, and angle Narking is available. The play areas and
preschool parking are separated from the circulation and parking area of
the office building. Furthe>-, the proposed offices and preschool would be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon a review of the information provided by the
applicant and the site, the proposed garden office complex and preschool
are consistent with the General Ple the Industrial Specific Plan and
applicable Zoning Ordinance provis.ans. The size of the buildings,
playground, and parking lot will adequately service the office and
preschool uses. The proposed uses would ':e compatible with the exist ' ing
Currounding land uses with the adoption of the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
CORRESPONDENCE: A pualic hearing notice was advertised in The Daily
.eport nedspaper on September 10, 1982. In addition, approzimateiy
twenty -five public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300
fee*_ of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received
either for or against this project.
RECOWENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all input and materia' relative to this project. A Resolution of Approval
with Conditions is provided for your review and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
e6�
RICK GOMEZ
City Planner
RG:DC:jr
Attachment,: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "�" - Project Description
Resolution of Approval
Co>ditions
CITY OF
P%-X\CHO CUCANLv,IO C=A
RA INNING DIN ISiON
15 �
tiOKFH
T ITLE- V'
EXHIBIT=-.CA-.--SCALE: J
Ll
0
c
�
�'•> .., a zaA aL
LL.i<.VL vYLJ1 �.•.K
�.� A.[
tm ai�•a
Jl`YA41
\
S.
`�— 2 ACRFS -- IINDLVL<aDFD - -�
1
�I x AOD'c AVMw�
TALCS ,l i '!wYGRau.r:
T.YS <OT 1 ZOVLJ XJ T lTf.•P' TO A�
G(ACPAL /M6rSTXVK w .: � Jf <S`L !f
z ara[✓ro w� o —'
.11/4 !]XAGF TYL W� \
.. ;��`lP � .
3'f r `{ <
.w r
IvvN7 LN1C5 =>•CA t'4 E �.` � � -a. +t. -`./`
/j /fAIDrE F>:ST A.L.
ova uIA acc I % \g_. - I'O 1••{ "r, � \\
'��. a.n -,.c _..cDr+cs ks-a: "'- a"�i�r ^'�= � LO, •--I . \.
1 �- is -: \
!1` H.N,LD 4.G. A ?EAS 1 j^✓ V A .
r �.1 J •
l"r �.i.rAW 4aT O.Tr.MaO
CITY OF
RA\-CHI► CUCALNIONGA
FL.AY"NLNG DIVISUN
A
re
i -
i
JI1
I
1
1<v! <OrIi LOUL:.
ilr[DA� .rWaT3 vN�
� n :,a.rt��rlc A•j
yraDY� re 3.NV:LL
/.1Vrv..n arc oa uvrwc
eu.ae.YS!- co. rc>rr rlpvr
sour veer lnuc+•_>•z
ro d ac colxcr.
Lary .cowl
ter!➢ a3..•lraccrn Ar
Arse AS o++ LAra ^•..art
MtiYCDn � c.rri fA+alLA 1
Tbrx alu on urtr LcD's: tlb,�i
•R-4 rAlrAli f1AJf rEVV.oCDf� i
A.L R.u•1.nL ARGf 'ro ?[ +urC`a�-..�
f0 rr/N .W AJ•LrM+Y. Hl <�.a'npv
L2 fwtD L: 1G 3J 1'9
wr>V. .<tvnr'Y v3aY
ITEM: C�-)19 PJ 2 -( 6
TITLE- f5fM
EXHIBIT: SGNLE-
A
h
O
�.� A.[
tm ai�•a
r �.1 J •
l"r �.i.rAW 4aT O.Tr.MaO
CITY OF
RA\-CHI► CUCALNIONGA
FL.AY"NLNG DIVISUN
A
re
i -
i
JI1
I
1
1<v! <OrIi LOUL:.
ilr[DA� .rWaT3 vN�
� n :,a.rt��rlc A•j
yraDY� re 3.NV:LL
/.1Vrv..n arc oa uvrwc
eu.ae.YS!- co. rc>rr rlpvr
sour veer lnuc+•_>•z
ro d ac colxcr.
Lary .cowl
ter!➢ a3..•lraccrn Ar
Arse AS o++ LAra ^•..art
MtiYCDn � c.rri fA+alLA 1
Tbrx alu on urtr LcD's: tlb,�i
•R-4 rAlrAli f1AJf rEVV.oCDf� i
A.L R.u•1.nL ARGf 'ro ?[ +urC`a�-..�
f0 rr/N .W AJ•LrM+Y. Hl <�.a'npv
L2 fwtD L: 1G 3J 1'9
wr>V. .<tvnr'Y v3aY
ITEM: C�-)19 PJ 2 -( 6
TITLE- f5fM
EXHIBIT: SGNLE-
A
h
O
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
O
T_. Property Description
The land is 4.39+ acres of property, measuring
317.9+ feet wide.by 601.4+ feet deep, on the West side
Of Archibald Avenue, nortfi of Seventh Street, south. of
Eight Street. The improvements are 18,876+ square feet
of building space and 51,780+ square feet of paved
Parking area. Tine legal description is Exhibit "A"
herein.
II. Property History
The facility was a public school for over forty
years. It was originally constructed in 1917, and
buildings were added on for a period of thirty years.
The school was closed in 1958.
Barbara Salyer and Simone Payne purchased the pro-
perty in 1978. After completing an extensive renovation
Project, they operated the Willows School until November,
1981.'
Gordon A. Zwissler and Helen. T. Zwissler, local
residents, purchased the property in July, 1982.
III. Property Proposed Use
The Zwisslers desire to convert the majoritv of the
improvements ;approximately 13,232 square feet) into a
garden office complex, while maintaining the currently
allowable use of the 5,644 square foot rear building as
a preschool /day -care facility.
As the property.is situated in Sub -area 4 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, "e Permitted Uses to which the property might
be out by lessees are as follows:
1) Custom Manufacturing
2) Business Supply Retail and Services
3) Business Support Services
4) Communication Services
5) Eating and Drinking Establishments
6) Medical /Health Care Services
7) Administrative Civic Services
The Conditionally Permitted Uses to which the property
might be put by lessees, and for which we are hereby ap-
plying, are as follows:
1) Administrative and Office ,
2) Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
3) Personal Services
4) Professional Services
0
11
0 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNI:' iG COF4MISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -19 FOR GARDEN
OFFICES AND PRESCROOL GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8968 ARCHIBALD
IN TFE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of September, 1982, a complete application
was filed by Bruce Zwissler for review of the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described
project.
follows:
NO'W, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucam nga Planning Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety. or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use will comply wit:: each of the
applicable provisions of the Zonis :Jrdinance.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impact_ on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on October 13, 1982.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permi: No. 82-19 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plans on file in the Planning Division
and conditions contained herein.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all
other applicable Ci 'y Ordinances.
3. Any signs proposed for this conditional use permit
® shall be designed in conformance with the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require
review and approval by the Planning Division prior
to installation of such signs.
Resolution No.
Page 2
4. All laws and regulations of the State Department of
Social Services relating to licensing of children's
day care facilities shall be complied with prior to
opening of the school.
5. Fxpansior_ of the preschool beyond 134 children will
require the approval of a modified Conditional Use
Permit.
I
. Future development of the remainder of the property
will require appropriate City review a-nd approval.
7. I£ the operation of this school causes adverse
affects upon adjacent properties, the Conditional
Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for their consideration and possible
termination of such use.
8. Operation of the preschool and kindergarten shall
not commence until such time as all Uniform Building
Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall's
Regulations have been complied with. Plans shall be
submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District
and the Building and Safety Division to show
compliance. The building shall be inspected for
compliance prior to occupancy.
g. The parking lct shall be provided with double-
striped parking spaces, and directional arrows and
directional signs to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. Details shall be submittec to the Planning
Division to ensure safe interior circulation.
70. A revised site plan indicating the location of the
preschool playground shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to occupancy.
11. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be
submitted to and app -oved by the Planning Division
prior to occupancy.
12. Street trees, a minimum of 15- gallon size or larger
shall be installed au average of every 20' along the
entire Archibald Aven,_ frontage.
13. Landscaping, including trees and shrubs shall be
provided around the playground perimeter, and in the
new parking lot area.
E
0
Resolution ho.
Page 3
ENGINTEERLAG DIVISION
14. Developer shall install drive approach to City
Standards.
15. A street light shall be ir_rtalled on Archibald
Avenue, locati.or to be determined by City Engineer
and Southern California Edison Company.
16. The street plans for Archibald Avenue shall be
revised to conform with the approved site plan.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCP.M014GA
BY :
Jeffrey King, 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 an�
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 13th day of October, _1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: 1-01- ZUSSIONERS: }
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: •
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ;
vim, .
r
11
�J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
a
DATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -15 - MA.NNELLA - A request to
relocate the previously approved arcade location from
5652 Carnelian to 6642 and 6646 Carnelian in the Rancho
Plaza Shopping Center.
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 1982, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit 82 -15 for an arcade to be located at 6652
Carnelian. The Conditions of Approval require separate public
restrooms for men and women, which would require construction of
a second restroom at the approved location. The attached letter
from the Applicant, Joseph Mannella, requests that the existing
CUP approval be transferred to two adjacent units: 6642 and 6646
Carnelian, Exhibit "F ". These two units each have a restroom;
therefore, the Applicant would not have to construct a new rest -
room. Copies of the August 25, 1982 Staff Report and Conditions
of Approval are attached for your review and consideration.
1377
ANALYSIS: in approving CUP 82 -15, the Planning Commission made
a f'ndiFg that the arcade was compatible with surrounding businesses
and residences. The proposed relocation would not change the compat-
ibility of the arcade. Further, the Conditions of Approval are
standard conditions used for all arcades; therefore, the proposed
relocation would meet the intent of the original approval, with the
exceptions listed below.
The new floor plan, Exhibit "E ", would increase the arcade floor
area to 2,1)0 square feet (600 square feet greater than previously
approved). This could result in more machines in accordance with
Condition of Approval #8, which restricts the maximum number of
machines by minimum spacing requirements. The Applicant intends
to start with 20 .machines, as previously approved. The potential
A
ncrease in machines requires modii.cation to Condition of Approval
#9 to address the future need for additional bicycle racks as follows:
ITEM C
Conditional Use Permit 82- 15 /Mannella
Planning Commission Agenda
October 13, 1982
Page 2
9. Two parking stalls adjacent to the arcade
shall be striped and designated for "bicycle
only" parking and provided with security
bicycle racks to the satisfaction of the
City Planner prier to occupancy. Additional
bicycle racks may be required as the number
of machines increases, to be determined by
the City Planner
FACTS FOR FINDING: The Applicant's request is not a significant change
to the existing arcade approval. Therefore, the same findings F:eviously
could be made that the proposed use, together with Conditions of Approval,
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity,
and that the arcade is compatible with surrounding businesses and
residences.
CORRESPONDENCE: This project has been advertised as a public hearing
and all tenants within the shopping center, as well as property owners
within 300 feet have beer notified of such hearing. No correspondence,
either for or against this project, has been received to date.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
and consider a l material and input regarding this item. Resolution
82- 83A,amending Resolution of Approval 82 -83,is provided for your con-
sideration.
Resgectfully submitted,
CK AOMEZ
ty Planner
DC:jr
Attachments: Letter from Applicant
Staff Report of August 25, 1982
Resolution 82 -83A
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Floor Plan
Exhibit "F" - Site Plan
E
�! \7
6✓e- �• "/� .6e
l v, -// .YO %
C�PN. T. "r ✓G
%% e- _ o�77, ,oeoo.✓
1�c�gv.�e�ne -✓T SST 61
RTi�� / %c � .s � i✓�� �v �/a a 2
��.s.✓ x`02 GG ya �! G� yc'.
�z�s
oy�P�z1T •✓
C
DATE: August 25, 1982
CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -15 - MANNELLA - The estab ?ishsent
of an arcade in the C -1 zone to be located at 6652 Carnelian
in the Ranchc Plaza Shopping Center.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a 1,500 square
ooh t video game arcade at 6652 Carnelian. The applicant, Joseph
Mannella, is the owner /operator of the existing JJ's Arcade located
on Foothill Boulevard. Attached as Exhibit "D" is a description of
the proposed arcade operation. The applicant intends to start with
twenty (20) machines and expand per demand. The arcade is proposed
to be located in the middle of the shopping center, as shown on the
Site Plan, Exhibit "B ". The site is zoned C -1 (Neighborhood Commer-
cial) and contains a Bob's Big Boy Restaurant, the Boars Head, a bank,
and retail /office uses.
ANALYSIS: TLe recent denial of the Family Game Arcade in the Alta Loma
Country Center was based upon the proposed location being contiguous
to Alta Loma High School and adjacent alleyways. Primarily the �omnission
in this case expressed concern with loitering and enforcement problens
this close to the high school. This proposed arcade at 6652 Carnelian
is approximately 1,000 feet from the Jasper Elementary School. The
applicant's proposal would not allow anyone under 18 years of age in
until 2:00 p.m. during school session.. However, staff recommends that
the arcade be restricted to non - school hours to prohibit truancy. The
arcade will occupy a unit in the middle of a retail shop building and
will not be adjacent to alleyways.
Attached is a memorandum from the Sheriff's Department listing their
concerns and a memorandum with the staff's response. The most significant
question in this case is the compatability of the proposed arcade with
the surrounding businesses. There is a possibility of conflict between
the Boars Head customers and arcade clientele in the parking lot areas,
especially on Friday and Saturday nights. The applicant intends to
provide interior seating areas, bathrooms, and vending machines to
discourage outside loitering.
ITEM E
I]
Ll
E
L
Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -1C, - M NNELLA
Staff Report
August 25, 1982
FACTS FOR r- INDING: The major .finding the Commission is required to
make prior to granting any Conditional Use Permit for an arcade is
that the proposed use, together with the conditions of approval,
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to 'the property or improvements in the vicinity.
In addition to this finding, the Commission is required to consider 'the
criteria established by Ordinance 174, regulating arcade uses. Based
upon the input and material that has been received thus far, it would
appear that this use would not cause a public health nuisance or be
materially injurious to property in the vicinity. The use could be
compatible with the existing development with the adoption of the
recommended conditions of approval.
CORRESPONDENCE: This project has been advertised as a public hearing
and all tenants within the shopping center, as well as property owners
within 300 feet, have been notified of such hearing. In addition,
the Sheriff's Department_, Fire District, and the principal of Jasper
Elementary School were notified of the application for an arcade.
Staff received a phone call from a nearby homeowner expressing concern
that the arcade would compound the existing problems associated with
the Boars Head.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all input and material in regard to this item. A Resolution with
Conditions of Approval is attached for your review and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
RG: DC: kap
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location. Map
Exhibit "F" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Description of Project
Memo from S'heriff's Department
Staff Memorandum dated August 12, 1982
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
F
El
r
U
Q
Y
ti
T
crcrrH
l
i
w
7 - -.7 - _ - .rTl.
rn 1 ,vs ioc r `r jut ..
� 3 -
h cz�:D 3 1 p'I` Al
s�
r;
I
• .�4 C
9 Al _(
i
I
'ZS 6 Now
# i �
r
;
7 C. GL
Till
I ±�
i
i V-
x'N l Ptl i ` CP '
J.
�J
e
�I
r
1
.
-
•
# i �
r
;
7 C. GL
Till
I ±�
i
i V-
x'N l Ptl i ` CP '
Ilk.
�nb�E i
i lnw�� tbiiC
I _ _
' � U
II ipb�` 1 \
h` 1
�1
.I
V
g,40 X--
:J
I s
j
11
E
JJ'S ARCADE OPERATIOtiS
qpVIDEO GAMES
PAS MAO'
IRON
MS. PAC MAN
PHOENIX
DIG DUG
STARGATE
KANGEROO
CE.NTIPED:
DONKEY KONG
DEFENDER
TURBO
TEMPEST
ROBOTRON
FROGGER
GALA3A
THE PIT
POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTIONS CN ABOVE LIST.
NEW GAMES AT2E MARKETED RZERYWEEK OR TWO.
STORE HOURS
MONDAY
T v2SDAY
WEDNESDA
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUXDAY
LOAM — lOPM
1OAM — 1OPM
ElOAH — ? OPM
1OAM — IOPM
1OAM — 3IPM
10AM — iiYM
?_ OAM — 9PH
—NO ONE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE ALLOWED IN UNTIL 2PM DURIIG SCHOOL
FOOD SERVICE
COKE mAcil- -NE
C,)NWIJ r'T A., . *HINE
SVPER71 SIOM
1 (ONE) SUPERVISOR ON DUTY AT ALL TIV S.
CHANGE MACHIXE TO P?3CVIDE SUPERYISOR WITH MORE TIME FOR
MORE IMPORTANT THINGS.
OUTSIDE CHECK EVERY HALF HOUR AFTER DARK.
BIKE PACK
BIKE RACK PROVIDED TO KEEP BIKES OFF SIDEWALKS,
AND TO PREVENT THLYZ.
NO ONE ALLOWED INSIDE WITH THEIR BIKE ON SIDEWALK.
USE OF OUR PROPsE (AT NO CHARGE) TO CALL HOME FOR RIDES ETC.
NO S:K)KEING N0 LAUD CR OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE
u•. JJ'S ARCADE OVER S (TWO) YEARS EXP:._''ENCE
f D )
yCc
r
4
�j tz
r/
` Gl1ro�
c 6 yc ell G yz
CITY OF FEM: C NP
R.k \CFIO CUCkNIONGA rrFU:
PL A NNNING DiVLgO \T EXHiF . -P�_ SCkLE=
k I ER- OFFICE M EC
DATE August 9, 1982
FROM 11. K. Bishman, Lieutenant PHONE
Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station
CITY O.F ,R' Nf,'0 C! CAP
TO Dan Colman, Associate Piamner C.00 !Ur <!TY GEVEiGKI NT
City of Rancho Cucamonga
AUG 11 19 82
SUBJECT JJ's Arcade
IL
74
i
The present JJ's Arcade, which is located on Foothill Boulevard,
has not been a police problem. However, a few items have been
brought to my attent;'on as to the second arcade, to be located
in the Rancho Plaza Shopping Center.
1. How is the adult mzr_agei of the arcade going to
assure that no one =de-- 18 years of age enters
the arcade prior to 2:00 p.m. during school
hours?
2. there is someone under the age ei 18 in the
arcade during school hours, will there be a
City Ordinance that the arcade manager can be
cited?
3. Will there be any conflict betceen the Boars
Head customers and the arcade custcmert! due to
the age differences, especially on Fric:._v and
Saturday nights?
4. Where will the bike rack be located?
S. Will there be any noise problem for the surroui, ding
neighborhood?
I you have any questions in this regard, please feel free
to contact me.
'M: jec
M7.000 w.. im
CITY OF RANCHO CUC NTIO GA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 12, 1:82
1
TO: Lieutenant M.K_ 3ishman, -Rancho Cucamonga Sneriff's Staticn
rn0i5: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
,'I"I,, : "."TTTna :" "'' r n Tr
JUUUGLI L1U_,,_N _ USE rGN'fl1 On —iJ
— UV 3 nnLnJL
?hank yo +e 'or your resoonse concerning *he above - described ).Ojact.
i
The Planning Div4 Sion shares the concerns outlined in your nerio of
August 9, 1982, and would offer the following co:rnents.
I
question 1: The arcade premises would be require-d to be posted.
The adult supervisor wouid enforce the "under 18" limit in the
f
same fashion as ;aercnants selling alcoholic beverages or cigarettes -
by "carding" suspected minors. in addition, staff is reccM.Mnding
i
that the arcade not be perr'tted in- be open during school hours.
i
question 2: A violation of the Conditions of ppBrcval, Section
s
01.07_i of of the Zoning Ordinance causes the suspension of the
CUP ap,prcval by the City. The Planning Commission may reveke the
CUP ?pprovzi (and require the arcade to close) or take such action
deemed necessary to correct tie violation.
1
Juesticn 3: There is a possibility of conflict between Boars
j
Head customer: and arcade patrons. The arcade will have interior
seating areas to discourage loitering.
Question. 4: Most likely, the bike racks would be placed at the
edge of the sidewalk in such a manner as to not obstruct pedestrian
access. An alternate arrangement to be considered is to re- stripe
a parking stall in front of t':e arcade and place a bike rack in t'n,
stall.
I
Question 5: -re arcade urist provide sound attenuation so that
noise is not noticeabie_
If you should have any further con:nents or suggestions, please do
not Iesitate to contact me at (714) 989 -1n51.
DC: i r
irl
13
i�
I
lei
t .v G� �I
ITT _
1 '
�l t
Alt—
In
I
`JI
ON
wo
b:
y r
~9 i - j i -- /� j �►+��
J
I 3i -cl 57
?,1 i
'1S SIL. P/
zl j
h i ,
f Q
�I J
Ll
a -i
N; I
i
�1! I
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -83A
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -35 FOR AN ARCADE
LOCATED AT F542 AND 6646 CARNELIAN IN THE C -1 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 25th day of August, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 82 -83, approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 82 -15; and
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the applicants request
to ci.arge the address from the original 'approval granted' by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and found
it necessary to modify the Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission that Section 2, Condition No. 9, of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 82 -83 be amenrred to read as follows:
9. Two parking stalls adjacent to the Arcade shall be
striped and designated for "bicycle only" parking
and provided with security bicycle racks to the
satisfaction of the City Planner prior to
occupancy. Additional bicycle racks may be required
as the number of machines increases, to be
determined by the City Planner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission that all other Conditions of Approval contained in
Resolution No. 82 -83 shall apply to Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -15.
APPROVED AND ADOPTEd THIS 131H DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
i, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Panning Con niss4on of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and zdopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plannipg Commission held
on the 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -83
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COI,"1ISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMUT
NO. 82 -15 FOR AN ARCADE LOCATED AT 6652
CARNELIAN IN TPE C -1 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of July, 1932, a conplete application
was filed by Joseph Mannella for review of the above- described project;
and
WHEREAS, on the 25th day of August, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described
project.
NOU, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga P .nning Ccrmnission
resolved as follows: "
SECTIOP: 1: That the following findings can be met:
i. That the proposed use is in accord with the =general
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3- chat the proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -15 is
approved sub-ject to the following conditions:
1. Nc person under 18 years of age may enter, be or
remain in any part of a game arcade after curfew.
This Timitation shall be orominertly posted at the
entrance of the facility, in letters not less than
1" in height, and shall be enforced by the adult
supervisor.
n
Resoiutio Pio. 8? -8,
Pace 2
2. c`he following levels of adult, 21 years of age or older,
supervision shall be maintained at all times durine
business hours:
1 -25 Amusement Devices - 1 Adult Supervisor
26 -50 Amusement Devices - 2 Adult Supervisors
51 Y Amusement Devices - 2 Adult Supervisors, plus
1 Uniformed Security Guard
3. Separate public restrooms for men and women must be provided
within the approved building and controlled.
4. An interior .raiting area with seating facilities must be
provided for patrons wishing to relax or wait for an amuse-
ment device to become available.
5. Charge- :Waking or token exchange facilities shall be pro-
vided for patron use inside the premises.
6. Adequate exterior lighting shall be provided for evening
security adjacent to all entrances and exterior walls of
the building where the games are located. All lighting
shall be arranged and shielded so as to eliminate excessive
glare or reflection onto adjoining Properties or businesses.
7. Access to the game area must be from the main entrance to
the primary use and not from a separate exterior entranc.':!.
The rear exit shall be for "Fire Exit Only ".
S. Adequate interior clear space shall be provided for safe
and convenient patron circulation and shall meet the followine
minimum standards'
a) Amusement devices shall be located no closer than 12"
from any wail assembly separatinq the arcade from any
adjacent building ro portion of a building. .
b) Provide a minimum of 60" between amusement devices
and any entrance or exit.
c) I•lhere amusement devices are located alono one side of
an aisle, provide a minimum unobstructed -aisle width
of 66 ". U, ere amusement devices are located alone
both sides of any aisle, provide a minimum unob-
structed aisle width of 90 ".
d) Additional interior clear space may be required by the
Building Official, Fcothiil Fire District, or Sheriff's
Department in order to maintain public safety.
Resolution No. 8? - :33
> Page
°. Two parking stalls adjacent to the arcade shall strioed
and designa;.ed for "bicycle only" narking and provided with
security bicycle racks to the satisfaction of the City
Plannsr. They shall he instaiied prior to occupancy.
10. All signs on the exterior of the buildino or visible
from the outside, Bach as window signs, shall require
Planning Division approval in accordance with the Sion
Ordinance.
11. No amusement device shall he used for purposes of or in
connection r :ith gamKI of
.ng. The i :Sniing of anything
value shall constitute oambling, except the winning of
a prize in a scheduled tournament.
12. No persons shall be permitted to enter, be or remain in
any part of the arcade while in the possession of, con-
suming, using or under the influence of any alcoholic
beverage or crugs. This shall be prominently posted
inside the arcade in letters not less than 1" in height
and shall be enforced by the adult supervisor.
13. The walls, ceiling or floor, or any combination thereof,
of the building or structure, or portion thereof, shall
be insulated or otherwise constructed so that no noise
or vibration that is detectable without the aid of any
me- hanical device or instrument will be ,allowed to be on
the outer perimeter of the arcade.
14. This aporovai shall become null and void if a Certificate
of Occupancy is not issued within 18 months from the date
of approval, unless an extension has been granted by the
Planning Commission. This CUP shall be monitored and
brought back to the Plannino Commission within six (6)
months from occupancy to review compliance with all
Conditions of Approval and applicable City Ordinances.
Failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable
City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional
Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use
Permit by the Planning Commission.
15_ Aporoval of this request shall not waive compliance t,ith
all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli-
cable City Ordinances in effect at the time a Certificate
of Occupancy is aranted.
16 This approval shall run with the apolicant and shall become
void upon a charge of ownership or if thr business operation
ceases.
11
11
L
Resoiut;or ,to. 32 -23
Page 4
17. The parking lot shall be posted "No Loitering" in letters not
less than i" in height on signs to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and Sheriff's Department.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF AUn.UST, 1982.
PLANNING C011MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
�e rt ey ir. Chaitnan
i
a �
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 forego4ng Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeLinq of the Planning
CormA scion held on the 25th day of August. 1982, by the following vote -
to -wi t:
AYES: COMMIISSIONERS:
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Stout, P.emeel, Clarker, !401iel, King
None
None
E
E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
191
DATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -22 - FRITZ - The establishment of
a 3200 square foot indoor auction service in the General
Industrial category (Sutarea 4) located in the Scheu Busi-
ness Center at 9155 Archibald Avenue, Suite 301 -
APN 209 - 211 -21.
PROJECT AND SITE DESC ^IPTION: The project site is in the Scheu Busi-
ness Center located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of 6th
Street (Exhibits "A" & "B "). The location is designated in the Industrial
Specific Plan. as General Industrial, Subarea 4. The auction service is
classified as a light wholesaling, storage, and distribution use with
retail sales from the premises.
The Applicant, Lee Fritz, intends to conduct auctions after 5:00 p.m. one
or two nights during the work week and on week ends. Typical merchan-
dise to to auctioned will include furniture, appliances, dishes, and
other household items. Occa:.ionall,y, motorcycles or automobiles may
be auctioned, but no large machinery or large equipmont w;!i be sold
at this location, in addition to the previously mentioned itc-ms,
auctions may be conducted for real estate sales, bankruptcy sale-,, and
foreclosures. The merchandise is to be stored inside the building,
with the exception of astomobiles which may be kept in the parking
lot. Inspection of the items to be auctioned will generally occur
prior to the start of the auction unless special arrangements have
been made.
No regular office hours will be conducted at the site, but delivery
and pick -up of the auctioned items will occur during the day. One
medium sized delivery truck will be used and three or four part -time
employees will be hired. A stage or auction block will be constructed
inside the building and approximately 100 folding chairs will be set
up for the auctions.
ITEM D
Conditional Use Permit 82 -22 /Fritz
Planning Commission Agenda
October i3, 1982
Page 2
ANALYSIS: The major issue associated with this use is parking. Based on
the square footage of the suites, ten (10) parking spaces are allocated
on weekdays from 8 :00 a.m. to 5:00 o.m. Considering the number of employees
and nature of the daytime activities associated witn the auction service,
interruption of the surrounding businesses should not occur. After 5:00 p.m.
on weekdays, significantly more parking is available. With 100 chairs
provided at the auction, approximately 50 to 60 parking spaces may be
required. The total number of spaces within the Scheu Industrial P,.rk
is about 235.
Exhibit "D" diagrams which businesses operate after 5 :00 p.m. on eeekdays
and on weekends. A restuarant and two retail stores are .ocated in the
building facing Archibald Avenue. °atrons to those businesses park in
the front parking lot, therefore conflict with the auction should not
occur. Tnree other businesses operate after 5:00 p.m. and on weekends,
but their total parking demand ranges from four to ten narking spaces
and no parking conflicts are anticipated.
One concern to staff is zhe 5:00 p.m. starting time because insnection
of the merchandise will occur before the beginning of the auction. To
off -set any potential parking problems or traffic co:.gestion, a Condi-
Lion of Approval has been provided to establish a 6:00 p.m. starting
time. Conditions of Approval are also provided to assure that group
assembly will not take place until the necessary building and fire code
requirements have been met.
ACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan, and
the Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed use, together with the recom-
mended Conditions of Approval would not be detrimental to the public welfare,
safety or environment.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing was advertised in The Daily Reoort
newspaper and 7bur notices were sent to surrounding property owners
within. 300 feet of the subject site. In addition, public hearing
notices were delivered to each business in the industrial park. To
date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this
project.
Ll
Conditional Use Permit 82 -22 /Fritz
Planning Commission Agenda
October 22, 1582
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all inpi!t and material relative to this proiect_ A Resolution of Approval
with Conditions is provided for your review and consideration.
lly submitted,
1CK GOMEZ
ity Planner
:CJ:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" -Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Letter From Applicant
Exhibit "D" - Business Survey
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
S hew Bib -e. erw
9155 Archibald Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, CA
SIP
dip
VIEW FROM NORTH
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANIONGA,
PLANNING DIVL90N'
ITEM I: :-'.V.V. �52- zz
TITLE: Lr,<A_ n na-j �t�p
E\HIPAT: A SCALE:_-
2
7th SL
Lj Site
Jrr
I �J
6th
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANIONGA,
PLANNING DIVL90N'
ITEM I: :-'.V.V. �52- zz
TITLE: Lr,<A_ n na-j �t�p
E\HIPAT: A SCALE:_-
2
u
San Bernardino Fixy. 0 -10)
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANIONGA,
PLANNING DIVL90N'
ITEM I: :-'.V.V. �52- zz
TITLE: Lr,<A_ n na-j �t�p
E\HIPAT: A SCALE:_-
2
E
r
s
0
SCHEU gl DUSTR1AL PANIC
CITY OF
RAINCHO CUCA IO \GA
PLANING DIVISIQ`:
m
Building 200
5.120 sq. ft. 16,400 sq. M
2.880 q' suit"
48,
I�1TI 1TTI�f
ITE \I:
T FU: SITc "Y+ 7t i
EXHIBIT: ;GALE:
�J
NORTH
11
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
Bit: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-81-09 (TEN
ign
11805) - ALLEN - A total planned aevelopment or ib
condominium units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -3 and R -1
zones located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven
Avenues - APN 201- 262 -28, 30, 31, 27, 40.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is requesting approval of a
planned development consisting of two (2) tentative tract maps in the R -1
and R -3 zones (R -3 /PD pending), located at the northwest corner of
Highland and Haven Avenues (Exhibit "A "). The property presently contains
several structures which will be removed and existing mature vegetation
which will be preserved wherever possible. Other than these structures,
the project site is vacant with a 5% to 6% slope from north to south, as
shown on the Natural Features Map (Exhibit "I "). The project site is
bounded on the .vest by an existing single family tract and on the north by
the Garden Apartments complex.
ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth
Management, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of thesa
committees are reflected on the attached tentative tract map
(Exhibit "B "), development plans, and recommended Conditions of
Approval. The project will be bisected by Alta Loma Avenue. Alta Loma
Avenue will be a temporary cul -de -sac until it can be connected to the
existing Alta Loma Avenue. Alta Loma Avenue will function as a frontage
road when the Twoothill Freeway is completed.
The Applicant has worked with the Garden Apartments Homeowners'
Association to redesign the Haven Avenue entrance to the Garden
Apartments. The proposed Site Plan would elminate the existing access
road from Alta Loma Avenue. The Grading Plan, Exhibit "G ", has been
designed to maintain the natural contours as much as possible and to
provide appropriate drainage structures to accept and divert water. The
buildings have been designed with staggered pad elevations to further
minimize the need for extensive grading.
ITEM F
C C
CUCAMONG,A AUCTION SERVICE
8033 Spinet Ave.
Cucamonga, CA. 91730
TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline Rd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
ATTN: Dan Coleman — Planning Dept.
Dear Sir:
••
14 Sept. 82
Submitted herewiih for your evaluation and action are the
documents which I feel will fill the requiremenrs for the
issuance of a "Conditional Use Permi*�" to allow the Cuca-
monoa Auction Service Company to perform part of its services
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga at the Scheu Business Center,
9155 Archibald Avenue.
Type of Business /Service: AUCTION SERVICZ
Selling of general merchandise submitted from consignors or
lot purchases. Occasional auction of motorcycles /automobiles.
(No large machinery or large equipment will be sold at this
!ocation.) Additional Auction Services will be available to
the community to include Commercial Liquidations, Estate
Sales, Bankruptcy Sales and Foreclosures.
Where: Scheu Business Center, 9155 Archibald Ave., S•iite 301
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
When: Auctions to be conducted after 5:00 p.m. Mon. thru Fri.
Saturday and Sunday auctions may be conducted after 9:00 a.m.
How: Most items to be sold to the public by the auction
method of selling. This is not a swap meet, garage sale or
flea market type of operation.
Sincerely,
Lee E. Fritz
Proprietor /Auctioneer
EUiIBIT- .r ~ SCALE- - --
11
11
Ll
E
^J
.J
3
r
r n. ii iiiiiiimiiiiiiiiilnmiimii!iimin
E
BUSINESSES WITHIN THE SCHEU INDUSTRIAL PARK WHICH OPERATE AFTER 5:00 P.M.
ON WEEK DAYS AND ^N WEEK ENDS.
LOCATION TYPE OF BUSINESS HOURS
A RETAIL SALES - SPORTS EQUIPMENT 10 -6,M -F
10 -7,SAT
B RESTAURANT 10 -6,M -F
10 -5,SAT
C FETAIL SALES - ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 8 -7,M -F
10 -6,SAT
D COMMUNICATION SER1'ICES /RADIO REPAIR 8- 5:30,M -F
1 -2 EMPLOYEES SAT,OCCASIONALLY
E LIGHT MANUFACTORING 8- 5:30,M -SAT
3 EMPLOYEES
F LIGHT MANUFACTORING 7 -7,M -F
1 -5 EMPLOYEES SAT,OCCASIONALLY
CITY OF
R.,-VNCHO CUC XICINGA
PLANNING DIVMN
dTE \1_ c. V. .L 22—
TFLE: �sL`��i t-IEe-_4--, r2/E-r-
E.XHIMT= ALE. a4 -TS-
NOUN
J
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONUA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL_ USE PERMIT NO. 82 -22 FOR THE
CUCAMONGA AUCTION SERVICE LOCATED AT 9155 ARCHIBALD
AVENUE, SUITE 301 IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
(SUBAREA 4) ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, a complete application
was filed by Lee E. Fritz for review of the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
puolic health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2- That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -23 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. No auction shall be conducted prior to 6.00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
2. From 8:90 a.m. to 5:UO p.m., Monday through Friday,
business hours of the Scheu Industrial Park,
operation of the subject business shall not require
the use of more than 10 parking spaces.
3. Operation of the auction service must not cause any
adverse ef-:ects upon surrounding businesses. Should
any problems arise, this Conditional Use permit will
be brought back to the Commission for
reconsideration and possible revocation of said
permit.
Resolution No.
Page 2
4. No outdoor storage of materials or equipment is
permitted.
5. Public assembly shall not occur until such time as
all Uniform Building Code and Title 19 of the State
Fire Marshall's Regulations have been complied with.
6. Separate public restrooms for men and women must be
provided within the subject suite.
7. Any sign advertising for the subject business must
comply with the approved Uniform Sign Program for
the Scheu Industrial Park and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Sign Ordinance. No temporary freestanding
or monument signs are permitted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING COh4MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, 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 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMIMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
►_J
CITY OF RANUi0 CUCAMANTGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 1982
E TO: Members of the Planning Commission
E
u
FROM. Rick Gomez, City Planner 1977
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10088 - NICOSIA
A residential subdivision of 82 acres into 131 single family
lots in the R- 1- 20,000 zone, generally located at the north-
east corner of rchih -ald and rarrari CYrect _ Apm 2�V11- n71 -14�
37 and 45.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Thc- proposal is a residential subdivision
to be built either as a custom jot development or a tract development.
The project site is located at the north end of Archibald Avenue, on the
east side between Carrari and Almond. The site totals 82 gross acres and
is proposed to contain 131 lots, which when developed will provide 1.6
dwelling units per gross acre. The project site is presently vacant of
existing structures. The grade slopes to the south at approximately a
12 percent grade with two drainage courses tr:insversing the site. The
site is covered with chapparal, brush, and weeds. The site is presently
zoned R -1- 20,000 which permits one dwelling unit on a lot not less than
20,000 square feet in area. Surrounding zoning consists of predominantly
R- 1- 20,000 with some one acre zoning. Surrounding land uses are single
family residential development on half acre or greater size lots. The
General Plan for the project site, as well as for the surrounding area,
is residential at a density of less than two dwelling units per gross acre.
ANALYSIS: The applicant has been working with the Planning and Engineer-
ing staffs to maintain as much of the existing character and topography
as possible. Drainage, access, and street design have been the critical
points in the design of this subdivision. A complete hydrology study has
been prepared for this tract and has indicated the need for drainage im-
provements in order to adequately drain the project site as well as pro-
tect the site from flood damage. The east boundary of the tract borders
the Alta Loma Channel and a significant portion of the project site is
proposed to utilize that channel for its major drainage course. The de-
veloper has agreed to participate in the Alta Loma Channel Assessment
District and will be submitting a letter of credit. The areas of the
tract which drain into the channel cannot be built until the drainage
improvements are installed. Also, the hydrology study revealed the need
for flood protection of this site from water coming from the north. This
has been accommodated through the provision of an on -site debris basin
and underground drainage facilities. The Final design and size of the
debris basin will be dependent upon final hydrological data. One street
is proposed as a stub street to the south in which the developer will be
required to obtain a drainage easement from the south property owner prior
to recordation of the final map.
ITE ?d E
October 13, 1932
E. A. and Tentative Tract 10088 - Nicosia
Page Two
The major access point to the subdivision will be from Archibald Avenue.
A secondary means of access will be provided from Hermosa Avenue. Almond
Street, which comes from Hermosa Avenue, is currently unimproved. The
subdivider will be required to provide improvements from the project
boundary to Hermosa Avenue which would consist of a minimum of 40 feet of
right -of -way and a 26 -foot paved access route. Internal access and a
street design has been developed in accordance with Engineering standards.
In addition to ve`:icslar zccess, equestrian access was a major consider-
ation in the design of the project. The Trail Committee has reviewed this
project in detail and has provided the input for the design of the present
system which proposes a community trail through the southern portion of
the project and a community trail along Archibald Avenue. In addition,
interior local equestrian feeder trails on individual properties have been
provided in accordance with the City Equestrian Trail Standards. At the
recommendation of the Trail Committee. a Condition has been recommended
which would add one additional local trail across the northern portion
of Lot 49 and between the boundaries of Lot 49 -50, in order to provide
adequate access to the Archibald Avenue community trail for lots in the
nor-:h portion of the subdivision. Final trail plans indicating landscap-
ing details, fencing details, step - overs, and trail entry statements, will
be required prior to recordation of the map and will be installed as part
of the street improvements.
The interior street pattern and lot pattern, was developed after numerous
meetings with the Design Review Committee and the applicant in order to
develop the sense of a custom lot subdivision with variable lot shapes and
sizes as well as meandering streets. The Design Review Committee is recom-
mending approval of this street design and lot pattern. The applicant has
provided details relative to the creation of a community appearance which
is shown on the attached exhibits for landscaping and streetscape appear-
ance. These guidelines have been incorporated into the Conditions of Ap-
proval for proper implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW- The Initial Study has been prepared for this pro-
ject and Conditions of Approval have been placed on the project to ccver
potential impacts that could have been created through improper grading
and drainage improvements. Additionally, Conditions of Approval require
a final geological report prepared by a qualified engineer to determine
building setback lines to any potential active fault traces, if any. A
portion of this site at the northern end is located within the earthquake
fault zone and would require a minimum 50 -foot setback to a wood frame
structure for human occupancy. This study would have to be completed
and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final approval
and recordation of the final map. Based upon the Conditions of Appv-:: 1
and Initial Study conducted, it is recommended that a Negative Declaration
be issued for this project.
2
October 13, 1982
E. A. and Tentative
Page Three
Tract 10088 - Nicosia
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project site as designed is consistent with the
adopted Genera Plan., Zoning Ordinance and City Subdivision, Ordinance.
The project has successfully completed the Growth Management rating pro-
cess and appropriate Conditions of Approval for the project have been
provided in order to protect the public safety and environment.
CORRESPONDENCE: Notices have been mailed to property owners within 300
€not of 4Fo r-;hjcIt cite_ Tn addition, a public hearing nnticn has been
printed in the Daily Report newspaper. Staff has received several verbal
communications from surrounding residents regarding the details of the
project. Mest appear to be concerned with the general design of the prc•-
ject and the functions regarding drainage, access, and street improvements.
Staff has also posted notices of public hearing around the project site.
We have been notified that some of the property owners in the area will
be meeting with the developer on October b, 1982. This meeting is intended
to answer detailed questions and hopefully resolve any concerns. Staf.
wail prepa!Fe an addendum to this report to inform the Commission on the
outcome of this meeting and any additional changes or reca4mendations.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all input and elements of the project. I €, after such consideration, the
Commission can support the facts for finding and recommended Conditions
of Approval, then adoption of the attaLned Resolution would be approoriate.
Ru:MV: 3k
fAttachments
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" -- Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading
Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading
Exhibit "G" - Trail and Design Details
Exhibit "H" - Conceptual landscaping
Part I - Initial Study
Resolution kith Conditions
i'.
�.'` �,A
trA fw '
1 � t y 1
�
u
I'..
2/.
f.• I� .Il �
t� �,i �.
�
I �
� � uI�J )J.r•~
•
•�J
'1
I
}
�d ti•
.., �
1^
t
n!_
I f
�
fi
F :.
�
1.
�r i t v � i,
� �. f
S f �'rn
I
�. r
aY�
� I i. \
r'; i.
A��
Z
,,
1 � 4 !Z 4�. t1
P '� ".
�
jl
� t
�l-1
f 1'
�
i'.
2/.
i'.
L`J
E
01- 0-1,41vu 10
111'
� j�`
0
�i
T
1
Egg
t
e
t
tt�
o
;! ge
e,
uj
a
:93011�111�1 i � }® N Ilin
tL-
I
r
�a
t
a
R
it
i
W
fAi
NVH � ,t�a _ I I 1311i �
awl
V
1�yy�s
(qi
i
yI3
W1.
u
L
0
E
Q W }
Im co oz;.. O
F O i
'a:uS
F + N
C�Z�3�i t
z�
�<3 1
1 +_
��
I L L• _�
LL• .�
In NO
i ems, N 30 BdVOSCNV-e
4
�..� ' • iii!
!T(i
S
S
a� s
S
�I
,I
a
IM
Ii t-
1k 1'
1
1
1
I
I
�i
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: X80.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
fora. ;lust 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 prep
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 mace 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 environmental impact
and an Environmental Z-Mact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further infor_ation concerning
the proposed project_ r
APPLICAN'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TEI PHONE: Nicosia, Webb, and
_&Uttar, =it --i_ry Tcvctin Alanlla" Cta 17n1 Cant ❑ d —ra g270"
IZAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONr. OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Michael Doty /Gary iv'ezos
18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 641 -8820
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AN? ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Archibald Avenue
LIST OTHER PERitiIITS NECESSARY FRC)M LOCAL, REGIONP.L, STATE An
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
SEW-- J9d'Ar a R0rm-;t end Water Qvialitg Cnntrol nnarri
El
L11
PROJECT DESCRIPM -lo .
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The p;•ojuct is intended to be a quality,
custom home subdivision amployinc substantially less graoing and so;
movement than comparable developments.
ACREAGE OF AROjECT AR—EA yrT
SQUARE
z )CTAGE OF
EXISTING LSSVL
PROPOSED
BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
82i
acres.
There
are no existing
buildings.
This is a custom lot
subdivision and
therefore
propose
building cpuare footage will be determined at a later date.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONZ =71rAL SETTING OF TT_-M PROJECT SITE
INCLiJDING INFO Ri•iATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLAT +TS ;TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEN_TC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE D%SCRIPTION OF AL--?'
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH \ECESSARY SHEETS):
drainage courses exist on the property.
727 The site is covered by low chaparral brush and weeds.
3. Wildlife on the site is indigenous to the area consisting mostiv of
rodents and reptiies .
C Fxic ing residential subdivisions are located to the south and west.
To the north there exist some large lot single family homes. To
the east there is an ex;st;ng natural drainage channel ana an
existing LucalyptUS Tcres
5. No structures exist on the site
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series
of cunulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant enviror_mental impact=
No
I- 2
WILL THIS PROJECT-
YES 230
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? 3
V_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flaxmnabies or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above: Street alignment will
.._�_ .L.. ...... 11.1 nf three existing small Eucalyptus trees.
IMpORTAN� *_,: If the project involves the construction. Of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFIC.BTION: i hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exlUbits 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 bast of
my knowledge and belief. i further understand tba t
additional information may be required to be submitted Development
before an adequate evallation can be made by the
Review Cor=nittee. (�
Date Ju'v 2 19$2 _ signature `
Title Executi a Vice President _
T__3
PFSIDB *1TIAT- CONSTRUCTION
The following information should he provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planninc Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
schcel district to acco:nnodate tha proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Nicosia, Webb, and Sutter - TR 10088
Specific Location of Project: Area east of Archibald Avenue and north of Car•rari St.
i• 1. Nunb3_ of single
family units:
r'.. Nun"- -er of nultiple
a; faniiy u. ^_its:
3. Date ar000sed to
begin ccr.str,:ction:
4. Earliest date el-
0 C C= a. ^ c^
ti Moen!
and = of Tentative
S. Bed_oo-s Price Rance
Nct available
i
PHASE I PZ ?ASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
37 47 46
— 0 0 0
Early to mid 1983
Mi d 1983
TO ,M.L
130
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10088
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10088, hereinafter "Map" submitted
by Nicosia, Webb and Sutter, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the
real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
8er:ardirio, State of California, described as 82 acres of land located
generally on he northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street and being
divided into 131 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for
public hearing and action on October 13, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject
to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence
presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in
regard to e�ntative Tract No. 10088 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all
applicable interim and proposed general and specific
plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed;
(d) The design, of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable
injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is net likely to cause serious
public health problems;
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict
with any easement acquired by the public at large,
now of record, for access through or use of the
® property within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page 2
(g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10088, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions
and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. This approval shall
Tentative Tract Map
within twenty -four
unless an extensio n
Commission.
become null and void, if the
is not approved and recorded
(24) months of this approval,
is granted by the Planning
2. Front yard setback lines shall be recorded on cul-
de -sac and knuckle lots in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance width requirements.
3. Reveiw and approval of dwelling units by the City
shall use the °streetscape° guidelines developed by
the applicant in order to create interest and
variety to the community appearance.
4. The Community Trail along Archibald shall not be
greater than twenty (20) feet in width as measured
from the ultimate curb location.
5. The landscape accents shown on the conceptual
landscape plan shall be installed and bonded for
with the street improvements.
6. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified
engineer to determine if there are any active fault
traces within the vicinity of the project site. If
traces are found, then all dwellings for human
habitation shall be setback fifty (50) feet from the
fault trace. This report shall be conducted, and
reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval
of the final map.
7. A local interior feeder trail shall be provided
along the north boundary at lot 49 and between lot
49 and 50.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
8. The developer shall be required to install concrete
drainage structures along Alta Loma Channel from its
northerly debris basin to the proposed channel at
I-]
11
u
Resolution No.
Page 3
Wilson Avenue and along the watercourse from the
terminus of the proposed storm drain within tae
tract betr.dary to Alta Loma Channel.
The cost of these stormdrainage systems shall be
credited against the stormdrainage fee for the
project and a reimbursement agreement per City
Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the
contributions which exceed the fee amount.
9. The above condition shall be waived when and if an
Assessment Distri%�t is formed to conl)lete the
installation of an improved channel.
10. All offsite drainage easements as shown on the
Tentative Map shall be recorded concurrent with or
prior to recordation of the map.
11. The debris basin, diversion levee /channel and flood
protectior wails as shown on the Tentative Map shall
be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City
Enoineer.
12. If the ultimate design of the proposed north /south
® storm drain from the debris basin requires an open
channel, the width of easement shall be modified to
accommodate it.
13. All onsite stormdrainage systems shall be designed
per City's standard specification with an added
requirement that velocity -depth product of runoff on
the street shall not exceed 6.
14. A minimum of 26 -feet wide pavement within 40 -foot
dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed on
Almond Avenue from the tract boundary to Hermosa
Avenue.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1962.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
E
Resolution No.
Page 4
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning COM- ission 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 meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
El
11
0
11
J
i H
0 0
r �
O
V
6
O
W O
O r
W V.
O
\' I
e • -
N
» r• Y L e q � N L N O
90 O7 v G L n ` ✓o c L 4u.n rr rLS 'i CGZ�q
u 0 C✓ W 'V Q l C e l ✓ � e C' O V V 9 g C� V L u
Y E L� co Pig ^NE
V n > L � G V ^✓ C 4 .°i 9 N n C i r � '. 2 i' G r
q q A V r Y r d q O e ✓ G r __ O_ _ ✓ C
V q r_ LI r d P C d T ✓ nQ q✓ O y q G L d V C C
_ O C ✓ F C J N L .� T i _ V l O O L L V z e
q O\ �` q VL`.N a » CN +6 do ,JC IOV GiG
�� ✓ V V � g r O d ry
Pt;
•- L d C CE � V .-- 6 4 .n V O
C V d G N C ✓ L u ' N L L N� J C Tu v 6 � P O C P
JL ✓� > oM _ y eN —NOq c aL '.T qc— qd
q L O e » y e o L q C O H. ✓ r L v T V O C
! Y d O C q C N •T. O n _d V d y G N L
✓^ � e N yN_
e V L q
e 6 Y V N d O. n✓ W lF _ V E 4 y u f. N V
e 4 O ^ N a y O d V C✓ L_ u V A r ` C. T V L P V O
r .^ r >� _ C '- O w O w a r r V S � � e^ ✓ V a n q i. V r
` L N A C C 9 � r✓ e O. V 6 N W� � T q 4 L L{ l 4 O
enaz
lo.
d o - N w c P cJi L. c o G•q' '° E ` = n q i � L
J V V r � C N C✓ P O e r q O L G q - N� N C O r C C y �✓
G V .V TJ eC d d C V d C rdr O G V V C
nc VyG ✓olz
a e A r V v _ V i �� q T O e A A ✓ O ✓ C q q d r_ J oV1 O O a ��
2
O r c T n d S L 6 d n L O+ q E
. S q A O V l P L O N d L u q y L 3 L r ✓ r` r u y= N V t o v
rq o c oo c r✓ u ve wa°i d �.°.. '.^ n �u yo
G V N 6 Q q
08
d l i N Y �. ✓ D L r d N T H �� t� � i V L .G. q }J
.r �1 .,On r O •y `1
"I ! I i NI � y �► � � "i ��
t 6�
+ C
r =
b r ✓
a n A
0
V
I P
C L
E u
q y
r u
9
c i
! C
C y
P»
a c
c-)
r N
C O
V
P
J
e
a
d
r
P
s
L
rl NI
O
V
C
e
_
e
N°
T
'aG
YC
0✓
�
V
r V
C
O✓
d
L
L Y P
V
V
—w
SL
s
o
O
4 .9
r
Nd
cVe
P�
Sy
6L
�O�
Tyr
�
r-J
YL
_O
V
6Y
n N
u b
N
N y
q` V�r
rJ ✓. O
q y
e
e v
6L.
�°
6V
�N
Ab
✓G
OL
�
P
yNG
r r
=
P
o
C.
'T E«
•L.r
L
V
N
y
Py
•' V
r. w
C
i
C q d
O L
A L
r O
C 0.
'.
G
q >
r0i
y
N
a L
V
A
7
n
d
O T
A
C
__ w
.� J 1
q�
y
q V
q
` C
r
d
.T•i
E z
r y
yp«
G`•�"
�N�r
'^
GYLL
. -
vd v
c`t
c
.r.-
Lm
^cam
vP
�L.N•
=cP
L)..
dPO
chi
u °ce
n^
_
r
O
y
rz N
J V
E N
C C T
V e N
' C
l
O e
d T
.i G
✓ G
J N
V
C
A 4
e
q
N N n
O P O
O CO
G
q
r V
C✓
G u
V
O u
S ^J y
N
O 6
L L
q
V
Y
V�
O=
b`
_
r
L
w > C
eL. a' 1 cpe
ia� d p G V � `„i E e° S y O r I p b✓ c� .- � G c c' ._
Gp
° Cr O L CAL 7r COL l LE
C Cq
^ O
_C C p _'C �.° U Cu Nd LVgq .L.. OL✓'V,-O T�n�n
C G
Lr.1v O r q L l ✓ L C^ Iy y y r N u G
•S� x P u O q� O p p 4° a r... S C °L. G'4> °
-\. N V � ^� C � C� G n > t L 1 L x' V L �✓ i L.
L L O .o ✓ q � q � u _ A ` ` ` q ` O ✓ L J d O _� � C• p. �.. j O V
4 O P d 0 ` V N O q C r L b✓ Y b_ C > _ •� N r 'n !_
4
=.L+n u J COO YL V V G�.N �q ✓a _' III- L 4 `ON L .n
Nam
IZ
G.CT \ JZP uNC GLy L L V I U�y uL b IUD L d `tsny CC
Z VC Lbiv
G V 6• P r V G O y O d C 4 J n 6 y d y L Y• O x V< L n
CVp ly G'S OdC LCy q^ �I x W y �9V Iy✓ L✓_ O
ND6 VL L,y 60N P L qxN 9r^OY
�y<
` f _
IC Y C V u � Q O
V p C4� ON-Oi J IGi q N ` `.0 4'ViC6
N V V �_ _ L ♦ � V
`= O: O
^Zn L'n Vir� C ^>� J.a dC C dC V-j O N.yV Vvv OJdP rG C''�U
t
0
c G N
_ d a
x C L n _ V q __ � O V �✓ C.- � �__ L G O
io c`+.L.. or�.i cq✓ -uv.°. vcti �• .�.� c oiu_ °•'.✓e oo °c__ °`•.
x C O 6 ~ V y C V V P ' 4 O q`` � O .O• P u V i _% V t\ L` C �+ .n
� `= O y r~ 'V"O F} 49iL N� L✓.L� C° q LONLiC Ow_ >.6A� Cn
o c« o ac °_� ao r�a�i -.ro a. `E ✓�� Gr oo y`p =_
q _P n q � CV C�� C� Y cV i' NLq VQC� L rr�OCy TOr CVd O4
OG O• Oq u= _UV _CCU _E CC COq L ^q �q� V
G O L N r T r _ = r �° = N N L S u P? P C'. r y e q r •L'f
7 'J � .e ' L V J � � C�� •O L• u � � O � g O O C C V U y. C � ti C
� C4 V C q nuNi cG0 O VcV qVU n9 E _ '_q'- q 3C' ^
L C L n V U n V ' 9 L = O 4 .✓ N � d L n C L r O C y q
x .� ✓ 6 S ✓ t_ O w q N L p. i V �' 6 f N° V {t = r V w y O N O n C U
V �+r r b ._ 6. ^ gdgP � vK n.^ur ^W •.p Or T?Cr n U q
M n q 4 V S. p `p n L= G y V O N .p'^ .� y C y C C _V ^ C ` x P ` x V ✓ p ^ r J v_ ^ == V}
q r C L M ^ _ L .—•-. > O C P V L F S E r < O u C N ( C 4 r V n u r C O Q C U
T Vx_V µ _ rl LC40 GC yr CCi qL � NON q0 L...i✓ ON L GO
q P > _V >� _T •- C4 Yd.`.P .ENO .-O °� Jn� grrP OC cv
4 72
C.fgv d C •'• P tC. V v _ n is O r P C� V C� S N r r T l: J y O \' V .^ y C C� T� = M V J
>c.� � mac` -: °. n b r` p.N. � v A _ gL �c +c� c e L•n Ly v \�
L E
^ - „ nC � 6G uWyP��O NSLJ.`✓Yi <w o. GC <C�'�0 -nwF �OU c =c
-
C > u Q r i t V � O O r r ✓ L
` •0 3 t .. &n .`n9 rOa° —'E nn... °G 8 � nS
-VU � O n•� J Vr S= �dwL Gn qVL O'q T r L
��q 6 P uuL t Cq �9N l4 � `P OSLO J r O �- 4 rwC
o �. L D'�� n `, .. 4- G „ux ✓� cod_✓ r r �• I r �o
=AWL .:.b � ✓-✓]Pw 9 D - O L g 0 _W J � t
6 � L W- Tai PN+ ^pq d =yYU. r✓.p TO`P F L C ^� 'J � q
y`� d �Q =uG �l� WVP 1�6. L.nU q °-O� C �L� O I rj I I y•`n°
V C � nJ P � L✓ u 4 .qn N O q C v q T. V u Y ✓ r L � J C v �✓ y � I L I n p a
C q ` C V C q r .a L V L ` O v-.- U W V � P �f� u w C ✓
p q q q . n 6 C c C q „ V 61 N d[ 2° q C n '✓ W n q C L �f d H N
Dq C� U� ucP S VNC td dD=OP tz
qZy L-• rqq nnc o n` c - = _ ��� < -o' o
L ° � u L U O 6 rr q V �= CV 9 L b T ♦V n l� G .°^L °I � U � ^ i L L_ V
O C J L L -° � y � 9 P w. V^ O J L: -� n �� V L G_ u V✓ � y' q n q 2 r,.
y L .r w. C a[ r r `J• -u W� V B O O Vr � I U^ y
G m- q d o q ^` C = u+ C L O p E¢ O 2 d N O O C u a d O J ✓✓ O c .� N p
r.ucuq_ `° «✓ c'".°. T oq.� L'LN °`w$ .°e�q �.°_aL ✓: � v` u ^__ p ✓io
_ v✓ Jew p ovv q L „._
d n- b qC� S W O Od aVr6yJ rN v,„ O, u Eq
arcq o, d me r �v - i LN C - I pL
Gp ` u °m � ✓_G ✓ ^, ��� q�aJq COa a•o ov o` _ ¢ .^4 ql L `c ..0
°CP J Lp l_E O 'nOp �69 pC PVI qdT dl CfJ nq ^ mI L^ � _T > I tr Ong
u C•� ti Pte- V u q
V q q InV V u P O rr aTr d 6✓ 9 r „-C-i� Pw.0 O g 6J]y V = q N L O W 4 N
C C Pr ^ O ^ S ' C,-n N L •J O u. y - - �. ` V.--
G b C q C •. T q
V NCO GG4 CLa4T Cpl _ T y __ ” ° n •N' j >Q
nc�v 6✓i 6q rUor a q a - ¢ �� � I 1 L � i �cF
V U U
- qDN • ia6 ✓ q t G
.°..� ^rCn ✓F >C �L. l>• „OF b 'VO OOi 9L- O✓ � VLO”. V -< C-
L��S -_OU 2= .'C =� y -PLL O �V� `.°..O ✓q Vw �V .� ✓= y`, =C -JW
> E .Vi. V u C ✓ N _ N W u r n_. W r W V .- y C N ._ _ �_ C
LVL�✓ V�V> -�cL °C�r � ..O.qu y ✓J O6>.Cy 4q TG E -�_ `J uv
nry.,. o ✓£ V c� bo np �+ aLV ✓'. °p x _ LL a p ' `,.. Vp E
4 V`✓G9= L r�q> ObW tD ._.^ L•vV N l L __ ^ V� C
T d V 9 0> C 9 T > p� D N C L u � O L C N� b- q d P g d y ✓ O �� V V n •J
C- cV V -COr V V L V c L .L_ u q Dv NI L 6 p P r V C L P✓ V
c_N
^Gnu +.T. .Ji.O��� -•r 90 <P �u Ul _ L`O Gyq �q.^q9 .p-��L � ` rL �l p C
�OL iN °� � Cp-�C :LO � G� 2...q POD 7 Din =�q� O ✓ >u +`r Gu � j
V ✓> O C O O � n d V L J N g p C `I T�7 N =1` c ,C N u b •”' 6 C L O V` V L
I c
OI
SNL.°..O_VCq- �S C MT^!9 mI rvd rruu� 4o ✓yE °OJy n � N�.4i �'> N` Oc
u .✓r. N - r 0 2- � _ O O u. � q✓ ✓ w �✓-. n_ S G � C :Y
q E9�C +�J -,TAN q CN CLy .r�i qq. dVLr O qUn OgSN n_E Vq .�
?= 09 �. c °� q LgdW ` ✓ i N - - _ z
� Lc��: .r=. n° c •°o r it.° ci Nc =d c =d ° •"^ od d � -`o � -> c - �_ p..
nPnq °9W___7 q02 CI >��r 6 G6 Nf._ ✓yL VO�ON ., .NUV ' -LG ^= pu CJ
q c 2 > O q ^ ✓_ O G J= g V q d ur� V V y- c u ✓ _ ✓ V 4 p✓ G G ,^^ q _
O p V V` V V u N� L C q i_ O �� i- N O.V.. ✓ :7 v p nG� J C C p W �` _ Y V P L` r 2
OD 4--�L Vp �.✓n.D q0 -N -4.:e J C 9 =Vd Lr .2u
q xL4.: LUVL N'L^J irr N i `�V Z Sv VV nN LI 6V WN i
q0 4 =p d G9
CV 1
Q
('7
O
r
O
L
e
� nui r q Y r q P,9
� N �✓ O. � N � y -S.� t°./ L O i T. ._°i O C I 4 O L r D . w
.� ? D D r O u u /Ji• � O n D V t .4u u O I O L H O J r L Y
U � rV/r`• � q �N 4u `N - Ly?q I i 'arw ` ° „ �' `
Y Np9 O C N O N pr L L O N I OW n cN V O�
�• L/r V✓ r'O Cr V O_ CqC _ I '�' LC .n_
¢ C q C ••/ � V V T C V u N 4 L C C 9¢ u � I V .... 6' ._ L � T y i q
a•
r� WP Vr � CoC •r0 L uO LIr
77, N T r O q ! ° 6 N O .� C N •O n d V q V L L u
Lv a"i ND L
w � \G/r ¢� L •� � up Yr V q G- V N � � dr V `' L E GG = = L
G Pr qyV.- yL M� •uru �.: ri rr O _¢ q 1 'i !. r LO �.� L MJ
¢ n N y C •e P � N r _. y N L �� � d � q p � ° r/ r l r q L V � VOf
y N C q y /Vr• L V C „ ` L L l
V !E.E r
D N q + V V '� •C L •r b V O r F P q q VVVVVV
It
_ OWN eu - L6 I 9¢ - •- 4r t
T L u N P N y O G T V •�• O C O C Y p i d ° L q D y I I� u O q W � b J ` N L 9
-9 C9 Vu =V W Vq W �1 y00L VOrc Plu. a wN�d b� =�� >V JJ .�- y
C r � _ V r JJJ•uu ` _
a:
c
NTN Y nC LV p` � - S9L a -�P Mme° - OuCy`r•
d> C � .T. � e - V . C P C� q E m d G 6 •`ni• P - •' - V
4 � ._n M? W � r` :` G I � r ` N L _ ✓ d 4 ✓ w � V n
•NnL b� _.0 ° r .-°„ ... �a L Wovq �i o= nc cb
7.5 .^ p
C M t d
ZE.°. .LD .
`v q Jr V
No c JL d iv `¢ �d a.�qo pr�u N L rvoy
1I
L
1 I r p C �+ p
V -° _ _ W _ P �• _ u .Lip ° G P
r •� q y� 3 L C L N L f 9 �i u
S l d V• N O Y d U_ •� s V P r O/ W_ C u - Y N C cG' L2
a -•• J +_ L C.
r
O''•L' V� r+� 9L `Q V-_ - - � I L Y9O CV'� ^L 6 =G9 sL N °ter °
br r ` IVy
_
- V P
d -t %c -- 04 u� ca` Cc. c- I`LL I _A>. q: A' u�`.M �� rq• -`LL
6 V r 6 q 6 C W 2 ' I V 4! u •I[ L V- I W —• I p L w V N i� L �. u r n_ y V u •-.s
C
7
i
L']
/1
v
7
A
DS
_
EE
1
3
C
N a
;%��r
A
a
p y
"c v`
—
1.
-
�v
CNn�
n?—
dV
4
� O
Nb1
V
LL
O•o_
Y
L��
V 1 =0
v
Iu_
u0uu
6S
O��
T
W�.�S
J•v e
40_
T
_
—
O
C
���=
O
I^
n
°u
Q�i
Gui•
CGUc
nri
c
J
of
.o
°_i°
•yOd
Q•GY'n
=t
E
`'�_p
�o
L
�cN
C
6u A 0 u
O p u
=
L
I
u v. U
u
•r
= u n
v
L"V[Y
CC
CI
G
_
�
Y�OS
—°
rPV
�_
��'d
L•�9�n
LO
p
C�
C�u
AI
O
�
V Y
„O
CuP
_COL
e 'c•nc�
—n.�
-
`-aiGn
L`
C�
'.J`Ym
cd
c'p�
�
S
t .= +ti L
C V •�
T_I
u
C O C
T
O
y u
n P
n
n O
n✓
Lr.OG
I I
puC
LC
cCc
3
Lqt
i
V
a
Y
L']
11
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
Bit: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-81-09 (TEN
ign
11805) - ALLEN - A total planned aevelopment or ib
condominium units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -3 and R -1
zones located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven
Avenues - APN 201- 262 -28, 30, 31, 27, 40.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is requesting approval of a
planned development consisting of two (2) tentative tract maps in the R -1
and R -3 zones (R -3 /PD pending), located at the northwest corner of
Highland and Haven Avenues (Exhibit "A "). The property presently contains
several structures which will be removed and existing mature vegetation
which will be preserved wherever possible. Other than these structures,
the project site is vacant with a 5% to 6% slope from north to south, as
shown on the Natural Features Map (Exhibit "I "). The project site is
bounded on the .vest by an existing single family tract and on the north by
the Garden Apartments complex.
ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth
Management, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of thesa
committees are reflected on the attached tentative tract map
(Exhibit "B "), development plans, and recommended Conditions of
Approval. The project will be bisected by Alta Loma Avenue. Alta Loma
Avenue will be a temporary cul -de -sac until it can be connected to the
existing Alta Loma Avenue. Alta Loma Avenue will function as a frontage
road when the Twoothill Freeway is completed.
The Applicant has worked with the Garden Apartments Homeowners'
Association to redesign the Haven Avenue entrance to the Garden
Apartments. The proposed Site Plan would elminate the existing access
road from Alta Loma Avenue. The Grading Plan, Exhibit "G ", has been
designed to maintain the natural contours as much as possible and to
provide appropriate drainage structures to accept and divert water. The
buildings have been designed with staggered pad elevations to further
minimize the need for extensive grading.
ITEM F
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Committee has worked with the (applicant in
resolving concerns relative to the Site Plan, recreational space, and
architectural elevations. The Committee was concerned with the
Applicant's original proposal, which indicated future construction on
Phase III which lies within proposed Foothill Freeway right -of -way. the
Applicant has agreed not to propose construction for this partion. The
proposed Tentative Tract Map 11305 will make this n^ ,,ti ^.n . a s°^ °rate lot
to facilitate purchase by the State for freeway right-of-way purposes.
Therefore, the Design Review Committee recommends approval of this
project.
ENVIRMYENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the
Applicant, is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part iI of
the in,tial Study and found that the pro ;cat will not have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefo:e; staff recommends issuance •f a
Negative Declaration.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The subdivision maps have been prepared ir accordance
with City standards and policies, and the project site is suitable for the
proposed subdivision. The project design is consistent with the General
Plan and Zc::ing Ordinance requirements.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in The Daily
Report newspaper and approximately 41 public hearing notices were sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Attached is a letter
of conceptual approval from the Garden Apartments Homeowners' Association
Board of Directors. No further ccrrespondence has been received either
for or against this project.
REMO --i_'"');.TION: It is recoffmsrre„ that the Flanning Commission conduct a
publi; hearing to consid..r ;hlic input and elements of this project. If
after such consideration the Comnission ccncurs with the findings and
Conditions of Approval, the adoption of the attached P.esolution and
issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
Resiectfully jWbmitted,
RICK
�`ty
RG:Di
t
!dEZ
anner
El
PD 81- 09 /TTS 11804 & 11805
Planning Commission Agenda
October 13, 1982
is Page 3
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map and Phasing Pian
Exhibit "B" - Subdivison Maps
Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape
Exhibit "E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - floor Plans
Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "H" - Haven Avenue Streetscape
Exhibit "I" - Natural Features Map
Initial Study, Part I
Letter from Garden Apartments Hu.eowners' Association
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
11
HIGHLAND AND A�AV 2--,:�i
GARDEN ONDOMINIUMVE' -
-.7) i
L. -m
k...,.m .}...�
-t R ,
Eai
E
CITY OF
RANCHO
I Lur
CUCANION-GA
PLANNING DIVISION
I
Leval
PMM 2
I -.,,
.J.101
iT
<
7 1
Z ]411
i L
ti
I ITE\ I:
Trru
Li
V. A -1
El 1=11
EXHIBIT: ja SCALE- "-�
CIS OF
RANCHO
ITE\ is
C UCA'LVIO`NGA TITLE:
PLANNING, DIVLSKYN
EXHIBIT.
S .. t-40
- fL5TM6 EG.ETiYT..
m ..- --- , - - - ---
[: iM"
V V
NORTH
is
W wO�
•N. v �l
l
+A..I If1FWYVry r -w�I U-�a�
phew
Tl
/ \ 'f.•1 •__ a
• ♦^lfip.Mtq � �1 �
It 1 ro
cr r.c.rn.
Y E K T� yT beta �••� .. ^ .. 6 . �! rW
( -C 1 O �R i
`/ _ �w(v �o-b ..e+, „ti �r,sKi„t �- I (..wD a Y�[.M ✓1.�
9K'e '4�C.J'O
�'rd_` �'.�.0 1 � M (lY .W •11,.x.
plisse lC
• �• •v- •b'aY!iYtO.06•
Sca, Ar.Y - _.. ,y a.uC O'.' -. � ' •' � K4 •G. -.01�N
tl 4u/ � �•.Y� �K _
�,n9,'.+. NFL yQ). .f ±uNp ,.o.,:0 + ♦2 • .�. ~• ~ �.�'v: -T�V9
�,. •w••u rcw
r
>•� ate. +C� � � \ �' 1 'il b,a c��♦.ti
p — io
..... ^ V
V _ _
/ NIGN[.AND
'{� b,'.leL ... {.' LSf �Q T wMf4 T.MtiM'O rv. YR•..�:1.
CITY OF
RANCHO CUG NNIOO'GA
PLA1i �V I \G DIVED11
V ��'�V(
P.ORM
ITEM wr l •qo+ it
TITLE AILAD ISM ft�
EYMBIT- C SGLE- ft •
F4
s
j ^ -V Ca
w X
LOST
� wo •+w tees v �+..p�
12Q:
r�wr , .-cam •i��{
�qr� 1M41Y a awl •gym. aawr Wes!.
r-t w�nww low •�M+' -u e�..oae ...ea.�
WGY�+�....s. Vgfp M4a�34•r.+
`wr�b tiR w•�yy
P
4
b:
EESE:w
0
J �'� - -
r
a a o
.ice.
s
O�
CITY O�
R'CIO CL'CANIO\CA
PL -XNN, li-\c D - %rb -10,I
i
MW
-rt,v/h'i' SIce 8LP_V'' -'Lti A Sin_
tceAs
.e.o.
dL4�4H(�i 9 A4
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAINIONTGA
PLANNING DIVE DEN
T
..- -
W-51
I.. - ,
_ _
.e.o.
dL4�4H(�i 9 A4
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAINIONTGA
PLANNING DIVE DEN
or
ILA=
4�—Zwar ;Ll ol
Ncpr%r1
it ff:) 11
2121OURINO IE
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAN-IONGA
PLANNING DINrISIO
.N
I
ITEM:
TITLE-
EXHIBIT:
3CALE-
C �!
NORTH
A
1.1
n
11
I�
!�!°1J 1020
i
w Ir,ti - .
wy
00
.rwV
I
�_�I� eft 1 � �Mt•
I SIR.
I
1325 " —�
CITY OF
RALINCM CUCAi /10 \'GA
PLANNING DiNrb9 QN
�R
F w
rw + ww.'sw
W
A' -22 1100"
o °22 1270"
w mw• wp �q
PTEM—
TITLE.
EXHIBIT: SCALE= mommomm
NORTH
1 C l
CITY OF
R IN''CHO CUCNXIO\GA
PLANNING DIXI N
0
LEGEND
M- ❑
NORTH
ITF -'%:
TITLE
EYIiIGIT:_ SCALE: '�1°
11
E
E
li CU�uV lri�JEFU ��vG i1lrlll�i'llV i.,d•••�• •" "°"° "�
CITE' OF
RANCHO
:--- notZ A -A
CUCNXIO�GA
PLANNING DIVISION
C�
NORTH
r - j fly
RANCHO CUCANIONGA
PLANNING
EX IMT =_'.`SCALE:
r,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
® INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT IHMP14ATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $90.00
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 teke action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make 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 environmental impact
and an Environmental `nzpac: Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report s::ould be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
4) the proposed project.-
PROJECT TITLE: Highland & Haven Garden Condominiums
APPLICAN'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: The Allen yevelopment
Cozipany. (Peter B. Allen, General Partner) P.O. Box 630.
Sun Valley. Idaho 83353 (208) 726- 3317__
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCER''ING THIS PROJECT: _
Alan SnapR ArchiteCt 47(,0 MarQrrilim B1yd_ Ne art Beach rA
714 833 -3560 92660
IDCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NJ.)
N_W_ corner (11 acres) - Highland and Haven Avenues _
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIOti -AL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGrNCI^S AND TELF AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Possiblg coordination with CALTP.ANS re: freeway to south and
® or re- ali.Med Highland frontage road
- Y -1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• . s- -. _�• . •emu. •-- s _•. • -
ACREAGE OF PRC,'ECT AREA AIM SQUARE MOTAG£ OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: -Proiecr
Sr;-Ft./existing d e "o t d b - s - 2000 Sq Fr /new
deve1Q=_ r , usi_ldi ngnrea - 96 000 Sg,. Ft .+
DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMIENPAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING T_NFORMATION 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 SFiEE'TS) :
She dominant feature to the north is the existing Garden Aparr-
ment complex. which -is hidden under a dense forest of Euca-
1 yetis and nnni -Vre trees corne of c+lhi c1 ArP on the proposed
develn enr will of cn.,rco be, left Major views are _®
obviously Mt Ba dk to the north And form-,l tree c r ens and
field.^+ to the east and so-ath A mA in-e trPP r.QW divides phase
1V and II (spa site plan). The site sloggsgently to the south
and orov -des good na n- l sheet drainage toward Hiti1iland. Only
natural arnscesaare precPnr on the s1te ^s well as the sparse
zenairns of a former friir or(,hard A new housing tract is
located to the w c whoc- ;ni,PSrionabla aethetics are no com-
Rlement ro any new development on the subiect site No sie
n,finanr animal life or extraordinary natural forms are in
evidence_
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series -
of cumulative actions, which althouch individually small,
may as a whole have significant envirrmnental impact?
The nEU pro osal will attempt to tie strongly with the existing
.Garden AyartmPn c thereby(, Pa ing_a conSistant "who', " whieb,
aesthetically will have more impact than either part. The
positive result of such a compatablity of landscape and form
will be a benefit to the entire community.
• WSLL THIS PROLCT:
YES M
X_ 1. Create a substantial change %n ground
contours?
x cxeate a substantial change in existing_
noise or vibratinna
* _ 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?
5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, fiammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above: *Q11 services will need
to he increased to some extent but existing aRgroved
is co-mmercial projects have already caused an anticipation of
and planning for that demand prior to this submittal, to the
city. The project is compatable with the General Plan,
IMPORTANT: if the project involves :he construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishec
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__12j31/8G Signature
® an Snapp, AFchitoft
Title gpnrps riing A11pn
Development Company
Z - -3
I
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUC'PION
The following information should be provided to the City ox Rancho Cucamong.
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.:A_I n D v 'o +ent mm�a
Specific Location of Pro]ect:N W rnrnar 11 arro T.7igi�� s
and f of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Ra.^-are
2 - Be --nom "Stacked" - S?; .000
(lst floor)
—L--a— room "Stacke3" - S3��p0
(2nd floor)
3 - Redroom Townhouse = S100.000
(2 -story emit)
t
T -4
PEASE I
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
TOTAL
t• Number of single
family units:
:. NLmber of multiple
family units:
_ ZQ -
_ -2
— 'C
;. Date proposed to
begin construction:
Earliest date of�j/���
occupancy:
/LS
Model #
'
and f of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Ra.^-are
2 - Be --nom "Stacked" - S?; .000
(lst floor)
—L--a— room "Stacke3" - S3��p0
(2nd floor)
3 - Redroom Townhouse = S100.000
(2 -story emit)
t
T -4
El
11
THE GARDEN APARTMENTS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
INCORPORATED
6300 HAVEN AVENU�
AL7A LCMA, CA. 91701
i; 1t)
D(•;,.r Vr, 111Vr*
Original Poor Quality
i-": of 111'. :;t-
o f r"cl",
r� of 1.1if-
:.1:.'t.
T
llnir= A;iy t
of I !it, pro-1.1-1 i,•
to th- -
T% r r f Y z, ;V - i
:it !) r o. % I
-)T'in 1 1'!
t
i ct,ri, of t!:(•
r z 1
1 f
or I I v I
.11hj(1 tit o%itli-jj
.n:l
I
r.-I .:jjjj
III(- A,(,.i;% t.
i (in..
Thp llo% !-,! f :r 'I i re (- t )-, 1-.4 no I r1 4,Y -i ;� -, !* ; n*t 1 ; k . I .
T: . tj.
® RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 3F THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11804 AND 11805
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Maps Pao. 11804 and 11805 hereinafter "Map"
submitted by Peter B. Allen, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the
real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, described as a subdivision for a total
planned development of 75 condominium units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -1
ad R -3 zones (R -3 /PD pending), located at the northwest corner of Highland and
Haven Avenues, into 3 lots, regularly cans before the Planning Commission for
public hearing and action on October 13, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject
to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engireering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence
presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as foliows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following -Findings in
regard to entative Tract No's. 11804 and i�805 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all
a; :•livable interim and proposed general and specific
plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
c�j-.s'stent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable
injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
(f) The design of the ten.ative tract wil: not conflict
® with any easement acquired by the public at large,
now of record, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page 2
(g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11804 and 11805, a copy of which
is attached hereto. is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
I. Elevations of all sides of all buildings and garages
shall be provided in the final construction drawings
and reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Temporary street tree landscaping shall be provided
along Highland and indicated on the detailed
landscape plans.
3. Trees shall be planted between garage doors.
4. This approval shall become null and void if the
final subdivision map is not approved and recorded
within twenty -four (24) months from the approval of
this project unless an extension has been granted by
the Planning Commission.
5. Directory signs shall be pro�,ided at the project
entries to the satisfaction of the City Planner, and
appropriate sign permits shall be obtained.
6. Details and typical elevations of walls and fences
shall be included in the final construction package.
7. The meandering sidewalk on Haven Avenue shall be
redesigned to conform to City standards.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
S. The entire Alta Loma Avenue street improvements
shall be instailed with the first phase of
construction to the west property line.
9. The sidewalk along Alta Loma Avenue shall be
adjacent �o the property line.
10. Emergency access to Highland Avenue shall be
provided with first phase of construction.
Resolution No.
Page 3
11. A reimbursement agreement_ for the construction of
the east half of the Haven Avenue median island
shall be executed per City Ordinance No. 170.
12. Installations of a stormdrain pipe system from the
westend of Alta Loma avenue to the existing drainage
pipe in Highland Avenue including all catch basins
shall be required to the satisfaction, of the city
Engineer.
13. A lot line aujustment with the property to the north
shall be recorded concurrent with or prior to
recordation of the tract map.
14. Access control shall be required along Haven Avenue
except at the extension of Alta Loma Avenue.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City o' Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing ' esolution was duly and
regularly intro&ced, gassed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
6
v
M � � • p C N i.Pr O ` G
L
p L J a L n J 4 O 4 O A C p T O T y> S!
n
V E
d
> Fr V w C p n g M O A u n
J u
n _
CC 2
d L � � •C j W L a b ^J P y u II w O L C S C
�� Nu vo m NGr 4 vn c c IC�dYn _• [
c: mG'
u O p
nr VL d AsL d _LL Yi dam°_
n= .VC qE d` _rL L JW FCY OL V9p_Or Mu Lr� i`VG CV N� V
C w C V v V A
I u zz
L rc OJ u rd yiV d >1O pAU �� y�_`VC�>� 6 L r
G .r r A q O C d — b V O C r r u A _ w O r n r q n V ."• O
N n C N O N Q M W V 2 r S W J l L g 4 d? l V d C C y p
`i a F: L V L' ij r Y
� o
r
6
O
J
`o
.T
a
S
a
O
G
O 4
r r
V � r
G 4
T
O
C
S
O
C
9
V
i
9
1
V
4
g
r.r r V Q 4C Lu 49^ VC C4 G „P C _V
`` t G d 4 6
�
r9
J tV CO E CM ,Ot �� CJ� NLC] r0 _d 9 L9G u =S
r�` NT OV � ACC r` aCi LOY Jr -Z Sc
��♦ � rP
�C y Aj rA0 � r9 `, <=
m ira _c _ d. uu � °� Jd �oe � c rp __ SEE v•
V p � S 0
O C uu uV C d lw PF O` Lc._. r w
^A O G]Li° r LC
r
5 CA ]y NA^ pV Ld L Va O`L C4 rr0 N °� 9 �_�
II N9u ° L_
e.c.” u
6VL °w ina ~ Ld.
7 O C d L O n q O
r a C O n r L Y C
L O.r O
4^ L _
V'
CG I QVJ <ClN t
P _
V` C N
�a v _ - I � �« �„°. i _ °' _ .L.• L� LtL, .`. je+ip i J v_c-4�`'
u V .Li
J O
iM r qq _••C Nq Y � lV C �yry -_ -'O N rC0
4. i p wr. O Ny � O -]�.y� 4a EJ VV CE7u LL'U
(N J p ° � i d C C i j q 9 N N w y+ a ]• L q _ 4 C • t v r � q r
yr L •Li '� v a Z f o w N d ` V, o y L o 02
L' C u .Or• � r 9 o i � L Ov 0 s o =» C � 'q^' I 10 Ldn a o' aui .V.• c• r c E
°�� w =� •_p6 L N b V � �cE ✓_> + Iu .Ur• '� a � ^r NUL+U
♦.�� .+ ` „� v�' o P dl� o °gt V 4O V
OC' 'W fj PN 9�,r QV aL 4 Y dL6 P � d L 9V �r�
P O ly GCa NLO C u_ LI � qV -N° ✓� � u TC Uy.uuOJ
OC V�9 OdC ° -u V_ �JJI _ _ O Vr L q q ZN• q .•.
C 1 N 2 C
c
+ O q d L 7E
V F O G N I r C
car ° -E-`+. o,yn E OP cr ^I a v V+°, ORD
C V
OI � �• O T T ^�1 y u Cp U D C C C 9 !J 2 2, r V O V C N
r ' E.•Gi N✓. T.'r pa- OI G`sc VVd �4 NLV a�V rO�dO• N CVC_G L_o..
14
ci
c N
Py q u w L
- o + c L. g E u T r a• r i
o
`
C� •.. .°. oa nN° r -` tiL' NO= ._� ^o'do yL- _
�• V N y` S .n 6 'O 6 C r E r r .. C C L t O l C E V L> O
2 C L`p/ O d V .<. A V .4.. C •n T a°i q 6 r` O �� v = c u •• V O .°i . O '...T. � .•�. M
SV -_J y•L _r fi qN C .. `�O �9 a V9N q +il -
t 9 L u
ry .6 lyV L UO -o'r> P�� VgCOpV C.Li O-� OL .w
V� q C NV LO DNY C+9 `_' V O• q r�E�•LT ”' 4-.O L_'
E
q V y u r V r = ¢• O „ V 7- V- r E
{ CO o r
t
f E
c c
� �.0 °cP �� �o .90. •.`� �:: a `dd�c- . <°ccrc a•`i `� �i
d 9G V q N C6 G. V u Or °6i y��` C•ri�C ` CO r.0`09VL J= pq� Cc
L Oq + ✓ v_ PC` V L
M N G d P C� ° Y.+ ✓� �• v Gu LLyy` La r__V U.E GrOgj
zi 9y+ 9C
_ c
a_ ?O� M 0 ° 9V 6LS.r 1M OP�V�OG �Z °u G_O L9N N V.rOi 'Z .iO NOU CV
= MqO V + O ON 4 9 ^G(a,•V qjL CV^ ViP •CiF d +_CLS^9O =� ��` Vi
'1 Vim.` M _N yL • >-pr -JP NLLU G9 .] E =LO -`.aN NO C Ur�C -ON C�L La
-p2 Y.dN r N � °� P4CG 91 rrL _ q V V OL9 V _ C r J`i NS^
Cam- � PdC � 9 �- LV 1 6{ •'<'� .n` T.0
G' C C_ L O I L � N a O -� C C .4. P 2 N -' i ... $ d •C ' V .n pT N C O T.` ! L_ r 9
._ L N V ° � V V r d r N N d _ V d .. ` O✓ i G . C O L L L L C
6 B -4 iz 2�wr c �- Fn'v�L -`.uYL E�� c� �.°.• Gi'CE �y
E.5 V L < Y O L .C.
I
� O
< V
b V
0 4
WaN
o•-
C V
- u o
t
✓ d
O � u
A
O q V
V L `
6 -
9 C V
A U �
N PN
� V
r
LEO
i -q
T� N
F ^O
6VyV
r O
z `r
q
q V
GC<A
G' Gi
NI y
v
N e
ZN
✓
1 I V
1
V
I �
J
Lu
O
L
N
q
V Y
pc
I
P u
� •.'
� C u
- V.°.r L O
C -✓
-
v
W
m °-
f
�
EO
W
b
A
m�pS
�
u
r
✓
J^
9=
W i��
Q n
C� L P O
4 G
a
OC a
L
C N
O
_
S
qE V T-
- ✓ _
U N
W
_
r�
6
._
LUI�M =VZV=
�G�
'.r
E q
�
O Y. r U ✓
V
R Gq•+
N
L
acv
d
_
f N
GMJ•
�•
4 u V
yV,
O Y
O�
O
V P
C
�
C
L O L
P'
L L
C
^
V
L n>
•r• T L
i
•+ G
WI
d
L`
GGc
Oyu
G O
I
V rJ b
✓
v0
N C T G` C
C P
r-
a
V
i T
A j
✓
r
-
-�
1vI
O J C r y V N�
C� N y
== i
c+o
° =L
•'.
p �N
ucu
� �
-W'�
- :'o:
L
NO
V
_il
�'
LZ M
✓o
-c
4q�
✓
uc
`o.
7�
cc_>
Cb✓•
144 °'.4�
= °N
U < - L
p O
✓
LC
C
O
4
V`
q O C
r O_ v C
T s�
m+
_P
W C
q V
[r
✓ y
l✓ A
b` L P
N
- •_
cam:.
V
i cLL -�'NOC
=c%2u
r
CbP
rOn -NJ
Y Y
rC
V�L
�
V��
�pT y L r
L�G��
y•na
CrO =n
VGA
^
✓ 4 .qr
y
045
� A L
0-2
quo
J°•
l��
V_
4NN
=
L
_
•O U
`. O
O
L
.V.r b
C
q N.r
l C
V
q V
G 4
LOi q
V^
O'
L L 4
•J
W S L
v q
q
�
C
C
c L
CO'_ V m
N oC
o f
j
c <u o,°J
cr °✓
27
r
yG JOC
mob' a'r
-•r
qL
�J
r
`NC
G
CGr
OC`--
46G
_
w4
p,d=
GL A
q.r q A
U
4`gOrWir
4 r
l
.bi
V
O L
O
r
Nca
aN
c.
M�
'�
coo
°ir°
n� ✓�-
ni-
�"'�°4
A. l
r C
l L
6 q
y V W
w
C S C
q
°- A C
IN
qG`
a0
O O✓
•rqV
LJ •rr, L
W q
�
'O C
N-
0�
� U
V`
L O
r d
_
C_
q u
V
bd CCi-
L_ L
NCp
L r
O C J
L L
4
O G
v P.r
L
p �.• V
l
V L
n
yG
N
n
Mq_C
�
�C✓
L(V� yG
Y.VC
rN�r✓
LC-
✓
c --
_'
•_
N
✓W.
W O✓
Y` O
N C^
-�
c
u
Lr,rqr,
N
cJ .. are
O q O
0„V y
cA
-^
V 6-
.°
..
b
C
N O
d Gy ✓
Q
r m✓ L
TJ r'i
T
✓�
6Ar
�
V V
'
V
P >j
6i
wN.4r• P
O
d c
d E �.
P- V
Y L r L
p u
•Oi•
by Gq
Uq
�u2
✓
r
bJw
Yfb�q
COa
d ✓OV °v
r�PL
urr0
r
L�
Q.'n
O
tCV
NC
C -GOd
N O E
IPU .A
y✓
N
<•'
q..Tr
L+qr
uL°
.'�.✓.
L'$o
�
quo
.".N�
cm�
�o,T C °.`.
L,
.a.�b
��O
�
.d =od
.NN
Pc as
N`o
o�
"'
•^
�Ay
N
PVC`
C__.
N ✓O
LVV
CL OL
�C�
_^
Vti
GN
`�
V
Ou
L L
O ✓b ✓L
Wq._.
4N Oa•rr••O
� qV
00
q
00r-
CN
6m
SON
<
e
D
V
O
V
� O
< V
b V
0 4
WaN
o•-
C V
- u o
t
✓ d
O � u
A
O q V
V L `
6 -
9 C V
A U �
N PN
� V
r
LEO
i -q
T� N
F ^O
6VyV
r O
z `r
q
q V
GC<A
G' Gi
NI y
v
N e
ZN
✓
1 I V
1
V
I �
J
Lu
O
C
G
I q
r
pc
I
- V.°.r L O
C -✓
-
v
W
m °-
f
�
EO
W
b
O q
m�pS
or- _cG^Nr
V
C C
Y V L
Q
A C
L
OC a
L
OL--N
O
_
S
qE V T-
- ✓ _
U N
W
_
r�
6
._
LUI�M =VZV=
�G�
'.r
E q
�
O Y. r U ✓
V
R Gq•+
N
_
f N
C N C
✓ 1.
y
O
�
�I
N
•Oq
V
O
WI
d
L`
GGc
Oyu
G O
I
V rJ b
✓
v0
N C T G` C
C P
r-
a
V
i T
A j
✓
r
-
-�
1vI
O J C r y V N�
C� N y
O p•
e�cc c`yr.0 =`'�
y�
ioL
1
pl
`
q
NO
V
_il
A
N
I
A>
✓
.7;N
U < - L
p O
✓
LC
��
O
-
A N - �✓ U L
r O_ v C
T s�
m+
�"'�
iFv -'_ A•`
L°cN
G
OV
NELV
cam:.
L
i cLL -�'NOC
=c%2u
r
> cs
Y Y
C A^ r V
O G
�pT y L r
_
_ 4 z N
- ' C
^
✓ 4 .qr
y
�•V-
GVA
�C.rO1
y
Y°. ✓ O
L C •C.. b L
E C
L
O C
`. O
Na
.V.r b
✓
r !_'
4r ��Y
"
t T
� O
< V
b V
0 4
WaN
o•-
C V
- u o
t
✓ d
O � u
A
O q V
V L `
6 -
9 C V
A U �
N PN
� V
r
LEO
i -q
T� N
F ^O
6VyV
r O
z `r
q
q V
GC<A
G' Gi
NI y
C�C�^
n q q
0 0 0
vvo
A 7 A
v
N e
✓
1 I V
1
V
I �
J
Lu
O
G
I q
r
pc
I
3
I � PAS
r
T
W
= y
f
�
W
O
O q
V
r
Q
A C
L
OC a
L
OL--N
O
_
S
'
V
U N
G
-I
r�
6
._
A
E q
r
.✓nI
_
C
V
✓ 1.
O
�
�I
N
•Oq
V
O
WI
c
d
L`
GGc
Oyu
G O
I
V rJ b
V
v0
I
a u
✓
r
-
1vI
ul
N b
`
NO
V
_il
A
N
I
A>
✓
LC
��
O
G O
< V
G
C�C�^
n q q
0 0 0
vvo
A 7 A
I( `N11
91 1
V
v
N e
✓
1 I V
1
V
I �
Lu
I q
r
pc
I
I � PAS
G
G
O q
L�
r
_ G C
OC a
L
OL--N
O
_
S
'
V
L
I acv
r�
A✓ C'i V N
._
A
_
C
V
✓ 1.
✓u6
N
•Oq
-��q�
Cq�i
C
L`
GGc
Oyu
G O
I
V rJ b
V
v0
I( `N11
91 1
V
G c
AE
OC a
L
OL--N
L•nZL
'
NO
�.j
r�
A✓ C'i V N
._
A
_
✓u6
N
•Oq
-��q�
Cq�i
`_a
Oyu
G O
-
v0
✓
_L
`
NO
Sr V
�"'�
V
G
t✓ N Y V
` J O B
O
Z 4
C
y
9p v
Y°. ✓ O
L C •C.. b L
E C
L
O C
`. O
Na
.V.r b
✓
4r ��Y
"
t T
.N+oA
N
a
L
o✓
o f
c <u o,°J
cr °✓
GL A
q.r q A
9 b •N- a1
C
4 r
l
.bi
V
O L
O
r
>
_✓
r✓
COQ
A r
g L y
C
y
A. l
L
Or W
0�
� U
r
N
A
�✓
y
d 1�
V �
�
4
O G
.
N�
O Or
Cb✓.�
'._✓
n
✓
N
n
24
.'..
n EP
E
✓
c --
LCi
N
-�
c
V •La
.� N
Pe
cJ .. are
.Yr, a•
-^
-
�
di
b0 •
`
r
� =L
C�
p u
L\
a
G
A
��
G.
L
P�
6
N O E
C04-
y✓
N
<•'
pb�
C
4NN`.
6ZVy(1
LV OJV
N
�
COO
rl
LV
Vti
I
c
L 4
C-
� v
q C•
C
� L
E
V`
J q
L p
N y
N P
i
- j
` O
G �
v�
V
C j
M �
=S
.. r
n�
m
,
d
O
6
°
qY�C .O � I —v ..b �a V ��p^ I( I =P lC •f� O N
w V d C C I N q� N v✓ L P O V w ! 1, . W S> L N C R ~ 9
c ° q V r .� V � V Y V 2 a q y L L rt 9 ✓ I( T L r < C _ O L T
V r E
N L l
wp `•O wW J oc•v pF. LT � <
O CEO _✓ i nY o�u�
6 O r V� L L V q ` r te V L nTi GV N � V N w I I n V= q Y_ ✓ ALI L . y
GT. � CON r 9l �2 .VOL o .` I N3 2t y aV rC
CV drN L �� CL 6 w0 _LwL _ wi �N VC` r9 OL V .2=
Ny E
2:ie �a b r.,a� c✓ u �_
OC °u OV n ^CO tT Lr Cpp✓ {�( =V ^ V•-- Vr O L
4 L 2 I .ri m V 'r r O L ,a �( ` L 4 c• D c
N4 0`� N` T.ui oI Y� 9 >L N L '^� 4� Ic o^ «m � ✓� -_ ca .:: "� a= °'.c.
_ T _
c 4_ y�._= �i mV = v�o �N 'oQ �a JSO cr �i Yoo •'_ �— �.T. � �2
�_ IN Pwir < _V ,V LP P ✓l V° CJ V >C rhl� II �•✓ _V VJ o- MN MC
Y« V� CVri �� 7•v lC0 y° 'b L L� �u �IV(��] 1 �` rtV _= VJ YN L`
^.° L9 dr G/V �i d I G<OC NyE yb ✓O�� lV \' ' t V r TIn �� �V
S 6 V 9 •C �6 0 C I r< _ I 4. L. < O✓ 7 J �L � b b � �� 3 V O u _ � T (. O V
uI ¢cN ¢w Y �Sr ❑.L. Y L rY .y um
C5
IM,
N n �
-
Y
J
C
c
W
4 o
1 .w O ci r O T a-
O
L O V
N
V> C � T P_ q V L N � � R C N o –�� N C, � v •� O J C N
a r f W _V "' O I� c 1 1 O q✓ L c E„ �
o �9Va M6 l>. O r✓ O _ K V - q N NNL
O r_ S O VO •Ol I p V y�� N V L
P rwi C� . V 1 r O V _ O � V_ W i IV- 9 L O •_ i C C �`✓
Wp N. L p _ (1 C L 4 f N r_ r T_ LV a ✓ C N r P C p C
1 a.e o ✓ �•+o ._
_ S O 4 -,;E l W 9 O
H ✓ L G L L= w C d 1{ I yG w V` O V 4 O V Y L C
—✓ ` V N _O N J I L_ L d V 9 G U r N. r J✓ V
'�_ O O O C C J L w C V C d J..-. .O- L r p> « •� � _ ���
< C VV r0 .L ✓N= C< r I`6 � d LO a —V >� V < ✓y � ��' •^9V_V
N V � •4i r 9 C u V r O V t= L �. V v C b y O
c �gz no-.— .°emL.�. �_n ..✓ Lam°
'� E iuY 6• I I C [a0C NP U ° m a� P` C'mo s
C `6' t V NO YCi OLw P C_r f O' V NC C. Y� GV
w , r r I I I I✓ CbV 'su ANY L n NO Y_ Jr_v -`.
wrr ...rt yQU Fc VV P uii 2 uN` pl o, Z--
°u
O O T C V P O L � y u w d I� G I I I � I C Y'~ v 4 G L r Q y�� O L C y O✓ =�=
t✓ 9 L G ^J �� �>✓ L nTj L i��� q ° L > r • O_ � n � _ w
•bu n V < N. N. ✓ O C C: r � I� W � I � P N G L C. � C L w n r >� V N L V N
�fz NV G4 VO. ✓V CO C'YN
^.Up aN Vy cV G wGV Cr' w✓ V I � � h L_W Vp `w_ ALL W C C'�<Pn
Z V r L N 6 'J V x V V✓ E C O E —� -1 p N L Q C o _V 4 r J N r N _ L
CL V 1 � I C LMV NL�Ga. .n 00� N` �lN
\I NI I ! a
V
C
L7
°
v
�
7C a8
_°
S°
_�
o
cc
c
t
-cc
rj
F°
N-
S�
T_
N
C=
^ C .N.r
S
V z u
« O 4
r
n
O° •� �
T° T°
°V•
4V =1vrO
._...
�4T
9
r_
Y
V
^I
.�
VN
dY
Pn�O
i O
v
q
6 O 66
T
C'
Sz
.�Lc
b
`
2
l
L7
0 RESOLUTION NO. t
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -09
REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -1 AND R -3 TO
R -3 /PD FOR 11.03 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
HIGHLAND AND HAVEN AVENUES - APN 201 - 262 -28, 30, 31,37 &
40
I.ILIED E/lf "= � Fit �_
^.., Cr. � - 151 Iay Of uuly, 1982, an application was filed and
accepted on the elove- described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 1982, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 55854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following ink' dig :
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. That the proposed Zone Change would not have
significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties.
3. That the proposed Zone Change is in confOTmance with
the General P3an.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project wil not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on
October 13, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
I. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of tha
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 13th day of October,
1982, Planned Development No. 81 -09.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends thE* the
City Council approve and adopt Planned Development
No. 81 -09.
® 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
Resolution No.
Page 2
4• All Conditions
Tract No's of Approval applicable to Tentative
. 11804 and 11805 shall apply to minis
Planned DeveloPment.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982,
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM0,V6A
BY:
Jeffrey E ;ing, Chairman
ATTEST-
- Sec —rem y of the Planning Commission
I. JACK Lich, Secretary of the Planning
Cucamonga, do hereby certify COrui;ission of
regularly introduced y that the foregoing Resolution tionC ways Of and
C ity of Rancho Cucamonga, passed, ' and adopted by the Planning and the
on the 13th day of Octbr, 1982e3btar meeting of the Planning Commission held
y the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
0
0
11
"I T110
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANI CHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 13, 1982
Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
USE PERMIT
temporary use OT L,SJJ
building for a church
category (Subarea 3),
Drive, Suites A, B and
82 -23 - CHURCH OF CHRIST - The
square feet in an in ustrial
facility in the General Industrial
located at 9581 Business Center
C - APN 2.09- 021 -40.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Alta Loma Church of
Christ, has requested review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to operate an interim church facility for 24 to 30 months
in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 9531 Business Center Drive
(Exhibits "A" & "B "). The church as a congregation of approximately
forty -one people and will occupy three suites which total 2,555
square feet. Services would be held on Sunday mornings and evenings,
and on Thursday evenings. No regular office hours are scheduled. A
letter from a church Elder explaining the church activities is shown
on Exhibit "C ".
The site is designated in the Industrial Specific Plan as General
Industrial. Church related uses are allowed subject to approval of
a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS: The main issue relative to church uses in industrial zones
is parking availability. Approximately seven (7) spaces are assigned
to the subject suites during nurmal working hours. After 6 p.m. on
weekdays and an weekends, approximately fifty -seven (57) spaces become
available. Exhibit "D" indicates the businesses which currently operate
in the building the church wishes to occupy and their hours of operation.
The Planning Commission has previously approved three similar church
applications within the Cucamonga Business Park. Exhibit "E" diagrams
the location and number of parking spaces designated for each of the
churches. ho overlaocinq of the designated spaces occur. The property
manager has indicated that the church uses have worked out well over
the past year and a half.
ITEti G
CUP 32 -23 /Church of Christ
Planning Commission Agenda
October 13, 1982
Page 2
F "JS FOR FINDING: Group meetings and activities will take place on
evenings ana ::ekends when ample parking is available. The proposed
use, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval would not
be detrimental to the public safety or environment.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in The Daily
Report newspaper and public heari,io notices were mailed to property
owners within 300' of the subject property. In addition, all surrounding
businesses were notified of the church application. To date, no corres-
pondence has been received either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
and consider all input and material relative to this project. A
Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Rt CK /GOMEZ
City Planner
RG:CJ:jr
i
Attachments:
Exhibit
"A"
- Location Map
Exhibit
"B"
- Site Plan
Zxhibit
"C"
- Letter from Church
Exhibit
"D"
- Surrounding Businesses
Exhibit
"E"
- Designated Parking Area
Resolution
9
27 a -I � 27
i IiOfh Ers R _ ROUF�
Q 1 r
Iw r. '� ror.t .L•
6 � -• � � Pry !
3 `la IG A
-FiU5M1E8ENF — — 4 OfiivE
®
par. r.� v
s Q. 1.
,_fps ---► PIQ ® PIQ
trot
K tsr.c.a i Q- i
SuFy —S� P =—S —P
G)
aauc
all
t
arc rn 1
_ V V
NORTH
CITY OF ITE:11: G -V --P SZ —ZS
RA\CFIO CUC.ALI'IO\'GN TITLE: LQ- Rie al M V
`
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIfiTT: A" SCALE: N-L"S .
,Y.z-
� 1{
1 1
i�
lI!I:I_
i
D,
ARROW
Jlllllllllil IIII!IIiilil llilllilllllj
i !iIII11.i1L1LlL� 111RIIIiillif lllllil.11i:11! 11.111
;i
�1111iEili!II
' ! >J I1ltilll llllllifilii11111111ii11111 b t i 1
I C.
r
0
1 111111111ilfTTiTi37T11 � CT1711 Lam,
stt•
•s .. 11 IF •.� —a -li ,li.iJ f� � I
1
.•fill 'U i!iP iI PTTTTI
" ^�` '�1Sll!!Illll!!!Illlilllil lilllfiili!!i) gIIII (1!l1iLLli! _' �111!i11uJ�
t
I+ I •I �, � 1 C,� � illllllillL•illliTTi t, 3_-
I � Ll� L t LCI ! 1.i LlliiSlL'1,�
WQ I I 1: -
Iii!Iillillii1110 11111111111111111IIH
CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK
a
J
Q
m
i
V
Q
Q
111 The areas marker: indicate 57 parking spaces, the majority of which
;would available to
weekends . Alta Loma Church of Christ on evenings and
fis
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANIUNG.A,
PL.MN;NNG DIVISION
i�
iOR H
ITEXI= G.U.P eZ -Z3 _
i�XHLIBI •S, SCALE: —S:T-
A6'torga Churoh of Chric�
V. 0. $es 848, glha Loma, C?A 91741.
September 21, 1982
Mr. Curt Johnston
City of Rancho Cucamonga
A.O. Sox 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Mr. Johnston:
The Alta Lorna Church of Christ has chosen 9581 Business Center Drive as the
interim location for our church.
We have indicated interim Iodation because the church presently owns a parcel
of land on she west side of Hellman Avenue below 19th Street on which we
anticipate building our permanent church in approximately 24 to 30 months so
that we regard this facility as a stepping stone to our new church building.
Our current congregation consists of 21 families with a membership of 41 people.
Church services will be Sunday mornings from 14:00 to 12:00 and there will be
a meeting Sunday evening from 5:00 to 5:00. We plan a Thursday evening
meeting from 7:30 to 3:30. There will be r.j regular scheduled office hours.
We have evaluated this location in terms of our needs and since our times of
use are at times other than normal business hours, we feel there is more than
adequate parking for our needs without causing any problems for our neighbors.
There do not appear to be any time overlaps that would cause problems far the
surrounding offices, nor for us.
The space we have chosen is currently unimproved and improvements will consist
of a dropped ceiling through -out the facility, one, possibly two permanent
partitions, the necessary electrical and lighting, heating and air conditioning
ana a small food service area that will have a sink, refrigerator, possibly a
stove or microwave even for light food preparation.
We have anticipated the panic hardware and emergency exit lights required and
we will be happy to meet whatever other conditions may be required.
We appreciate the City of Rancho Cucamonga's cooperation.
Thank you very much,
Don L. Ki ng
Elder
Alta Loma Church of Christ
iTENI: 6Z -23
TCiL£: t.e7'f9V— 1=1WA eAft=44
DLK,4nbk l ••
£ \HIi3I'i': G SGaLE: ab ScAle
TYPE OF USE .ND HOURS OF OPEPATION
OF EACH ADJACENT OCCUPANT IN BUILDING 12
LJ
SUITE
A,B,C
ALTA LO_MA CHURCH OF CHRIST
(Proposed Facilitv)
SUITE
D
VACANT
SUITE
E
TOM DAVIS ASSOCIATES
Architectural Offices
8 :00 - 5:30 Monday - Friday
SUITE
F
CARL KARCHE� c✓,. r,., r
L� 1 ✓1111 S-S
Administrative Offices
8:00 - 5 :30 Monday - Friday
SUITE
G
ASSOCIATED DETAILING
Architectural Drafting Services
8:00 - 5:00 Monday - Friday
SUITE
H
GOLDEN STATE APPRAISAL
Real Estats Appraisal Service
8 :00 - 5:J0 Monday - Friday
SUITE
J
LOGIC EXTENSION RESOURCES
Cor.:p- -,.ter Software Syste*zs
8:00 - 5:00 Monday - Fridav
CITY V� ](
RANCHO CUCAVlO`TGA
PLANNI \G DW SIQO`T
EXHIBIT-
- 2-
LI
11
iI
f':il:la I�II!IIII:!t. JII
I I
i II
II !I �i
1
L;1
I B iJ
• • • • .
I I I !
Ll{ {{{
\�I I• r I� 1 1 1 � ��
CUCAMONGA SUS;NIESS PARK
lrrr.'r;, Fir.l
, .:
titiL!l!dljlu— _
_
L
1L1�I IiLn
1: r » I I
nlnn:unvnr�Irin Hfi�lll l:l l!I'IPI P.�!!I!;'1'
DESIGNATED PARKING FOR ALL CHURCHS WITHIN THE CUCAMONGA, BUSINESS PARK
A GALA FELLOIWSHIP ....................92
s FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH ........... 70
`i LIGHTHOUSE MINLSTRIES ..............95
D CHURCH OF CHIRST ...................57
I
1
I
J
I
i
J
�I
1
1
I
I
f
CITY OF ITEM= 4g_-.V--p sz -z3
R A iNCI-IO CL...CAjN10N'GA TITLE: y&c; a*M rArxjt44. Ayr es
PLANNING DIVLSION E_XHIRT:.£. SCALE: 9.7f.S_
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE R41iCH0 CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIO`,
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -23 FOR THE CHURCH
OF CHRIST LOCATED AT 9581 BUSINESS CENTER GRIPE, SUITES
A. B. & C IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY (SUBAREA 3)
ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of September, 1982, a complete application
was filed by Alta Loma Church of Christ for Tevin-W of tt%a above- described
project; and
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of October, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described
project.
follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
SECTION 1: That the foilor,`ng Findings can be met:
I. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improve -nen:s in the
vicinity; and
2. That the prcfosed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zonira Ordinance.
SECTION 2: ;'hat Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -23 is appr%,.ad
subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. This use shall be permitted at this location for
three (3) years from the date of approval -
2. Group meeting may occur only on weekends and after
6:00 p.m. on weeknights.
3. No church activities will be permitted which exceed
the available parking or cause adverse effects upon
surrounding businesses. Should any p- oblems arise,
this Conditional Use Permit shall be brought back to
the Commission for reconsideration.
4. Public assembly or other large group meetings shall
not occur until such time as ail Uniform Building
Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall's
Regulations have been complied wits.
Resolution No.
Page 2
5. Preschools or schools are not allowed by this
Permit; however-, this shall not preclude nurseries
or Sunday Schocl.
APPROVED AND ADOFTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, 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 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSICNERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
E
11
CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
City Planner
DEVELOP. ENT CODE
4s an update to both the Plar Xg cUIL- aGion and City Council, the Planning
Division staff will be d_rafti:,g the Developmeni, Cede text and graphics over
the next few weeks. During the last month, staff has spent a considerable
amount of time developing the final outline /format and researching the various
secticns of the Development Code. Upon completion of the rough draft, we will
assemble and edit the first generation draft sometime in early November.
1 will keep both the Council and Commission informed of our progress during
the next several weeks. Should you have any additional questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at any time.