HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/02/10 - Agenda Packet0701 -02 2 -10 -88 PC Men" da 1, of 2
Ml-
n li
MY-CF.
RA
a
1977
WEDXESESPAY FL8RVAAY Its; 3068 7300 ta.m..
j T181 BAft I R
.
$ O EAii ttD A, l:.81( OZ0 ti
o
G
L of
IL Roll CKU •. ' (a.
Commiuioner Blakesley Cor mliXonar Emeriok
s
Commissioner CMC."ft Commissioner McNiel
"r
Comildssioder Tonto►
IIL_ c
_
_ u
IV., ant tale! j
`)rhe #'ollowing Cor'taent Calendar items are erpecte 4fU be ,tine and
non- ocatrovorstal. 2Wey will be acted on by th$ =tt +i v it at one
time Without dtscuaion. If arf�rte has' concern a i�,-t A, itemi'lit
1
p should b., t'emave$ for discuestoq^
A. evllITOR DEVELOPMENT R 'PiEW 97-39 - FLORES - An appeal of
sts�1eeao?s den; III pttrposati +additon u+ ice, t quure feet to,,
an existing sort- coutoernit� residential structure within the
General' Itxiustrial Loiid V, District (Subarea 8),1 ated it 13233
Arrow Highway = "M 229- 171 -211
',•+
<, � , B, TIME EXTENSION P09 TENUTIYE I'MACT 12420 - MERI L
DEVELO M NT '- o j velopmetit of 119 single am ttsiicht':sl
ttnik on 1 . acres of land .n the Law - Medium Residential District
(4-8 4wa5U units per acre), donated at.the northwest corner of '
6th Street and Heaman Avenue - &M. 209•161-04, its and 06,
Ti�j� aiiowing items are public hearings in why A coitcev individt6zts f
rt5a Voice tEietF
}i opinion a7 tits related grp)sot. Plea: wait to be
roct�t►t00d by ,the Chairman anrl - addiju the CommiSSiort by slating
€, narlh+i Arta emirs*% All smelt opintar:�� iI be timited to 5;:,�ttt63
per Wivicival for edi:hPV*0t.
c
U } J
Cr
f
1.
O
'ENVYF.t(31Vi4IENT" ASSES EN AND GENERAL PLAN
l� v
MENDMEN T 3� 4G -Wes' EN INVESTMI S A r�s, Est t
amends the Gendral Plan. land Use Map, froi�P `�c� -2lf , kiiu
P•esidientiel (4-3 dweilin uf�it per acre) % IIIg'h ltssidenti ° a'° � j-"
dwelling ratite r apre) tdi'4.05 acres of teed, located
atth side a* ,u Abed, west of ArchibaYd APB 203s83 -
n� iii, 10. ntiau Jfrom J anu/{ry 13,1835)
{ ' txV `bNMENTA+ L - ASSM'SMENT ` A,14"M DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AID UR- W ND INY i•il# A °
'requent to amend the Development INstricts jVrOp from tow -
Medium <;i4- 3 „dwaeU units per sere). 0- High' 44entj.,A {2430
1, �ct� -elEir >!zni# Fier ae,e) attached wig e gyp% mousing Overlay
� ' , +� �`'ixfsiriet (SPtOD) to the base district for 505'a��' IaiRd Yocated
� cas�'Che• south side of ;lase Tine road, wes3� of Archibald ,.venue
i �' , ;A�Aim 2Q3�31:13,19. jCpn #ineteK3 trCm:�sr31 13,1335)
<,+ ar. ssre`vsas%vivirta:rc''c`,eur nS3T'yr�irt� ter Arisr :p�sae�YCAa, �•,�aarr
Afs '� W}sND �INVENV�$`hIN A est to t'
` - amend the LsyLs ;� ' etnsnt of the nera :” at ` '4��n Law
lWiitYtn Itesideniiai, (4»3 dw+a emir per ae�e7i: Kati ^�s for
f),59 acres of - ,located th , asst 4ide oV el - ,0h1b8d Avenge,
.96uth of Bass a &)ad - APi 4)[ 2.08-Dal-17, 54: 559 t6 and 5' '
(Continued fro 'Zr ry `i311983
` EZ+tinlRd3NiPiENTZ S�iMENT, AND DEVELOPMEN
DISTRICT AME MM -NT 8 -i. b tit _idly INVESTMENTS
request to ante tte Develo -me?it Districts Map f rom Lai -
Medium Resident (4.8 dwelling' units. Per we're) e
Professional foe 1. 9 acres of land, located on the west s ' of
elrehibaid anu south of P-% tine Road - A,PN*. 8+�8 03i;�Y7,
54, 0, 56 and 57 `f�- tnt1wed i m .Jamiary 13, 1905)
Av
Q_
1. DEVELOP&IEN AQr6MiIQT <�37 -02 - WEiI'T ENI? INY'ES'i'6'1EN7'S
A Development Ajiiement between the City of )RAneho
Cucamonga analwestw IrM axments lor the purpose of 0ovid tv 1
a Senior Housing Project per the r-equlreinents ,bi ttrk ScOor
Lousirg :Overlay District (Section 17.20.0:0 of tbia Development, �
Code, ordinance 211) for 170 apartment unAs to tte located on thy;
south side of Base=, X44 Read, wrest of Artihibald' Avenue - A.IPi ..'
208-031-18 19. (Continued from January 1:,1088)
P. cTEN'TA2'I1cE 4 tAC'T 13227 - LINCOLN PRC)PER'TIE/3 'The. total
develepment W 16.9 acres of in PKedurn R.esideti'iial
District {3 -14 dweilirg units per acres into a siogla lot residential
su!trdivision for the development of a 212 rat ti- family complex,
located at the northeast crker of Rochester Avenue and Base
L4-le Road - Ad'I�it . 227- os1 -+)5,
tl ENVIRONMEN'TENVIRONMENTAL A°,.SSML+I'I AN Yl , CE 8749 '
:,FSAR1l4AiiIAN - A request ter reduce the requud�" &.,;ir�a sup rse
back t4 s5 fee on Arrow Route and the required 96 1%ot
axibegpe Otback to 35 feet on 'Vk*ya7d Avenue; and, to t'eit ce
Uia r cad 24 guest: park spaces to 20 pei *i»g spaeeeffor
approved 'Tract 11734,�is(fng i )98 to wnhouses an 8,5 acres of.. J
WA- in the Metiune Residential V, ,.Irlet (8 -14 belling units per:
acre) 'located': aft e� northwesi corner of Arrow Route and
Yineyar Avenu$ - 4 i~I <, 207-192-1 through 98.
H. ,'VARIANCE 87 -18 - iAOME FEDERAL - A request to eilow the sign
espy to oe �V rd6 n ��' Taltertt ova tutu {2) new faces
Y•, of existing wall sign`s, lqcat:4 i at 95A0 clew Line Road. 1
1; ELtVFIit}N 'ERTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT R3kulp'W
>, am — I? LM E- The dewelogm_ent o a►t b ee, manu aeturiog
and reseerah a tAevelopment .facility totaling SS,923 aware feet
on 4.88 aeres_a `land in the intiusWai park D3atrictt ahawea 8_of'
the L- trial �eeiffe Plan,. Iuei ted at the northv At comer of C'
4th Street and` wente('' .± enue µ APN: 210 - 381 -9, 10x1 11 `wadi 210- .
J. DEVELOPMENT IiI:Vi W 87 -13 - JUANxEnI£'I '�Ese 6 �kahlisfiiient
Of a reta `1 glAss busiq_W art .sn istU1g `e: JWoned service station,
in the gpeealty pomnieccial,: District °Hari ,A( tUvity Center, Area 3
of the FoothiLl goulevatd Specille Plana located at 9670 Foothill
,5 Boulevard -7"N: 208- 153 -05«
1K., min JM i� Og SmEl'UNIT-Siu S'TIT r {�
YM Dhvetor RepqKU r °f`
L. STREETSCAPE WALL DESIGN UUIDELHIBS (Continuitt from
January Fr, i 88
� � YAI. C�Eaission �'
R.. Piabw 03'Tmentr ,
This fs the time for the general polio to�adarog, the
Commission. Ite►ns to be sifeay�sse(f here are thn.e which 4a not
al aq%�a Pete -this agenda.
iL
The Planning Commismon has adopted Adrninisbitive Rvqu'atzfuts abut
Sot On 1�i p m. adjex rnment time..-if items go beyat,,,that time, -they
,OWU be i2Oard pn;,y with the consent the GomnV_sst4r
J/
CITY OF SCH.6 ,CUCAbIONGA
-STAPP REP
o
i, 1977
DATE. Febr'sary 10 19$}3
T: t:hairran a Ȣ,bherfs of the. planning Commission
FROM: Brad faller, 0' 4iannew )'%
i' ^
BY: Cindy "ttord' Astfstart planner
< SUBJECT: � MINtiR DEVELOMEVI REV10 81,39 � FLORE%9 "An Lippe] 1 Of���
staff, — M sion "fro "�nw itiW pr -opo$e addition a 230
square" feet _to &R, exist"q: non- conformVing resi itial
structure within the- General- Industrial Land,.,ttss bi trict
(Subarea t3 ), located at 13233 Arrow Highway ' ,,' APM 2 <0 -271.
�. ,r
`'
Y. MKGROUND: The above- rdiorenced ap; ±l was .reviewed 41'_ "ublic
�, iir na a ttiA Planning Cojj*issian:Maetfng of anuary;21`; ' At
c .
that mteetingi, the Plannio Ctomission determined that due to
°
speriific circumstances io ''thus case, the °Proposed 230 square foot
room oddition care be� ,Dons #dered a minor expansion Ito d pre.
exiWng, ron- conforOn+g., uso: and therefore, :,meets the required
•sindings set ,,forth' in be City's Revelopment Code And contained
within the Resolution of :approval attached herein.
Respe ' Ily su ittedz'
ra er
Ci ty P1 z<nner
BB: CNt to
Attachments. Resolution of Approval with Conditions
r
r� ITEN N
'r
Rla LUTIOV OF THE RWHQ CUCAMOPGA PLANNING. COMMISSION F
5� REVERSING THE ACTION 'O THE CITY PLANNER AND k?
PROVING
MINOR DEVELOPMENT RIYP}i NO. 87- -39, AN APP41CfiTItNlI TO
PERMIT THE MAllSf* ,,� Alt EXISTING NOR.CONFOR ING USE
IMAM AT 13233 ARR69 HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL IKLYUSUJAt
l LAW USE DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8 ), Ahit MAKING 1It3OVIGS .Iii
SUPPORT THEREOF
A. Recitals,
(I) MaftUel and Odelia Flores have ,filed an application for* a Minor
Development. Review to permit a,,230 suuare foot addition to an existing
residence located at 13233 Arrow Highway ( application, hereinafter},
(it) On December 15, 1987, the pity Pldrkner deni'ed thy; pplicatian
as inconsistent ufth DevelOPM00t Code Section 17,02.130,
(iii) The City Planner's denial of the application was t°f y
appealed to this �w issinn on December 28, 19 07. ;
(iv1 On the 27ih of January, 1988, the ai$pn6g tomatission of the
City o� Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly n3ticed '€+ublic leaning on the
application awl concluded that hearing, prior to the adoption of this f Resolution. F
N All legal prerequisitem,,10 the adopt,on of this Resolution have
E , occarred. t'
B. Resoluti"'.n.
HOW', THEREFORE, it is hereby feu, , ; terained and resolved by ` the
Planning Coaxission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby cally finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part. A, of tr0s Resolution aVe true and correct.
2. Based upon sub tantial j 'Ovidence presented to this Commission
during the above - referenced public beering on January 27, 1988, including
written and oral staff reports, q,69etber, with public testimony, this
Commission hereby, - .specifically finds a31 follows:
(a) The "Pliant, Man,kel and Odelia Flores, has submitted
plans for an addition onto the rear '4f- -ts )eir existing residence, *hick
includes a bedroom, bathrooms, den and laundry `room.
W The application applies to property located at 13233 Arrow
Highway with a street frontage of 55 feet and lot depth of 158 feet and.is
zones! Genaral Industrial District (Subarea 8) by t.� City's Industrial A .a
Specific Plan,,,, and r'.i
A,,;L
PUMING a ii it►M RESOLUTION NO. }�
MDR 87 -39 - Fl red
i
Feb vey 10 19W-
(4) TM 04'4WW to the north of the subifiCt site is Low -
Medium Residential (4.8 dwelling units par acre ), the propety to the south of
that site Cansists of General industrial, Subarea Si the property to the east
is General 'Industrial, Subarea 8, and the property to 'the west is General
Industrial, Subarea 8; and
(d) ` The proposed expansion does not constitute the Creation of„
_ an additional" non.Conforaring use _and
(e) The pr�posod additions is a minor extension to an existing
_
single family hone and' -ttsareforor_ will not result in a significant
frWrisification of a pre - existing non -conforming use, and
1
(f) "The proposed addition will result in a more harfitable and
safe living enviroment for tbm applicants; and
- kf} ,The proposed to" addition will riot significantly alter
the subject property in such a manner than'would reake it more�dit°ficult for
;
permitted rases to develop in:t)re area At a future tide, r. ,
3. Based upon the Substantial evidence presnted to this Coreaixsion
during the above•referencod hearing and" the findings
public upon specific of
facts set forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this Copipission �preby finds and
concludes as follows:
j
�l
(a) That the proposed expansion is in aGcurd with
j
the goals' anti objectives Of the =General plan
and Styelopmenat Code Section 17.02.130.
fib} That the proposed `expansion still not be
detrimental to the public health,_ safety, or
welfare.
ic} That the proposed erg "sc an, '!'ii not be
^l\ materialfj, injurious to' -' the properties or,,
improvements in the vicinity.,
a, 8a:ed upon the findings acrd. conclusions set forth in ara rap h
iand
is 3` above, tiais gowirission �iareby reverses the octiori of the�City
_ Planner specified in Recital (if) above and aapproves, -the appVication subject
to the► following conditions:
�
(1} The applicant shall obtain the necessary
building permits and approva l s required f'qr
'w
this addition 'and shall., comply th ail
applicable Codes acid Standards in force at the >
title of perartt issEaMso
421 The applicenrt shall iu) Mit plans for any
r essary building permits witkI n thirty- days' ;_1
o
w Fr+xa 090' 1te of this Resolution* o
o f
i
U 11
A-5
J
g V ii
91
3
e it� Corm, SIOK RESGLUTION No.
7w�9 Flares,
Februarlw,�iM, 1988
Plig
r
(3) ' ft property shin. not, be 41teMbd or , the }
structure further Opanded beyond that approved
by ,this Resolution ' or strictly permitted
through Municipal Codrs or Ordinances.
-`
S. The Deputy, Secretary to th W G fission Uall cortif,Y' to t W-
_a
a optf8� of thfs Refutik ,
r :AP€'ROYEit,:A# ADOPTED THIS ; iliit DAY OF FEBRUARY, AM .
PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RM—UM CUCAM
arry T. MMIel, Chairman v
,ATTEST: r�
wo, ou I .e ; t:lT -i
I, Brad. filler, Deputy Secretary of "ibe PlUning Cuwission of Ux City of
P,anche Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly aqd
regularly introduced, 'passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of t14
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning £o ission held
on the 10th day of February, 1988, by t1*40116wing vote -to-wit:
AYES: COMISSIONERS:
NOES: C"ISSIONERS:
ABSENT:' COMt+1ISSIONERS: °
l
_ 1
J rf
:..... , , ,` , ♦ .. -,�-_. i'A .OF Tt: A CHO L.t1lJ'1317'YOI',G
STAFF REPORT
vj�;
DATE: February IQ, lose
�1) 70: -chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ;S
FR(t Brad Duller, City Planner
BY. Beverly Nissen, Assista{tt P3apner
SUBJEM TIME EXTENSION FOR TNTATIiIE TRACT 1-420 ICKEL @ I
- Tne ve opmen . or s ng a tam ly
ittached nits on 14.3 acres of land In the- Low - dlit
"Residential District (4 -$ dwelling urifts pe(? acre) at the
northwest corner of 6tH Street and Hel loan Avenue - Am
209*46I -04, Oa and 06. _
i, BACKGROUHOx. Tentative Tract 1.2420 was: ori916A ly appruved by the 4.
annzng ,.ommic4ion on February `26, 1986 and is due to eitpire on
February 26, 1988. On January 7, 498$ the app;icant, xprv:,et
Development, requested an extension on the tentative map fbr t e.",
maxima allowable time in order to allow thia additio¢nal time, to:'
record the Tidal map. According to the Development Wde,,(Section
17.02!.1110) extensions on approvals-may be granted in twelve (12)
month increnk:nts,,dat „to exceed :4 tetal of five (6) years from the
original date of approvals
II. ANALYSIS: Staff has anal ' e proposer time`extea�Ion and has
compare the proposal �ntlC��!.e ctwrent deve7a rat criter�:s
outlined' in the Develo Based upon this review it was
? determined that the 'project meets the Optional Residentia'i
Standards of the Development Code for the Medium Resic'ential.
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). } }}
In addition, the Engineering Division has reviewed the project and
has no additional cunditions to add.
III. RECOMBENDATI4N:. Staff recowxmds that the Planning CoWission t
approve a one year time extension throua?t the adoption of the
attached Resolution
}
ITEM 8
PRANMil 6 off' ISSION STAFF REPORT
17 1242G 4 Merlckel Developwt G _ �� _. Tz—
February 10, 1QB8
c
Page 2
r
Res lly s tted,
Bra
City annex
8B.BR.vc
Attachment Letter from tits pplicant
Exhibit "A" - 'notation Map
Exhibit W - Site Plan
Exhibit V W conceptual GrIging P'Kan
Exhibit "D" - ba lding ELporaiiu�;-7 .�
Resolution WOO,
Time Extenaim �ewution of Approval
lop, 4
l� r
n
rr
\ J�
S `y `
U _ `
rf•
r,
f � aJAN � DMS!C
' i ?7
M61CKEL DEVELOPMENT TaMM=y. 7, 1988
129 CABRILLO TREET
COSTA MESA. CA 92627 `
TELEPHONE City of
(774) 722 -tOCO Attns Brad BL*JAw,
Director of P1Wsxtx#
Fo 14ow am
e
Rancho (Nn! "M911, C& 91730
Res TRai atiVa Tract ,%2420 and (� A view ., 4
Dear Mr. Butler the
Plwm accept this letter As a City P1ara CKB � ttait
apMoval &Ite: for the imsxqn Roo " T4ntattV% TrWt r
22420 for tl* T=iu= allowable tima sax. to cads haste swagh
tits to reoo�A tre firz- x »
r-.* tw*Ativ* o .ginally appro;md ftbraxy 26, 1486
unties Aaaolutzora No. 56-30 arra in dw to expire m rfjbnutry „
26, 1988.
'roan* ym for yot= iq- ratim of the ra*ueat. �
Sinoaxelyo -
RamW P+asic 1
a Xal Partnersaiiir
F=aald P. Merickel
Pr"Went
SS .;i
i
.i.�r,u,L ,wee •�
1 ,:.J H�lu �rwf •$
s
_, wwnu
w -.lair
in
a �
,
ww raa In SOO
ISR140 t4
Loolow
OMOWAAi 74r17i3 dXi
sun • tS. wa -
iaw�rw( x�"1 eic
111Ar1l. rs�,9QQ N .
AAAMIUtii
Amuww(rr Ir -l2A (mmul ..
OWNS AQI*t
tkAKfrY•
>19r"u u3
owAaK(.�r..l xy iaaw ;
uW amor^: - ci
i Sr3M 0500,, 43
A asmw csilp or
1!(
.Ar t �. lio
C13 2MAM,
�R
SIGN
PliA$IN(l.
14 of hsaK sL
0:00 ONAAK�gII�t�ac
+ 0%1X lN4S�ve�WM110/1 AilSSit
NS3
:t7a:
t Rdtt 1
...wio..o.,tiJ'' r i' • ���f�i'ATi'S��.
1 OF
' RANCHO CLTCA TITLE=
P
LA NN i5 EXHl?TP .SCALE:
.rte'• 4 1� {�
Ist a 4 tl04
Trr
LE. IA
l
i
I
i
*771
RESOLUTION NO. 86 -30 - 1t
c A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAt MIND COMh4ISSION OF THE CITY OF 1
RANCHO CUCWNGA, CX1FtRN1A, CONDITIOULLY APFMAYIRG
VE6 IIGN REVEW AND TENT I VE TRACT" MAP W. 124ZO
F'RWAS, Tentative Tract Map 34ts, 12420 hereinafter "Mapes su=1 tted by
Pitt Favorite, alplicant;, fat the purpose of S tbdividing the real. MParty
situated in the City of 4t►r,"to iu�amn ,, County, of San Bernardino ;Stale of
California, described As `*W &i eltpmen� of 11O single.fa+ail, attar d units
on 14.5 -acres of land in ;.the Low Aiedi.tm R33i ntial - Disty! 4 -(4 -8 dalar), 1
located at the northwest sorrier 0 6th Strset and Hellman Aenue;', inntQ 216 1
lots relerly came bafoi% the Plnnin Co0issjcq far pcthltc irearjnR, aid i
actions on February 26, 1983; anc#
SittESiEAS, the Cit.;4Planner s rlicas ded approm;1 of the Rasp subiect {
U all tgnditioni sOt 4rth, �a' # ,,Eogin� ring and Planning Qivi,sioHls
reports; and
WHEREAS, + lann* i tGomisson has read y\And ,considered - the
Engineering And, - Pte, icg DiVition is reports and has considered otiietr ^evidd<►ce
presented at hearing
Aft NOW MR�F AE,, the Planning Commission oil the City, oi` Rancho {
Cuca"nea does resolve as fql haws. ;.
SECTIOR It The g'lannipi Comission nsakes the following findings in
regard to, . and' tie T'rtls+; Air.. 12,20 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentatiii ii =t is ct���` t with the General
Plan, velopmenf-tode, 'asui $*�fi
plans; j
(L) the design or i>�oYenants of the tentat kr tract is r
r cols sistrnt with tine General Plan, Develconent Code, /
and._spsc3fis ulans;
n (c) IU ' site , is �Vhysically sia table for the tvpd of
deV2io}xae 4; proposedr
(d) The design of' the subdivdSIC: ;is not I ilva ly to t\'�use
substantial environmental damage and Avoid le
I; inSury to human$, a!nd wildlife or their hab#tnt,, \
(e), tentative tract is obt likely to Muse seri0 s
Public health problests, if
(f) The design +sC ho �,tentative tract will not canflict.
with any easenta acquired by the public at large,
now of record, for.access through Zr use,- tfEO " " -
a!<property within the proposed subdivision.
� to
r,1
r2 �� j�GRitti' C-OMMISSI01 r
TT 12420 - RANCHO i.,.K viLLAS
February 26, 1986,
Page 3 �)
'
Apk
11. All gue $,t parkingL spaces shall be identified' subj_-c3: to
'City Planner review and approval prior to-. issuan e of
building permits. >
,I
12 Cniumnar trees /snruu,s ' shall be planted between and
fi�'Rking sll garage LOOrs.
23. Six (6) m4twe Palm trees along epFinn Avenue 0alt be
saved and re- leccted elsewhere Within prpjert ,site,
subject to the approval of a tree removal permit by City �
I�
Planner prior to ,issuaari a of a rough grading patmit.
Tentative Tracts
1. The applicant shall Pay an ins -lieu fee for undargroUndinr
existing overhead utilities fronting Hellman Avenue and
6th Street for overhead utility,4ines (except for 66 K,Y.
and larger electrical) prior^ to building permit issuance
4 tract recordation whichever 'occurs first. Said fee
sr all be one -half the cost for ttnd+erg�rouno`fing the
overheal. utility lines on ,Hellman Avenue for the length
Of the project frontage. ih; ; 6th, Stream, the cost of
'
undernruunding the overhead utility lines existing on
both, �stdes of the street
reet shall ca ireti and the in-
lieu tee shall be one.half t ( ,
he ,c
� nm►!�insd
2. The access, location on 6th Strut, although undesirable
3
1
from a traffic standp6int, is o ::r aCess,ity for this
J
project at this time,, and shalf iCY� r�instruated with Phase
I F of the `
project,,: because bra �h Stmt and J- Allman °l
�'�a
Avenue are subjetrt to closure �u flooding ; the
future_ instal lftibn of '' flood prdtectiars rasures for
Hellman Avenue, the 6th Street access shall be removed
and replaced 4 .h anQnargency only access. The project
-
CC&Rs shad contain language to insure that this access
modif #ration is accomplished at the homedWner's
expense'
at a.future date whe,i required by the City.
3. An access laeU -lon for the project shall be prbvided" to
Hellman Avenue. The access shalt be constructed with the
initial phase of development, 'if it cafe bd sq, designed to
'oarrio-
maiptain a flood along Hellman Avenue. if not,
the project CC &Rs shall contain langvage to insure that
this access
is constructed at the homeowner's expense at
a future date (afte<r flood protection measures 'have been
completed far Hellman Avenue) when required by the City.
o it
r
.,
C !
E
RESOLtmom
It 1 i3LUfIt -Pf QP THE RMHO CUCA�4 N" PANNING C ' ISSION
XF; 12420
A. 209. 25144, its 7 tN7�� w,
A, Recitals.
',s M Merickal bevelopOent has filed an application for the extension
of Tentative Tratct No. .12426 in the title of this .Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tiara Extension request is referred;
to as "the applica; on ".
(ii) On - Februarw` 26, . 986 this Comission adopted its Reso'lutlon
{`
No. -86-30, ther0y approving,, subject to specific c"Itions and time 111,01 ti,
Tentative Tract 16. 1k,09.
t.iilj, Al lege.., prerequisites 'to the adoption "of this, Resolution
have occurred, n
8. ResoTutioa.
NOtd, INERT FORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved ' by the r�
Planning Ct issiorr of the City of Uncho, Cuc"onga as foltoms:
1. this ,CQW� ssiarr hereby specif:callx finds that all of the 'factS
�j set ,forth in tiro Recitals, fart A,� d.
A,-,,Of this Resolution are true and corde,
t; �7
2,. , eased upon substantial evidence presented to this Comissiao.i
including written and oral staff reports, this Cission hereby specifically
finds as folios,
(a) 7' previously approved Tek�eative Map °'i$ in
ttubstarntial cUpliarnCt With tie City *s current
�Cenerel Plan, Speq Plans, (Qnances, Plans,
j Codes andPvltcits ,l
(b ( ,The exttosion of the Te tAtive Kap will note cause
signifimt inconsistencies with the current General, ti
Part, Specific ._Plans, Ordinan6ts, and (;
°,rr Pot iciest and
The extension of the Tentative Map is not Italy to
1,
cause public tealth an; arf0�y problems; And
id) The exteolon is wiAin the ti limits preScribeai
' by state Jaw and'lbcarl drdinanse,
G «- t
"- PLANNING CQWrSSI0W RESOLUTION H0.
1� IT 12420 - Merickel Development
February 101 4988
Page 2 J
ti
S. _ Zased -u'yw the findings and cor.Glu�ro�hs set Earth in Paragraphs
1 and 2 al ,this COMissicn hereby granter a Mare Extension farw
Tract r 1i;;ang Extsiratian
12420 Nerickjf, t9evelopsent February 26, 1984
4. the Oaput,� Secretary to this Commission .�k hel1 ct&.iIfy to the
adoption of this Resolution.
t
APPROVED AM AWPTZ THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1 .
PLANUIH6 COMMISSION OF I.A CITY V RANCHO CLoCA
l�
BY: q
LaFFTY. McKle a rya
{[
ATTEST: "
Brad Buller, epu y ary yr
f
`
I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamnga, do hereby certify that the foregoing i{asolution duly
eras and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular �aeting of the Planning Ctmissicn hold on the 10th '�y
February,
of 2985, by the following, vote.tawit,
S.
z,
AYESz COMMISSIONERS: r
HOES: C0miIONERS: r
FNABSEHT: COMMIS S,ERS:
r,
n
,
�l r
---- C1'� OF RANC6 CUCAMONGA
�. ST S EPORT
U�DATE: February 10, 1988 :
T0: ChaiM- " auk timbers of the PTannin3 Co uission
FROM: Brad Buller, `City planner
BY: Brucee, Gook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIR16ti ATAL ASSESSNE Lr G NER;L AFi +iPN;NDt4ENT 87-4a
recp.�s'f"�o a erg. a eneFUT
Plan lTi an units F', from Low�ledivat Residential td,-8
per acre) to high Residential (24.30
dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres OVAand, located
on the south side of Base Line .Road, west ofCychi6ald
Avenue - Am 208. 031 -18, 19. (Continued from January
13, 1988)
gVIR6#4ENTAL ASSF.SSttEIiT YELOPMENT D.ISTR16t
NESI
WWRENT—UTOT TS reoues
Aft ame a ve op n �;'t 7Rap"� from L6�t- Medi",,
Residential X4-8. Wielding unitx per, acre} '�to High
Reside ' }ial (24-30 dwelling units per acre) attreched with
the,, or Housing' Overlay District _( idk) tr' the base
dist4^ ct for 5.05 awres of land, located on thi south side
of Base Line Road west of '.Archibald'. venue .i
A . APN. X00^
1 -48. 19. (Continued frr0 January 13,, 1988'"
tYIRONt sAL ASSWAENT
AND %tERAt. PE.AN ftNOMENT 7-044i
WE`S't" .0 ":; reques die Li-n se
El emen or e General plan froze Low - Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling .units per jtcre) to Office fp,`r a es of
land, located on the west side of Archibald A� ue, south
of Base Line Road - AANi 208- 031�P, 514, 55, 55 and 57,
(Continued from January 13, 1988)
ENYiROii�lENTAI. ASSES NT AhFIt DEVIOPMENT DISTRICT
"ERt3'�' --- I " req�ps o
arxen the -D opa�en a r c s Bali from Low�Medium 1
Residential (4-8 dwelling its per acre) to Office j
Professional for 1.69 acres of land, located `bn the crest ((
side of Archibald Avenue, south of ,"Base line Road _. APN;_
208.031 -17, 54, 55, 56 J-.nd 57 cGont nue=,d from January
13, 19883
6 3 ,
ITEM C, D, E 1
CP
PLMNING COMISSION STAFF 'REPORT
8PA87 04E,, ODA 87-45, GPA 07 -04H, ODA 87 -06
FcOruary 10, 1988
Page 2
DEVELOP NT AGREMMY 8742 WEST NO INYE5' NTIS • A
f YaC R-; Agreement DttW' 1► as, a o c�Gaa�O ga
and best End Inves sta ft'k the 'urpose of providing a
Senior tiottsing Project per tha raiulrownts. of the Senior
Housing OKaarlaryy Witrict (Sect.on 17.20,040 of the
DevelOPAWt Cad*, 'Ordiftncp 211) for 170, apartment '� nits
to be Imated ore the south'eide of Base line Road, west of
Ar i�ibatld Avdnue r� 'N: 208. 031 -18, 19. (Continued from
JX%ry 13,
I. B KGROUND: best End NVS,stmonts has a�`�ted a develtrwn
cna ncluftg General Plarr Amend"" &J., Development District
dments, Design Reviews, and t#eveloprwent A r+e ment to develop a
Mar Mousing Project and adjacent asedf at: ra f ce wading, in the
*`:deli v_ bf the ' southwest corner of Base �Ine Road and Archimld
Avenue. The various Amendments Attd Dev$ioPwt Agreement were
continued from the .Planning CoWssion meeting of January 13, q
1988. This was the latest in a serims of contingences (five in
�i1 ) for the project.
At this time, the applicant is unsure Df the economic feasibility
Of pursUiyg t4s proiect, He has requested that, this item he 1
tabled for a sixty (80) dad period "beginning with the second:
Planning Cowmrission meeting in danuarrto allow hfta sufficient time
to mtake *a final determinatibn as to''whrther or not to proceed with
the project. The applicant etas assured the City that with this
Additional extension, a final resolution can be made as to whether
to proceed with the project and have it ready for Commission review
or to withdraw the application.
II. RE04WHDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
continue all of the titled items as referenced in the beginning of
the report to the meeting of 14arth 23, 1988 with the understanding
that this will be the final continuance granted for this project, /
Ras 11 fitted,
gr f e
J City F annerc
BB•BC:ko
v
fi
i! CITY OF tCH�O CUCAMONGA r
7 �� STAFF REPORT
I_ -_ _.. - --
j. DATE: February ,p, I.g&3 � 77
0
G
TO Chairman and Members
'pf the Planning2 issionr
FROM: Brad 041er, City P'.anner -
By: Beverly llisserT #�sistant Planner
I _ ,
SUBJECT: TWATIV2 TRACT ,3227 - LI �= PROiERTICS -'cite total
eve n o acres. o a n the Medium
Resit±ential Distr c 8-1+4 dwelling units Per acre] into,a
single lot restd l subdivision for the developwt 0
a 212 unit multi arITY APartWht canaleX, located at the
northeast q -7rner 0"Chestee Avenue and Base tine Rcxd
ABM: 227- 09=45.
A - 'letter (see attachment) has been ° received froar.,the, applicant �
withdraawing the above referenced pr`as�iedt. 'Therefore, no further
cosaaaission action is required. L3
Res�ully st:,itted,
L
Cra erg OA
i:y P nner
bs6!#; ve I
�h I
1
Attachments, t, Letter fry AW�icant
i
lL IYEtA F
'�7CwIi'4 erL ar y!
y4�
January 29.;1988
Ms. Beverly Nissan \� o
City .uf Rancho Cucamonga ,
Planiling
Post Dft`t -ce Box $07
Rancho Cucamna, CA 91730
RE: Tnet Number i 7
Rancho Cu\ c qa, C9
Q
Dear Beverly:
This letter will confirm our phone discuxsion that Lincoln Property /CoWAU
does not intend to proceed with any Yurther action of tentative t ct,�13227
at 9374 Baseline in Rancho Cucamonga. We have dropped that project.
t rely, /
Bailey E. Do sort
Vice Preside t, Develops
$ED:lkw
i�
c�
Ir
'[nx 6iW�.7lfi+�N1 IJ131 11MN4 9F 310NO WWATLAKIE leiv{a -SP IT69W VWST Ar 9Vi,.6 i6. C^gkI iW5,313-07115
Q�
O {
C, f
--
CITY OF RANCHO Cuc A-m6NGA ,
SWYREPORT
RATE: February 10, 1388 ,t t
W7
c
170: Chairma and Membgrs of the Planning Commits� n
FROM:. Brad 8u er, City Planner
BY: Scott 1+ rphy, Associate Planno
SUBJECT: ElMV19 MEWAL ASSESS10T Alin VARL -LICE 87 -34 - 80 i KIM -
W-r—eq-u-e-W to Peoute the reQU rE o an c pe gs back
to 45 fgft on Arrow Route and a required 45 foot Undscape
setback -to 35 feet on Vineyard Avenue, and t6 re(6ce the
required 24 guest parking spaclis to 20 parking spacns,for
approved Tract 11734, consistirrol of 48 townhows or 8,5
_acres of land in the Medium !Rtsidentiitl District (8-14
dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest comer
of Arrow Route and Vineyard Aveivie - AN 207- 191- 1,thr6ugh
In reviewing the var,ance request submitted by the applicant, staff has
noted that the application fort is not signet by the current property
owner of record. As a result, the application i not valid. Sf�ff has.
beer, in contact with the applicant about obtaining the ne essary
I authorization. If, however, the authorization is not obtained by the
date of the Planning Commission meeting, this item will have 4a be
continued, rr
Re fully s fitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
86:SM:te
Qv
o ,
L J
CITY
�tOF R�A�N�CHjO�4CUCAMONGA
w
DATE: February 10, IM Q
1977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City., PIaviner
BY: Scott Murphy, Asso�fffate Pl&nner
SUBJECT: EWYI TAI. RSSESSMENT AND Y'ARIAWCE' 87_19 - BARWIAW
requ o re uc 1e requ re t oo, an scape s" e€6aek
to 45 feet on Arrow Route and a required 45 float landscape
setbajk to a5 feet oh Vineyard Avenue, and to reduce the
required �4 guest parking spaces tov20 parking spaces for
approved Tract 11754 consisting of 98 townhomes on 8.5
acres of land in the Medium Residential Ldstrict (8-14
dwelling units per acre), located at,the northwest corner
of Arrow Route and YineArd Avenue - APr 7 -191 -1 through
r�
I. PROJECT AND SITE DE RIPTION:
A. _Action Requested: Approval of yarn ai -8i,,2.9 and issuance 0i' a
Negative ec Oration.
B. Svrrounding Land Use and Zonings
R r Town o ew-LKe' um Recidc itial (8-14 dwelling
units%,er acre)
Soluth Multi -t Industrial Park; Industrial ,specific
Plan (Su6a 11
Crndrminl Pro3ect; Medium Residential (8.14
dwex7in� °units per acrg
West - Cucamonga Creak and Vaunt; Flood Control and Medin.
Residential (8-14 dwelling amts per acre)
C. G -neral Plan Designations
o ec site . um- es dential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre)
North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
South General Industrial,
East - Medium Residential "(8-14 dw<llirg uAts per acre)
West Flood Control and Medium Residential (8-1,4 dwelling
units per acre)
II. ANALYSIS*
fJ 4
A. Aa_____k__gground: On f}c'taber 14 198 , the Planning G l siort r
row ewe and unanimously approved Te=ntative Tract I1734 the
development of 98 condor rota i wilts. Following the ap roeal,
the developer ,proceeded to 'record *he subdivision map nd
PLANWING COMMISSION STUFF REPORT
VARIANCE 87.19 - BARMAKIAN
February 10. 1988,,
Page 2
develop the first portion of the project. Pr�C;r to ccmplet,,fv'
of the project, however, the d=4valaper encountered it 111
difficulties resulting in the bank foreclosing the Mng
on r
u"veloped portion.
c
8. Analysis: The applicant is now regpaasting ,s Variance to r duce
'tTe W-Wack alor Arrow Rote fr�vx 56 feet to 45 feet and `along
Vineyard Anenu:. 'from 45 feet to 3S ftat.; In addition, Uite
applicant is also requesting a redur;tioft in, guest parking
spaces from 24 to 20 spaces. Inc ,00 ring the variance
requests, the Planning Commission mAjVwish to consider the-;
f0lawing information;
` 1. The Tract Map was ongi tally ° approvzi pvib� to
i adoption of the 430 Cucamonga fi}evalopaent
Code. ° As a rescglt, `the Development Cod: requires
j greater streetscape setbacks and,.a greater guest
t parking ratio than the previous standards.
f 2. 'C,he applicant is proposing to develop the minder �
�
portion at the game streetscape setbacks as was
used for the existing units _within the first phase.
3. Based p the Current Development Code, the site
,wf11 actually be providing More spaces than the
;kurrent kveiopment Code requires. Wen completao,
'c'12
sparking spaces will be provided versus the 284
spa' s �rov ,d be required. The distrii�ution °af'
�that
the spaces, however, is differ*nt than
�rarkin�
the Be elopCent Code requires. Tht Cr.40i -, requires
,that one (1) open guest parking spice 4e provided
for every four units resulting in 24 o*i parking
spaces. The plan as approved, would provide to
o,en spaces. The remainder of the parking spatbs
o will be provided in two car garages attached to
each unit..
r 4. The north and �* st portions of, the site are
iw-wed with - -` only the private street
14provements.'r Without the variance, the remainder
,.'of the site will have to bs redesigned to a*et the
current Code,requirencnts which my require removal
of the existing streetimproverwt
C. Environmental Assessment: Staff hes covleted the
nw rOMen at GneCKIM and determined that the Variance
request will not have any significant enviropwttl impacts.
If the PI-aft ling 'Commission concurs, issuance" of a Ne$atf-ke
beclaration would be ap�,pfriate if the protect ,approved,
4
„n•
7-3
Q
li
PLANKING C"IS$A'ON STAFF, REPORT
VARIANCE, S -19 - BARMIAN
February 10,,1988 `
Page 3
III. FACTS FOR FIII;EDI S: In order fl3r the Planning Cor mission to
approve a vav once, the Development Code requires that! the !% =
a following findings be stet:
J
1. That the strict or�Tfiteral "enforcement of the sp"f,:Aed
_ regulations wou'j result in practical diffict w „y or
unnecessary phy§ical hardship inconsistent =with' the-, .
objectives of the Development Code.
{ 2. That there'
are exceptiznal or ex�reordlna-
f circumstances ar ca!lditions applfttble to tt.h. property
k involved er to the intended use of th property that do
district rally apply to :. other proper�es It, the say lk
p 3.. Thai ` strict or literal interpretation of thet specifieg- _--
R' regulations would deprive o",she 4ppJira of the
privileges- enjoyed by owners of other properties— ft., t,o
t :
:same district,
4. That the granting of the variance wi`il no$'constituLe a
C AWL grant of
f special privilege inconsistent with the limitation of other P ro p erties cla ified i o th sa-
T A district.
` S.` That the granting of the variance Fdli not be
c detrimental to the health, safety, or %elffare, or
�aicPria]Ty injurious to properties or improvements far
the vicinity.
IV. CORRESPONDACE: 'This item has been advertised as a: public tearirg✓
in The D EZK e-port ne- ,caper and . notices were bent to all j)ropertu
owners W 5meet of:lthe project site.
V. RECOWENDATICN: Staff recommends that the Planning ComeEtission
con uc a pu, c hearing to consider input and elements of the
project. Aster receiving all information, if fide Planning
Commission can support the findings outlined In this s�-Of report,
staff recommends approval of the Variance through adoption of the
attaches Resolution.
Res s fully I slibmitted,
a Bu er c
City Planner
88; �i•i"e �
.ttea :hinentst Exhilft �A ` Letter from Applicant,'
khi° °;pit B Location flap 7
Xhibit "C” $1te PI an
>IMl -uMO of AOproval
i 1 37GC Alt,
f I fffii �^ /.' 'AFB .'�! •�r�.�RR.YY.��.�5. v,� f:
Zg
�. 4lI�We7oi1C*Mae V rl
as naild malsommkis a IN
afts
LM
QC
MN
t � � j4F'� ' •� !���qqpq a i F +MI'
. '41 y
.7M _
LM
MIS
TI
„ EXHINT, sr
_y 1
[Art
6W
- RESOLUTION Nil.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLPal a.; C°,QMISSION
APPROVING ":�►RJ�4^�' NO. 87-19 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 55
FOOT LAND / <'StTMK TO 45 FEES' ON ARROW ROME AM THE
REQUIRED 45 l�dr SETBACK 1101 35 FEET ON VINEYARS) AVENUE;
AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 24 GUEST PARKING SPACES;TO 20
PARK IMa SPACES FOR AP F, TRACT 117 1 CONSISTING OF 98
TOWNHO ►15ES' ON B ar ACR , LAND IN THE REQIUM; RESIDENTIAL
DISTMT '($ -I.4 M[FLLING- SllL1TS PER ACRE). LQr,,ATED -AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNERjCOF ARROW ROUTE AND YINEVAD AVr;jE -:
APN: ,'207 - 192 -0I iNROUGH 98.
A. 'Recitals.
(i) Andrew Barmakian' has filed an uuplicaticn 6:4'"tke issuance of
tiie Variance No. 87 -19 `us detcribed rn the title of this Resciluiian.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sub,;ect variance. request Is refe64"d to as
"the application%
(ii) On February ,Ill, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on vile application �
and concluded said hearing on that date.
(iii) Ail legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occ.+.rred. t'
B. Resoi ut %n.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, ,,dettirmined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga es follows:_
1. This Commission hereby specOically finds that all of the cts
set forth in the Recitals, art A, of this Resolution are true and corros�
2. Based uponr `substantial evidence presented to this Comission
> during ite above- r-eferen;jea public hearing on kbrti" 10, 1988, including
written snd oral sta#i` reports, ,together with public ter+4mony, this.
Commission hereby speci gcaily finds as follows: \�
(a) The apps; tion applies to property located at the
northwest corner of Arrow Rau and Vineyard, Avenue which fs presents
partially improved with townhome its; and y
(b) 'Me propel to the north, east and west are designated
for multi - family residential uses,, The progeriy to the nortl'i and east are
developed with a townhome and cgniWnium project respectively. the property
to the west is vacant. The property to,the south is designated for industrial
uses rd is developed with a multi - tenant industrial park,, and
Al
G �'1
PLANNING COWISSIOR RESOLUTION N0.
%— VARIANCE 87 -19 = BkRC IAN
February IQ, 1988
Page 2 ,
/(c) The .application is�'designed to facilitate the completion
of a 98 un towhoee prodect o-,,-- 8.5 acres of land previously appE�overl ands►° /I
Il Tentative 'Tract 11734, Such an action a ;: corstemplated, irt JG sJ6actiotr s ith
the applications, conforms to the General Plan of the City t+,e(�i�cho Cucamonga
�( and is a permitted use Within the - Medium Residential Dish l; ai
(d)' The application has beeer sutsmWVC ', �aa��!�ow a reduce n ithe streetsrape setbacks and L�aredu, on in in one r. of open., west.
parking spaces within said Trac73 nt arx to the require�aents of e tioR
17.08.040 and 17.12.040, resive o the City of Rtfxho Cucamonga
Development Code requiring a carpe setback of 55 feet along special
boulevards (Arrow Route), a s scape setback of 45 feet along secondary
arterials (Vineyard Avenue),. ;and one open guest parking space for every four
> units; and i1_
(a) The variance as sp,c #fled in the &pplfcation will not
contradict the 1;oal4 or objectives of 'thy Rancho Cucasi)nge Wneral Plan or
Development Code and will not promote a detrimental condition to the persons
or property in the Immediate vicinity of the act site for the reasons as
follows:c�
(1) Tentativo`T�•: 11734 was approved prior to the
. adoption of thee City og gancho Cuc� nga Development Code; and
(2) � The previously developed portion of tha site has
streetscape setbacks o'f _95`feet: along Arw� -q Route which is :.the save as that
being requested by the appl Kart; and
=s (3) The site will be parked in excess of they current
Develepment`Code but is distributed in> 4 slightly different fashion thereby
being 4 open spaces deficient for guest parking.
(4) There are existing asraet Improvements 0thin the
northern and eastern portions of the site that were installed based upon the
previously approved Site Flan, These impro. ;ements, in their present iocati o,
restrict c °sign alternatives to meet the.tu'rrent Code re4uirements.
I( 3. Based upon hire substan� al evidence presekted to this Cormissian
during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraph I acrd 2 .,above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows: ,
(a) That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation Mould result �
in ',practical difficulty or unnecessar'y' $ysical �C
hardship inconsistent with the objettJ;�y es`of the
Development`Code.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable" po the
property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do -not' ' apply generally to other;
properties In the sane district.
Ci
PLANNXW CII$SION R£St?i.iiiFQk NO.
°S YARIAWE V-19 - $Ai3tfi IAH
February 10, 1988
page 3
ids That Strict or literal ty interpretation and �
enforcement, ofj the specified regulation„ would
deprive the apii scant of privileges enjoyed b the
r owners of outer properties ain the saw dint t.
(d) That the g�nting of- the 'Hari � ce 21 not
S/ constitute ,a grant of special privil.e� ?; ncansi teat
with the limitations on other properties Classifjtd
in the same list jct.
lei
rat the granting of 1,Ae Yeriance %��lT not
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improYen it s yin the vicinity.;,
4. Based upon the findings aitd conclusions ski: forth in paragraph
1, 2 and 3 abovec._ -Ols Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every canditioa set forth below.
a. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolutions
APPROVED AND ADOPTE0 THIS 1W DAY OF F=EBRUARY, 1988. ((
PLAMNING COMISiiON OF THE CITY OF RANCnj CikANOWA
BYt
army T. McNiel, a roan
ATTEST: r.
" Brad u er, Dipurrrr, y ect ary ,
T, Brad Bv"er, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cdoa1Nnga,-6o hereby certify that'th^ foregoing Resolution, was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopteWiy the' Planning Commission ctfi: the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regulef meettng of the Planning C issicn held
on the 10th day of February, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit=
AYES. COiiI+IISSIQNERS: . .
NOES* ° COi7tiISSIGNERS:
ABSENT; CttMISSICAERSt
CITY OF RANCID CUCA1VTONGA G�Ga tt0
STAY ttpow
�( ri
DATE: February 10. 1988
I
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: `' Brad 801ler, City Planner
BY; Toga Grahn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT --- ' 4ARIAdCE 87 -18 - HOAE FEDERAL --'A request :~o ai.?aw the ,,.
sign copy to include the wordy "ANYTIMETEiLEV on.,two f2i-,
new faces, of existing wall signs,, located at 9596 Oasis
Line Road:
I. ABSTRACT: The applicant suWtted a Sign Permit Application to
replace' the copy of two existing;�rill signs on the- Rome Federal
building. Based upon previous dei.Mons denying the:,placement of,,
f automatic teller gall signs, istaff did 6inot - accept the
application. The applicant has subsequently requested a sPariadce
f� the Sign Ordinance for consideration ,,by the PlannLing
D Ic4ion to allow the placement of these two signs.
II; ANALYSIS: In reviewing the ti4o proposed "ANYTIMETELLER" signs for
fi- ome- federal, staff informed the applicant that per the City of
Rancho- Cucamonga Sign Ordinance the use of subordinate Information,
essentially advertising a service or product in conSunction with a
business identification, is discouraged. The name -of the use or '
business shalj�be the drainant, message on the sign,
The Sigri Ordinance` doles coniainr provisions for alter-native signage,
these being "convenience ", and *directional" signs. Convenience
signs contain such.words as 'Restr000s% No Parking ";. Entrance"
or minor business identification for on-site di rectionirpurposes,
while directional signs ctain such wo -ryas "Enter" Exit ", "One
WN or other :symbols for ton he purpose of indicating ,e-site traffic `
directions. There are no limitationt in terms of Me, number and
type of these signs, but signs that contain advertising, or
products, shall not be considered a convenience sign, and
directional signs shall not contain ,any advertising or, tradenatie
information. Neither sign may be larger than four square fee'i and
no more than four feet in height.
In consideration of the request for a sign valance staff suggested
the applicant use a convenience sign os,4 viable alternative to the
wall sign, primarily because this type of sign could permit the
requested '�Aformatlon. The applicant felt this type of signage'
r,ould not be adequate and requested to proceed with the Variance.
5
ITY21 K -
0
o PLANNING ;OM I-:: slON STAFF REPOiti
!%
VA S7.1B - Federal
=
February 1088
.
Page 2
7,o�
-
i
III. PRECEDENT*. Three previous appeals before the Planning Commission
'for `All.
�`
se—'t precedent tonfght's dexisip. three apjeals wore
r
requests to allow extraneops informational wall gigns,aja all three
1�
were s0sequently denied.
1) In August:, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed an "
appeal froilthe Lucky Store in the Neven tillage Shopping
Center, to allow for an extraneous ipfarmwtional wall
�.
sign of "deli, Liquor, Bakery'. T1 Planning Comm ssion
upheld the City Planner's decisi and denied tW appeal.
2) In November, 1986, the Planning eommtssion reviewed an-
appeal rf Sign Permit 8&- - Bank of America to allow
the pla0ement of two "Yersatellee, wtil' signs. The
Manning Co�aission upheld the Citgr ,Planner's decision
and denied the appeal. The reasons for denial Included
the number of .existing signs and the stze of the proposers,,
wall signs. the Planning CoMission chose pursue,'
an'aiternative type of sign. ' Yt was the. dEC7ssnn of the -
Planning ,Gommissiop. that this sign would constitute
advertising and there was a clear ind{cat*,on,that the
automaVc teller would be visible from the sfinet, as is
the case with the Naas Federal "AKYTIME'>i'fiLLER`R
r
3) In.January, 2988: the Planning Comission reviewed an
Appeal from The Awrehouse in the Cucamonga Village
Shopping Center to allow for extraneous 1gormational
stall sign of *awsic, video and software ". The Planning
Commission upheld thei)City Planner's decision. and denied
the appeal.,
The Planning Commission's decision will once again clarify this
provision of the Sign Ordinance for both existip9l, banking
facilities dnd future development "r that, approval,�of' these wall
signs, as proposed, would set I,r L ;U�ent foVlail banking fac•i'�itles
n'
in the,City,
iV. OPTIONS: The hollowing options are provided for consideratitn by
`tanning
Commission;
1) Deny the Sign Variance as inconsistent with the intent of
the Sign Ordinance and the Alpha Beta Center Uniforms Sign`:
Program
z) Direct the appi'icdnt and staff to work together to
formulate `in alternative to the proposed sign that woQ0,
_0
satisfy the req:�st of the applicant, but mould also; °
Pl, t�EZ�1G CQ"SSitlk' SYAFF REPORT
VA 87-14 _j Federal .,
February 10, 1
Page S
consistent wfth tbl pro ns of the Sign Orainance ai
the Alpha Beta Center." pkssikie solution {'s
a wav
mounted conveni,ente sign with '2 -to 3 ipCh - leticers to be
viewed o «site fo the uurpose. of directing cuff �s do
n��� €� This -=r._ ld be the spprov x # the
-sign
facing the parking lot,: as- the other sign 'faced Base.
Line Road,
`
3) The Planning Commfssign also has the option of approving-,
Variance $7.18 as eiqaested. HOWeveF, the awnda�
finding$- cutl- Mned,J'A the attached, Resolutib-a would ii
srr.
to bi; iade py. -Ior to approval.
V, RCCOW Ift. Staff recoamends that the` "'plann,ng CAW sic. - deny �
itcar> rough the.Adop4iun of'the Attached Rasoluticnw
espe I ully su ; ted,
Ij
... ,r
f'1
Brad Su ler
Cite Planner
Attachments: i # 'er of,:Appeal
ExhiHt„"A" - Lactftion Map
_ exhtpit *W - Site Plan
'
Exhibit "C" - Elevatftns UROwing Proposed $ign53
-
Skbibit "D* -- Photographs u
L_
Exhibit OV - Locatians of Aatmtic Teller Machines
Rosa ution of Denial
r4
K
i
�1
�M4sti►Mo" ov�Kr�tecamrreisiprrcorrs�any' z
z.
,t
G
MrAws APPLICATION
HQ S FED ERA i 95 6 SAS&LIN$
\tFt =AUSTI�TCATION
4�
1) AMYTIMHTELLOR is part of Hom*, PedecalIs corporate s � tit:..y r�
Programs and in additU-Mi is a ragiatered tidemark. �1
22 Provides cWitns4r ssrvi4 -ov to inform cardholders that, them`'
an ATM maces tn* on the premises available. This ire` impdrtan t,i -x
not all Home''�,*,0d*ral branches have ANYTIMETSLLBR machinek'`
this a en,sef t tt signags is informational d diroct QZ1 �� eY
t3
"ATL AVE, OWFM 0. SAN MeI CALPORSIA 9a079 j�is� -g3cra �
y `Vi o
JA
M y QS
' L LU
J Q! # 'Im x
LK
LM
]F tic
�k 4
os
M "'
ti, 1�IC�TH
Crff OF 7-'
KANNMI DIVEM /� EXHIBfdr
Vx
l '
� f
- ---- NORTH
CITY CF, REMI
RANQ RJRCV'C Aj TITLcl 42& /'k
HIBITt-41 SCALE-.
Z-
CIS-
s
p. ING UVEM
SEX IBM-
� „_, :►C�'�. - �: � .�.��
'f ,.t y� � b ''. _
_ � _
a
� �� �'� '` •Ka o
vL Rf y��� � �� � *rs � »e
rk *'"
* .�'
� ��y7es j
^ 1
s ;. ��
�� F
''
��
T� f
' � �s�r
k
�� �
'_•
� � ti �
� '
."`
r,�,r._ a �5.e,e t�IR!
I
�v
r/
gfMa�iaa. qr Yri�i 4[4./�r�. 11 \�1 �.} �i/iS�.ii i1eM.�f.it
Si4ilwiiaiiig
4w,
i�6�fi/P�.iMlt
1 Jy
A
t•
l t6tt
■t.
t
,
i
t
I
h
Mw-TIC TM.FA LWATIMS
Pomon�
First,, ederal Saving a Loan, h* of Base Line 5 Archibald _
HOW '
de l: HIS of Baje Line, West Of Arch&ld.
F
3.
'See.ar
v
y Pacific Barak, HIS of ease Line, Wiest of � hi§al�"
4.
Foo�hi@l.Independent
Bank ,j`Sg' of Base Line Archi d,
S.
lot Tr 'Ust Bank, NEC of 19th C Archibald
f
Great Western Bank, NEC 't;�f 19:x' & CaAei�an Cr
7 «'
First Pterstate Bank, SEC of 19th & Carneli,4n
S.
Banft� yMerica, NEC of A #se Line & Carnoliusa
9.
VineyaM National Bank, Wre of Fod�htll A kl' sSxan
14 -"
6ank o�
Am6' fca, SEC of Fenthill"_& ;Archibald
11.
Wells 'FArgo
sankb,;SE!tr of Foothill & Haven
12.
Independence
Bank*'M'C of 60 & Haven n
0 - c
t
✓✓
T 1
//
3
RESOLUTION M.
i
A RESOLUTION OF =TME RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COWY,� ION
1 DENYING VARIANCE NO, 87 -18 TO ALLOW TKE SIGN CObI TO
INCLUDE THE WORD "ANYTIMETELLEr ON TWO (2) NEW�FACES OF
d. !' EXISTING WALL SIGNS LOCATED AT 9596 BP,SE LINE ROAD IN ;'HE
NEIGHBORHOOD COWERCIAL DISMIC -T _
A. Recitals,
Integrated Sign Associates has filed', an application fors the
Issuance of the Variance No: 87-18 as described ' in -the title of,� this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this;Resolutior,, the subject Variance request is
referred to.as "the application
(ii) On Feba -very lO, 8, the Plannin Commission of the City of`
Rancho Cucamonga cenductiad a duly noticed pub?ic hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on that..date.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to -the adoption of this Re >alutian
have occurred.
B. Resolution..' r�
NOW, "THEREFORE, it ft hereby found, deter ined and resolved by the
Plan �,v Commi ssion of the City of RaPcho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically find,, that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitalg, Part A, o this Resolutionlbr$j true and correct,
2. Based upon,- substantial v #dence presented to this t8 mission
during the above- referenced public hearing on February 30, 1988, including
written and oral stuff reports,,R together with public test{mony, this
Commission hereby specifically finas as follows:
(a)- Th��appjlcation' applies to property located at 9596 ease
Line Road; and
'.
obi the application proposes two sign faces with ords
"ROME FEDERAL /ANYTIMETELLERr located tone each) on the .south eievatt,on and
east elevation; and
(c) 'The two signs are located approximately fifty -five (56),
f feel from Base Line Road; and
f
(d) Th'a sign Ordinance "stated "Sign copy shall I ncl udeO roi nimal
n iii ormation only. The use of subordinata information, advertising a service
/ 0 product in conjunction with a business,
identificatian is discouraged,, The
name of the use or business stall be the'dominant,niessage on the sign ".
��� f�j'
PLAN ING COMMISSION RESCiLUTION NO.
VA 87 -18 - 140me Federe�
.
�..�
ebruary 10, 4988
age 2
Ba-=d upon the substantial evidence presenter to this Caission
during `tee above- referenced public hearing and;�upon th'specific findlrps of
facts
sea forth in paragraph .1 and 2 AbovA_ . th e r lcr _
-QifQ—
--
-
r_ -the '` -` = v %rfva.�'tic�cisJ 7 Fi:�Ea
�•.y,��[� ,drat — fio7TOwin9 �,itidatory findings Acwsary to approve a
Variance QAX NOT be made;
tai That strict .or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would result
I n practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
P fiardshiP inconsistent with the objectives of the
I ". Sign OrdinancC.
SeGV (b) That th16 are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to,' the
property involved or to the intended use of the
Property that do- notes apply general} to other
properties in the same, district.
ic3 That strict or literal interpretation and. 01
enforcement of, the specified regulation 'wood
deprive the applicant privileges enjoyed by the
owners of ether properties in the same district.
(d) That the granting of the Variance 4('_1 not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties 61usified
- - in the same district.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph
1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application subject to
each and) , every condition set forth below.
U
�
a Deputy Secretary to this Co�raission sh It certify to the
adoption ii thi
I
; Resolution.
APP MOVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1OTH DAY DF,FEBRUARY, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANPIO CUCAMONGAt�
{
BY:
Larry T. MCN a rman
ATTEST:
<f BracrOuTler, epu y- cre ary
DATE: February 10, 1968 tsn
TO: _ Chairman and Members of the Planning Cortrission
FROM:` Brad Bvller, "city planner
BY: Chris Ke�stman,, assistant Planner
`S
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AtSES NT AND DEVELOP( NT REVIEW 37 -59 _•,
tip ` - t,A3eveioW.nt TV an o , _ ce, manu a ur tag, -
research And 'dovelapa facility total ng 56,923 square,_
fPct�'on 4.0 acres 5an� in Subarea 6 of the industri fib
Specifid Pl=a ,located at the northwest corner - of 4th and
Center Avenue APib. 210 - 3814, 10, 11 and 210- 391 - 15,,17,
I. PROJECT AAA SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Ap val of'site plan and elevations -and the
ssuance a ga ve Declaration.
Cl)
U. Surround i- ag stand Use and Zonfiig
Ao' ric .-- aicant., subared7b (IndustrIal park)
south Vacant, Ontario (Multi' - family).
CW_4 . Subahl 63 ('Industrial Parks
Nest - Industrial, Subarea t (Industrial park)
G. General Plan Designations:
project ' -Sff "..." cis Tn r aT park
North` - "Industrial Park
South r i+lirlti- family (Ontario)
East a Industrial=s Park _
West - Industrial (park _
D. Site Characteris¢ cs: The site is vacant with no significant
vege a on. e'ffi rre is an approximate t46 percent grade from the
north to the'_'touth. The^ project has street improvements Ott€
three sides and is.'part of an overall master planned area.
/
,1
PE Multi COMISSION STAFF REPORT
Rti DEVELGPK14T REVIEW, 47-59
February 10, 1988
P &9e
o
s;
,,.
E. Parking CalcUUMOns;
Number of Number Of
Type square Patting span`s spaces
of Use Faa Rat.0.. iCe fired . P.-OV.,'`
v; Ot
Office 41,90 1260 168 167
Restaurant 4,r y VIC-15 40 AU
R & 0 109955 1/350 31 31
Bicycle Rack 1 Credit
provision
* Minor Exeeptia-, needed (see ZonditiOft 01)
I1. AiNRL� YSIS:
A. General- prOxect is in conformance with', the Development
7 ar, ar and the Design Guidelines of the In�strial specific
AOL
P1R.t; the proposed use is consistent with surmpding uses and
the zonirg district in which it is located. - Staff has not
fount any evidene that the proposed project would' have
negative environmental jacpacts or adverse effects on the Public
health,, .safety 'or welfare. The project has been reviewed by
Design: and Technical Review Comp €ttees and appropriate
conditions have beer incorporated into the resolution.
0. Design, Review Co"Ittee: The Cooh�ittee J iChitiea, HcNfel,
rev e'B" appl icatfion on i nuary 20, 1988 and
Q email ."Fife
forwarded the project to the Plalr►ing COma+ission with the
following ect aendations:�'
1. The design of the two exterior staircases should be
reevaluated. The staircases should be designed.wit4 a
stronger relatfi0r� to "the pedestrian areas and
Circulation. A secondary interior staircase should be
designed into the building which will provide safe
access to the second stagy in bad weather.. Final design
shall be approved by the City Planner.
2. A textured paving, consistent wi.th paving found
elsewhere on the prOjec4 site 'should be incorporated
into the circulsr'parking lot planters,
\
�
3. Vine planting should be provided along the west building
facade of Biwilding 4 and tall growing 'shrubs ShOrtle be
planted on the west sides of Buildings 3, 5 and 6.
-
0 =
P1ANNIK EtkMIt5ION STAFF REPORT
RE; AOELOP15fl REVIEW 87 -59
'e
4 Substantial pots with plants should be provided at
arcade areas or tail shrubs should be planted which <wilI
effectively soKen hard building ed,9"-
S. Textured pedestrian pathways shvi "ba'provided between
Buildings and 6 between Buis 3 and e, and
between Buil> ings and 5 y
6. �) A hedg0 should be provided' tea, b fifer the west/south
sides of the turf seiting area on the west side of
Building 1. ,/?
C. Technical Review. As a result of the most recent update°to:the °
n us r aT" 5pecifie Plan, the r quired right -of- -way width for
local industrial streets has Dec increased to 66 feet from 50
feet, In order to meet the new standard an additional W of
dedication is required on the west side of Center Avenue.
In connection with the increased rights -of -way, tie sidswralk 1
location is ;Jeing recowir ndtd o be interior adjacen to thee,
property line in order to ovide for a landca curb
adjacent parkway,.
The Developer has stated that he would prefer to pay an in -lieu
fee instead of undergrounding the utilities along 4th � et
(Engineering Condition Wo.e ), because the project frontag 13
only 270+ feet measured to the centerline,' ,of Center Avenue.,
Current policy does allow fen payment instead of undergrou�ding`�
for lengths less than 300 feet; honever. staff /?feels
undergroendinr,, is a,;propriate in this;, c! „a for the xotlowing
reasons:
1. The actual length of undergrounding required is 330 feet
4eas4r%;i from the first pole off -site to the west to the
fir`et pale east of ;enter Avenue.
2, The length of undargrounding (330 feet) is, small
compared to the depth, of its ,aropertyr (103O4eet).-
0
3. The property �o the east extending to Haven :A rnae is
currently vacani cwnied by the Developer , this
project, and comprised, of several separate parcel each
with fronta4_es along r�'S Street less than 300 feet in
Length. Wrefore, if each parcel is,, developed
separately"and unaergrourding -is not required,,IhIpause of
,the short lengths,, it will never be complet!d. yecause
all of these parcels are cinder the same torshY,",; and
it is more expense, on a unit basis U underg;oun :'short
lengths, it may be in the Developer's best inte��est to
underground 4 longer length than is required at this
time.
PLANNY01 MWSSltili�, A,7- REPORT
RE: DE (Ei.pMENT REVIEW 87-59
- Page 4 1
4." Af the undergrounding was deferreFr Uifti /development of
this (Oroperty to they east,, it would be disruptive to the
parkway improveants that are ��ns�;alled wiCho this
., project. _
D. jEnvirona►ental essent: Parts 1 $nd ►3i` the In3ti ,� Study
�F.SYe en C" a Significant irAp�rts' havee found
"#:e
related tc cttron'q .rapes buil1din,
HL FACTS i pCc FTiN}IN6S: The pwopo t!d Use is ce nsistttni cxitb the ventral j`
ry an an a trial "Speci#ic Pian.° The Itcitd #n4 dt qn and
plan together with recomenlied=- 4cnd4itions of; approval, Ya in -
p `
J
campli�pncer" ,t' '!th tits Industrial � <:a °and "at1 ether, j
applicable City Standards. o
° Ci. RE40mmENQATION: Staff rdemmends that the Planning Coax msion r
—d-e
pysr ev opment Review U -59• and Issue' a Negative Waration
through ��dogtion of the attached "' Resolution bf Approval with
j
COnditio4.
1
e r �
)1 �(
L
�r CityJislanr��r '
AttachFfientsa Exhi'hi "A" - Lbeation Hap
; L •�, ExV;Ib f mss -.Site Flan
S Exhibit "C" - Elevations
t Exhibft "ii" '- Conceptual i,an0scape Plan
ksol tt)p of Approval with Uttditions
Mawr
fr 1
^^"�+' ur * oewusl
MANSOC
j 1. ! '\ C� iYRifN. 'RMt4 �MT� Olp•R ;l �.r.� r.��
.a
7�� Y
t 1 ,�gy1RY•. ti { .� t..
is IIIYOr .' _
lF
fill
ti
COMPOSITE 'SITE PLAN �.
L1iCL•iM vsw rK a/Y 1�y��us t f —�t= s = mom
rropw tot .w m<m_
Aw
- iatl�r �T �% �� >•ai�eM�M1 �N4 M 1t31u �` rr +
{
ip��.trlY WfT iM� OIL ;l
�:. 11r11t1 1`Nn tR
�iYl�liil itlV � Iwp�iN s♦ ,:
VICIN17Y MAP
NLa
�OF
� `�.�'�.ANN[NG � Tx��1li7Cl•,,,�"rA,�:
r..
Y
r `
wonMrw
1llliifl/' $ ' 3mm" at Pil, Skis ,.+ lV:flJN(i46 =5c saK.tyoN
(J 1�
�r:16ARfoED ELEVATION,0,1,--.d \ ECTIONS � ii11Ll .
XTE -IOR ELEVATIONS
CiTy CF i
7�
A �UC * Mkt:
PLtlMUNG D(VISM
b J
Td
t �i H •5
ITT OF
TME
o 9'1° $` ALE -
raw
I''
RESOLUTION NO.
A RES71'.UTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLVINING COMMON
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEK ND. 87-99, 'THE DEVELOPMENT
OF AN OPICE, MUFACTURING AND RESEARCH AND MMOMENT
FACI('M: TOTALING 56,923 �QUARE FEET OR 4.88 ACRES
LOCATER AT THE NORTRWEST CORNER OF 4TH MEET AND CENTER
AVENUE IN SUSiAEA 6 W THE IMOMTRIAL SPECIFIC Pt.RN'
DISMICI
A. Ptitals.
M Delmar Enterprises has filed an.applfcation for the approval
of Develop nt Iteview %a. 87 -69, as descrOed in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter, in Ois Resolution, ,.-the subject Dwil/
;�ent 'Review
! request is referred to as Othe.application'�.
iii) Orr the 10th of February; 1988, the Planning Comission of, the
k City of Rancho Cu,am000nga conducted a *eting :�n the,applicat an and concluded,
said meeting on ,hAt date.
( #ii) Al legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
l have occurred,
8. Resolutio -i"
NW, iARFP!M- it is hereby found, detemined and rf,4ol gyred by the
Planning Cczk1ss4okr-.t, the City of,Rancho Cucamonga as fa11c�
1. - This rGommission hereby sp"J,4.eali,y finds that all of the facts
get forth in the Recitals, Part A Of tion, are true and corr&t. -;
2. Based upon, substantial 014ence presented w this Cs fission
daring the above - referenced meeting on February 1O, 1988,, including written
and oral staff reports; .this Commission ;hereby spectffcal icy finds-,as, fc lowso
io} irte application zppl.ies to propertyocnted on the
northwest corner of Center Avenue and 4th S�reet.
M The arci�itec ure and site: plan meek tl4e design criteria
.: established for that district.
(0 the materials end archftcctdre are compatiblo with other
existing and proposed oroJects in the same district.
3. Wed upon the substantial evidence, presented to Ws. C044sslon
during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific finding;, o,t facts
set forth in paragraph I and Z above, this Comciission hereby, finds and
concludes as`fo'f,iaws:
77 77
t
-: PLANNING` COMMISSION RE�LGTIEIN NO.
RE:- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 5759
r
` February '10, ` 98B .
9 j
(a) That the pr$po,sed project is consistent w:`th
the objecti/l s �6f the General Plan," and
(b). That- the p Oposed_. use is in accord with the ,
i obje tive of the =Development Gods and the
pyrposes of the district in which the site is 1k)
located; and ��
(C) 7iiat pproposed use is ..in compliance wit,
each _of the °appli;.able provisions of,, th
Uevel(bp�nrnt CtsY�t�nd
(d) That Ue proposed .,,use,, together with thAjj
o conditions apXi ;able,,thareto, will not be
detrf"ntal tcrw,,�i public health.. safety. or
welf !e; ;,or materially injurious t�o;,pmperti�s
- =1
or, imps ve "nts in the vicinity.
4. This Commission hereby fin,5 end certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in complian6, with the California Enviro6men'tal
Quality Act of 1970 and;) f=urther, this Ca„ ssion hereby;, issues"a Yegrtive
Declaration., ?( u
S. `Based u,)on the find %qs and conclusions set forth 4n aaragraph
1, 2 and 3,_abover 'as Comm issior� h€)reby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set, fort¢r" below end in ;,the attached Standard
Conditions attached he"to and i�orporated he`reffe by'this ref��n4e.
G
Planning vision
(1) An area large enough for four (4) bicycles including,
a bicycle rack shall oe incompUted ieto the Sitr
Pirn in lieu of autoxtabile parking space. Lotatioll
and design shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner.
(2) A - textured pavi`g eonsate►jt with paving fond
elsewheie on the' rajert situ shall introduced
into the park- V lct in eonj pcts6a with t€le
circular tree planters.,
(3), Vine �pla0ing - shall be previded along the west;
building. ' *ade of Building, 4 and tall growing-'
=
shrubs shall be pla %o on the crest sid f
j o
Buildings 3,� 5 and 6. �> z o
1(.4) Substantial 'pots, with plants shall be provided at
^j
- arcade area's op tail,. shrubs shall be planted waich
WI- l effectively soften hard building edges.
i5l Texturcd pedestrian pathway4 -� 'shail be Provided
between Buildings„ 6, ray 4. and
4
- - ....,^,
U
PLANNING MISSION' R60LUTIi?N PO
RE: DEVELOPMEXT RE VI 87-59
February 10, 1988
Page S
AOL
t,
(6) A hedges shall be provided to buffer ,the "west snd
south sides of the `tarp' seating the west:
side of Building 1,
E'ra�fin�erir
(1) �7`ne sidewalk on rCeriter"� venue and Trademark hreeit
shalt be construoted adjacont to the prtu�rty line,
(2) Pr #or to issuancez'of 4, building permit, a lot ti'6 1
adjustment to elimiarbte -lot tines that trots t-
building Bads shaft be reot a�#ed,
i1 .: „
tf,. E'i`'a 4e sgdy showing how the propertye
ner'a , #t (APN ZiC- 072,33 will be drained ups its
develktpe>Pe�t shdlT be rov e#ed p►�fior t+ fissuo 'Ice of
bui3din „qq pro fits, I MCOt ary a drainage easement
:in favp� of -that property (APH 2143072 -33) may~ be ,
requi red 'aa appyoYed by the Sfiiy,Engfineer ark
.Building Official.� a ;
(41' The txistFng� o4,�rhead A;tliities (eiectrical� od
AML tetecomawunications, e%cP t 'for 66 k.v, .alectrfy /All
on tha project; side 1f eth , Street SW l” � ba
underground, fwom' #ho fi t .at pole hn,•the east st�e of
Center AYenue to the, ��rst ppl -4 #St of the west
project bo;ir*Y, Orio�i ;t p3 � '� i provewnt
acceptance or; occupancy whichever �a�ccqfos first.
;. Reimbue,,aemen�' of one�hals ,the by, adopQ: cost - or
underg6und#:ig frc,* f�;ture Ovelopmpnt as, it occukr -
on the oppcsrfe siof type street fis nat 1`ea�sihae
because the pµopew� -,is TocateC, in th'A .L`i t; of.
<,
G. The Deputy Secretary to, this Comolssion shalt rert��fy to} he
adoption of this Resolution.
AP,PROVED MO ADOPTED THIS ICTJI -PAY i:EBRU 668.
PLANNING COMISSION OF, THE CITY,vF RANCHO CLT*OV( A
- arry T. c lei, a r1�3n
r �R _.ATTESTr t,
r ra 5 or, epu re
ilia
_ p
- .v Q f
� O V
afi _
w _
"y' y
a5 yi�w`a�y` Yf u �1R ysiv �lwJ�
JlY t �� N g > `CI �iiSLt. �� T
jills !Igl
Sr
- 'T nit
s .11j:-. f
tile-
a
Aff
r
" 1
r _
�. Ss
.tia M
++5t
q lit b=2 b%2,2
'ball, 114,3 Lis
u
g
.�^ _#
�'$ »' l is
ail .21 a *4 0116i +ter
ds
Njil #4 - At I -
M
`syw�
wr
TAUT I- f
0- Si Acifit %T
F
v
_ 4 V
am
Au
6 fir. �.� �s� vi W~ �;� �y_-�bb � �� Tin
d fs a. a� w � • M _ w�
was
d I r #
TTTTTT33i33i p N' r
a Y„ t wys y
Sj.4
r wr A t� 33YY
�C» ray aa�� to re st yt
N '"' ?�#. »L1 4� Nai -�Y JiF"�i 4�. t).
Ail i¢ d
l f
L
Y + OWN
h' a
S b a ,a 7 �i +�' � � ��_\ • 4
pia-
U " .44 V live s . ".ga- _ :12 IZ
—Jim Est
at
4
Al in
aA r
f u. pis
'HI AyU
�R lM
Ive 06
z TL Jiff,
i. y f f n r � O � r � � .. _ Y R @ � • P � A � � Q4 N •
why 4 '`
�P. s °'. t
s�
r
r�1ys
R +
Y Y O� � wpi 15.9 J " �: Q.+sH
f y qw '° :1yzy
rci�� M. t=cir f r�i 'M �� � �r����' NN� Yr.� �s p6 ♦'����
cis v
ri G
tF K N
C6
,> F�,
all.
9i
ZI
w
ji 1! 09
MIZE
Is +�3rl
1� D
w
A�
111 111 �
S $ I s
HIS
ir
x fit
A
i
Y
Wn:�« ..3
X93 QQ�
in
a
M tj o
u
w 1
U wm %
AN Re Via
'i v� NV •7i JJJDDD Yl� ```���
- f
N n
w� Da
:Es
waN
w
N�
x
I!Q
IL
31
;:
Y
to
3g
"
�
w
irf
�
21
_
aw
h
its
2
.3,1
_ v
+
Y 4
4.1
sit;
SO
M
!i
gN
yy� •'
�
j
U wm %
AN Re Via
'i v� NV •7i JJJDDD Yl� ```���
- f
N n
v CL
t
.. t
r
MP
-33 ;404U
Ilk, g
U4 a
pa Hill a 's I IT
fif- -
aff a- at P
11 v c+
Y i
S � � iz I
�.+ �� � �P _� env +� ��� �Cw � wi °•�
t y� ♦f
-4 e
9
K
if I ml
�211 11. 1 -
$ �U -w tea+ �s +'.
r
'211 V
e
Pff
ZL - ti
( �� •
n
v
Illy
iv
bf
jjv .S� Iftyl
j unw•y R
Ciw.9M 4'
_ Vr _Y
�+
IVIJ v ROD
Int fit u
Siul 1$3
9 : a .
a�i� °•� a� 'v 2 s� g
rrp
�{Ss�:.
l
v
4�
,0r
' a
KA r .�
Pip
,gg
U
h ,
,a
�Y
x:
m y„
At-
lit
vX
all,
C
fit I
D
V 7 2
21
R
N a
w it _
Y
1 -
- I
• I
lit
vX
all,
C
fit I
D
IS-
f r
all
3!. Us 4»
_ SEi
Rv
Hn
VA
'14 lo
• �,., w 1 �+, w yr�
,yVP#
`•: �' "� `� �1 is j_"�" �Lt �M�i `IE. 7i a�i.� �� K'R; �R'� 'I.. � i �4 �1�.�t�:4 �':MM.i+' ..
q
0701 -02 2 -10 -88 PC Aaenda 2, of 2
--- -=- CITE OF RMCF?'"L1C.WONGA
ry
STAVE PO /}
f
DATE: Febrodry 10, 1988 ./
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM.. Brad' Sul Ier,; City Planner c�
EY :, Nancy Fond, .Associate planner-
SUBJECT: ENVIRONi+fNTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. REVIEW 87 -13
The- astablis HE of a re a glass ousincefs
n an ex sting a6indoned service station, in the Specialty
{
Commercial District and Activity Center," Area 3 of the
Foathill,Boulevard' Specific Plan, located at 96701,Foothil.1
Boulevard - APR 208- 153 -05.
1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested; Denial without prejudice, -
B. Surroundings Land Use and Zouingz
Na►tff , ng 4 ami 5y . yes, 3pecial ty C c "� l i
.strict=
" Activity Center,, -,
South - McDonal`d's, Liquor Store, Restaurant„ l .s'�.;
Specialty Commercial District, Acfiivis v�JLer
East - hill.gr's Outpost Shp ping Center; Coa11:fnmt�'
5
..
Commercial District; Activity Center
West - Single Family bosoms; Specialty Commercial District,
hittivity Tenter ;
C. General Plan Des nations:
ro, ec. Si%°"pe;Z141't"y omiercial, Activity Center
North— Specialty Commercial, Activity Center
South - Specialty Cbb erctal, Activity Center
East - Community Commercial, Activity Center -'
Nest a Specialty Commercial, Activity Center'
D. Site Characteristics: The sita is 73 x 136 feet and consists
of wo u dings to a ingg 3,000 square feet and a fuel island.
'
S. A l�cable Regulations: The conversion of an abandoned � s h�
-e
sta '` in a newas on a non- conformir lot wof?d require a
DeveVopment Aview to be reviewed and approved by - e Planning
d'
Commission..
ITEM
�-.
a
... _.d . it ._. ..... 110
PLAHNIr--1 0"ISSION' STAFF REPORT
DEVEGpMiEhfr Ri+VYEW 67 -23 r JUANZEMIS
Febrttai,y 14, 1988"
Pat 2
II , A?tALYSIS
' A. Genera 7 r In Oct6ber of 198*, the applicant di t �� site - ,� 4 }� ,
'n
;
u improvements without "a, ;Development RtvieW and th, ,j
beneto, t's of PRAIits. Ne also operated ,a'
ret&17, .,)�clesale glass !,pop-without the benefit of a business
licenr)e. ,After Code, Err;70rcement,lthe business was. vacated. In
February,','1985, the Planning C6*1,9sien conducted a Prelimirsary
Review on \proposed business in :ire existing gas station and
determined it to be inconsistent with the FoothillAdbulevard
interim °poltcies.
In May -1-9
„ 86' the: applicant 40mitted a Develo ent RIMew`
i; �-
appkica� +bsa convert tpe gas station tea a hail glass
shop. The application way found to be incomplete on dune 9,
1988 as, filing fees and ,development plans were not submitted9
The applicant 3n February.., 19 #� resubmitted the appiicatir� *-�'
} which was deeted loci Iplete, inca ;,March 2987, no rsvisW
plans have been sub;�t�ted to coarplte the application for
prc��ssing.
8. Inconsy`steiicies pith The Foothill Boat !evard Spetificllanz The t~
Tom �'tt*e —swop-
P? posect Ilse !i�`, s e . s a a g ass which
involves
the cutting of ;stool~AeEet grass to the Specifications
<< of the customs"'. The �p, scant Jas ;also stated that it will
`
include window and scree repair erg ;)Ieplacement. This type of
use would be classified\, s hardwat.e store under the Foothill
Boulevard Specific plan , rd is not c permitted use within the
Specialty Commercial Distict.
. C. Environmental Assesscwenttl Withou„_,ihe detailed Site Plan,
oncep ua r'a a n; f ' Ccnceptifal Landscape Plan and
elevations submitted to the City for review to see if all
technical issues as ou0 fined in the incompleteness letter have
been addressed,
staf��; Cannot prepare a legally adequate
2nvironmental doCU%ent. ` Therefore, staff Cannot determine if
the project would have any significant i *acts on the
-
i' environment.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS:_
1. The proposed use is not in accord with the objectives
of the Foothill pulavard Specific Plan in that the
retail SIC'$ , store it not a permitted use in the
Specialty Coa+mercial District in which thq, site is
located,
_
2, Without the development plans, which include detailed
Situ Plan,' Conceptual Landscape Plan,, Conceptual
„ Grad 'lng plan, +elevations, and a HaAt ;Plan submitted
PLANNING �OMHrSSION S hpp REPORT
AEVELOF;Ell' REVIEW 27.13 - JUANUMIS,
iI
February 10j,.198$ �
Page - - , _� - =
to the City for review, s, *Iaf -f- canfti)t determine if the
proposed project will colWfly`.40 r the provisions of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific P1 an, 'the Development Code, 4
' and all other Applicable codes.
3. Without suboitting a master Platy as stated in- the June I)
1957 letter of incompleteness, ;the .prOpesei, land use
Of this sift rray preclude -an Opportunity' to jtoordinatia
the-land use ano" site planning for quality development .
° consistent with the )standards' of the Foothill Boulevard 0
Spec #fic plan.
4. Without $11 the development plans submitted for reviaw
_ staff cannot prepare a legally adequate envtro rc�tl
docuent.
Y. RECOMMENDATION. Staff reco nds that the Plannin9,Co f$stun deny
e app -a oP thout prejudice.
Respa tfuIf ly�- itt�da o J
8
city annex
8B.Wtte
Attachments: Exhibit 'V - Location Mai
Exhibit *90 - Conceptual Site plan
March 3, 198 Letter of Incompleteness
Resolution of Dente" n �
' lip
ti �
FV t I
G C i I
Ci',TY QFW-WCH a CUCAMONGA( ome s�arrr`xr«�o x,r9i� J aai�tsa s
J D� reaber 8, dNA7 l 5
r
Ed �Yuanze�is - �
7447 Archibald Avenue
Certif #ed iJ' 304;. 6Y 63V
Rancho Cucad 8a, `Carl forn.'it
rs
_ � a
Dear M. y1_
_ duan��..,
Review of 'our files. Iodic tss,04t to activity has pccurred in the last six
months on your pmject. Thvr , In drdor to Contirdi rocessin it will
€te necessary for! you to sut� fs plans ,end information � outlined i� fr �
our Test correspondence to yo�t "wfthirr 3Q day,' .. If we do Aa
� 4 �iv�. his _, +t
inforadation, it will',bcacssdm d ,�4t you have Ad ntentic0 of 1.4if"o this
project and side p j will ',sue sc ... led for;,the next ayai ` It° Plannin
f�
o= ssion agenda i,,ir- deriiai $t 4 dice to re+�ile,
Sincerely, r �'
COWUNITY'DEVELOPMENT DEWYMENr
PLANNING DIVISION,
z it
Nancy
Associeei'ler
•
I i n.
D"rits[. Stc+R :4.. .!t ... der,r..�hngepctf '�, >'astieS:rl.wtSQAt f�xuae #".f.WMUreH>.cf �.-�
CItTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA sac oaks an say, FWAA0 UARIk W30. (714) 9$94851
March 3, '1961
Ed Jau)izamis
7447E Archibald
Rancho Cucamonga, California 9WO
SUBJECT: WW--IS
Bear Mr. Jaunzekta ,
Your etA cstiion for OW abov* re, eren It�d)�pradect ha4 beet mie"d for
P and accuracy of filing. r,.� a ►result of t'*, review, the
Project application4 €ass been found be irit:�gaiete for 'pfocassing.
Attached please find a list, outlining t4 addititaraal infa°wat3an needed
prior to finding the epplication, 4XV10te, ;noes- conformfties with
l.' development standards and 04or design Issues.
ANIL Further processing of your project canliOt be until thi!� additional
information is submitted °and the application acceptL.0 as cogaplete.
Please revise Your application per the attached list. 'Submit four i4I
copies of the revised application to the planning Division. J:, Upon
receipt of the revised, application packager this project will theca be,
scheduled for revert for
meeting. completeness at the next availobl(e staff
i
Should you have any questions 1
regarding the reviesi► process, or if :.fie ca:a
be of further assistance, please foil ° free to contact the pr,* ca.,
piannaar, Nancy Fong, of thfs office.
Sincerely,
OEM~ DEPARTMENT
its IVISIVVII
r gi
r c
Law,
Pr coleman
Senior Planner
DC :ns
Attachemt }v
cc: Earrye mnson
Nadine Eshelaear±
'.!"
Moot Deborah 14. &-*wn 1, q'er Xing
Chaks J. i]ugvettt P .. aJ Lirenalt.Wo"Mu �I I
tj y� 8743
FILE NO.: ' OR
(Compt'MNESS t(F� W )
.; NOTE: + ibis i6formatiott is' provided to assist. in the prepAriii6n of 'A
complete for Ynforwation
'developwt pac aye processing FAdditional may
be necessary bawd uW & more thorough analysis during fire pdvelctpmtt
Review Process.
1. plasining Division t,
1
A, Additional informattion ne Uzi prior to finding the application "„
~
cape
�I.y Y All plans sh*11 be revise.i consistent with the plan
�i preparation guidelifts of the attached" tubmittal
checklist.
.,
° 2. detailed site plan as stated In Section, E-3 of the
attached sube tta ;,,chock
3. : Conepi�al,,aradin4 plO as stated in Section E<-6 of
J
the attacWd submitta "cheeklist.
. Conceptual lcndscape prat as 'matedin Section E 4
;of the attached submittal checklist. `
5. luster, planning of iha area I ndtd by Archibald
Ave!nue,. ,Foothill %ulevard, Klusman Avant*, and
Estacia Court, and as'required by Ordinance MwA -
Foothill Corridor Interim Policies.
6. Two sets of the City notification postcardsoeif-
addressed and steeped, fqr all parson(s) com:.t.;ed
with the project. See < attached City issued
post+c�rtis.,
_
L Variances,' sh, l be required for the foil6kin�-uoda
," Attached Are copies of submittal
.Aeficiencv*
raqufr is a 1, fszz-A, for your reference.
a. Reduction 0i , 'required 45 foot landscaping
setback alW9 fwthill i4otatevard measured from
the ultimate cUyt fact location.
c o
c J
l
Completeness Comments
OR 87 -13 Jaukemi s
March 3, :987
Page 2
b. Reduction of the- reguirYd 5 foot interior side
r lard setback on the east acid west property
c. Reduction of the required 20 foot rear yard"
setback on the north property line.
8. Please bring" receipt showing patent of the
Foothill Fire District reviewing fee'(see attached
letter). please conttct Fire Qistrirt at 987 -2535
for the correct mount.
B. W, following are technical ;issues which k not meet the
G y'"s DevelgMt or ecfffc OF,
Standards a Policies:
1.. The detailed site plan shows daflcl6cies i�' ^'
Ming the following code regarding setbacks,
' where Variance 0.411 be required- to be submitted
C concurrent with this Deeelepmient Rcvie*:
a. The required 45 foot - average landscaping alc+nq
tMe entire street frontage of Foothill
r. Boulevard.
b. The requirement' of a 5 foot setback for
%terior side yed.
c. The requirement of the 20 foot building setback
en the reair--�;=, eri: y line:
2. l
The #a�a existing `driveway accesses or, Foothill
Boulevard are substandard in improvements, and
inconsistent with the City access pblic+k,. Only -ne
access; (driveway) is permitted for y6& project
(see Engineering Comments regarding seared access).
C. The following are design issues that are recommended-to be
aoeresM in the reyiso(1-p a�nsC�
1. Conversion of the gas station. kc- ording to the
Development made`t tne conversion of a gas station to a
new use it permitted on non-conforming lots, subject tom'
Planning Commission review. How.Vor, the proposed
conversion may require such , +,hiJJgS as substantial
reconstruction, renovation ,° Qr exterior remodeling-
removal of all gasoline tarpurtenances, pump islands, '
overhead doors; installation of full on -site and off-site
Completen� *' Cownts
OR 87-13 - Jaunzemis
r
March, 3, 1487
�
Poe 3 ,
}' landscaping and irrigation; and construction" of all
missing, street improva�sents. Further, the proposed
convtrif6n request must Abe submitted with a Master Flan
\with integral :t►el
Si opment consistent with the P'otitfttllf/, ,,
lorrfddr Interim Policies.
Q.
2. Master Plan. ci* 41rpose Gf Master PlanniOg is to
r
prow inUgrated davelopment at the &rliast
,rors
possible tame in the review process. Muster Planking of
defined s will avoidevaiepment of single parcels of
land in Amer wofth p- events 4o precludes future
develowent of adJ ent " rcel s in the best ,
_
possible,. Therefore, iii pr sod 'land use at this site
rev preclude .an opportunity{ . to coardinet* the land use ,
€�d site planning for +Auality development consistent. with
Lhe standards for ill Corridor interim PO cies.
a land Use. The proposed land use a retail glass shop is
class d as furniture #tore,, repair and upholstery,~
,
r
which is a Fe ttod use= ip t � General Commercial
t
District under t',� current. 114vel,; cent Code. However //i
the proposed * W aft, Foothill vard-Specific Plan
indicated the area bounded by 'Woothill Bo Ward, \(
Archibald Avenutj° Elusman Avenue,and Estacia Court: *111
F
be redesignated,-__a , Specialty Coneeercial District, where
- retail glass type of use is not permitted.
ii. Engineering Di#isio,
A. Additional information needed 2rior to findinc,�t application
1. Show existing utility Pole$L tin the detailed site plib.
also refer to the attached existing overhead utility
rewireR:!6ts handout and provide a separate drawing per
Secti4,4 of Vw handout,
2. the pr ect proposes to take eccess from Foothill which
Is a State hiy and /or is located adjacent to the
future Route 30 "Freeway; there fore, writtt0n comments from
CalTrans are required. '
3. An additional 10 foot dedication for street purposes is
required on Foothill Boulevard. Please indicate on th#
site plan.. _ ,
4 Street improvements are required on Foothill So�i"rd.
Please indicate existing and proposed street improvements"
ono, ths. site plan,
C ,
V~
Ct�letenes� Co�at�rts �'�
DR 87 -33 - -43=416is
March 3, 1487
Page
H. The folloviN are technical issues which `� not meet tht
Standard --plan e �ic
1. R smitten statement froze' the Foothi)l Fire Oistrict „
stating that °the romval of the ipss tanks located on the
site has bm coi*letvid to tb*lr satisfaction is
required. -
2, The north/south alley located to the east of the site
shall either I* i>ie myod. 'ar victled.= The devtletmr
0-44 research the ong ina'tion of the alley to determine
tmWch property tho alley would—revert' if vacated.
3.. The developer should appro ch the property ow ws to the
pest to discuss the common qs t, o? the driveway.
tintraftes from major strocts sh<iW be kept, to a sinisus
whoru•ver.- possible,
r
- a
7Nom ---- - CM- OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COW tilNrrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ip
SIULJBMITTAL
°3
ill. Complete the misting SWamitial Requirements marked below.
0. PLAN PREPARATION .OtEut LINES: '
1. All plans *halt be drewn on uns+sm (same) sat sheets no gnaw than 30" r.42" (" Tract Map shall nit eacesd 24" x 38
��p2. All sits plans shall be dawn lO AN errpin*erkiq scale not to exceed 1» � 50', with the north Arrow OdW*d tbt'atds ate by of the sheet
d7 3. All required plansshalibq _�?-NiitoyelMriMode sntpsckepaaatsandalla tsmust( )erol ledrogetlxrintoasinglebundle3ad
secured with a r=ubber band.
,Wrl. All plans shalt be clear, legiblelannci accuralety16 I"giar �
All plans stun be ctesrly l4b*14 t whit sheet title and amt number (whore opproprials)
• tt A one sheet rrAt - plan must 11a provided where qvs deiafied shit plan cannot contain the Willire project she on am *heat
E CONTENTS OF TOTAL OEVEI.OPMENL,PACKIGM
n
NEW
Jr 2.
/3.
�4.
0
Jxlivtsbn Mso This ma ahtll be identical b the map submitted let Subdivision Application -4a unrkrthe pmoodum
P application
end tiling requiraments.11ft map, as panof VvTotal Do, *opaent PaekW isip addhion to Mown (t 0) blueor black Nhserequir9d for
the SubdMsW Application. ��:� �:.
a to Urlitation Mam Thls map shaltbo a sea" map ehawklg the location of"sheand reiatkuithio --the, prapceadn'iectio exieNtg
surrounding usss , The map skuldindicts, all parcoiea dstreNs within adMI0at radius and sha" includs the following: locaNCriar.0
use ofirdjacent stntctiM all ( lops banks, adjacent access and aircWaWtn ridolne, nalurat dralaage courses, rule tutcroppktgs,
mature "as. existing zoning ar id land use, trio, the wtetior"p, talvreen proposed And existing am space and rscreaNan. flhir°wp
should not be less than 1 °-*,, W &*ft nor greater than 1`w 1007:
t3¢faited Sits Plan shall inclryatne to of
• Name. addws and phosti ! number of Applicant, engineer anttfar aratriitact
• Property llros and let dirimulons
01ma- .sianw locations a.
- Acc*ss. Stash pedestris 1 and whicWa, ah-- #na.sarypr_i s :ss and points of ingress, and ogres
Off -whost parking and IAading vest showing IoUllon, number and typicat dimensions of spaces, and wheal "slope placement
,Yr iniemai circulation paturn
• Cistances t ttween buildings and/or struchifaK
• Sui!ding setba",! (frog: rear and aides)
• LAcatir.R height Ynd ri aisdata of wall and iences (sections 0 roquirad}
• Location of tight fixtures And typicat4,sam apreed example
r�'AU Cdwetvays toseaN tan sdhtaept elk * aarpss tlra skeet wrtapM+Naffor a distance of 200 feet beyond the limits Nsubject site
,�W`Extstmg cuft goners, $W"ks, and 0" pavktg widths wWrin 200 loot onadjaeent and across qtr street propartles
,WTypicat street saalwk ,
�fd°Any exl9ting raedzn irnntls tt' 200 lest of sutlieet ski
>Y{desres ^. c=3 streets on both,, r9es with plus or rilnue distancss from subject silo
)WIocatica C7 all buildings W!dbhe 300 feet of ad{a0em Propert lee
• Existing sewers or nesra>M'Afficd of sew*ring
.JieAaras 6te street propartles - any existing drainage cueKaes sr steam drains
• The exps2tid uaee of the saw
• A vicinity map showing clown major cress streets, zoning and existing tans,( lute.
_- _ StrlaS tart ape Plan r h InchM the toltowln�.
Grephio state end north aaow
All propo e0 and aiHing improvements as shown on Me detailed site plan; how4w, dimensions. such as setbacks anJ street
widths, stria:; be/ excluded from Mis plan
XRoof outlines including 9416* evef t3tios
XConcuotuai IatdsrApe IOaarktr.:; 9nd a 013,111V legend which idanfirres such things as:
- Private walmeays, walls, ccumards, shadows
8erming ahWCr mounded arias, turf and ground cover uses, shrublocatioria, accent hsa&str&M!rsvC sk4m planting mauiriais,
Aprivate ya d weas and ether rNernenit that may be nacessary to show Me conceptual landscape plan
Cation of comm?.snity amenittss a:id legend which kJ#0VYSUCh..MInQAzv
- Common or public nvciation areas (tot lots, open* play lawn, b e becus area, pool, spa, recreation building*
- Primary and secondary inky point treawnent (lextured (Awing, Stountygales, acNnt planting or spscial plan Oft seurywaila, i
mcnumenl signs} ,
Emergency vehist3 &;cats
- Equestdan trail tool* ;Ins
Public wi4?kways an-;l other elements as may be necessary to show the came);%' -Iiy amen,tias of the concel4val landscape plan.
CrrY OF RANCHO CUCA2v ONGA
C'QMmt TTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMBSN'T o
SUBMUTALR),iQ, I UME T CRECKLISr
a b, l k* taws tluk** EloWrbrlc tl7t
a MUS"Ove k*k*kg * t AN Aid. at 44*0 Wo ami� Wtc+nq S%Kkh -0
a (aiatlimbu"ing
a Alw ft Owd w �atNi�atlon�.+1a W�ypieu'm�r�kntoe.u.ra,n.w a»sF9c nq trw,nMlowt
dirr tetax
a ""h" "A'A" $owe p *R1 lycolim and xisN i
6, sA� tlan AtiiMnw{udAMnpsuKlpropOSar # shtlYt» arnrtoscskiandett ty0@*Wd*0lm."iswowmk R
teMY omc" a I .. -•
r7 Como* OrtdlM n,
a ma um COnlow inwvate Awl C0*" to Noe 1oi aNtt4! lfN�
r»arescNaeta of Ail N+r ooundm+tit irnWnk+in gyp
W4 R*aaw`a)= -f #
ne r»
a Cuaarlt 1Ol tubdi+Ritt� --sktlw yrilsklg kx mkv�d[,deainr4r. a.'W i:.: w -andy; in�9rdkuf.f n'�P(�'9 DOCMiblor
tttkrta ttowa Wol ft oral kA W�0 b be co f+--tow on a lot t I�pf�p
r,V tNSkttps Air+d Vfaod torwW Wit— Wok tyt�R etc.
. �q'EONetenfe, Oropitrytk,st, dghfr� way
a EvOrwsxk quoilr kWs — borrow Amts dtepAal &A4
a�'�°!� �t.etttas �
p rata= fakSae wtrw+ ood IW biyw4 SW Nob bait tdit NOW to tattwie Or brs a. nskxao WGIM4 war, same
"low Cayrser, strook C')N. Swim 0c.
XO W V ( we"al st�K� MK* waft mow* ""M pWWI tK *Nock swat«. mOtuoft *PW ow SOMA. OaxS 1�
17 LoWd, ncM smaw, se :R vkkJty rrtep ?
0 NAWng Mob to to prsaensd
Clw0 ft — k0O Mad OW44 CRrIQ �i�r� � i0!1' akf21! aMfly Pi�dOACM. -
a Scut of Olin shall be 1 "-1R; 20; 3(} or 4R; an kttka MP &W be provided trio plates cl T Or mi t NfotM
II Sapenns cut am(tk(Amerlt witlt l4 Unt „�,.Q,_,; kiSddiNOrt,ontt�py Ol lhw Wut MfWlbt acrbtfkrisd w�tiN sgAUaeSipnrd to
,7en and Ct.'t arcs in red C -
,WV- v tt* pavomem yaos trod *loos 3:1 or Mow
LCestidty strvattan Arid Aizs d Ora~ tNilW" Oslo
,0'sawla — crru- rrc(iont. krptovem" righ"PWat. aG
G faros (rar r xWWak -- Shaw 13' (mW,,uq kh* amw
Now. ProtA.t city LO. 11O. (TrACL CUP, or,, r4 "bt Wagtd on ft e*'4 moMM of Mw Wan for formal sobmi alc
a Phatina Wan: 1! pltatinQ K b oaut t p4ufthottk! kWi4elt MN iilnikl Of the pheelnq.
TRACT MAPS MAID INDUSTRIAUCOir MERCIAL PARCEL MAPS
TitwlMemNZ Subttift i settoa arM i0 1t x25' (alas Or � prinpi *Wt tR esdtreed CO!>•es at Atk x t9' and,1 trattsOtn!ney
INMID9 TH9 FOU.CWM NIPO:NfATIM ON UWATM NAM
1. GlttKRRRt INPOIfe{ATfON
8 (N Le�tad Q $ Yiek* mep, surrOtef*v mnkt(t am sand owe
a 1" uey snap (if tntxa Ywn oar soya@ a (04 Owner's or auDtlivt'ac_ka name, wAlrat, V" d iaiolg a
0 (cl Shat nu "brr and rttaebsr of shay Q (k Enokwor or st8 mW net:*, Wd acs aa+d WWlom
04 TOGO katu "wi1lNtt 2R0 a (xA tat dWorstiom Amd MwAx rf: w0ktdov volts
a (N Locatim and k*o*y W sbuMV trsata a (d E *%rg WllllkiStC (10 rsrrain a bs ntncve*
a (A NorMt wmw, SC ft dais a (at LOCation and desaritllkxt Of any ~ am prOpaty
B (W Boundary k0uwa"i u Mt OMMSp fl fomfto a A sawk bras
a dhl 9snctttnrks Cl (q) ArNw SttpktCt (o tnw,4ation
O (5 Counlom or am sbWMans ft" loot inlemis N O'ior so a's, a (4 WoW toamet {mGMt vW dirfC"
=u Swp, khe fact interval ! sbcva 5% cram Woo a w list of 4�rka provid" tstvias
Shan+ on Con*00A( Grading ftn 01,11 uxoki4 A" *10 apptowmeta tics o8.aetvars and doctor
a (,* Sikr lean
2: ♦97f rm 0M trl+e" at Corot nation (ts"
O (a) Wkfts G (c) GnWas a (s) SAW names 1710 Typ"i osr:porx
a. (bj Cw,.* rad" d (dl sdjwning sittta sha wl a (0 oedkallons/
?�} Wat+orta a (b) WidMts 13 (C) Purpose
41^I lITiL1T/!S
a {t) ZaCSfWnO 13 N awe
ff OT4,
a (a) PrraW t y rile Rmon (nol am 50 thin owo
Q (b) SCels Report
i
0 (C). PWPO"
W tt 010" !'URTHIZlt C liftnO 1; CONTACT TH4 lrOUAW"W
Lt&)6faatt0d4• SAAlAuse.
I.
i
`IJ
RESOLUT104 NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CICAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING WIT-IOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW UO. 87 -13
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETAIL, GLASS SHOP IN AN
EXISTING ABANDONED SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 9570
FOOTHILL BOULZVARD IN THE SPECIAL`IY CMfERCIAL DISTRICT,
ACTIVITY CENTER OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC ALAN -
A`pN 208 - 153-05
A. Recit -ils.
(i) Ed Jsunze4ie has filed an applications for the approval of
Devetopwent Review No. 87 -13 as described in the title o7 this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sub.lect Devt,_16pment iteview requesw i$
referred to as "the application ".
(ii) The application was dee*ed incomplete by the City Planner by
letter of June 9, 198.
(iii) Ed Ja mzexls resubmitted the application in February 1987 whizh
was deemed incomplete by the City Planner by letter of March 3, 1587.
(iv) The applicant has failed= to submit revised plans and
information to complete the application.
(v) On the of 10th of February, 1988, the Planning Commission of
t1le City of ".incho 'Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and
concluded said meeting on that date.
(vi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution` have
occurred.
" B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and r£solved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as folju4s:
1. This Commission here:5y specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals;, Part 114, of this Resolution are tree and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this �ommmission
during the above - referenced meeting on February 10, 1988, including written
and oral staff reports, this CommIssiall hereby specifically finds as follows..
(a) The application applies to property located at 9671
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 33 feet and lot depth of 136 feet
and presently contains an abandoned gas station; and
tts). The property to the north of the sub3ect site is stpgle
family homes, the property to the south of that site is McDonald's, a lf'quor
store and a restaurant, the ro�ertY to the e t is the Miller's outpost
(.i Shopping Center, and the groper y to Me west is st�+Ole 'faartiy homes-, and
L
PLANNING CWSSION RESOLUTION NO.
t l DEVELOPMENT REV -IE '87 -1:S - JAUHZEMIS
February 10, 1988
U
(c) The proposed use i:,not in accord with the objective of ;r
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Alan, $n that the retail glass store is
classified as a hardware store and" is not a perwitted'vse in the Specialty
Commercial District in_,which�PA% site is located; and
0 (d) Without the' submittal of the development plans, Mich
include the Detailed Site Plan, Conceptual Grading plar, and Conceptual
Landscape Plan, staff cannot determint whether the proposed use would comply
with alI applicable City Codes.; and
f (e) Withwit the subm3tf!�q of a Master Plan to address the
issues of non-conformity s Strip cmwrcial, access, circulation, integrated
development, the proposed use at this site may preclude an opkortunity to
c �-oordinate the land use and site planning for quality development ronsiste!t
with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and
(f) Without the submittal of the requirer'�development; plans,
staff cannot prepare a 7 "My adequ�pe enviramentai docent.
S. Based Ripon tht iipdings and conclusions set forte in +paragraphs
1 and 2 above, this Cammrt;.ai4n hereby denies the a,pplicp*�ft without
prejudice.
6. the Deputy Secretary to this Comasission sdlall certify to the
adoption of this Resf?ution.
APPROVED ANA ADOPTED TF-_- 10Th 4 OF FEBRUARY, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMGNGA
BY:
arry c e , _Gn 3-1--r-man
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Deputy becrefaPy '
I, Brad Buller, Deputy. Secretary of the Planning Cw,,ission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing glizesolution waslAuly, and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of thL; Pe.fining Commission held
on the pith Jay of February, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit:
YES: CCMISSIONF—gS; ✓ ,,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
SENT. CtiISSINERS: �
lr J v
CITY OF RANCRO CUCAMOXGAr/ C13CAMO `.
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
February 10, 1986 1977
T0:
Chairman'and Members of the Planning Commission
FRC!!°
Brad Buller, City Planner
,
BAP;
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Al
r
SUBJECT: MINIM LOT SIZE /UNIT SIZE STWY
1.
ABSTRACT: This report presentt options regarding the issu*
m n mum 'fat size/unit size for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
Ii.
BW..KGROUND During recent years, theJCity has seen an increase_
Tn azv" fopment of singly:'Iamily detached subdivisi�)s Jn the Low-
Medium Residentitil (�4-8 e'u /aC) District, particularly i,1 the 6-8
du /ac optional density range. In viewing these propos,�is, the
Planning Commission has consistently raised concerns ►;ega. ding
>
neighborhood 'appearance, _usable yard-"area, ,\and .design ,gjality.
The City Council has dfl -kted 10s Planningq Commission to re-
ezar�ane the Low optional standards,, with emphasis an
strengthening the deveihpment standards to ak� ess these cH.Ve.al
issues. This repel` °v50 attempts to place the p
issues in-pro er
perspective by prff ..b ;grofnd 1� brmation on the amount of
LM- designated land\ ti1,,`for
future development.
On September 17, i96Gf brie. Dir°°•�tor of CommAnity De-alopibent
Presented to the City Co!]rlr_f i ",lide presentation on the issue
of Minimum Lot Sizes -� ^d Md;:_imua.� Welling Unfit Sizes. P`ollowing
that presentation, the Council accepted the BIA's offer' to fund a
tit
study of housing and marketing conditions in relation to the lot
size /unit size options presefted by staff to the Council.` The
study was commissioned as ,*: factual survey to provide data for
the Council to use In the decision making process, 'tie primary
�.
objective of the study gas to analyze what impact the proposed or
'
any incredie in lot size /unit size would have on the housing ,
market in Rancho Cucamonga. The completed study was presented to
the Commrssicu and City Council in November of 1987. The
Commission received the stuq�; as a; factual document and concluded,,
no further staff analysis wa:'n €cesscrs.
4o
Ill.
PROD 4: To define the problem it is nece5,sary+ to,,-,,
un ers Aar ow ha Low- Redium Residential Gi, Jct wa+
,'
developed. In 1985, a total of 1,731 acres of land in the
are designated for Low - Medium (LIB) Residential Use;
1
a
PLAKNING2 OOMMISSIQti VA1=F REPttRf
`
RE: MINIAlM LOT SIZEAWIT SIZE MY
Febr!,4ry 10, 1988 ,n
page 2 a
S29 acres Are deva opsd or tin evelopraent and ecres' are
,11202
undeveloped. Of tWtotal 1,2Q2 . undeveloped acres deaig ,}t d far.
LOW- Mediae Resident.1al .Use, 310 acres ht e a 'proved fies�tu #ive
tract maps '~^f leaves 892 acres designated ! 'fin the ,0oty
"61"�r
(Exhibit IfAs in the prod$$ of Upd &ting th. "e 1'ig�ie�et
for 1987. ,-
me Ldw 4adium Residem�ial ;District Was`a� bli Nett VZ)r1Ag' a tht ,3 .4
gap between ,jpartWts and,; co►lweational subdivisions cnd to
,
•
encourage aft,ordable housing, 7*e LOW- Mediuit Residentiai
standards, and policies'_ MtOn4d to faster high desist
quality while being flexible eusaugh t¢, allot fran�v�rtionf 11►as�
standards are used in conjunction with lthe Abs. r;r n ties bred
-
Design Guideline. is >Sttachedl which-•Set.forth �e ritx`s t?ls ,
for residential 4evolopmen . 1he Low t#edtueu standards
snare .:
sOfically inter9'ded Ito fostdr creative design solutions qtr
`
, Mzritical concerns expressed in the policies and ggirdeljines, ;
1''F .aS neigi:borhuod':.atibili,tj+. dens #ty transition and rksit
- �Ity.
�P.kifically, the robTom has been identified as . the center ;
PUMA houses. an ; • s are n�a
, si �ta,�
'[R —es'e- rac''�"£'s acre c loran zr xis .. ;�-.s. ME AScppe ny "re 'ed
sno
setbacks, reduced street, Sizes, a:d inadequate yard araa. 11me
'
chi "acteristics are h function of-density increases above tkaat of
cg
a "nvention4 subdivisions" aityr 7,kty s arq, i*oot lots.
{
A
typical` wall lot subdivision has lot sixes 'ravrting from 5,000
I1
down to 3000 squicre feet $s density increases frunr�..# to 8
dwelling units ,fir acre. Streat and lot patterns bee" acre
igrid orientea ' �Co maximize the rt er of lots along arty Siyen
ingth of street. frnrtta0. Density increases
say also result in
- sduced street frontage. Density increases Wy also =rasult irr
:Wuced
street ri;3hts -of -why and pave nt width Aich `typically
beume privately owned � end mi►rtained by jibie
a o'wner's
Association.; The setbacks are also reduced to, acc date a �
reasonably sized house wbiclh exacerbates the effoet of the
a?ready narrow streets. The grow lot widfh� ani front loadad
garages located ctdse ter th ' „,greet create 4 1°tunrtel ef f:�ctc'0
dominated by asphalt /concrete,
J
garages aW stirs.
j
IV. OPTIONS: In previous presentations, st,,ff has d a Crated filue..
re 8 unship between Ut size /unit size and densitym FSietnee,
3
tack of innovative site' Qlanninq desigtr,,f:t small, lot'vubdivisianc
.,
has yi�lderSi unacseptabse resuits� ilie�follrirgdions`r .
presented based upoh Oity OOuncil ` 4nd P-,onning ' 'j~du��'s ;;lout
i`
discu3"zjons.
v
,
PPP
t�1.AtRPRIttm R;t I5SFE)tuOS*9 REM ti
R: .
1 QT Stir /LMIT SIZE STORY
K opvc ar
1988
page
}
a paga_
Let Sipe tionsc Lot widths *pth /area cat significantly
runoe. For exa�e. ich
' awe s ret scape apt
&Tre greato+� exposure of:liying areas to larger € r
d mhasizes Zo garage a"d gf�es th epPe
tat.Building separation i ar€Qter mar faetar i5f to ;
1 ot;iii of a sobdi is %n,; 1a� ra ei � dwsasted�prce,.ste
1� Rreat: °r feetxng „
cam
fiOW.Val fi dpTION
f . Lb Arm
�} 1; amstiti sq.tt Alin Area
sq.fty .l�YCraS
5 14 ft:" S defar�kvera a
setback
!.t -` ,roo Y � Yer �l" $e ti
1.`Ft. % gjAj Setback
ap ,; . a Vidtia
its- = % sand sq.ft. Wnl[a . Lot Area
5,aOO sq.ft. Altura Lot Area. ack
S/ ft. f'*.';5ide Yard Piiniaaaa
AMA
/ ft. grant yard Average Setback }..
25 rt. Front Yard F9ini*W Setback
k5 ftp,.toar Yard „
5a ft. Lot 14iniwjm Width
Staf f sr--l" � a beaus narrows,
the a There
cen er _ p= a r° ra
e-
which aroofi�ra~� o area.
rills that rr
Regard3esS of rfioich tS lords idi fd t ease th'a
the Bas, 16 13 and
ailleW sa a- a �
Fe and Yt� feet from .5 feet:.
incraat;e -the fni" 'lot width 'to So foot average frogs 45
foot average. G
iNtl0YAT1YE proDUCT
(Log @�'dLilt+t OPTION S3 "A;tZt1S)
v� nal 3 500' sq ft. laioiaoam Lot Area =
4 Lot Area
�' sq ft. i►Yerage
0/ 14, ft. dt da Yard,
ZD ft. front Yxrd�(
15 ft,., Rear Yard-�
35 Loy$nia
q
\a l9
.� r
RE. MINIMUM LOT SIZE /Umit SjZr ST1y ;
February 10, 1986
Page 4
2 3.500 Sq.ft. Minima Lot Area
' 4,000 sq.ft. average, L-ot Area
C/� lg ft. Side Yard
J�u
i
4 t, FL oPt and
15 ft. Raab' Yard
-45 ft. Lot Mi n4wo Width
i
Option R would regvire 45 foot Wids lots to give the
appearance of a larger h", a 'along the street, Lewis Homet
and The William tyon Company have both utilized this idea in
their aide *shad' ow plot Pt°adUcts. Regardless of skfth option
the • COMlssibn selects, =staff '
rocoewds that design
guidcl'ines b1-- created that define,tht, City* ti-expectations for
Innovative groduct. ?'Zero 'tot line, *Z'° lot ,liprpe, attar�aed
and SMI- detached, side entry garages, detached or
reair-
.7a.°a�q gages, and offset reap last lines are examples of
11n00tivt techniques which can provide a dynamic
and
attractive xtreetscape. The type of envirossr6rtt that iai
desired 'must be defined in terms of adequite open
space,
greater spaciousness and varl -Ctv.
j.
W. Minim" itnit Size. . ."urrently, trte city+ has no Witt- family
a� u e standards In
s 01ace, fire Size of =1ti-
family 4wrellings is contr011ed 6Y ttOl Uillfc-M Building
Cede. Eased upon Council direction, wsie Uu :.4�,, #an has
discussed this issue previously, �tnd the foi iowinq options
were brief;y convidered;
1
E A sting — rl , rd PoSSibg D tiprr
--°;
Multi • faually
LN.
bi Li None 1 000 sq.ft,**
Norte 1:000 sq.ft.**
MEI None 900 sq.ft.**
;
M Norte 750 sq.ft.**
100 sq.ft. "abduction permitted on,. 10% of trse units,
To date, no specific direction has been glien to Staff a
relative to this Issued.
µ' C- Di cussian:, the question of appropriate miflimum unit size is
na easy
answero;; as it is very subjective-in nature.
. propriate unit size cannot be determined purelx by
teciin €eel- criteria. Rather. it is a .function of a variety csfi
influences, cappxp nF4.y
�
expectaitionx, wrk4 t forces, etcC
For multi- faaally dwellings, staff has li'le polio direction
to on. The standards Su6gaSted were reposed based on th�
City Of Upland, according to the city eauncil re%O
`�
t. Thal
MANNING COIISSION STAFF REP04T
RE: MIN KIN LOT SIZEMKIf $IZE STUDY
February Ms 198$
Page S l�c
suggested minwmun ar '_;gradua based on the density range,
Frith snll$rl- .,units generalTi peraf.tted in higher tensity
categories.
in order to evaluate these SU`dards, or to prepare new ones,
staff will need`some additi4hal policy direction and clearer
definition of the problem.
If, for 4140p7r, the objective is to avofd overconcentration
pf smaller units, staff can develop criteria for an
appropi3ate uq t +nix.,
V. PLANNIM COMISSON 1iMSHQP; The Planning Commission held a
Werr.snop ;cn e;ewer, 4, 19W to review the problem, cause; and
options Milaible to adddress toe Issue of small lot
devel,:?paoenty The workshop included represeotatives from the BIA,
l.eiris 'HOMO5, Grigsby Development Co., and the 4illiate Lyon Co.
The attached minutes.::sumiirize the discussion of the wor#shop<
}y
Further .-discussion' regardIng the minimum lot size and minimum
multi - fully unit size; Issues and related development standards
opticna was put on ;hold pending completion of the EIA4 market
stun . The Commission directed staff to go back to Vitt' CounciT°
l.) and receive fuO,her clarification of the problems /conceens with
minimum[ multi - family dielling size. Staf. will take this issue
to the City. Council for direction on February 17, 1988. The
consensus —.of the three Commissioners present (Barker, Chitiea.
Toistoy) royardtno the mrinima unit s`xe .for single family
dwellings B�!As that LOW sq. ft. was acceptable and no furtier
analysis w(;' necessary. ' The Development Gdc+e has since been
amended a5 ordingly.
VI. RECMND STION.- Staff recommends thst the Commission discuss the
op ons provide' adequate direction for staff to prepare r;
aAA►'oprf a ct�de changes, the 4 fss ot. should f- &kL!`.or the
totals utioc rather than individual standards. A coW/r;ation
of dent tOhniques and Sevelcppseht standards must be used to
address" I ris Sje«
Ct
Res p lly itt
B dC r
Ci', an
a
BB;CC :ko
` L1 -
I
MINUTES OF
'
FE,AaWEtbli CO i9eY$3EWa liO�ICSiedP
TMMSDAV DECENOt 4, 19Be 700 P.M.
(following 0#51gn Review CaW.Utena Meeting)
KaiQhi�^ho�d Ceerrtieer
9 ?g2 AR`naa►
_
Rancho Cucsseon$a
=WMT-. M- w sivimmm ina Six v1s
This worksW is sch*alad to ravtow
of minion lot sites, Ain N= unit sin ,*# and related
eidv�eloptenaat sleandairds, }I
> irvan 5. David Barkw , '?fed the workshop +exiting to orftvl at 7:45
Pon :;
ROLL CALF CaWssiomw Barker X Coeaetasiea w AW01 E
Caseissioner Chitin Coanissieaneer �t __T_
tdORlCS'tE?P ` 1
Brad Buller, City Outwear, explained the purpose of the workshop as a
Okicsoff• discussion.
Ban Colman and Eltto Broutil, senior Planners, presented ' the staff
report.
Bob Salazar, MPreesenting the 8414y Yiep Rion Bending _- Industry
Asaoci'ation, stated that the BIA would not wk,j a fejol presentation,
but would refeao to representatives of the tiillil;% lyoarCapany and Lewis.
Hoagies. __
Jim B4110y, repr►,s+w*I% �ft 1dMlliaea Lyon Co n,F, stated that the
P14meed Camunitl /es thenselvees, innovative; thewefort should b%
considt—v4d d$:'`cerently than rest of City. He iadicatW Vie bu r;
prefer td '14 ;able to Walk Around their house rather than attached
housing, Nr. Bailey st'arttl, that it cost $30,000 aorta ,to build The
Wadows project and 45 clays 100W became of the attached
construction. He also indicated that ificreasing aainieem wait site frog
900 sq. ft. to 2'MO sq. ft. rill, fiat t wovee qualito _and Would cost
t3 *100 liars to build the addittoaaal 200 sal. ft. *: Miley sta"d that
ViCtorii's 3.on $q. ft. lot prWeect, The Park,, has b"O criticized
unfairly beeCaaase of its small l+ats acrd that they imuld line to Wild
Nora. lie indicated they are developing a 50 ft. ride, 3,OW sq. -ft.
fawly
single lot concept.
I
_J
Ask John Melchor, "senting Lewis Notes, stated general agrownt with
Mr. Railey s cosieents. However, he indicated that Lewis HosKts `could'
like additional tiue to review the staff report Options for •inis+r lot
size and that another workshop be held on this issue -- r., Cher
stated that deve10PWt standards shsiuld, be inclvcfed in nature
discussion. He stated agraastent with the proposed 1,Ai10 sq. ft. nisaun
unit size for single family dwellings. Mr. Melchor staged that Lewis
Hanes is opposed to the proposed unit size options for wlti- fierily
dwellings. He indicated , al agraanarrt with the proposed parking
ratios for �iti- fa�ily pra�.
Mrs 'Butler indicated that developeent standards were an integral part of
the total solution to the problen; and would, be included in future
discussion on lot size,
Chairrsn Barker began CowAssion discussion- and indicated that
innovatlan should be defined and includes the idea of variety and
change. guild"' must-apse a little ingiasa ion in designing innovative
products. Has requested graphics to a}xplain the necessity of the
proposed Changes sander that Low Mediusa S- Oft gevelopwt Standards.
Caessissi0niur Talstsy started that tin whiss unit size incresso,of loci
sq. ft. for single family is not an issue of,gualitp, rather it is 4r,
issue of livable space. j}
` M$chael geiriri, representing the osier Csraek CogNw,L requested •
i clarification regarding whether the proposed 14 foot sideyard under the
Basic Developseant Stan�wds crust be flat,
Mr. Buller respo;+�d ltthti< in tertaiO instances it did not have to be
7lat. He also i icated that staff is concerned with; providing adequate
access to the rear yard.
Discussion 1701�owed regarding the proposed IQ foot sidayard. No
` consensus- was,; ac by the Cmissioc.
feet fwoul 'nt provide stra tscape variety.
Y g doyard setback un additional 5
� feet would ,'not
Otto Kroutil stated that we must focus -pn the total's solution rather than
individual standards. A combin �4on of design techniques and
developmaet standards sprit be used to address this isssx.
Mr. Bailey indicated that it might be acceptable to require 10 foot
sideyards on a percentage of lots within a tract.
Comissioner Chitita ajm@d.
Discussion followed concerning Minim Oft size. The c63skrrsus of the
Coeeeission was that 1,000 sq. ft. for singles was
acceptable and no further staff analysis Vas necessary. The Commission
40 directed staff ,ltd "for the multi family minion unit size back to the
City COUngil f& clarification of the probleart,
11
- :Jd j ri
y �
sill
l N III
8898
88 999. t 8889 0 81! D
ON
n;
Qom, � m • ,
-.1� 'fro
R
•
•
LO4t MEDIUM (LM) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE STATUSt
SUMMARY
A total of 11731 acres of land in the City are designated for Loan Medium (LM)
Residential use. Of these 1,73L acres, 529 acres are developed or under
development and 1,202 acres are undeveloped. Of the total 1,202 und4vel'oped
acres designated for Lone Medium Restdantial Use, 310 acres have approved
tentative tract maps. This leaves 892 acres that are undeveloped, haves no
tentative maps approved, and are designated t- in the city"
LOW MEDIUM. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE 0ISTRIWFTIOA,,
The table below shoes the Low Medium Residan "dal land distribution in
the planned commuauitics (Terra Vista/Victoria), aind other areas Of the
city (Alte Loma, Cucamonga aqd €tiaanda).
Total City bide Acreageu_ * 1.731
Planned Communities: 786
Terra Vista = 272 acres
Victoria = 514 acres
Other Areas c45
Total Number of Acres Developed - 529
Planned Communities: 271
Terra Vista 43
Victoria 228
Other Areas 258
Total Number, of Acres Undeveloped ■ 1.202
Planned Communities, 515
Tara Vista ■ t"k
V14torla a 2ty.
Other Areas �1
pistriNtig Of tM�veloped LM, L&M
aim Auarcvea rentativo TractsI
Total Acreage 310
Planned C'oaimhies: 105
Terra Vista = SS
Victoria • so
Other Areas 205_,
NM: In Terra Vista, the total number of acres designated or developed in LM
my vary. The Terra Vista P14M proodes flexibility to modify the land us
density designations as long as the t `tal number of dwellings does; not excee
the number allowed within the Planned Community. r�
it r"1� j A,
c `moo
c; D.
c
SIET
G R
r ^4.
now
ti`,: oe � � of k wa o.+.e sare� �►
-,
g4a4gahaal,aataarNY ta•
aiwha.ra�a�IfYs�_`
t,��,
Wr mdwtalltM�k
t
+aadaaontlK1�"
apaeae
�
-�� •�
x^
a aaayact fat aaty � tlirt • .
`'�-� (`r
= sJ ` ` ��'�
��� aNF MaMara
:•
6+ara�acv
o►erar+Nauiar'vianrr , lwwMtiks
�wifti , vo �a Si ails ow
radwg d�wa�
Ow
[ }{(+[t
6
s i..N
i.
k�i�NM1�M
}1
•MWM. iAFi���'�M
Imo" r�r+1�4pMo��CtlR�lr
1 >�
_.
fJ
i
u
0
Dt CLUSTER
"Mom
� r �� 7 �Mr.♦,� `— � �1 •� V�"K" s^ '!^� 2N,�i�y\ tit! �
1
." 64-�,y '^fit ,'�♦ � +~ t� �t��•" a '� � � \, �� -
• a t
1
ij
�Filtl1
�1I ♦ w
If' fir
tk
t r �
. _ .,w.. ..w. rrr , ..r yr' �,. • sry�Fl
Ire g� wrOfY MlMfi Nw�'il� � MYIC `.�.
'.y *, -1
-,, ,
. 0
La
-- — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
z
DATE February 10, I98S UL°�` D77 1'"
TO: Chairman and users cF the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner Q
BY: Dan Coleman, ,Sbilipr Planner
SUBJECT: STR_i EETSCAPE WAL# DESIGN, GUIDELINES
I, A,a`iRACT• • This r�2port presents a methal of addressing streetscape
rem ns along major streets in response to Commission concerns. 1
11. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has expressed concern on
several occasions with the need to develop a consistent streetscape
wall treatment to strengthen the image and identity of Rancho
Cucamonga. Specifically, the Commission has commented upon the
existing quilmirf appearance of rainy City streets,t a't is being
perpetuated in newer developments which is due to a `r � of,desig
guidelines.
III. OPTIONS: - The following Gptions are available to address your
coryce�:�^s:
A. General Plan Drs>i n Element: 7fie Planning Division work
program nc u es comp a on ,0, a Community Design Element for
the General Plan. This element will focus on t&.1 entity of
Rancho Cucamonga as.d its Communities, design expectations,
focal points and historio4l character. However, the General
Plan is a broad -brush policy document that does not lend itself
well to the design details needed to address the concern
regarding consistent wall treatment. An overall policy
statement regarding stre-etscape wall consistency would be
appropriate to include in the Community Design E1'ement.
B. Design Criteria Guidebook: in conjunction with tke community
Design Element; c r OnSiVe design supplement will be
prepared. This Design Criteria Guidebook will C01tain
extensive graphics to c nicate community design goals and
standards. This document would bri;, to approach the level of
specificity needed to address the issue. However, the scope as
currently proposed does not incline the development of new
Policies, and was mvily intended to be a CWilation`15T
existir9 policies thto an illustrated guide for developers,
ITE14 L `
. PLiYiI W COWISSION $T "7 REPORT
RE: MEETSCAPE WALL -oSIGIi GUIDELINES
February 10, 1988
page $
- -
C, Beautification ect: The City is, or will be, contracting
o s n c per consultants to prrep&". conceptual Ullans
for the bee. ification of €? chibale, Base Line, Haven and 19th
Streets. A110 corr�ultantt are surMing existing parkway
conditions `'ard de've'loping plans that prowte a consistent
straetscane °appearance through the use of trees and other plant
Materials, gall /fence statarials and design, and hardscape•, —
trestarerrt (I.e. ,, sidewalks, textured paving, etc.). The final
Product gill be 1" _ &O° scale workino drasings that d4tail
what improvameurts are necessary to bee i{y", the street
scene. Thole plans would then become the guide, in essence,
for All future devaloparent and City beautification efforts and
woM be used b City staff as plan checking criteria whet
reviewing a " oiler s improvement plans. This prograar "gala
b y the city - CM -nell through the budgetary pKl,Less
co—IM I other strtet� that the Corrmmls.zion feels should be
addv a�ssed. 1
D. Inter!- Poi Resolutioiz a planning Commission court adopt 0
�a reso u s--"un its �licy' to pr:oote a consistent.
iireetscape through coordi tion of landscarpe surd walk
treatments, This policy would $vide notice to developers
that' each o project must design ��eir wall treatment and i
landscaping to -be� coeoatible with the surrounding-.;
w neighbgrhood: This inter!*, policy would -address the concern
quickly' and could be incorporated into the-',Community i esig �1; 1
`i
<
TV. RECOI F?ATION: to Sta'641 recoerends that the CoMission adopt an
interim po cy resolution and dir*.;t staff to address other streets
through beautification- proiects in the budget for Fiscal 188/89.,
Res ` idly su plle'd"
o
/Br B r ity nner
88:DC:kea
� f,Y_
BEAUTiFiCAT1OR STUDIES -
1;87 The following .studlAs.,are already prograrmo,4 in the currept budget;
I
Archibald ����
Baseline
Haven D
C J 19th �1,;rtet i
1988 - The following,stmets could be programmed next budgetary cycle::'
Arrow 1 -
Church_
Vlneyard /Carnelian
Future Foothill Freeway Corridor
1989 The following streets could be prc 'grammed for 1 ?89 budget:
Milliken - s
I Etiwanda
East
5�
r
I
tt
NOM
C.ITY CF
er . --
try =.
U
1 -